John Stossel is ABC News' Co-Anchor of "20/20" and New York Times best-selling author of Give Me A Break & Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity. His "Give Me a Break" commentaries take a skeptical look at a wide array of issues, such as education, the economy, parenting, and more.
RECENT POSTS
JOHN STOSSEL'S CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Classic Video: “Take No Pets”
08/28/2009 10:05 AM
This weekend marks four years since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. In addition to the human suffering, thousands of pets were separated from their owners.
Most people rescued by police were not allowed to take their pets with them. Rescuers were instructed: “Take no pets.” Citing health and safety reasons, pets were forbidden in shelters run by many state and local governments and the American Red Cross.
But as usual, government’s pursuit of perfect safety had unintended consequences.
Many people refused to evacuate their homes if they could not take their dogs, cats and birds.
In the storm's aftermath, pets were everywhere, running loose, tied to porches, stranded in trees and on top of roofs, where owners left them in the hope that they'd be protected from the rising water.
In this week’s Classic video, I look back at the people, some heroic, who stepped up to save stranded pets. The ASPCA and other groups say they rescued about 15,000 pets. It's estimated that about 40,000 animals were lost.
As some Gulf Coast residents were reunited with their pets months later, we were there to videotape that. And we met other big-hearted folks who opened their homes to the animals by adopting them from shelters.
August 28, 2009 in Events, Stossel Classics | Permalink | Share | User Comments (10)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
In this case, I actually agree with the gov't. For many people pets are a part of their family, but too often people place their pets on par with other human beings. In an emergency, human lives should be the primary concern and pets secondary or teritary (with the exception of seeing eye dogs for the blind). Animals will revert to their natural instict of survival.
Imagine the added effort and time spent if rescue boats were filled up with pets when that space could've been used for people. This isn't Noah and the Ark folk!
To those who chose their pets over their safety, you get what you asked for.
This will probably be an unpopular comment, so let the bashing of patriceL commence.
Posted by: patriceL | Aug 28, 2009 11:34:09 AM
Great reminder of the power of the human-animal bond. The AVMA Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams are working hard to ensure that pets will not be overlooked during the next disaster.
Veterinarian
Posted by: Cody | Aug 28, 2009 11:35:13 AM
patriceL,
I'm not just going to bash you here. I guess though that my main problem with what you said isn't whether or not pets are as important as people (in my opinion, no.), but whether their owners should have the choice to put them on par. The government's program was based more on trying to save face than actually help people, so they left pet-lovers to die in the city because they wanted Fluffy to come with.
As John pointed out, it's a problem of unintended consequences: people stranded, diseased pets roaming the city, etc.
This is why it wasn't really the government's job to do anything - charities were much more effective there.
Posted by: Pete | Aug 28, 2009 2:08:48 PM
Great video John. You can tell a lot about a society by the way it treats its animals.
Posted by: MWG | Aug 28, 2009 2:48:24 PM
Pete,
You make a reasonable arguement for which I partially agree. The answer is that ther'e no easy answer. In a state of emergency (especially when the state is so ill prepared), tough decisions have to be made. Yes, there's a place for charities, but immediately following an emergency they may not be mobilized -- in this case neither was the gov't.
A person can and should choose to put Fido on par with another human being, but don't expect those trying to save lives to waste time on Fido and a stubborn owner over others desparate for any help.
Posted by: patriceL | Aug 28, 2009 3:02:59 PM
Charity at it's best.
Posted by: Joe | Aug 28, 2009 3:52:06 PM
Though I would tend to agree with you patriceL, in this case I think it was more a question of not wanting animals at the shelters and not who/what to save.
Posted by: MWG | Aug 28, 2009 5:04:46 PM
As in all matters these days, the solution to the animal rescue problem is libertarian privatization. Get government out of the rescue business because government can't do anything right!!
Through the miracle of free markets, "take no pets" would naturally evolve under privatization into "take your pets for an appropriate fee".
When presented with a pet rescue fee as the stranded humans were about to board the rescue choppers, the victims themselves could quickly decide if Kitty/Rover was worth the cost of rescue or if they should toss them back in the floodwaters to drown instead.
Free market price discovery!!
As Blackwater USA put their armed troops into NO before Uncle Sam got his act together there, private rescuers are also better equipped to handle rescue duties.
I'm surprised Stossell hasn't already jumped all over this. Charity is for fools. Profitability is all-American.
Posted by: al | Aug 28, 2009 6:25:58 PM
"As in all matters these days, the solution to the animal rescue problem is libertarian privatization."
-ai
Are you serious? Do names... GM or AIG mean anything to you?
You post is totally disconnected from the video... and from reality for that matter.
Posted by: MWG | Aug 28, 2009 6:30:37 PM
"Charity is for fools. Profitability is all-American."
Posted by: al | Aug 28, 2009 6:25:58 PM
John Stossel has consistently praised and supported charity. The fact that you can't tell the difference between charity and government is a sign of your ignorance.
Posted by: JohnJ | Aug 30, 2009 7:18:28 PM
Post a comment
