Would you leave home and pet?

[Pure]

Many persons interviewed are reluctant or downright refusing to leave pets. Having a couple myself, I can imagine the guilt at the 'betrayal' of leaving behind someone so dependent and loyal. A dog or cat will trust you enough to go with you to the vet to be 'put down.'

So let us have a poll.

Assume you're on the roof, alone, because your whole house is flooded by a Katrina-like storm, etc. Your food and water are extremely limited; just a few small bottles of the latter.

ASSUME you do not have any dependent children. Children who will suffer if you stay.

ASSUME you're told that should you refuse this helicopter rescue, it may be a 3-4 days till you have another chance. Hence there is a substantial risk that refusal will lead to your death, and likely Fluffy's.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I couldn't leave my dog. He's family. One of the things I love about dogs is that they're so honest-hearted and loyal, so on this occasion I'd take a leaf out of their book and not abandon my dog to the elements. We'd survive somehow.

 

[TheEarl]

Leaving behind a dog that I loved would be akin to leaving a family member. Couldn't do it.

The Earl

 

[Liar]

If Fluffy was an elephant, I would understand. But me with a dog is no more for that helicopter than me with a fatter ass after too many cheeseburgers.

So no, I'd hang on to F.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[carsonshepherd]

We have a LOT of rescued pets here in Memphis. We're doing all we can to help them and find them foster homes but it's overwhelming.

No, I couldn't leave my dogs. Not when they are loyal to me with every breath. I've held the paws of two of them while they were humanely put to sleep by the vet. I stayed with them then, and I would stay with them to the very end. We'd find a way. I don't judge others who had to choose to leave without their pets, but I couldn't do it.

 

[Guest]

We couldn't leave ours.

Despite our paycheck-to-paycheck status these days we'd have found a way before the crisis to get children and animals to safety.

If something happened completely unexpectedly, we'd wait it out. We have a second fridge in the basement filled with drinking water and supplies. We're in an elevated area, but if there was flooding we'd empty it to the attic in a couple of coolers.

Because of Kansas tornadoes we are never without rechargeable batteries, a multitude of flashlights and a battery-powered radio. We have a solid chainsaw and ax (because we cut wood for our fireplace) so we could get through the roof if necessary. We all have good cell phones that we keep constantly charged for emergencies, barring complete destruction of all towers, of course.

Our attic is solid, we'd have to put blankets on top of the insulation, but there is plenty of room for humans and animals. We could probably last a week without help, longer, if we had any notice of impending disaster.

 

[Pure]

Variations

OK, so we won't leave.

But consider variations.

A You, the breadwinner, have a spouse who's been already rescued, who loves you to excess, does not work outside the home, and don't care about Fluffy.

B You have four children 2-10 who've been rescued--which cuts both ways since they love Fluffy and are going ask about the pet. But they may end up with no parent AND no Fluffy.

C Fluffy is your pet (land) turtle, weighing ten pounds. (Is it just mammals over three pounds that we are so insistent are 'family'?)

D You are in command of the small helicopter; you have no orders from on high, but no guarantee you can return. It can hold 10 people, or 5 plus their large dogs (Great Pyrennes; Bernese, etc.). Which do you go for?

---
PS, I do agree that with planning, a) almost all people could have been saved, e.g., on busses leaving before the storm--b) a 'wealthy nation' can accommodate pets, no larger than Great Pyrennees, in a people shelter (for we will assume there is enough space), either with the family or separately.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't know what I'd do, but I've always been suprised by how easily people will leave there pets behind. My opinion has always been that when you adopt a pet you agree to take them into your family and care for them. Although I have never thought of them as people or fur children, I have always considered them to be a part of the family.

Our family dog had a couple of litters in her day. Most people we gave her pups to didn't keep them for long. They barked too much, they couldn't housetrain them- or one excuse after another. Sometimes they were left outside on a chain all the time (that was usually by the people who complained they barked too much- well, duh). The dogs usually ended up being taken to the pound or humane society.

It's sad, you assume that becuase you know someone and they are your friends that they will be good to pets as well. It's just not always the case.

Even people who've had there pets and loved them will often leave them behind because there new place doesn't allow pets. If you had a baby- you'd never move to a place where kids wheren't allowed, no matter what the circumstances. Social service agencies who might help you would automatically rule out places that were too small or unsuitable for this circumstance.

People say all the time "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" an ignorant statement that makes me ill. But pets don't come into your family the way a child does, and they have nothing to do with our natural instincts to reproduce. And yet people accept, buy, bring home pets without thinking ahead or even considering it a mandate to care for the pet for it's whole life. And people seen so except this so redily.

It's not so suprising that they'd leave them on rooftops to save there lives, when so many will so often abandon them with so much less at stake.

I have a lot of respect for the 'nuts' who know what real love is and who would stick beside a loyal friend come what may.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think that they should have partially evacuated hotels and started moving people into seperate residences, rather than keeping them all in stadiums and convention centers.

umm.. but that's off topic.

 

[LadyJeanne]

My kitty will go with me, or I stay. I couldn't live with myself if I abandoned her. She's small, 9 or 10 pounds. Easily portable in a carrier or backpack. I rescued her from the animal shelter when she was a kitten, and I wouldn't just leave her to fend for herself in a flood, earthquake, tornado, or anything else. The thought horrifies me to no end.

 

[Weird Harold]

Many persons interviewed are reluctant or downright refusing to leave pets. ...

ASSUME you're told that should you refuse this helicopter rescue, it may be a 3-4 days till you have another chance. Hence there is a substantial risk that refusal will lead to your death, and likely Fluffy's.

I guess I'm the first ogre to post, because while I understand the attachment many people have to their pets, I don't understand the willingness many seem to have to die for them.

The scenario you present is just a little easier to decide because a panicky animal of any size presents a significantly greater potential danger to a helicopter than to a boat.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Those choppers can take the pets just as easily as the people. We've all seen them do it in lesser rescue situations. They could take me and my pets or just leave us there to figure it out on our own!!!

 

[Guest]

People say all the time "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" an ignorant statement that makes me ill. But pets don't come into your family the way a child does, and they have nothing to do with our natural instincts to reproduce. And yet people accept, buy, bring home pets without thinking ahead or even considering it a mandate to care for the pet for it's whole life. And people seen so except this so redily.

I agree with that statement, actually.

I assumed it meant if you could not deal with caring for any offspring your pet may produce don't allow the pet to reproduce.

Meaning, get the animal spayed or neutered, keep the female inside while in heat, don't let a tomcat roam, etc.

No responsible pet owner should let their animals breed. Even if you have a home for all the animals in advance, perhaps those people who took the kittens or puppies from you would have instead taken them from a shelter, saving the lives of those animals. Why add more kittens and puppies to the overcrowding problem?

A spayed or neutered animal is a much happier pet. Gentler, less stressed. And healthier, because they are less prone to problems relating to reproductive organs.

And without unwanted litters of kittens and puppies far fewer shelter animals would be have to be killed.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I agree with that statement, actually.

I assumed it meant if you could not deal with caring for any offspring your pet may produce don't allow the pet to reproduce.

I meant, people use that statement about *people*- as in why should my tax money fund welfare- if you can't feed em don't breed em. (Assuming there are no valid reason for a person to end up with more kids than resources)

In the case of pet care, it should apply. If you can't feed and care for them- you shouldn't even have them. Getting a pet just dosn't happen as a result of 'oops' like a pregnancy might. Getting a pet usually requires forethought and planning. It's a concious active choice. It's a lot easier to turn down a kitten than to deny your biological drives.

And yet people accept pet owners excuses for not being able to take care of them without a second thought.

I don't have a pet, becuase I need to use my resourses on my kids. I don't have enough time, energy, money to keep another dependent creature alive. Besides, pets don't grow up and move away. I'd never adopt a pet unless I could be reasonably certain that I could (and would be willing to) care for them to the end.

 

[TheEarl]

I guess I'm the first ogre to post, because while I understand the attachment many people have to their pets, I don't understand the willingness many seem to have to die for them.

The scenario you present is just a little easier to decide because a panicky animal of any size presents a significantly greater potential danger to a helicopter than to a boat.

I see what you're saying, from a dispassionate point of view, but just thinking about if it was my dog. She follows us around the house, waiting for us to find where we want to sit down and then lies down with us with a contented sigh. Even if I thought she'd survive on her own; I couldn't take the pain which I would do to her by leaving.

I could no more leave her to the elements than I could my mother. Love's a strange thing.

The Earl

 

[scheherazade_79]

I guess I'm the first ogre to post, because while I understand the attachment many people have to their pets, I don't understand the willingness many seem to have to die for them.

The scenario you present is just a little easier to decide because a panicky animal of any size presents a significantly greater potential danger to a helicopter than to a boat.

I still couldn't leave my dog. When a living thing gives you that much unconditional love, you can't turn your back on it to save your own skin. If the situation were reversed I know my dog wouldn't leave me.

If I left my dog I don't think I'd ever have any respect or love for myself ever again. I couldn't live with myself. End of story.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What dog? I just have an upset stomach? It barks when I'm stressed. See there it goes again.

My dog's small, I'd smuggle it.

 

[carsonshepherd]

What dog? I just have an upset stomach? It barks when I'm stressed. See there it goes again.

My dog's small, I'd smuggle it.

that's the problem with having multiple big dogs...

 

[minsue]

I find that I simply can't answer. My gut instinct is that I absolutely couldn't leave my pet, my dog meant everything to me and there was not one soul on this earth that I loved more than her. Last weekend, I ran across the paperwork from when we had to put her down a year and a half ago after the cancer had gone too far and I sat in the middle of the floor and sobbed like a baby.

The fact is, though, there have been other times in my life where I've said I couldn't do something, no matter what, and once faced with the situation I found that I was dead wrong. I cannot judge those who left their beloved pets behind, I can only grieve with them.

 

[Liar]

I repeat. A fella carrying a dog or a fella who's a bit overweight amounts to the same for the copter. Unless it's a pack of rabid poodles that the fella can't control, or a Grand Danois the size of Mt. Rushmore, the dilemma should be a non-issue.

 

[minsue]

I repeat. A fella carrying a dog or a fella who's a bit overweight amounts to the same for the copter. Unless it's a pack of rabid poodles that the fella can't control, or a Grand Danois the size of Mt. Rushmore, the dilemma should be a non-issue.

Except that, in my experience, terrified animals are a bit harder to control.

 

[CharleyH]

Many persons interviewed are reluctant or downright refusing to leave pets. Having a couple myself, I can imagine the guilt at the 'betrayal' of leaving behind someone so dependent and loyal. A dog or cat will trust you enough to go with you to the vet to be 'put down.'

So let us have a poll.

Assume you're on the roof, alone, because your whole house is flooded by a Katrina-like storm, etc. Your food and water are extremely limited; just a few small bottles of the latter.

ASSUME you do not have any dependent children. Children who will suffer if you stay.

ASSUME you're told that should you refuse this helicopter rescue, it may be a 3-4 days till you have another chance. Hence there is a substantial risk that refusal will lead to your death, and likely Fluffy's.

I need not a poll. I think it is wonderful that people love their pets, but the fact is many pets will survive with or without us, even if we can't. Having known a woman who went back into her house as it burned and then she burned to death, and the cat got out? I am not certain that people get the diff between an animal of instinct , and animals like us who seem to have no instinct, and have little instinct to survive. I choose the helicopter over a pet. I choose my child before me as I wait on the roof with my pet, but I also choose my life over my pet.

 

[The_Darkness]

I love my cat. I've loved all my animals and it makes me sad when I have to give one away or when one dies.

But I get over it and move on. If it came down to little Abaddon and I not getting rescued and me trusting Abaddon to not die while the flood waters begin to lower....well, I can get a new cat.