Disaster Discussion

[Karen]

I may be old fashioned, but no one is going to force me out of my home, even with a mandatory evacuation.
So many people refuse to leave because of possible looting, or having to leave their pets behind, and I would fall into the same class as these people. Fortunately in New Orleans, they now welcome pets to shelters to entice people to leave, whereas when Katrina hit, this wasn't an option available to them.

I really don't know if people who have to be rescued should have to be responsible for some sort of payment. Most people probably wouldn't have the means to pay anyway, so it might be easier to get blood out of a turnip!

So if, for example, flood waters began to rise and your home and belongings were in danger, you wouldn't expect to be rescued?

[pomtzu]

So if, for example, flood waters began to rise and your home and belongings were in danger, you wouldn't expect to be rescued?

Where I live, the whole state would already be under water, if it was rising at my house!

Seriously tho - no - I wouldn't "expect" to be rescued. I made the decision to stay in the first place, and I would have to suffer the consequences. Of course, I would hope that someone would rescue me and my family and all the pets in the house.

[Karen]

Where I live, the whole state would already be under water, if it was rising at my house!

Seriously tho - no - I wouldn't "expect" to be rescued. I made the decision to stay in the first place, and I would have to suffer the consequences. Of course, I would hope that someone would rescue me and my family and all the pets in the house.

In the flood example, you might be safe, but what about fire, etc? That can happen anywhere, though those of us in the damper areas have less to worry about!

[Lady's Human]

The issue with rescue isn't the bill.

The issue is the poor National Guardsman or police officer who has to put his/her life on the line to save people who disregarded the evac order.

Bad enough for them to have to put up will the ill tempers people have during mandatory evacuations, but to have to go back in to a disaster area to rescue those who wouldn't leave despite orders is a touch too much to ask.

[pomtzu]

In the flood example, you might be safe, but what about fire, etc? That can happen anywhere, though those of us in the damper areas have less to worry about!

Fire is a different story. I'd be outta there so fast that I'd be starting my own fires from my wheels spinning. I'd toss in the car whatever of value that I had time to gather, get the pups, and head for wetter ground!~~~~~and wait and pray that I have a house to go back to when the smoke clears. I am absolutely petrified of fire!

People that stand their ground and refuse to leave in a fire situation, have little to no chance of being rescued.

[mon]

This is a wierd sorta topic.Very hard call. At the end of the day, everyone will have to take responsibility for the choices they make. We all do. Dead or alive for not evacuating, rescue workers risking their lives to help the folks and stranded animals. Face it, not a very safe place to live but i'm not sure if I was born there it would be easy to go. Not sayin' I'm just sayin'.

[mon]

My cousin is a fire chief in Richmond, ready to risk his life for others everyday. Hate to see him lose his life cuz someone was too silly to go to safety when they had good time and warning to do so.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Happens here in SoCal all the time. Wild fires and people don't want to leave. I understand how they feel but agree -- if they have to be rescued - it should be their expense.