Dolphins Moved To Hotel Pool For Protection from Katrina
eartha...@yahoo.com
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/08/28/national/29storm_dolphin.274.jpg
http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=3776151
Marine Life Dolphins Moved To Hotel Pool For Protection
WLOX
There were three unusual guests at one Gulfport hotel Sunday afternoon.
Three saltwater dolphins were brought to the Best Western in Gulfport
from Marine Life.
Dr. Moby Solangi says the dolphins were in a shallow water tank at the
Gulfport Oceanarium. Because Marine Life is right on the beach, the
dolphins were moved to higher ground for protection from Hurricane
Katrina.
The dolphins, named Katelin, Cayenne, and Jonah, seemed to be enjoying
the attention given to them from other hotel guests. And the guests
seemed equally excited.
"I love them. This is my first time ever seeing them this close. I have
never been to Marine Life, I have never been to Ship Island. I've been
here 38 years and have never come this close," Earlean Winters said.
This is not the first time the sea animals have been hotel guests. Dr.
Solangi says during dangerous weather, they are taken to various area
hotel swimming pools until the coast is clear.
Chocolic
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125294548....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I was wondering what they were doing with the animals. Aren't there
any zoos around there? They were interviewing a guy via phone on FOX
a few mins ago, and he was staying behind because he had several
animals in his home that he didn't want to leave.
Chocolic
Bo Raxo
"Chocolic" <chatter448@nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:onxQe.146305$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> I was wondering what they were doing with the animals. Aren't there
> any zoos around there? They were interviewing a guy via phone on FOX
> a few mins ago, and he was staying behind because he had several
> animals in his home that he didn't want to leave.
>
I'm sure that will make a huge difference to those animals when the. house
collapses on them.
tiny dancer
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:dTxQe.4481$z2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
If the house doesn't collapse on them, it will make a huge difference to
those animals. Once you leave your home, if there is a state of emergency
declared, which there is, you are not allowed back for who know's how long.
Many, MANY people who fled to the shelters here along the coast, lost their
pets to drowning, starvation, etc., because after the storm they weren't
allowed back for at least a week or more. Animals are not allowed in
shelters, therefore many people stay behind to be with their animals.
Usually rescue groups try to come into the area and rescue as many pets that
were left behind as they can, but they aren't allowed in there for a
significant period of time afterwards. And many of the pets are so
traumatized, that they flee or hide from the *strangers* who are trying to
help them. I have a friend in New Orleans right now. She and her husband
are staying in their home to remain with their dogs. We would never leave
our dogs behind. But we are fortunate in that we wouldn't have to resort to
a shelter unless something really quick and catastrophic happened. Many
people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between leaving
their pets, or staying behind with them.
td
>
>
eartha...@yahoo.com
Chocolic wrote:
> <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
>
> I was wondering what they were doing with the animals. Aren't there
> any zoos around there? They were interviewing a guy via phone on FOX
> a few mins ago, and he was staying behind because he had several
> animals in his home that he didn't want to leave.
>
> Chocolic
http://www.wdsu.com/news/4907307/detail.html
Animals Evacuate Ahead Of Katrina
POSTED: 3:42 pm CDT August 28, 2005
UPDATED: 4:07 pm CDT August 28, 2005
Thousands of animals are being evacuated from New Orleans as Hurricane
Katrina heads toward the Louisiana coastline.
Shelter workers recommend anyone leaving town should take their pets
with them and make sure animals have ID tags, WDSU NewsChannel 6
reported.
Pet owners should also carry a photo of their pet in the event the
animal becomes lost. Several animal shelters evacuated to Houston to
wait out the storm.
"Normally, we'll evacuate all of our adoptable animals to Lake Charles,
where Houston will meet us and take them. Then we'll come back, load
our strays, take them to Jackson and our own animals to Baton Rouge.
There's such a small window of opportunity this time that everything's
going west with us, we're all going to Houston," Louisiana Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals representative Kate Pika said.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou050827_jt_spca.b73a53b5.html
250 animals Houston bound in advance of Katrina
09:20 PM CDT on Saturday, August 27, 2005
Associated Press
The LASPCA is moving about 275 animals because a category three storm
is approaching New Orleans.
It says 25 dogs held because of pending court cases are on their way to
Baton Rouge Animal Control.
Another 250 strays and adoptable animals will head to the Houston SPCA
this evening, in climate controlled trucks. If the weather's allright
and low-lying Japonica Street is free of water and the building has not
flooded -- the animals will return on Tuesday.
The LASPCA recommends that anyone leaving town take all their animals,
making sure they have collars and I.D. tags. They also suggest taking a
photo of you and the pet, in case you become separated, along with
familiar pet toys and food to help keep your pet calm.
They note that Red Cross shelters don't accept pets and the SPCA never
boards animals.
Pets cannot survive on their own or tied up, and the SPCA says people
who abandon their pets will be charged with cruelty to animals.
eartha...@yahoo.com
http://www.petfinder.org/disaster/
Hurricane Katrina Updates and Links of Interest
ANIMAL WELFARE ALERTS
I imagine forums like this will become very busy over the next few
weeks.
http://www.petfinder.com/messageboard/
tiny dancer
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125298842.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It was awful here after one of the hurricanes a few years ago. Many idiot
people left their dogs in pens, so when the rain and surge came in, the poor
animals drown locked inside their pens. There were national rescue groups
that came in about a week after to try and rescue pets that were left
behind. All the pets that were rescued by boat were brought into Raleigh,
to the N.C. State Fairgrounds. A large shelter was set up there to tend to
the pets. I believe the Vet School was involved in their care. Many people
were able to come to the fairgrounds and search for their pets, but many
more were put up for adoption locally after no one came to claim them.
>
Bo Raxo
"tiny dancer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:V1yQe.16572$HM2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:dTxQe.4481$z2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Chocolic" <chatter448@nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:onxQe.146305$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering what they were doing with the animals. Aren't there
> > > any zoos around there? They were interviewing a guy via phone on FOX
> > > a few mins ago, and he was staying behind because he had several
> > > animals in his home that he didn't want to leave.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sure that will make a huge difference to those animals when the.
house
> > collapses on them.
>
>
> If the house doesn't collapse on them, it will make a huge difference to
> those animals.
And if the house does collapse, it'll make a huge difference to that idiot
who could have been in a shelter, still, you know, alive.
>Once you leave your home, if there is a state of emergency
> declared, which there is, you are not allowed back for who know's how
long.
Right, because sensible people realize that human lives are more important
than the lives of the pets they would be rescuing.
>Many
> people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between leaving
> their pets, or staying behind with them.
>
Darwin's work is never done.
Bo Raxo
Preesi
They had to add salt to those pools I heard
--
preesi
~~~~~~~~~
"The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth?
Yeah, after The Strong Kick The Enemies Asses For You Cowards!"
~~~~~~~~~
My Websites: http://tinyurl.com/yvw45
Where I Hang Out: http://www.there.com
Lets go surfing together: http://www.lluna.de/
My Pogo and AIM name: PreesiGirl
(Come play with me)
tiny dancer
Must be lonely to live a life where you care for no one but yourself. And
no one but yourself cares for/loves you back.
You do realize you talk in circles, don't you? You want people to care
for/train/socialize/be responsible for their dogs. Make them all 'round
well behavied creatures. But hell, when the chips are down, dessert 'em,
leave 'em behind to fend for themselves. Obviously you know nothing about
attachment or love. I used to think it would be good for you to have a
dog/pet, but I don't anymore. I'd worry too much about the poor dog.
Ask wolfie if she'd leave her animals behind. Ask uncle buck if he'd leave
Ginger. Ask flick if he'd leave his dogs behind. Ask nimue if she'd leave
her cats behind in a crisis. Ask anyone here who has well-loved pets if
they'd dessert them.
td
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:FdGQe.1899$4P5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:V1yQe.16572$HM2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between
> leaving
> > > their pets, or staying behind with them.
> > >
> >
> > Darwin's work is never done.
> >
>
>
> no one but yourself cares for/loves you back.
Sounds like it. I wouldn't know.
>
> You do realize you talk in circles, don't you? You want people to care
> for/train/socialize/be responsible for their dogs. Make them all 'round
> well behavied creatures. But hell, when the chips are down, dessert 'em,
> leave 'em behind to fend for themselves.
You do realize you're putting words in my mouth...again. When the chips are
down, don't turn them in to dessert, pack them up in the car with you and
leave town. What, you can't afford a car? And you know you live in
hurricane country? Then make a rational decision: either don't get pets,
or realize you may have to leave them to die in case of a natural disaster.
>Obviously you know nothing about
> attachment or love.
Obviously you know nothing the idea of planning ahead if you want to survive
disasters.
>I used to think it would be good for you to have a
> dog/pet, but I don't anymore. I'd worry too much about the poor dog.
>
Well, in the unlikely event I face a hurricane evacuation, and my car isn't
available to me, you'll be right. When it comes to your understanding of my
feelings about animals, that's about the usual probability.
> Ask wolfie if she'd leave her animals behind. Ask uncle buck if he'd
leave
> Ginger. Ask flick if he'd leave his dogs behind. Ask nimue if she'd
leave
> her cats behind in a crisis. Ask anyone here who has well-loved pets if
> they'd dessert them.
>
How about if I ask them if, with warnings of a big-ass hurricane on the way,
they would pack up the animals, get in their car/truck/van/RV/converted
school bus and leave for a safer area?
Ah, but that wouldn't present the simple little dichotomy that makes your
whole argument work. Darn facts!
Bo Raxo
none
> Must be lonely to live a life where you care for no one but yourself. And
> no one but yourself cares for/loves you back.
What about this guy's relatives and friends, who would presumably be
just as upset to learn of his death, as the animals that might have to
spend a few days without their owner? This guy cares more for his dog
than he does for his family.
It says more about his inability to form normal emotional bonds with
humans, than it does about his extraordinary ability to form emotional
bonds with his pets.
> Ask wolfie if she'd leave her animals behind.
And if 'wolfie' says it, it must be right! This is the worst appeal to
authority I have ever heard.
-Mike
Phoenix
invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com says...
>
> "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aUHQe.11095$7F....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> > news:FdGQe.1899$4P5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:V1yQe.16572$HM2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > >Many
> > > > people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between
> > leaving
> > > > their pets, or staying behind with them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Darwin's work is never done.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Must be lonely to live a life where you care for no one but yourself. And
> > no one but yourself cares for/loves you back.
>
> Sounds like it. I wouldn't know.
>
> >
> > You do realize you talk in circles, don't you? You want people to care
> > for/train/socialize/be responsible for their dogs. Make them all 'round
> > well behavied creatures. But hell, when the chips are down, dessert 'em,
> > leave 'em behind to fend for themselves.
>
> You do realize you're putting words in my mouth...again. When the chips are
> down, don't turn them in to dessert, pack them up in the car with you and
> leave town. What, you can't afford a car? And you know you live in
> hurricane country? Then make a rational decision: either don't get pets,
> or realize you may have to leave them to die in case of a natural disaster.
You are being dishonest. You deliberately phrased your post in such a
way to get animal owners to riot. You like provoking people - to the
general amusement of all...most of the time.
If you had meant that pet owners should plan for disasters then you
would have said that. Instead, you *implied* that owners should accept
that humans are better than any animal so they should abandon them.
That was stated to get the predictable reaction out of tiny or another
dog owner.
Really, it's getting old.
>
> How about if I ask them if, with warnings of a big-ass hurricane on the way,
> they would pack up the animals, get in their car/truck/van/RV/converted
> school bus and leave for a safer area?
But that isn't what you asked, was it.
>
> Ah, but that wouldn't present the simple little dichotomy that makes your
> whole argument work. Darn facts!
Darn manipulation! You are a bright boy; we can assume you mean what
you say without the feigned innocence for all the implications or shock
over the reaction.
bel
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
"Phoenix" <avian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d7d2d6d3...@news-server.carolina.rr.com...
I suppose that's true.
> If you had meant that pet owners should plan for disasters then you
> would have said that. Instead, you *implied* that owners should accept
> that humans are better than any animal so they should abandon them.
> That was stated to get the predictable reaction out of tiny or another
> dog owner.
>
Actually, I expected someone to pipe up and say, well, gee, you could just
plan ahead of time and evacuate yourself and your pet in your (or someone
else's) vehicle.
But when that didn't seem to occur to anyone else, I thought I'd mention it.
> Really, it's getting old.
>
I'm still amused by it. And what higher purpose can I serve here, than to
entertain myself?
>
> >
> > How about if I ask them if, with warnings of a big-ass hurricane on the
way,
> > they would pack up the animals, get in their car/truck/van/RV/converted
> > school bus and leave for a safer area?
>
> But that isn't what you asked, was it.
>
No, I didn't ask the other posters here a damn thing. Tiny postulated the
question, and I pronounced it a false dichotomy. Which it is.
>
> >
> > Ah, but that wouldn't present the simple little dichotomy that makes
your
> > whole argument work. Darn facts!
>
>
> Darn manipulation! You are a bright boy; we can assume you mean what
> you say without the feigned innocence for all the implications or shock
> over the reaction.
>
Yes, but don't confuse what I said with what Tiny said I said. And then
there's what I said tiny said I said...oh my, gotta lay down now, getting
dizzy.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
Actually not. I'd already stated:
< We would never leave
our dogs behind. But we are fortunate in that we wouldn't have to resort to
a shelter unless something really quick and catastrophic happened. Many
people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between leaving
their pets, or staying behind with them.>
>
> But when that didn't seem to occur to anyone else, I thought I'd mention
it.
Since I'd already made that statement, I'd say your reply was to provoke, as
bel stated, rather than the *innocent* explanation you gave for yourself.
>
> > Really, it's getting old.
> >
>
> I'm still amused by it. And what higher purpose can I serve here, than to
> entertain myself?
Well as long as you are *entertained* to hell with anybody else, 'eh. Kind
of relates to my 'caring only about yourself comment though, doesn't it?
>
> >
> > >
> > > How about if I ask them if, with warnings of a big-ass hurricane on
the
> way,
> > > they would pack up the animals, get in their
car/truck/van/RV/converted
> > > school bus and leave for a safer area?
> >
> > But that isn't what you asked, was it.
> >
>
> No, I didn't ask the other posters here a damn thing. Tiny postulated the
> question, and I pronounced it a false dichotomy. Which it is.
No, tiny was commenting on the fact that lots of the people, around here
anyway, that live in the path of the hurricanes, don't have the money for
hotel/motel rooms, buying food for their families for who know's how many
days/weeks, etc. They depend upon the shelters and red cross for a place to
stay and food to eat. Many people are displaced for many days/weeks. And
they probably either don't have adequate homeowners policies, don't pay the
extra premiums for alternate housing in the event of a catastrophe, don't
have *replacement value* for their possessions, etc. Many are elderly, with
their pets being their only *family*. Perhaps they don't have reliable
transporation to get them far enough away from the coast safely. You are
saying that anyone who basically isn't *wealthy*, shouldn't own a pet. I
think you have no experience with families who live from paycheck to
paycheck, and if that nasty hurricane decides to arrive right before payday,
they may not have the cash on hand to even fill the gas tank of their cars,
let alone pay for a room somewhere. It's always the poor who are *taken* by
establishments that jack up prices in tragedies, because they don't know
how/where to report 'em, or even that it's illegal to do so.
And another thing, lots of these people don't want to leave their homes
because they don't have replacement value insurance policies. They depend
upon staying there and trying to save what they can afterwards. The last
hurricane we had in N.C., people/cars were lined up waiting for days to get
back in to their properties to try and save what they could of their
possessions, that were being drenched by torrential rains. Now you and I
wouldn't have that problem, Bo. We'd just pull out our photo's we've taken
of our homes/possessions, and begin the insurance reimbursement process in
our nice safe hotel room, with room service. But not everyone has the
luxury of living like that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Ah, but that wouldn't present the simple little dichotomy that makes
> your
> > > whole argument work. Darn facts!
> >
> >
> > Darn manipulation! You are a bright boy; we can assume you mean what
> > you say without the feigned innocence for all the implications or shock
> > over the reaction.
> >
>
> Yes, but don't confuse what I said with what Tiny said I said. And then
> there's what I said tiny said I said...oh my, gotta lay down now, getting
> dizzy.
Need I remind you about the statements you've *said I said* recently. But
then I didn't resort to calling you a liar now, did I.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
Carmen
Hi,
On 29-Aug-2005, "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com>
wrote:
> > If you had meant that pet owners should plan for disasters then
> > you
> > would have said that. Instead, you *implied* that owners should
> > accept
> > that humans are better than any animal so they should abandon
> > them.
> > That was stated to get the predictable reaction out of tiny or
> > another
> > dog owner.
> >
>
> Actually, I expected someone to pipe up and say, well, gee, you
> could just
> plan ahead of time and evacuate yourself and your pet in your (or
> someone
> else's) vehicle.
>
> But when that didn't seem to occur to anyone else, I thought I'd
> mention it.
The big problems there being:
** shelters don't allow pets
** staying at a motel/hotel for an unknown period of time is an
unreasonable option
If you leave the animals behind you're doing so for an unknown period
of time, and to an unknown fate. Bad juju. You don't sleep well, you
feel like the slime on the bottom of a sewer rat's foot and your
children will end up needing thousands of dollars of therapy for their
abandonment issues after what you did to Fluffy and Fido.
That's what leads people to stay behind with their pets. The furry
little bastards get under your skin Bo. Like kids, but the law says
the shelters have to let kids in.
--
Biologist to Chemist: "What? There's 25 moles in that beaker?"
Carmen
Bo Raxo
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:bYJQe.2002$4P5....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
just
> > plan ahead of time and evacuate yourself and your pet in your (or
someone
> > else's) vehicle.
>
>
> Actually not. I'd already stated:
>
>
> < We would never leave
> our dogs behind. But we are fortunate in that we wouldn't have to resort
to
> a shelter unless something really quick and catastrophic happened. Many
> people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between leaving
> their pets, or staying behind with them.>
>
Okay, fair enough, I misrepresented what you said, you did state this
obvious alternative.
> > >
> >
> > No, I didn't ask the other posters here a damn thing. Tiny postulated
the
> > question, and I pronounced it a false dichotomy. Which it is.
>
>
> No, tiny was commenting on the fact that lots of the people, around here
> anyway, that live in the path of the hurricanes, don't have the money for
> hotel/motel rooms, buying food for their families for who know's how many
> days/weeks, etc. (snip) I
> think you have no experience with families who live from paycheck to
> paycheck, and if that nasty hurricane decides to arrive right before
payday,
> they may not have the cash on hand to even fill the gas tank of their
cars,
> let alone pay for a room somewhere.
Huh? I spent age 17 to my mid/late 20s living just that way. WTF? All I am
saying is that it isn't a good idea to sacrifice your life in an attempt to
save your pets. That if you live in hurricane country and you have pets,
gee, plan ahead of time. If you can't afford a car, know someone who does
have one and will take your pets with them. How hard is that?
And if, sadly, you can't get them evacuated, and you don't have a car,
realize the smart thing to do is to value your own life more than the
hamster or the cat or the bird or whatever.
>
> And another thing, lots of these people don't want to leave their homes
> because they don't have replacement value insurance policies. They depend
> upon staying there and trying to save what they can afterwards.
Again, stupid, because with a storm this powerful you've got a good chance
of getting killed. It just isn't worth your life.
>But not everyone has the
> luxury of living like that.
>
Irrelevant. Everyone has free public shelters, so the cost factor is
irrelevant. I'm talking about things that it isn't worth risking your life
over. Are these hard choices? Sure. But that doesn't mean the easier
choice is the right one. People should value their own lives more than
that of their pet, much less a mere piece of property like a house.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6yKQe.14578$2_.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> The big problems there being:
>
> ** shelters don't allow pets
> ** staying at a motel/hotel for an unknown period of time is an
> unreasonable option
>
So let me get this straight. These shelters are set up and run by, what,
local authorities? Or the Red Cross? In any event, if so many people have
pets, and so many can't manage to evacuate (say, drive out of the area to
stay with friends or relatives, which is what I am guessing most people do),
then shouldn't they try to get whoever sets these things up to set up some
shelters that accept pets? Coordinate with some local animal shelter people
in their emergency plans?
Point being, the only way you end up with a choice between staying with your
pet and possibly dying, versus getting to a safe location, is either really
bad luck or just plain not thinking about it ahead of time.
How many people are there that don't have a car, don't have a friend with a
car, don't have any friend or relative they could go stay with? I just
don't think it's that many.
I'd bet that if you look at the people who stayed behind with their pets,
many actually have a vehicle, or know someone who does. They are just too
stupid to know when to leave, and/or too stupid to plan ahead.
In which case, I go back to my Darwin thesis.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
>
> "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TjKQe.14564$2_....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> > news:bYJQe.2002$4P5....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I expected someone to pipe up and say, well, gee, you could
> just
> > > plan ahead of time and evacuate yourself and your pet in your (or
> someone
> > > else's) vehicle.
> >
> >
> > Actually not. I'd already stated:
> >
> >
> > < We would never leave
> > our dogs behind. But we are fortunate in that we wouldn't have to
resort
> to
> > a shelter unless something really quick and catastrophic happened. Many
> > people don't have that advantage. For them it's a choice between
leaving
> > their pets, or staying behind with them.>
> >
>
> Okay, fair enough, I misrepresented what you said, you did state this
> obvious alternative.
Yeah well, you *misrepresent* me lots, but I don't call you a liar, and I
don't point it out each and every time either.
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, I didn't ask the other posters here a damn thing. Tiny postulated
> the
> > > question, and I pronounced it a false dichotomy. Which it is.
> >
> >
> > No, tiny was commenting on the fact that lots of the people, around here
> > anyway, that live in the path of the hurricanes, don't have the money
for
> > hotel/motel rooms, buying food for their families for who know's how
many
> > days/weeks, etc. (snip) I
> > think you have no experience with families who live from paycheck to
> > paycheck, and if that nasty hurricane decides to arrive right before
> payday,
> > they may not have the cash on hand to even fill the gas tank of their
> cars,
> > let alone pay for a room somewhere.
>
> Huh? I spent age 17 to my mid/late 20s living just that way. WTF?
Believe me bo, there is a HUGE difference between yourself living from
payday to payday, and having a FAMILY/children to shelter and feed. Dh was
still in school when we married too. We lived in the hole plenty. But it's
one thing for one or two adults to crash somewhere/anywhere, scrounge up
something to eat, etc. And it's a whole 'nother thing when you've got a
couple three kids in toe. As adults, we could get by on just about any
crap. It's different when you have kids to provide for too.
All I am
> saying is that it isn't a good idea to sacrifice your life in an attempt
to
> save your pets. That if you live in hurricane country and you have pets,
> gee, plan ahead of time. If you can't afford a car, know someone who does
> have one and will take your pets with them. How hard is that?
Usually the people you know/live around, have very similar circumstances to
your own. I mean, sure, if I saw somebody that needed help, I'd stop and
pick 'em up. I'd bring 'em home with me, shelter them, feed them, etc. But
most of these kinds of people are all in the same boat. The people next
door are stuffing their own kids, pets, and as many of their possessions as
they can, into their own beat up pick up themselves.
>
> And if, sadly, you can't get them evacuated, and you don't have a car,
> realize the smart thing to do is to value your own life more than the
> hamster or the cat or the bird or whatever.
That's the smart thing for you, and that's okay. But for many people, their
pets are their family. Ask uncle buck who his family is and he'll say
Ginger, I bet. If I ask the elderly lady who lives across the street from
me, and gets very few to none visits from anybody that I see, and she'll
tell me her cat is her family. It's the one living being that she has on a
day in day out basis. The only living creature that show's her consistent
love and affection.
>
>
> >
> > And another thing, lots of these people don't want to leave their homes
> > because they don't have replacement value insurance policies. They
depend
> > upon staying there and trying to save what they can afterwards.
>
> Again, stupid, because with a storm this powerful you've got a good chance
> of getting killed. It just isn't worth your life.
Their home is their life. Again, our priorities aren't the same as those of
a poor person who might lose everything. Think of it this way bo, you are
all alone in the world. And it's right before payday, but then if your
place of employment gets destroyed too, there will be no *payday* for a long
time. So you lose everything in your house, all the food you have in the
fridge, anything you might have in the pantry. Have you ever figured out
how much it would cost just to replace that stuff? After the last
hurricane, we added 'food replacement' onto our insurance policy. Not that
we couldn't replace our food that we lost, but when I checked, adding that
little thing onto the policy was very minimal in cost, so I figured what the
hell, might as well add that on too. That way, if the power is out for any
length of time, they'll replace all the food in our freezer, refridgerator,
etc. That stuff adds up. When we had the ice storm, I think we got a
couple hundred just for the food in our fridge. All the assorted dressings,
meats, mayo, eggs, and on and on.
>
> >But not everyone has the
> > luxury of living like that.
> >
>
> Irrelevant. Everyone has free public shelters,
So long as they don't bring their pets. Hence we are back to leaving our
pets at home.
so the cost factor is
> irrelevant. I'm talking about things that it isn't worth risking your
life
> over. Are these hard choices? Sure. But that doesn't mean the easier
> choice is the right one. People should value their own lives more than
> that of their pet, much less a mere piece of property like a house.
See above.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
tiny dancer
>
> "Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6yKQe.14578$2_.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > The big problems there being:
> >
> > ** shelters don't allow pets
> > ** staying at a motel/hotel for an unknown period of time is an
> > unreasonable option
> >
>
> So let me get this straight. These shelters are set up and run by, what,
> local authorities? Or the Red Cross? In any event, if so many people
have
> pets, and so many can't manage to evacuate (say, drive out of the area to
> stay with friends or relatives, which is what I am guessing most people
do),
> then shouldn't they try to get whoever sets these things up to set up some
> shelters that accept pets? Coordinate with some local animal shelter
people
> in their emergency plans?
National SPCA type groups have been trying to do just that for years.
Asking for specific shelters to be designated as pet friendly. So far I
don't believe any have. I do recall, I believe it might have been New
Orleans last year, one of the large hotels welcoming pets and owners for
shelter. It was really nice to see. And in fact, having the pets there
made everyone much calmer during and afterwards. The adults were caring for
their pets, the children were occupied by them, etc.
Carmen
> "Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6yKQe.14578$2_.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > The big problems there being:
> >
> > ** shelters don't allow pets
> > ** staying at a motel/hotel for an unknown period of time is an
> > unreasonable option
>
> So let me get this straight. These shelters are set up and run by,
> what, local authorities? Or the Red Cross? In any event, if so
> many
> people have pets, and so many can't manage to evacuate (say, drive
> out of the
> area to stay with friends or relatives, which is what I am guessing
> most
> people do), then shouldn't they try to get whoever sets these things
> up to set
> up some shelters that accept pets? Coordinate with some local
> animal
> shelter people in their emergency plans?
The shelters are set up and run by the Red Cross. The members of the
emergency comm group I'm in have had the classes and we're all
qualified to open an RC shelter. The shelters are scouted out and
approached by the RC and then if the organization is willing to allow
their facilities to be used there's a great deal of back and forth
until a mutually acceptable agreement is signed. In this town of
three shelter sites I know because of having done simulation exercises
at them two are large churches and one is an elementary school. These
sites aren't suitable for animals. Now, your question concerning
coordination with local animal shelter people in emergency planning is
a good one. It's something that's been given short shrift in
emergency planning.
There's a new organizational structure for disaster response on a
national level being put into place called NIMS, or National Incident
Management System. It's a uniform way for all the disparate groups,
be they state, federal, local or private that are involved in disaster
response to fit into and work together effectively in response to a
disaster. It makes use of the Incident Command System that most
police and fire and military types are already familiar with and
provides a framework that allows the various agencies to work *with*
each other instead of just fighting for turf. One section of NIMS is
called "disciplines" and one of those is Animal Health. It's broken
down into large and small animal, then into shelter or transport, and
within shelter there are sub-types based upon team size. So, the
structure is being put into place. It'll still be up to local
governments to think about the pet population in disaster plans, so
they'll still be screwed most places. In the case of a disaster, the
local shelters are likely to be similarly affected and thus unable to
help.
The Department of Homeland Insecurity is actually doing some useful
stuff in-between annoying the crap out of people with dark
complexions. They've paid for lots of us "hams" to take emergency
communications courses (they're only paid for if successfully
completed) because they've found time after time that we come in handy
when normal comms crap out for one.
> Point being, the only way you end up with a choice between staying
> with your pet and possibly dying, versus getting to a safe location,
> is either
> really bad luck or just plain not thinking about it ahead of time.
> How many people are there that don't have a car, don't have a friend
> with a car, don't have any friend or relative they could go stay
> with? I
> just don't think it's that many.
> I'd bet that if you look at the people who stayed behind with their
> pets, many actually have a vehicle, or know someone who does. They
> are
> just too stupid to know when to leave, and/or too stupid to plan
> ahead.
>
> In which case, I go back to my Darwin thesis.
It's not always that simple. If your circle of friends and family all
live in say (to use the present disaster) New Orleans it's not going
to do you an awful lot of good to go to your friends' or families'
houses. Depending on the size of the disaster just getting away from
the affected area may be a temporarily insurmountable challenge. It's
not always mobility that's the limiting factor. When the ice storm
hit northern NY lots of people didn't go to shelters. They stayed in
their homes without power for weeks in some areas. Why? Dairy
farming area, and the farmers would make rounds of each others farms
all day long with generators to milk the cows and then end up dumping
the milk because they had no power to refrigerate it. People without
livestock stayed at home and made the best of it with a kerosene
heater or a woodstove so their pets wouldn't freeze to death. These
aren't stupid people. These are people who made a commitment and
intended to honor it, even if they made it to a dumb animal.
I know you don't have the pet thing happening Bo, so you'll just have
to take it as a given that it isn't possible to think of your constant
furball pal of the past 10 years as dispensible.
tiny dancer
>
snipped>
> I know you don't have the pet thing happening Bo, so you'll just have
> to take it as a given that it isn't possible to think of your constant
> furball pal of the past 10 years as dispensible.
Exactly Carmen! You said that perfectly. That is exactly how you end up
with abandoned/unwanted pets. When people think of them as dispensible.
Get a pup, find out you don't like this one, well hell, just drive it out to
the country and dump it. Then in a few months we'll try a different one.
td
Chocolic
>
> "Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6yKQe.14578$2_.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>> The big problems there being:
>>
>> ** shelters don't allow pets
>> ** staying at a motel/hotel for an unknown period of time is an
>> unreasonable option
>>
>
> So let me get this straight. These shelters are set up and run by,
> what,
> local authorities? Or the Red Cross? In any event, if so many
> people have
> pets, and so many can't manage to evacuate (say, drive out of the
> area to
> stay with friends or relatives, which is what I am guessing most
> people do),
Wha-a-a-t!?!?? You actually believe the thousands and thousands of
people that are evacuating are going to have friends on safe ground
(and if they did room to keep them)? Sheeesh! Most of those people
that are evacuating ~with~ their friends and family.
--------------------------------
> then shouldn't they try to get whoever sets these things up to set
> up some
> shelters that accept pets? Coordinate with some local animal
> shelter people
> in their emergency plans?
>
With thousands of pets? Do you really think those shelters are going
to have room and provisions for all those pets? Besides, I'm sure
there are also a lot of shelters that also had to evacuate and find a
humane place for their animals (again, a place that has room).
--------------------------------
> Point being, the only way you end up with a choice between staying
> with your
> pet and possibly dying, versus getting to a safe location, is either
> really
> bad luck or just plain not thinking about it ahead of time.
>
You obviously don't understand the love of a pet. I would stay with
my pet, as I would with my child, before I would abandon it for my own
safety.
-------------------------------------
> How many people are there that don't have a car, don't have a friend
> with a
> car, don't have any friend or relative they could go stay with? I
> just
> don't think it's that many.
>
> I'd bet that if you look at the people who stayed behind with their
> pets,
> many actually have a vehicle, or know someone who does. They are
> just too
> stupid to know when to leave, and/or too stupid to plan ahead.
>
How the hell do you plan ahead for something like this? It's not like
you knew how severe it was going to be a month ahead of time where you
could casually call for reservations, assuming again that they would
have room. There are not that many shelters around, they are often
full, and and poor, begging for money for food, medical care, etc.,
for those animals.
> In which case, I go back to my Darwin thesis.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
Chocolic
Bo Raxo
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:eJKQe.3281$Wd7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > pets,
> > many actually have a vehicle, or know someone who does. They are
> > just too
> > stupid to know when to leave, and/or too stupid to plan ahead.
> >
>
> How the hell do you plan ahead for something like this? It's not like
> you knew how severe it was going to be a month ahead of time where you
> could casually call for reservations, assuming again that they would
> have room. There are not that many shelters around, they are often
> full, and and poor, begging for money for food, medical care, etc.,
> for those animals.
>
You plan ahead just like businesses plan ahead for disasters. You sit down
and make a list - if there was a hurricane coming, what would I need to do?
And you find out where you would evacuate to, and what you would do about
pets. You call up friends who have pets and cars, and ask them what they
plan to do if there is a hurricane. You arrange for one or more of them to
take your pets if there is an emergency. You figure out how to leave out
some food and water for your pet if you have to evacuate and leave the
animal behind (admittedly, a lot easier with cats, but there are
battery-powered devices that dole out food daily for a pet if you're gone).
You make a p-l-a-n.
Even if you don't have pets, you make a plan. For example, you have your
friends and family in the area to pick one person who lives out of the area,
and make sure that is the person everyone calls to coordinate messages and
meet-ups. You pick a place for everyone to meet if the disaster has abated
but communications haven't been restored.
Or I guess you can scratch your head and utter, "How the hell do you plan
for something like this?" and when it hits, just flail around as best you
can. As for me, I'm a planner. Cut off the power, water, and tear up the
streets enough that I can't get my car out, and it'll be about a week before
I start to worry. And even then, it would mostly be worried about the
smell...
Bo Raxo
Phoenix
> tiny dancer wrote:
> > Must be lonely to live a life where you care for no one but yourself. And
> > no one but yourself cares for/loves you back.
>
> What about this guy's relatives and friends, who would presumably be
> just as upset to learn of his death, as the animals that might have to
> spend a few days without their owner? This guy cares more for his dog
> than he does for his family.
Not all families are equal.
>
> It says more about his inability to form normal emotional bonds with
> humans, than it does about his extraordinary ability to form emotional
> bonds with his pets.
Oh aren't you the judge! Your intrusions into the emotional states of
others aside, why do you give a fuck?
To extent your psychological examination, how do you explain your need
to dictate what is healthy for all people?
>
>
> > Ask wolfie if she'd leave her animals behind.
>
> And if 'wolfie' says it, it must be right! This is the worst appeal to
> authority I have ever heard.
>
> -Mike
Worse than appealing to the Pope on birth control? Saudi Arabia on
justice? Wow, you've led a sheltered existence.
bel
>
tiny dancer
It's harder to plan for a hurricane Bo. One doesn't know, often until the
last minute, which way it might take a turn towards. You don't know which
direction you might need to flee to, so 'deciding where you will evacuate
to' isn't possible ahead of time. As for *friends*, sure, but most people
have *friends* in their own socio-economic situation. If one is poor, ones
friends are usually poor also.
We here are a good 3 1/2 hours from the beach. During hurricane Fran, many
at the coast fled to Raleigh. But Fran blew through here fiercely, knocking
out power to nearly a million people. People who'd called ahead and got
reservations at motels/hotels here, were no better off because to begin
with, they weren't familiar with the city. The power was out for days, for
some weeks. Trees were down all over the city, trying to travel around was
impossible. All the grocery stores were closed because there was no power
for lights or cash registers. No restaurants or fast food places were open.
It was hot as hell, no power, no AC. Those familiar with the city to hear
by radio and know where to go, walk to, stood in line for a bag of ice,
sometimes up to twelve hours. Semi's filled with bags of ice would make
their way on the few roads that had been cleared, to a central location
where they'd hand out ice until their truck was empty. Many times, with the
unpredictability of a hurricane, the place one 'flees to' is often times
badly hit also. And then people are stuck in a strange town, one where they
know no one, trying to fend for themselves. You live in the same city you
grew up in. Raleigh is a city of transplants. If I had to guess, I'd say
by far, the majority of people living here have no close family anywhere
near by. We have many people originally from the northeast here, many from
the midwest, some from the west coast. It's quite a mixture of people. And
as I said before, one's friends are usually of one's own socioeconomic
group. Poor people usually have poor friends who aren't equipped to take
care of themselves.
td
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nancy Rudins
>
>
> It's harder to plan for a hurricane Bo. One doesn't know, often until the
> last minute, which way it might take a turn towards. You don't know which
> direction you might need to flee to, so 'deciding where you will evacuate
> to' isn't possible ahead of time. As for *friends*, sure, but most people
> have *friends* in their own socio-economic situation. If one is poor,
> ones friends are usually poor also.
>
Out here in Tornados 'R Us, sometimes you only have minutes to put
your plans to work. I know what to do, but it's impossible for me
to grab three cats and a dog and head down to the basement. All I
can do is grab what I can and hope the others will follow.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Flame War is over ... if you want it.
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
none
> Oh aren't you the judge!
I respect your judgement that people should not make judgements, and
will therefore refrain from passing judgement on your apparently
self-contradictory statement.
> how do you explain your need
> to dictate what is healthy for all people?
You're right -- as Darwin explained, each person must decide for himself
whether it is 'healthy' to stand in the path of a 70-foot wave.
> Your intrusions into the emotional states of
> others aside, why do you give a fuck?
I managed to share my thoughts without the use of profanity, which
suggests I may have been engaged in a 'normal' act of discussion, to the
extent that 'healthy' civil discourse is 'normal' for some subset of the
population.
>>And if 'wolfie' says it, it must be right! This is the worst appeal to
>>authority I have ever heard.
> Worse than appealing to the Pope on birth control?
The Pope is a figure of moral authority to roughly 1 billion Catholics
worldwide. As far as I know, the woof woof wolfie fan club has yet to
reach that particular membership goal.
> Wow, you've led a sheltered existence.
Your judgements on the topic of my personal existence might be judged
hypocritical.
-Mike