I cannot see this video because it will make me ballistic, but just wanted to let you know that after making them wait over a week for any aknowledgement, the dog victims are now getting some attention. Unfortunately, it's to kill them off. :furious:


http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/photography/2005/katrina_video/straydogs.html

What the ****. I wish it gave some contact information for that sherriff. Ugh. I'm glad to see the US Army is actually the good guys in this video, I was afraid it'd be the other way around.

I found the Sherriff's name that's killing all the dogs and bragging about it. Mike Minton. His contact information was posted in comments on BestFriends.com if you want to write or call.

The military needs to be commended for looking after the dogs.

Poor kitties, though. I hope some kitties lived :(

Can someone summarize the video? I'm afraid to watch... :/

It's not a morbid video, it just makes you upset.

Summary:
A reporter is interviewing the army, the army says they're trying to feed and care for the dogs... the reporter says he's heard about dogs being shot, they say they don't know about that, but it's not them. Then the boat swivels around after hearing gunshots and the reporter goes to interview a guy with a gun who turns out to be the town sherriff and he says shooting them is the kindest thing to do because they're hungry and following people around looking for food, though he says they're mainly shooting them because we're scared of dogs. The reporter asks if it's hard to do and the sherriff says no, part of the job.

The names/positions of the people in the video are right in the video.

:furious:

I told my mom when this first happened that I could see them shooting roaming dogs to get rid of them. Some people just suck.

Hmm. I guess I don't completely understand. So the military were not allowing people to shoot the dogs, even though they were afraid of them, but then the local sheriff is on camera shooting them? Why? Were they really starving and miserable, or just kind of being a pain in the ass?

Yes, according to the groups that are going in and rescuing the dogs many of the dogs are very hungry and miserable. Shooting them is not the solution though, letting rescue groups into the area would be the solution, yet for some reason they are forcibly turning away 90% of the animal rescue groups that go into that particular area.

The Humane Society of America's National Disaster Animal Response Team (DART) has been in all three states assisting in rescuing animals. http://www.hsus.org/ The stories on their site are incredible. They've rescued almost 3,000 to date. http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/massive_rescue_efforts_continue_at_full_speed_in_r ace_to_save_animal_victims_of_hurricane_katrina.ht ml

The HSUS is organizing the rescue efforts and have been given the ok by FEMA to do so. Other rescue groups can volunteer to help through the Humane Society by calling 1-800-HUMANE-1.

Days End Farm Horse Rescue traveled the Tuesday after the hurricane from Maryland and has been working to rescue the horses. Best Friends Animal Society has been really active in the rescue efforts as well. The Louisiana SPCA has been going door to door in New Orleans looking for animals left behind. United Animal Nations, the Louisiana Animal Control Association, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Code 3 Associates, the American Human Association, have all been assisting with the rescue efforts.

I couldn't find anything that said 90% of animal rescue groups have been turned away. Were did you get that from Kpickell? I'm sure some have been turned away, they need to follow the proper channels and go through the HSUS.

The HSUS is documenting where the animal is found/taken from and then posting it on petfinder.com to make it easier for owners to find their pets. If that wasn't done, I can't imagine how someone would find their pet other than being very lucky.

It was on the Humane Society of Louisiana's website - www.humanela.org. And there are reports all through the news of groups being turned away. Similar stories on BestFriends.org, which seems to be the group doing the most work.

Why is help needing to go through the HSUS? That's rather unfortunate, given the HSUS's shoddy reputation.

Here's another rescue site that's been working on getting animals out of New Orleans. http://www.bestfriends.org
I looked at it this morning, and they had an article about how the LA Fish and Wildlife department is forbidding their people from shooting abandoned pets.

Here's one of the articles (http://news.bestfriends.org/index.cfm?page=specialreports&catid=04061773-BDB9-396E-9001EF6EC01318A4&mode=entry&entry=3DCB630A-BDB9-396E-928FC19C8A9BA3DA&stid=1) at least...

Thanks for explaining! :yes: That really is ****ty.

I went through humanla.org and couldn't find the 90% number. Couldn't find it on bestfriends or any other site either.

At first the animal rescue teams efforts were put on hold for various reasons, some understandable although I don't know that I agree with them. Maybe that's where you're getting the 90% number? From within the first 72 hours following the hurricane?

The shootings are happening in St. Bernard Parish by the St. Bernard Parish police, mainly Sgt. Mike Minton. It's not happening all over the New Orleans area. Looks to me like we've go a person/persons here who should be removed temporarily until he can get himself under control http://news.bestfriends.org/index.cfm?page=specialreports&catid=04061773-BDB9-396E-9001EF6EC01318A4&mode=entry&entry=3DCB630A-BDB9-396E-928FC19C8A9BA3DA&stid=1

I definitely dislike the idea of killing dogs, but I suppose that some of if might be in self-defense. I have a friend in New Orleans who is a cop and she emailed me today saying, directly quoted, "The animals attempted attacking us for our food."

I'm sorry, but people come first. This is one of the reasons I don't like animal husbandry to begin with. The problem is not the sheriff shooting the dog, the problem is that these dogs were owned by people, who left the area to protect themselves from the hurricane, but left their dogs behind. What did they think would happen to the dogs if they didn't return within a day or 2? They would become a nuisance. It is hard enough getting in food and water for the humans; should rescue workers be feeding the dogs too? Or should we just let the dogs into nursing homes so the dogs can eat the elderly, and eat the bodies of all the people that died when electricity went off in hospitals?

I wonder how many veggieboarders who own dogs, and who had to evacuate, would have taken their dogs with them? Probably only about 3/4 of y'all.

If you can't be certain you can take all your domestic animals with you, should you have to evacuate an area, then you shouldn't be owning the domestic animals to begin with. If the dogs were wild, they would never have gotten into this situation in the first place -- they would have evacuated the area on their own, and gotten to higher ground on their own, at the first sign of a hurricane coming. It is only because they have been domesticated, and fed and cared for by people, that they remained in the hurricane area. People who fed them and cared for them when it was convenient to do so, making the dogs depenent on them -- and then neglected to do so when it became a bit of extra work. If you make an animal, or a human, dependent on you, then do you not have a moral obligation to continue its care for the rest of its life? How many dog owners actually do that? How many more just stop caring for an animal they have made dependent on them, simply because they don't feel like it any more? Lots and lots of people. If you didn't make animals dependent on people in the first place, then you wouldn't be obligated to care for them the rest of their lives.

I bet you most of the idiots who left their dogs behind, and who eventually return to the area, will be thinking, why did you shoot my dog, it was a family member. Some family member -- you evacuate and leave the dog behind. Did they leave their elderly parents behind too?

If the dogs' owners don't treat the dogs like family members, why should the sheriff's department treat the dogs like someone's family member?

By the way, I believe dogs are eating human remains, and that they are growling at and attacking workers who are trying to recover the remains. I've seen what usually appear to be the sweetest, nicest dogs, do this to me, when I tried to stop them from turning over garbage cans, spreading all the garbage all the over the place, finding discarded tampons and napkins, and chowing down on them. If I tried to get the garbage back in the can -- dog was very upset and attacked me. Do I blame the dog? No. This is what dogs do. That is why people shouldn't own them (unless they can prevent this whole situation, but obviously they cant).

If dogs love used sanitary napkins, and rotten animal flesh they find in garage cans, and get real nasty if you try to take these choice morsels away from them, ot seems reasonable to conclude that they will do the same if you try to stop them from eating human bodies. Even the dogs that are normaly sweet and good natured -- providing you don't try to steal their food.

and I don't get it -- if you are morally against killing and eating animals -- then why own and support the lives of animals whose whole lives are built around doing just that? If you must own and care for an animal, why not own a herbivore?

I can't believe people are criticising the police officer who, when asked if shooting the dogs was difficult, didn't instantly reply with the pat anwer of "yes" that you thought he should give. Whether you think it was the right thing to do or not, I'm sure this man thought it was the right thing to do, and is entitled to be able to do it without being hated.

I agree that people come first. But that's the only sentence in your whole two page post that I agree with.

I bet you most of the idiots who left their dogs behind, and who eventually return to the area, will be thinking, why did you shoot my dog, it was a family member. Some family member -- you evacuate and leave the dog behind. Did they leave their elderly parents behind too?

If the dogs' owners don't treat the dogs like family members, why should the sheriff's department treat the dogs like someone's family member?

Have you not read anything about the hurricane? People were strictly prohibited from bringing their pets with them on any rescue vehicle or in any shelter.

The rest of your post was just the same anti-pet stuff that you always post. Yes we know that if you had your way you'd poison every cat and dog on the planet because you find them annoying. Not everyone shares your passion for killing pets.

I am against killing animals, kpickell. If you don't breed them, there is no need to kill them.

Why make a pet dependent on you, if you know that hurrican shelters have no room for them? Some way to relate to a "member of the family." If you knew that shelters would not take children, would that make you want to have children? For example if you were in a concentration camp, where babies were taken away and killed as soon as they were discovered -- wouldn't you do your best to avoid getting pregnant? If you wouldn't get pregnant in a concentration camp, then why, in a world where animals are, by the authorities, not given the same priveleges as humans, why would you want to make animals dependent on your care, for their lives? Why would you want to bring them into your care, knowing that sooner or later you wouldn't be allowed to care for them any more? Or knowing that if something happened to you, there may very well be no other human who is willing to care for them, since most humans don't think of them the same way they think of family members. I know if I have children and something happens to me, other relatives will care for them, because that is the way their culture has accustomed them to deal with children. I would buy life insurance, so that their care would be paid for, if something happened to me. With a few exceptions, the same people that say the "dog is a member of my family, don't insure their lives and make someone who is sworn to care for their pets, the payee on the policy. Nor do they assign godparents to their animals. What they usually think is that these things are not necessary for animals, but in fact, they are MORE necessary for animals than they are for humans, since when humans come of age, they are able to care for themselves. Bringing them up is a matter of training them to be independent when they growing up. Even mentally disabled humans, we want to do everything possible to make things so that they can take care of themselves, as much as posible, by themselves. Bringing up animals, we do just the opposite. We universally make the animal as dependent as possible. We never train an animal re what to do to take care of itself, should I die. And unlike with mentally disabled adults, who are the exception rather than the rule, and the existence of which we decry, wishing they would be more able, we "love" our dogs for just the opposite reason, wishing dependence upon it. That's right wishing dependence upon it. We keep them, in addition to children, for the very reason that they do something for us that children don't do -- children will grow up and not need us anymore -- that is why we "need" a dog in addition. If there was some dog that could live without us, we would do our best to breed that characteristic out of it. And in fact that is EXACTLY what dog breeding has always been about. This is the primary characteistic that makes an animal acceptable, just like palatability is the primary characteristic that makes a husbanded fruit or vegetable acceptable.

If you knew that a ship had enough lifeboats for adults but not for children -- would you bring your children aboard that ship? Most people would not; and most, but not all people, would take a chance with their dog. And most of those people would say "the dog is a member of my family."

I'm sorry, I know I'm going on and on and maybe even repeating myself. I'll try to stop.

Umm, why do people come first?

If the dogs' owners don't treat the dogs like family members, why should the sheriff's department treat the dogs like someone's family member?
I agree that people should not have left their animals behind. There's no way in h*ll I would have. But by this line of thinking why should we protect orphan children when no one considers them a family member? Answer, because they are living beings and just shooting them is wrong, just like shooting dogs is wrong. I truly don't believe that they are only shooting the dogs who appear dangerous. They completely ignored the dogs to the point where, sure they are now probably starving and desparate for food and will eat anything, but they should have taken care of the dogs before it got to this point. I think they chose to ignore the dogs thinking 'oh, we'll just kill them later anyway'.

I am against killing animals, kpickell. If you don't breed them, there is no need to kill them.

You said you supported the decision to kill the animals that have been abandoned, so you must not be against killing animals.

Stopping pets from breeding only solves part of the problem. I never encourage anyone to breed their pets, ever. But there are millions of pets already in this country alone that need homes. You're saying in your post that people shouldn't adopt pets because they never know if some unforseen tragedy will cause them to be unable to care for them. So what do you suggest we do with all of these dogs and cats and animals that we already have? If you say we shouldn't ever adopt them, then we're left with two alternatives: 1, put them in shelters or 2, let them run wild. If they're brought to shelters and people take your advice and don't adopt them, then they'll be euthanized; and if they are let loose then you said that they should be shot, so either way you are advocating for the killing of all pets. Stopping breeding prevents more litters from being born, but does nothing to address any of the problems we face here and now.

You said you supported the decision to kill the animals that have been abandoned, so you must not be against killing animals.

Stopping pets from breeding only solves part of the problem. I never encourage anyone to breed their pets, ever. But there are millions of pets already in this country alone that need homes. You're saying in your post that people shouldn't adopt pets because they never know if some unforseen tragedy will cause them to be unable to care for them. So what do you suggest we do with all of these dogs and cats and animals that we already have? If you say we shouldn't ever adopt them, then we're left with two alternatives: 1, put them in shelters or 2, let them run wild. If they're brought to shelters and people take your advice and don't adopt them, then they'll be euthanized; and if they are let loose then you said that they should be shot, so either way you are advocating for the killing of all pets. Stopping breeding prevents more litters from being born, but does nothing to address any of the problems we face here and now.
Nicely done!

The hsus doesnt want the animals rescued. Thats why they arent letting everyone help.they want control . Between them and the spca in the surrounding states they are killing them by the hundreds. up to 150 an hour thats alot of killing . They have voluteer vets that are leaving cause all they want them to do is fill the schringes, i bet alot of people sure would like a chance to get their animals back. Alot of them didnt have a choice whether to take them or leave them behind. The spca killed 70 dogs in tx the day of the storm, to make room for ones that they could sale. they were down there nearly begging for donations . getting paid to kill . it doesnt sound right to me , who says they have the right to decide whether they live or die:whack: