Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mojo2 · Sep 19, 2005, 04:25 AM

CAUTION: DISTURBING VIDEO!

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/phot...straydogs.html

St. Bernard Parish is home to an unknown number of dogs left behind during the exodus from Katrina. With their owners missing, the animals fend for themselves.

Dallas Morning News photojournalist David Leeson has been covering the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The opinions expressed in these clips are his own.

Large file size: Video may take several minutes to load, depending on your connection speed.

In the aftermath of Katrina, many pets had to be left to fend for themselves. But now, as depicted in a video report from photojournalist David Leeson, some personnel are taking drastic measures to deal with stray dogs.

This info is courtesy of www.coasttocoastam.com (9/19/05)

Cody Dawg · Sep 19, 2005, 12:26 PM

I didn't find that video disturbing, no.

I don't like the idea that they are shooting the dogs, no, but the sargeant said that with no food and no water it is more humane than to let them die a horrible death of starvation. Should we expend all of our resources saving animals or humans? I am an animal lover but humans come first.

Also, ever think about the diseases that some of those dogs might contract? Like rabies? Not everyone vaccinates their dogs. The dog then unwittingly becomes a menace because it might be carrying a fatal disease (to humans) and also, if a dog is very sick and deranged, it might attack a human being.

Dogs are put down every single day, by the thousands, in this country because people don't care enough about them.

Yes, it's sad, but it was not disturbing to me, no.

Mark Larr · Sep 19, 2005, 12:58 PM

They were becoming desperate for food and were attacking people.

Like the video showed.

Kudos to the military guys for trying to help the ones they could find, though I'm afraid that the shelters are going to start sleeping them if no one claims them or adopts them.

Cody Dawg · Sep 19, 2005, 01:20 PM

Yes, it's sad, but with limited resources there isn't much anyone can do.

I'm glad that there are animal rescue groups going down there to help them. Those people are wonderful.

If people really cared about their pets they would have taken them and left. Sure, there would still be situations where animals were lost or abandoned, but they're supposed to be like your children and if you had/have children and you see a cat 5 hurricane coming you take your kids - and your pet - and get the heck out of Dodge.

kmkkid · Sep 19, 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yes, it's sad, but with limited resources there isn't much anyone can do.

I'm glad that there are animal rescue groups going down there to help them. Those people are wonderful.

If people really cared about their pets they would have taken them and left. Sure, there would still be situations where animals were lost or abandoned, but they're supposed to be like your children and if you had/have children and you see a cat 5 hurricane coming you take your kids - and your pet - and get the heck out of Dodge.

A lot of people were FORCED to leave them. It's not that they didn't care, and obviously finding them now is going to be anything but trivial.

Cody Dawg · Sep 19, 2005, 01:38 PM

Yes, people were FORCED to leave them.

Why?

Because they themselves had to be evacuated. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LEAVE WHEN A CAT 5 HURRICANE APPROACHED.

Yes, I feel badly for them. But, why didn't they leave? Seriously? And if you tell me, "Because they didn't have a car," then why do they have pets? Those pets need to go back and forth to a veterinarian for their mandatory state-law vaccinations...so how do they get them back and forth? The answer is that they didn't.

Like I said, a lot of the animals roaming are unvaccinated, diseased, and even possibly rabies-infected. They need to be controlled. No, I'm not advocating shooting them all, but if they are wild and not letting people willingly catch them in order to bring them to safety then they need to be controlled in some way. They could easily attack a human.

Or, do you think it's okay that they attack rescue workers and/or people and children, kmkkid?

kmkkid · Sep 19, 2005, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yes, people were FORCED to leave them.

Why?

Because they themselves had to be evacuated. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LEAVE WHEN A CAT 5 HURRICANE APPROACHED.

Yes, I feel badly for them. But, why didn't they leave? Seriously? And if you tell me, "Because they didn't have a car," then why do they have pets? Those pets need to go back and forth to a veterinarian for their mandatory state-law vaccinations...so how do they get them back and forth? The answer is that they didn't.

eeeeeehhhhhhhhh??!?!

I don't have a car, yet I have a cat. You know how I get her to the vets? A FREAKEN CAB OR FRIENDS THAT'S HOW!

Honestly, if you truly think because someone doesn't own a vehicle that they aren't, or can't be good pet owners, you're messed in the head. I'm glad I don't own a vehicle, at least I'm not getting suckered out of my money.

kmkkid · Sep 19, 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Like I said, a lot of the animals roaming are unvaccinated, diseased, and even possibly rabies-infected. They need to be controlled. No, I'm not advocating shooting them all, but if they are wild and not letting people willingly catch them in order to bring them to safety then they need to be controlled in some way. They could easily attack a human.

Or, do you think it's okay that they attack rescue workers and/or people and children, kmkkid?

Notice how I never commented on whether or not they should be put down, so I have no idea where this came from.

greenamp · Sep 19, 2005, 01:59 PM

Really really sucks but there comes a point where such a thing has to be done.

My only question is, where is PETA and the Humane Society? Surely they could muster up a relief force to specifically deal with animal rescue in NO. Or maybe they don't wanna get dirty.

xi_hyperon · Sep 19, 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by greenamp

Really really sucks but there comes a point where such a thing has to be done.

My only question is, where is PETA and the Humane Society? Surely they could muster up a relief force to specifically deal with animal rescue in NO. Or maybe they don't wanna get dirty.

Don't know about PETA, but the humane society is there. I saw an article about them somewhere online.

MacNStein · Sep 19, 2005, 02:44 PM

PETA doesn't care. As long as people aren't trying to EAT the strays, they couldn't care less.

BlueSky · Sep 19, 2005, 02:58 PM

You might want to take a peek at PETA's site.

iMOTOR · Sep 19, 2005, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

PETA doesn't care. As long as people aren't trying to EAT the strays, they couldn't care less.

OMG, so true

The humane society is in the area though, doing as much as they can.

Originally Posted by kmkkid

I don't have a car, yet I have a cat. You know how I get her to the vets? A FREAKEN CAB OR FRIENDS THAT'S HOW!

Honestly, if you truly think because someone doesn't own a vehicle that they aren't, or can't be good pet owners, you're messed in the head. I'm glad I don't own a vehicle, at least I'm not getting suckered out of my money.

You're lucky that you can live somewhere that doesn't necessitate the need of a car. For many people though, it's not an issue of "getting suckered out of money", no car= prisoner of your house. The folks that had cars in N.O. should have left before the storm, and the folks that didn't have cars should have been assisted by local government to leave.

Eug Wanker · Sep 19, 2005, 03:27 PM

"Because they didn't have a car," then why do they have pets?

Quite frankly, that's the dumbest thing I've read all week.

kmkkid · Sep 19, 2005, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

OMG, so true

The humane society is in the area though, doing as much as they can.

You're lucky that you can live somewhere that doesn't necessitate the need of a car. For many people though, it's not an issue of "getting suckered out of money", no car= prisoner of your house. The folks that had cars in N.O. should have left before the storm, and the folks that didn't have cars should have been assisted by local government to leave.

I understand that a car is a necessity for some people who live in rural areas, but this event happened in New Orleans, a metropolitan area with lots of public transit. Like you said though, it's unfortunate that the gov't didn't force public transit to help people get out before the storm. However, that still leaves us with thousands of animals stranded, because obviously pets would not have been allowed on buses, just as they weren't at the superdome bus loadings.

IceEnclosure · Sep 19, 2005, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

But, why didn't they leave? Seriously? And if you tell me, "Because they didn't have a car," then why do they have pets? Those pets need to go back and forth to a veterinarian for their mandatory state-law vaccinations...so how do they get them back and forth? The answer is that they didn't.

Smack yourself. Hard.

sminch · Sep 19, 2005, 03:52 PM

i think we might be kinda missing cody's point, or at least my interpretation of his point, which is that if you don't have a car because you can't afford one then perhaps you should have / can't afford to have pets. i have no car but have a cat, but it's no worries cos i can afford a taxi when i need to get him to the vet. if you don't have the money to pay for that then i think it's a different story.

many of the folks left in new orleans were stuck there because they had no car, but also (please correct me if i'm wrong here) because they couldn't afford to leave (ie. pay for the journey, then pay for a hotel etc while they're away from home). it's not so much no car -> should not have pets, as can't afford a car (among other things) -> should not have pets.

or have i missed his point too?

sminch

iMOTOR · Sep 19, 2005, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

some people who live in rural areas,

I'm not talking about rural areas, trust me, if you live in Southern California, it's almost impossible to exist as a human being without some kind of access to a car. The only exception would be perhaps an elderly person who has lost their license, and in that case they would need to be dependent on someone who does have a car.

I most certainly disagree with cody on the "must have car to own pets" thing, but those who didn't own cars in New Orleans, regardless of wether they had pets or not, should have had a contingency plan for leaving N.O.

kmkkid · Sep 19, 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by sminch

i think we might be kinda missing cody's point, or at least my interpretation of his point, which is that if you don't have a car because you can't afford one then perhaps you should have / can't afford to have pets. i have no car but have a cat, but it's no worries cos i can afford a taxi when i need to get him to the vet. if you don't have the money to pay for that then i think it's a different story.

many of the folks left in new orleans were stuck there because they had no car, but also (please correct me if i'm wrong here) because they couldn't afford to leave (ie. pay for the journey, then pay for a hotel etc while they're away from home). it's not so much no car -> should not have pets, as can't afford a car (among other things) -> should not have pets.

or have i missed his point too?

sminch

Perhaps, but that's not what she said. She said if you don't have a car then you can't take your pet to a vet, therefore you shouldn't have one.

kmkkid · Sep 19, 2005, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

I'm not talking about rural areas, trust me, if you live in Southern California, it's almost impossible to exist as a human being without some kind of access to a car. The only exception would be perhaps an elderly person who has lost their license, and in that case they would need to be dependent on someone who does have a car.

I most certainly disagree with cody on the "must have car to own pets" thing, but those who didn't own cars in New Orleans, regardless of wether they had pets or not, should have had a contingency plan for leaving N.O.

They don't have public transportation in SoCal?

Eug Wanker · Sep 19, 2005, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by sminch

i think we might be kinda missing cody's point, or at least my interpretation of his point, which is that if you don't have a car because you can't afford one then perhaps you should have / can't afford to have pets.

Well, either way, it's a totally moronic statement.

teknopimp · Sep 19, 2005, 04:27 PM

the situation is disturbing, nothing wrong with that video.

mojo2 is always such a tease...

Artful Dodger · Sep 19, 2005, 04:36 PM

don't get a dog if you can't afford all it takes to ensure the dog's safety. For some people, that means getting a car, for others it means getting a motorcycle with a side car.

itistoday · 05:01 PM

Disturbing? Hah. Perhaps you should have your internet cherry popped.

xi_hyperon · Sep 19, 2005, 04:49 PM

although a skateboard and a leash will do in a pinch.

King Bob On The Cob · Sep 19, 2005, 06:04 PM

New Orleans did have the public transportation to get many more people out before the storm hit. These images are dozens of municipally-owned NORTA and school buses that remained in their lot rather than being used for evacuating those who couldn't evacuate themselves.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Or...;t=e&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Or...;t=k&hl=en
I lost all respect I had for the mayor as soon as I saw these images and heard him blaming Bush for this disaster.