Using government resources to save animals?

[general_kill]

So watched this video of a county fire department saving a moose stuck in a lake after it broke through the surface ice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNG7_aAhyY4&NR=1

My initial reaction was "aw, that's nice." But then I started thinking about it and I wonder if it is responsible to use tax payer money to save ordinary animals. I mean, aside from the cost of getting the moose out, there was also the risk that a major fire broke out somewhere in the county where quick response time was critical. And it wasn't like we were responsible for the moose in the lake, so maybe we should have let natural selection take its course.

Then I saw this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SNheub9Ne0&feature=channel

Basically, a cow was being airlifted when nature called. It pooped directly on a hiker. The impact paralyzed the hiker.

So the question is, should we use tax payer money to save animals? And where do we draw the line? Should we save cats and dogs? How about snakes and lizards? What about wild life like in the case of the moose?

 

[potatokiosk]

I would prefer using taxpayer money to extract the moose, kill it, and feed it to homeless people. People benefit while not interfering with natural selection in nature.

 

[general_kill]

I would prefer using taxpayer money to extract the moose, kill it, and feed it to homeless people. People benefit while not interfering with natural selection in nature.

You need to work in the government with ideas like that!

 

[Shekwan]

If it was an American moose then its ok.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I mean, aside from the cost of getting the moose out, there was also the risk that a major fire broke out somewhere in the county where quick response time was critical. And it wasn't like we were responsible for the moose in the lake, so maybe we should have let natural selection take its course.

I'm sure they would have abandoned the moose if something more pressing came up. But if nothing else, it was a good training exercise in rescuing large mammals from frozen lakes. And who knows where the next emergency might be. They may actually be closer to the incident and have better response time than a unit dispatched from the station.

Basically, a cow was being airlifted when nature called. It pooped directly on a hiker. The impact paralyzed the hiker.

I was expecting a video of the incident, but all I got was this quote:

Some people have the worst luck.

So the question is, should we use tax payer money to save animals? And where do we draw the line? Should we save cats and dogs? How about snakes and lizards? What about wild life like in the case of the moose?

The general rule of thumb should probably be how many hits the Youtube video will likely generate.

 

[general_kill]

I'm sure they would have abandoned the moose if something more pressing came up. But if nothing else, it was a good training exercise in rescuing large mammals from frozen lakes. And who knows where the next emergency might be. They may actually be closer to the incident and have better response time than a unit dispatched from the station.

Oh, I don't doubt they will abandon the moose. However, the contention I was making was risk. By being at the lake instead of their fire house, there is a risk that they will no have the normal response time. It's very conditional, but a risk nonetheless. They could have done training exercises that were safer for the firemen and county folks alike and not doing it while on duty.

I was expecting a video of the incident, but all I got was this quote:

I think that was a once in a century kind of occurrence. Have we ever heard of people getting paralyzed by flying turd before?

Bababoee bababoee

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh, I don't doubt they will abandon the moose. However, the contention I was making was risk. By being at the lake instead of their fire house, there is a risk that they will no have the normal response time. It's very conditional, but a risk nonetheless. They could have done training exercises that were safer for the firemen and county folks alike and not doing it while on duty.

Once again, you have no idea where the next incident will be. Firemen and other emergency response personnel travel away from their stations all the time without incurring greater 'risk' because they have these things called 'radios' to keep in contact.

What you are doing is what you were just criticized me for in another thread. You are speculating. And it appears you know virtually nothing about what emergency response people do when they aren't responding to calls.

 

[Camikaze]

There is a feel good benefit in it. Just think of it as the government spending money to make everyone happy.

 

[general_kill]

Once again, you have no idea where the next incident will be. Firemen and other emergency response personnel travel away from their stations all the time without incurring greater 'risk' because they have these things called 'radios' to keep in contact.

What you are doing is what you were just criticized me for in another thread. You are speculating. And it appears you know virtually nothing about what emergency response people do when they aren't responding to calls.

Glad to hear you concede the tax money argument.

As for what emergency response people do when they aren't taking calls, I think you need to be a little more specific for me to respond. Are you intentionally broadening the the argument here? Why not just stick to fire fighters since no one mentioned other emergency responders? And what area of the country are we talking about here? Because firefighters behave very differently from county to county. In NYC where I grew up, the city actually hire professional firefighters as full time employees. They have fire houses they stay at when they are on duty. I currently live in a small town in Pennsylvania and whenever the fire fighters are needed, a siren goes off that the whole neighborhood can hear. The volunteer firefighters then travel to the fire house to get ready. I'm not familiar with what they do in more rural areas.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In NYC where I grew up, the city actually hire professional firefighters as full time employees. They have fire houses they stay at when they are on duty..

Not at all times. Or haven't you ever seen a firetruck parked in front of a bodega so the firemen can get a snack?

I currently live in a small town in Pennsylvania and whenever the fire fighters are needed, a siren goes off that the whole neighborhood can hear..

That pretty well blows apart your theory that emergency responders should always be dispatched from a common location, now doesn't it?

 

[general_kill]

That pretty well blows apart your theory that emergency responders should always be dispatched from a common location, now doesn't it?

That's not my theory...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Now you can't even remember what you just wrote?

I mean, aside from the cost of getting the moose out, there was also the risk that a major fire broke out somewhere in the county where quick response time was critical.

Oh, I don't doubt they will abandon the moose. However, the contention I was making was risk. By being at the lake instead of their fire house, there is a risk that they will no have the normal response time. It's very conditional, but a risk nonetheless. They could have done training exercises that were safer for the firemen and county folks alike and not doing it while on duty.

 

[Bast]

So watched this video of a county fire department saving a moose stuck in a lake after it broke through the surface ice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNG7_aAhyY4&NR=1

My initial reaction was "aw, that's nice." But then I started thinking about it and I wonder if it is responsible to use tax payer money to save ordinary animals. I mean, aside from the cost of getting the moose out, there was also the risk that a major fire broke out somewhere in the county where quick response time was critical. And it wasn't like we were responsible for the moose in the lake, so maybe we should have let natural selection take its course.

Then I saw this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SNheub9Ne0&feature=channel

Basically, a cow was being airlifted when nature called. It pooped directly on a hiker. The impact paralyzed the hiker.

So the question is, should we use tax payer money to save animals? And where do we draw the line? Should we save cats and dogs? How about snakes and lizards? What about wild life like in the case of the moose?

It's really pathetic how anthropocentric we've become. Saving a life is saving a life. Doesn't matter what form it comes in. There's an Indian folktale about a lion who thought mice were too small and were useless to him until one day they freed him from hunters by biting on the ropes of that caught him.

 

[general_kill]

Now you can't even remember what you just wrote?

"there was also the risk that a major fire broke out somewhere in the county where quick response time was critical."

"By being at the lake instead of their fire house, there is a risk that they will no have the normal response time."

Both statements are true, thanks for conceding.

It's really pathetic how anthropocentric we've become. Saving a life is saving a life. Doesn't matter what form it comes in. There's an Indian folktale about a lion who thought mice were too small and were useless to him until one day they freed him from hunters by biting on the ropes of that caught him.

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not some kind of environmentally or ecologically insensitive person. In the OP I tried to address this by specifying non-endangered species of animals. Indeed, cows even are domesticated and we depend on them for many things.

The thread was suppose to be a light hearted way of thinking about how far we should be willing to go to protect animals. Because by even existing, we are imposing ourselves on the environment and are disturbing the "natural balance" of things.

 

[amadeus]

Let nature take its course within reasonable limits. If a moose falls off the edge of a cliff, that's the moose's fault. If there's a forest fire and it's headed for a town, that's when there's the necessity to act.

 

[warpus]

Let nature take its course within reasonable limits. If a moose falls off the edge of a cliff, that's the moose's fault. If there's a forest fire and it's headed for a town, that's when there's the necessity to act.

What if it's a cute baby moose?

 

[amadeus]

What if it's a cute baby moose?

If it isn't Bullwinkle, I don't care.

 

[King of Town]

Save any animal in distress, people are starving out there. If it drowns, then we won't get to eat it!

 

[Newbunkle]

Mmm... moose knuckles.

 

[Truronian]

If they've got nothing else to then why not? If the moose is in an urban area I imagine saving it would spare locals the sight of it drowning, rotting then sinking.

It's really pathetic how anthropocentric we've become. Saving a life is saving a life. Doesn't matter what form it comes in. There's an Indian folktale about a lion who thought mice were too small and were useless to him until one day they freed him from hunters by biting on the ropes of that caught him.

Do you use anti-bacterial soap, or walk through forests?