PDA

View Full Version : A Cruel Method of Dealing with Katrina's Pets



Horizon
14-10-05, 02:10
I came across this in another forum and I thought I'd share it. I thought it would make sense to be in here, but, if not, I'm so sorry! :sorry: :relief:

Here's the background story:


As the water rose, people forced to evacute without their animal companions, placed them in a temporary evacution shelter at the Beauregard Middle School in St. Bernard Parish, New Orleans. Heart-wrenching notes scrawled on the walls with their contact information were left in an effort to have their pets reunited with them.

In spite of this, upon returning home to their pets, they found them slaughtered, shot in the body cavity to ensure a slow, agonizing, and cruel death. These pets were forced to suffer a prolonged death. Some of these pets were service companions. The families lost everything including their pets.

The source. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/434180433?ltl=1128434242)

And here is another link (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hungsolo/36181.html). However, do NOT go in there unless you have a strong stomach. It contains images of mutilated, rottening dog corpses.


Those poor puppies...Having to die in such a cruel, cruel, unnecessary way...:bawling:

Kinsao
14-10-05, 10:22
That's awful. :o Why did they kill them? I mean, if the animals were going to die because of something to do with the hurricane (drowning, pollution in the water, etc.) I could understand why they might make the decision to put them down instead... but in that case I would have assumed they would do it humanely... after all, it's a place where people left their pets to be looked after... I would have thought the people staffing it would either have been chosen or volunteered because they were fond of animals... :? However, from what you say it sounds like the pets would have been perfectly fine...

I haven't thrown up yet today, but I don't think I'll visit your second link until I'm feeling a little better. :sick:

Mike Cash
14-10-05, 11:22
Do you have other sources? Just going by the ones you posted, I can see no evidence of pets that were cruelly gut-shot.

Horizon
14-10-05, 12:24
Did you not look at the pictures? I would have thought that would have been enough...

Here are other sources though:

An Animal Rescue Alert Site: http://katrinahelp.info/wiki/index.php/Animal_Rescue_Alerts_09-30-2005#Pet_shooting_story_on_CNN_17:10

A news site: http://www.wwltv.com/local/stbernard/stories/WWL100105shotdogs.af4b7d94.html

Another newsite: http://www.nola.com/newsflash/weather/index.ssf?/base/news-20/1128124443187573.xml&storylist=hurricane

And another one: http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/5723_comment.php

CC1
14-10-05, 12:33
Just the work of idiots with no morals and no concience! Unforturnately this type of behavior is not uncommon in the South...especially (parts of) LA. When I saw your first post I must not have read it very well because I thought that you were implying that this was done by people expected to watch over the pets. Now it is more clear that this is just the work of vandals!

Horizon
14-10-05, 12:41
Sorry for the misleading title! :sorry: I had absolutely NO idea what to call it... :relief:

And if it was done by their care-takers, that would be even worse. :(

Mike Cash
14-10-05, 13:47
Did you not look at the pictures? I would have thought that would have been enough...

They're enough to be gut-wrenchingly sickening....but not enough to indicate gruel gut-shooting of animals. For one thing, the very first dead dog picture you linked to showed a bloated animal. Bloating comes from gases arising from the putrefaction process building up inside body cavities with no escape route. A gut-shot dog wouldn't bloat like that.

The first additional link adds nothing, only asks people to watch a report on CNN.

The second and third are the same identical articles on two different sites. The article indicates that it wasn't clear how many of the dead dogs were shot and how many starved to death. It also says that some were found alive, which raises questions.

The fourth link is from a blogger named "pooter" and contains details at variance with the news article, giving no indication if pooter was in possession of subsequent additional information which came to light after the news article(s) you linked to or if pooter was passing on information which may or may not have become exaggerated.

Horizon
14-10-05, 22:09
They're enough to be gut-wrenchingly sickening....but not enough to indicate gruel gut-shooting of animals. For one thing, the very first dead dog picture you linked to showed a bloated animal. Bloating comes from gases arising from the putrefaction process building up inside body cavities with no escape route. A gut-shot dog wouldn't bloat like that.

It could have been an over-weight dog. That's what it looked like to me.


The second and third are the same identical articles on two different sites. The article indicates that it wasn't clear how many of the dead dogs were shot and how many starved to death. It also says that some were found alive, which raises questions.

And the people who did it might have either gotten bored with it or may not have found the others for some reason or another.


And why would an animal rescue site have unreliable, possibly untrue stories about it? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me...:?

Mike Cash
15-10-05, 11:37
Why would the media in general put forth unreliable reports which later proved to be exaggerations or falsehoods on so many other aspects of the disaster? And why should one be less circumspect of other subsequent stories?

I see only a single source for the story (the article you pointed out) and a summation of the story on the animal rescue site. While the animal rescue site may very well indeed have more accurate and up-to-date information than the news story, there is no way to tell just by looking at the blog entry. The information may be better...or it may have suffered the inflation common from stories that are passed hand to hand. Surely you must have played the children's game known as "telegraph" or "telephone" at some point in your life.

I don't deny the story is true. I lack the information to refute it. But I do think it is well to be skeptical when information is skimpy, incomplete, vague, and single-sourced.

I also don't understand the point of the petition. Why should it be the business of Congress to hold investigations/hearings over a handful of dogs being shot?

Horizon
15-10-05, 12:05
I see. You're right. I'm sorry. :sorry: :bluush:

Mike Cash
15-10-05, 13:19
I hope I haven't come across as a heartless b*tthole to you, Horizon. I just think it is a good idea to be a little leery of sensational stories in general and those propagated via the internet in particular. There's always still time for righteous indignation and outrage over atrocious things after asking questions and having doubts removed. As bad as the feelings stories like these generate are, they're all that much worse if you find out later some sicko on the internet has played you for a chump.

Let's engage in a little news hunting and see what else we can come up with:

Here's a story from a different source than the Associated Press wire story, and which corroborates it:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/100105/new_deadpets001.shtml

Here's a blog entry which, assuming it is accurate and talking about the same story, sheds much light on it:
http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/katrina05/view?PostID=6722

I wonder why none of the news accounts pointed out that 5 of the dogs were pit bulls, 3 of which were full-grown and one almost so. The 5 month old puppy, presumably less vicious/dangerous than the adult dogs, was moved into a separate room and not slain.

Without addressing the issue of the other dogs, let's imagine the situation the county deputies were in (assuming it actually was they who shot the pit bulls)....

Imagine that at the time of the discovery (remember, the dogs had been dead for an estimated two weeks ) the deputies were unable to remove the dogs themselves or to arrange for their removal. The dogs are in a building in which humans might seek refuge (as the stories seem to indicate they did indeed do). What are their options under the circumstances?

1. Leave ravenously hungry dogs of a breed infamous for nasty tempers and ruthless attacks in place, where people might wander in on them and be attacked.
2. Kill the dogs to prevent possible maiming or killing of humans.

Can you imagine the outcry and public relations sh*tstorm that would result if they had chosen the first option and someone had been mauled or killed and it became known that the deputies could have prevented it?

Horizon
15-10-05, 15:33
You didn't seem like that to me at all. In fact, you made good points and all.

As for the pit bull things, so just because the pit bulls were potentially dangerous, they had to be murdered and left to rot? I see people who are DEFINATELY dangerous and I don't hear about the same thing happening to them.

And, besides, there were PUPPIES! They locked puppies away from their mother and let them starve! I can, grudgingly, understand the adult male put bull having been shot, just like their owner had said, but puppies? That doesn't make any sense! How could they hurt anyone?

What they should have bloody well done is locked them in a room and made sure people didn't get in there.


A nitpick note: there's no such thing as a purebred pit bull...

Wynne
17-11-05, 12:27
Here is further information regarding that story. Two cats were also shot. In their cages. With their owner names on the cages. These were people's pets. Two cats in cages are not vicious. These animals were waiting for their owners to come back. All 33 necropsies have been completed and the Attorney General's office is conducting investigations regarding the cruelty case. These animals were mostly gut shot. That is a horrible way to die. They were not shot in the head nor in the heart. Gut shot. Tied up! With Collars on! With family notes on the cages!

If you have a weak stomach, do not look at the photos. It made me sick and mad!
http://http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cometsmommy/my_photos (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cometsmommy/my_photos)
http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/NEWS/DOGSHOOTING/REWARD.htm

THIS: is NOT a vicious animal shot because it was starving.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cometsmommy/detail?.dir=750a&.dnm=d4d7.jpg&.src=ph

Carlson
17-11-05, 12:46
well to me its not atleast they gave it a shot(sorry really no pun intended)

i will admit that it may of been poor judgement in some cases but what other humane ways would of been best at a time like that? a bullet to the head for each animal would of been quite a task... missing and not very accurate... im guessing someone was doing what they thought was right but turned out to be a bad idea by many.

Wynne
17-11-05, 14:57
...but what other humane ways would of been best at a time like that?...
Not killing them at all, as they were sheltered, they had food, they had water, and they were simply waiting for their owners to return. That's all. Senseless slaughter is what it was. Those animals were tied up. Not hard to get up close at all...poodles and cocker spaniels dangerous? I think not.

Winter
20-11-05, 11:21
And, besides, there were PUPPIES!

This is the entire arguement here;they were puppies. Cute, cuddly, furry, puppies.

Mikawa Ossan
24-11-05, 12:14
On a happier note, check this out. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024997