How screwed up is this?

Question

I read an article about people in New Orleans who HAD to leave their pets behind in order to evacuate (the places they were going wouldn't allow pets.) Some of the pets were rescued by the Humane Society and adopted by other families. Now residents from New Orleans are returning home to rebuild their lives, and have found their pets on the internet and contacted the new owners, and the new owners are REFUSING to return them? How selfish and rude...! I'm appalled

those of you who disagree, i think you are rude.

You don't even understand what it is like to be in a natural disaster so large so you really have no right to judge these people and say it was wrong to leave their animals behind in order to save their own families. And what took them so long? Well maybe because its taken almost a year for that area to be even slightly liveable, and people are trying their best to rebuild their lives so yeah maybe their pets werent the first thing on their mind because they were probably worrying about minimal stuff like "IS MY FAMILY ALIVE?"

Answer 1

Its not only rude but selfish, uncaring, inhumane (shall I go on?)

Answer 2

I've read stories about this. In most of the stories I read, the new owners thought that the old owner's actions of leaving the animals behind constituted abuse. Yes, I KNOW that people were told in order to be rescued they had to leave their pets, but there were a lot of people who chose to stay behind with their pets, and some died, some did not. They had plenty of time to evacuate before it got to that point. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but that's the situation that I've seen, and I'm big into any animal issue. Luckily, we've just recently passed legislation that won't make people choose between life and their pets anymore.

Nimopiba - the animals haven't been stolen - they were rescued after their owners decided to be rescued without them (the pets). If left, the pets would have died. There was no 'stealing' involved.

Answer 3

The story doesn't hold water. Why would the new owners have their pets on the Internet? If they remained on the Humane Society web site, why would the Humane Society even contact the new owner? When you adopt an animal you agree to care for it for life. If the story is true, I think the new owners are doing the right thing. Katrina was a year ago - why didn't the former owners find their pets sooner?

Answer 4

Yeah i agree with you. First i don't think they should have been made to leave their pets to start with. And two the human society should have put their pets in a special place so that when they did return they could have gotten their pets back. But seeing as how they didn't the ppl that have their pets now should think about the fact that a lot of ppl have their pets for many years and grow very attached to their pets and should have a little more respect for those ppl and give them their pets back especially if they go through the trouble of hunting them down and calling them to ask about them that to me shows that the person really loved the pet and they deserve to have them back

Answer 5

It is called ABANDONED PETS, regardless of the circumstances. I agree it is rude, crude, and a bunch of other things. The pet owners may have a case if they go to court in front of a sympathetic judge, but would it be worth it? I would have thought the caveot would have been a signed acknowledgement with the Humane Society and the new owners that if the rightful, previous owners had sufficient documentation, they would be entitled to their pets back after re-imbursement for any costs. Kind of like foster pet owners. Maybe now is a good time for the Humane Society to establish one if there is not one, for national emergencies.
There may be a case against the Humain Society for allowing this to happen too.
Otherwise allow the sleeping dogs to lie.
...jj

Answer 6

The people in New Orleans as well as other states involved in Hurricane Katrina had PLENTY of warning that this was going to be a bad one. They should have had the sense to make arrangements ahead of time for themselves, their children and their pets.
If they're returning home to rebuild their lives, how much time and attention can they give to a pet?
The new owners are exactly that THE NEW OWNERS.

Answer 7

That is confusing....why would the current caretakers have put the pets on the internet to find the owners if they did not intend to return them? Maybe someone wanted some sort of documentation that the owners were really who they claimed to be. I can imagine this happening if they had more than one claimant.

Answer 8

It would be great if with adequate proof that maybe very tuff to produce, (thinking to what happened to family photos or videos is creepy ) pet were returned. But using one bible story on wisdom folks should be glad their pets are alive and have dry place to live. Hope when everything gets back to normal another pet will makeup for their loss.

Answer 9

something I don't understand is if they've been adopted why their picture still showing on the Internet? plus isn't it a little too late to ask for your pet back? What did take them almost one year? Think about how their new owners would feel after taking a pet to their homes and bonded with him and your children bonded with him and took care of him and paid for her expanses and loved her and now someone wants him back.

Answer 10

I think it was stupid not to allow them to take their pets in the first place. Anyone who adopted a stolen dog is wrong and should return it to the rightful owner.

Answer 11

I couldn't agree with you more, it is very rude. those people have been through a lot and at least when they return home they should be given there pets without any if ands or buts.