'Haiti's Animals ~ We Hear Their Cries, Help Is Coming'

Even before the earthquake in Haiti, animals there were badly in need of help. The people themselves were so poor that most could not afford to keep pets so there were many stray dogs like the one in the photo below who received little or no food or care. The link below leads to a site that was set up before the disaster to try to help the dogs of Haiti and is now coordinating with other organizations to help Haiti's animals.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiteme/4277585293/



The above photo is excerpted from the following Kinship Circle alert. Is it a photo of a stray Haitian dog, pre-2010 quake. Image taken from the website The Story of Ti-gba

Task forces and troops are assembling worldwide to aid Haiti's human victims. But Kinship Circle followers also want to know about the animals. The breadth of destruction in this disaster has been compared to Katrina. Still, animal repercussions are different.

As many as 5 million farm animals (primarily goats and a lot of chickens!) and native wild animals need help. A mostly homeless dog population, struggling to survive before the earthquake, needs comforting hands. In fact an unknown number of "community" cats and dogs await relief.

There cannot be a dedicated animal presence on the ground until the human crisis is more stabilized. However, Kinship Circle is contributing funding and volunteer support to the coalition right now.

Crisis in Haiti: How the ASPCA is Helping

http://www.aspca.org/news/help-the-animals-of-haiti.html



Members of the ARCH team are currently working to help Haiti's animal population.
Photo Credit: WSPA-IFAW Tomas Stargardter

ARCH was created to address the needs of animals in Haiti in this time of crisis. The coalition is headed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), and in addition to the ASPCA, consists of a number of animal welfare groups including American Humane, Best Friends, the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International.

The ASPCA has joined ARCH with the belief that partnering across organizations is the most effective way to address the serious and enormous problems facing animals in Haiti. There are an estimated 5 million head of livestock in the country (mostly goats), a large stray dog population, and an untold number of companion animals and native wildlife all adversely affected by the earthquake.

This article from over a week ago is the only one I have found on Haiti's Zoo animals and they don't have information on what happened to them so far:

Fate of Haiti's Zoo and Animals Remains Uncertain

http://news.discovery.com/animals/fate-of-haitis-zoo-and-animals-remains-uncertain.html

Fermathe, Haiti, is home to a zoo that one past visitor reported housed monkeys, snakes, alligators and exotic birds, such as peacocks. The nearby hospital in Fermathe is still standing, but doctors, nurses and other staff there are said to be exhausted and struggling to care for the many patients.

Haiti is home to several endangered animals, according to the organization Animal Info. These include the critically endangered Puerto Rican Hutia (Isolobodon portoricensis), the endangered Haitian Solenodon (Solenodon paradoxus) and the "vulnerable" manatee "sea cow" (Trichechus manatus) and Hispaniolan Hutia (Plagiodontia aedium).

The Humane Society has been on the ground in Haiti from early on. This is their latest report which tells a remarkable story of two dogs who survived Hurricane Katrina and now have survived Haiti's Earthquake:

Hurricane Katrina to Haiti: Dogs Survive Two Disasters

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/01/haiti-earthquake.html

..... In talking further with the family, we discovered that they were the victims of two natural disasters, as were the dogs. The couple had lived in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and, when they returned home in the aftermath of the storm, found two dachshund mixes roaming the streets. They were moved to take the dogs in, and named them Bella and Dieter. These are the same two dogs who had to be left behind in Port-au-Prince.

Here’s the remarkable news: Our team has located the dogs. They are in good health and now in our safe keeping, having survived a Category 4 hurricane in 2005 and now a magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 2010. When we told the family that we had located the dogs, they were understandably overjoyed. With the help of our partnering organization, Veterinary Care and Human Services of the Dominican Republic, we’re transporting them to the Dominican Republic today. We intend to reunite them with their family as soon as possible.

It is remarkable that these dogs are on-the-ground survivors of the two biggest disasters in recent years in the western hemisphere. They are living embodiments of the principle that kindness and concerted action do make a real difference in the lives of vulnerable creatures. That’s one reason why we’ll continue to maintain boots on the ground in Haiti and to do all we can to help the animals and people of this stricken nation.

So many groups are now there taking care of the animals, giving them rabies shots and treating their wounds as well as providing them with food and water. It is a daunting task as many are still in hiding according to some people who are there. But the kindness of so many people from all over the world towards both the people of Haiti and its animals is awe-inspiring.

One last story, although this is from before the earthquake. If you find it difficult to read about animals being badly treated or suffering, then don't read this story. However, it does have a happy ending. I just think it is another example of how love and kindness, rather than neglect and cruelty make this world a better place.

This blog The Dogs of Haiti was set up by the blogger after a visit to Haiti in 2003. It is the story of a wounded, stray puppy who would not have survived, but for the kindness of the blogger.

The Story of Ti-gba

When I picked up the puppy she was like a skeleton. She cried and grunted in pain. I set her on the sidewalk, and she collapsed -- she could not support her weight at all. I knew that leaving her would mean slow starvation.

I wondered about Haiti's animals as there was nothing in the news reports about them and I did not see any animals in any of the footage. I am so grateful that these wonderful organizations are there now. I am sure the animals as well as the people, are still very traumatized.

Those two seem to be resilient dogs. If anything ever happened to endanger the entire species, something tells me those two would make for a great starting point to save it. :wow:

I hope they can help animals and people there. I hate to see suffering.

I wonder how they found them? Superdogs! They should make a movie about them ~

There are some people I can think of that it would be easy to feel that way about. But I can't think of a dog I have ever known that I could say that about.

I lost the link but there is a beautiful photo taken by a photographer in Haiti who was trying to take a picture of some children who were very sad. A dog got in front of the camera and looked like he wanted to be in the picture too. In the picture, the children are all smiling. The photographer said they relaxed and smiled as soon as they say the dog.

When people being rescued in NOLA were not allowed to bring their animals with them, many refused to leave them behind.

The resources are not being wasted as those rescuing the animals are veterinarians and people who work mostly with animals.

There's also the fact that dogs will form packs if they are left to fend for themselves and they will bite if they feel frightened and threatened which could lead to more problems, like the spread of rabies. So even if not for any other reason, it is necessary to deal with the animal population for health reasons.

taking up space in haiti, eating & pooping in haiti -

busy rescuing, treating, feeding & watering dogs when 150,000 people have died, hospitals had to wait a week to get basic supplies, & people have gone without food & water for a week.

it's a waste of resources at a critical time.

your preference for dogs over people is beside the point.

problem that will develop after a while as animals become rabid and develop deseases themselves. So, aside from anything else, if those who are trained to deal with animals didn't go to disaster areas, cows, horses, dogs, cats, goats and every other kind of animal would end up dying and that would add to the work those who are there to take care of people, have to do.

It is a very necessary part of the work to be done after a disaster even aside from the bond people have with animals. And in Haiti, for the poor farmers, their animals are their livelihood.

i have relatives in the 3rd world - and animals become food when your kids are starving. only spoiled westerners can't figure out why there are few pets. it's not just because they can't afford pet food and vet care.


this stuff is noble and right, but very naive. sorry.

and their supporters willing to go and justify their position to the specific Haitians whose lives are being traded for the lives of animals?

Because that is exactly what they are doing.

went there to do some good for someone, and you didn't, you have the nerve to cry foul.

are not enough to absolve bad choices.

I think it speaks poorly of someone if they are able to walk by a person in need to instead help an animal.

aid workers for humans and unless aid workers for animals will not in any way impede their actions, then it is not justified in the least.

The core of your argument appears to be that humans come first, with animals a distant second.

No one (especially not the OP) has argued that animals come first. In fact, the secondary nature of animal aid has been stressed by numerous posters on this subject across numerous threads.

I have clearly stated that aid to animals should be given if it is necessary to help humans. And if and when there are enough resources to aid animals, such aid should be given. I'm not quite sure how you've interpreted that as a "distant" second.

All the reports I've seen highlight how difficult it has been to get aid effort to those who need it. If that is true, that means that we are dealing with something close to a zero sum game (i.e., not a false dichotomy). Taking airplane cargo room and transport space for an animal aid effort when there is not enough room for the human effort is insanity, no matter how well-intentioned.

P.S. Did you just take a course in basic logic? That's really the only way that tossing around various fallacy labels is justified. If an argument has a fault, don't hide behind a label.

I haven't seen a single report showing that human aid is in any way diminished, delayed, or nullified by animal aid. Perhaps you're convinced by imperious hand-waving and generalizations in place of facts, but I am not.

And yes, I've taken a few courses in logic, the first of which occurred more than two decades ago. Logical fallacies are convenient labels to use when referring to a common misapplication of logic. When I see a red, pomaceous fruit from the rose family, I'm likely to refer to it simply as an "apple" rather than posting a paragraph describing said fruit. Those who don't know what an apple is or how it's used would be advised to consult reference material.

Because I'm not your mum. :hi:

the human aid effort is struggling (and thus, a fortiori, anything detracting therefrom necessarily hurts it).

But see my post below for an article about the problems with aid.

Because you've not proven that 1) an addition to one column must result in a subtraction from the other column, and 2) every marker (dollar, worker, etc.) available must go in either one column or the other.

Hence, it is indeed a false dichotomy, because the disjunctive premise is fallaciously supported, and you've misunderstood the difference between a contrary and a contradictory proposition.

to understand.

If the needs of humans are not fully met then the allocation of any additional supplies to animals amounts to a denial. Another way of saying that is that allocating to Column 2 necessarily subtracts from Column 1 (though not from the actual value, but from the potential value). Supplies exclusively used by animals are not excepted because everything can be reduced to a common exchange (i.e., money).

...Especially in disaster relief scenarios.

For example:
http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/forklift-fiasco

Again, I think the core of the problem is that you just don't understand the difference between contrary and contradictory propositions. If you did, you wouldn't keep presenting the reality of this complex situation in abstract, black-and-white terms that presuppose an argument (and its underlying disjunctive premise) that you haven't supported.

I've tried to help explain where you're going astray here, but if you one of those people who is simply never, ever wrong, I'm not sure what more I can do.

:shrug:

Good luck either way, and don't forget to keep up those donations to Haitian aid. :hi:

And a zero sum situation is not a false dichotomy. If there is room for only 10 tons of food, using one for food designated for animals means less food designated for humans. In such a situation, providing for one is denying the other.

Now, the article I cited supports the idea that not all 10 tons are needed for humans; therefore, cargo capacity might no longer be zero sum.

IF your analysis of the resource-constraints in Haiti had been factually correct, I would have agreed with you completely: Humans first, animals second.

BUT it wasn't.

THEREFORE, your arguments that draw upon that (faulty) analysis for support don't hold water.

To wit: there is no zero-sum game in this instance, and to propose a zero-sum game is to engage in the fallacy of false dichotomy.

---

Don't get me wrong: I'm quite content to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of each argument all day long. But let's not blur the line between the hypothetical and the factual.

a suffering human being to get to an anaimal? In my experience, people who care about the welfare of animals, generally are the kind of people who care about all living beings.

Some of Haiti's animals are 'companion' animals also. That means people depend on them if eg, they are blind or disabled.

This effort did not start until one week after the tragedy as these are people who fully understand what it takes to deal with disasters. And they waited outside of Haiti and did not use the airport at all.

It isan't a question of 'let's save animals over people' ~ I'm not sure where that came from, but it certainly isn't a fact.

went to an animal. Unless there are enough resources for both, and providing aid to animals in no way hampers the relief effort for humans, then helping animals is ridiculous.

And I stated elsewhere in this thread that aid to animals should be provided to the extent it is necessary to help humans (e.g., disease, "companion" animals).

Given that:
1) It takes between 2500 - 5000 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef, and
2) Many humans do not have access to sufficient clean water to drink, and
3) There is not an unlimited supply of clean water presently available.

Therefore:
I presume you do not eat beef?

resources are limited.

The difference is the level of connection between the act and its consequence. If a human and a dog are right next to each other, almost no one would save the dog and tell the human "tough luck". Allocating disaster resources to animals when they are needed for dying humans is more removed but the principle is the same. And consuming massive amounts of limited resources that causes the slow deaths of people around the world is even more removed...but the principle is the same.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I say it with goodwill:

I think you would really benefit from researching the history, theory, and practice of utilitarian philosophy. Some of the use-based questions you're asking have been beaten to death by utilitarian philosophers, resulting in (IMHO only, of course) a fairly logically consistent approach for how to best employ the resources available in a given scenario to minimize overall suffering.

I think such research would steer and enrich your thinking on this subject--or at least provide you with a good cache of ammo with which to support the dilemma which you have proposed.

:hi:

them to humans.

provide something to back that up? From what I've read, the animal rescue people have also helped people which is usually how it is. Those people in Haiti who have survived have lost so much already, why should they be deprived of their animals also? Why would you want to do that to them?

helping animals are using resources that could (and should) be used to help humans.

Yes, they will take up space, but are helping out. Read the OP "There cannot be a dedicated animal presence on the ground until the human crisis is more stabilized. However, Kinship Circle is contributing funding and volunteer support to the coalition right now."

The horror! :scared:

humans first and foremost.

Also animals are helping to save lives by finding them buried in the rubble.

it's obscene to fly people into a disaster area to take up space & resources saving stray dogs when thousands of people are still waiting to be saved or get basic food, water & sanitation.

who are they saving them for? people don't have houses or food themselves, are they going to fly the dogs to the states?

really obscene.

"There cannot be a dedicated animal presence on the ground until the human crisis is more stabilized"

from the article.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that humans are more worth saving than animals. Humans are just one more kind of animal - and not a very good kind, either.

Other sentient beings are not completely destroying this plant like humans are. Personally, I think humans were just a huge genetic mistake and that we will eventually just destroy ourselves thru out stupidity. The problem is that we will probably take the rest of the planet with us.

But really, suffering is suffering. Doesn't matter what animal form it is.

There are some people the planet would have been better off if they had never been born. When I think of Cheney eg, it tests my principles of 'every life is precious' to the limit. For what they've done, I think if I had to choose between a dog and one of those warmongers, I wouldn't hesitate to save the dog. Another reason why I despise them, because they make me think thoughts like that which I never wanted to.

But most people, as this tragedy has shown, are wonderful, caring human beings.

has been a disaster on this planet.

hello....

say in this humane effort. Go piss on another thread.

Animals should only be cared for in this kind of situation if it directly impacts the well-being of humans.

And, yes, I'm a proud speciesist.

a lot faster than other animals.

But if you insist: "Non-human animals should only be cared for in this kind of situation if it directly impacts the well-being of humans."

I'm sorry, but attitudes like this simply confound my mind. Why does it have to be an "either/or" situation instead of an "all encompassing" rescue effort?

If there are volunteers willing to go there, risk their own safety, and spend their time and energy to help the animals - that's THEIR business, and I applaud their efforts.

The efforts to save the animals does not in any way diminish the efforts to save humans.

We need to stop thinking in such small terms. The goal should be to save anything living that can be saved.

It's a confounding fallacy, isn't it? :shrug:

Some of us manage to walk and chew gum at the same time quite well. :hi:

Every plane that lands with supplies for the animals takes a slot away from a plane with supplies for humans. If the airports and port now have extra capacity that they are not using, then great-- I'm all for using them to get the animals' needs taken care of.

Anything non-hypothetical at all? :shrug:

Example: There are only 10 spaces on a lifeboat (that's the "bottleneck"), and 10 humans on the sinking boat and 1 animal. Because of this situation, helping the animal necessarily hurts a human.

There's no evidence that the animal aid and workers came through a bottlenecked airport and it's extraordinarily unlikely that they did. Just being there helping the animals takes nothing away from the aid going to the humans because the animal aid workers wouldn't be there at all if they couldn't go in to help the animals.

Helping the animals is beneficial to the people to curb disease spread by those animals, to save those animals humans rely on for their livlihood, and to curb attacks by those animals on people.

so this comes as no surprise. Compassion is deserved by ALL living things.

I want to think that's an exaggeration... it just can't be true.

Tell me this is sarcasm, please.

sorry, but humans come first.

Let's not be stepping over starving and injured people to save the dogs.

Once those needs are met, then the process can begin.

Donning flame retardant suit...

And yes I am an animal lover. All of our pets (1 dog, 2 cats and 3 slider turtles are rescues).

that rabies doesn't spread or desease among animals, take away from the rescue effort? Should they leave animals to die and who would then have to devote time to dealing with dead or rabid animals?

Also they waited until they were asked to go. As the article says, they waited for a week before going there.

I am with you...

relief workers to care for humans. And then, any effort must not get in the way of that.

donated and forwarded.

THANK YOU!!!!

How can these people dare to own pets when the resources used to own pets could go towards feeding the hungry in Africa? How dare they have children when there are plenty of orphans waiting to be adopted? How dare they watch television when they could be working at the local soup kitchen?

:eyes:

Hang in there, Sabrina. :thumbsup:

Katrina, that the people of NOLA had no right to own pets either. That decision probably caused unnecessary deaths as many elderly people especially, refused to leave them behind. And it caused a bigger problem later on when so many abandoned animals had to be dealt with, doubling the effort it would have required to just let their owners take them with them in the first place.

I thought that it had been decided after Katrina, that that would not happen again.

In Haiti what little the farmers have to begin with would be destroyed if their farm animals are allowed to die also.

Aside from the fact that leaving any living creature to starve to death is just wrong when there are responsible people willing to help.

You can judge the morality of a nation by the way the society treats its animals.
-Mahatma Gandhi

I will hang in there, and thanks ~ :-)

Here's another post on animal relief efforts in Haiti:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7524871

:hi:

the antipathy towards helping starving and suffering animals. It's a well-known fact that people who care for animals are among the most compassionate when it comes to people.

We've always had animals, some rescues and have also had homeless people living with us at the same time. Why would anything think you can't care about all living beings? It makes no sense at all.

The ones now deleted were even more delightful.

I just don't understand why so many DUers can't differentiate between "exclusively" and "also."

:shrug:

Sad to see responses like that.

compassion for humans either. You either care about ending suffering in the world, or you care about boosting your own ego by trying to justify your selfishness.

Like I mentioned in another thread a while ago, God fucking forbid a handful of folks come in to help the least among us while the massive outpouring of manpower (both military and civilian) and billions of dollars in aid flow in to help the people.

The people deserve the aid. So do the animals. Sometimes DU is nothing more than shameful.

Thank you, sabrina 1 for posting this excellent thread.

Big REC from me!

about -- how terrible it is that animals are being looked after when there are people who are suffering -- would start in 3...2...1... but I see that they beat me to it.

Jesus. It's not a zero-sum game. Help the people, help the animals. They are all sentient beings and deserving of whatever can be done for them; it's not either-or.

DU is just batshit crazy sometimes. Seriesly.

:eyes:

capable of caring for all living creatures.

Not to worry, I have to say I've always found that people who love animals are among the most caring and compassionate to all living beings. And although I've rarely met anyone who doesn't care about them, the few I have met, have not been very nice people. I wouldn't want my life in their hands to be honest.

Thanks for caring about all those who are suffering, animals and people :-)

"Aid delivery better than expected!", "Haitians avert crisis and are now swimming in needed supplies!", etc.

I presume you also think that GLBT folks should just wait their turn until all poverty everywhere is eradicated?

Again, I encourage you to study the False Dichotomy fallacy before you present us with another example of it.

For starters, you're talking about two issues that both relate to humans. Secondly, I don't view that as a zero sum situation. There are plenty of resources for both.

And calling this a false dichotomy does not make it so.

How exactly is it the case that there are unlimited resources to fight both against poverty and for GLBT rights, yet those same persons who would dare to care about both human aid and animal aid in natural disasters are worthy of your contempt? Where do those extra resources magically come from for human causes that are not available for animal aid?

And it's a false dichotomy because you're intentionally (if not disingenuously) avoiding presenting any hard data that proves the paucity of resources in this case, while claiming that the resources are severely limited and thus, hard choices must be made. Again, if you don't understand why "black" and "white" are not the only two options here, I recommend studying the aforementioned fallacy and its application in more detail.

LOL!

And to answer your question: because Haiti is an island with limited access points. Have you failed to see the reports about the problems caused by having only one airstrip? If the disaster relief effort is running smoothly now, I must have missed that report. And if it is, then by all means, help the animals.

Again, you're guessing this, supposing that, "what-if-ing" the other, blah blah blah.

So, do you have any real support for your claims that these animal-aid flights are bumping human-aid flights out of the way? And if so, why would you blame the animal-aid workers rather than those making the decision to bump human-aid flights in their favor?

and are holding off until the situation stabilizes (according to the OP). And here's a snippet from an article about the aid effort:



http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2010/January/27/GH-012710-Haiti.aspx

However, if this article is correct, aid to animals in secure zones is now justified (as the "principal shortage is not food").

that changed, not the validity of my position: humans first, then animals. And calling that a false dichotomy is disingenuous as the choice must often be made. When this disaster first occurred, it would have been insane to send in the animal teams.

But I'm more than willing to acknowledge what warrants acknowledgment. The animal aid folks, having appropriately held of until the situation stabilized, might be able to move into areas that are secure.

Emphasis mine.

in Haiti.

I apologize for that and rescind the comment.

Credibility depends upon admitting mistakes. And if I'm lucky, my doing so will convince you that I simply must be right upthread. After all, I've already shown my willingness to admit defeat. ;)

Most were waiting in the Dominican Republic until they were told when it would be alright for them to come in.

Looking at the faces of the little children who have no joy for so long, when they saw the dog jump in front of the camera to have his photo taken with them, demonstrates the way animals can and do help people when there isn't much else that can feel happy about. Hospitals go out of their way to bring animals in to help people who are sick and disabled.

I'm sorry, but these animal rescuers have taken the utmost care NOT to disrupt the efforts to save human lives and in every way they have done nothing but add to the effort to help those people.

You might have a point regarding taking up space at the airport if you were to ask, how much time was wasted bringing in a military force of 16,000 troops, only 3,000 of which were actually engaged in rescue efforts while the rest remained at the airport, according to reports, along with supplies that still had not been delivered over one week after they got there. Maybe they should asked the animal rescue people to help them deliver those supplies. There's no reason why they couldn't do that as well as take care of animals.

Edited to add, I was too late to Rec the thread but I did donate!

In memory of my wonderful hearing/signal assistance dog named Shane whom meant the world to me.

I've been reading Near Death Experience stories. Many of them got a message that helping animals is important, too. They are very much loved by the Universe and by helping them, we gain good Karma, too. Yes, animals!

I now have two dogs and three cats. One of my dogs is being trained to be my next service dog. :loveya: Another one of my dog won't make it to be my next service dog because he loves to chase after critters, but I am keeping him as he's a rescue. A very loving dog and he stays close to my mother with dementia (I am her caretaker).

I paid ASPCA via paypal.

Too late for me to Rec. so here's another kick!

There is more noble animal than those dogs who act as companions to the people who need them. I am sorry you lost your wonderful friend but happy you have found another ~ :-)

I sure don't see it. :shrug:

but many like that superior, holy feeling they get from typing bullshit.

Less worthy of help than dogs.


Racism runs very deep in this country. Yet many are blind to it.

If you can provide a link to that claim in the OP--as well as support for your claims of racism--I'll happily add my voice in condemning it.

Presuming, of course, that you're not simply making shit up. :hi:

Some folks here can't think logically like that.

But who knows? Every so often, when confronted with the logical inconsistencies of their own words, people change.

I figure it's worth trying a few times per DUer, at least. :D

Rescuing animals is clear proof of that.

Jesus H. Christ... :eyes:

always get people who think that is terrible. That it is a terrible waste of precious resources.

Fortunately, there are people who go in for the people. And others who can go in for the animals.

They all need help.

"BOUQUETS, Haiti — Not long after 14-year-old Daphne Joseph escaped her collapsed house on the day of the earthquake, she boarded a crowded jitney with her uncle and crawled in traffic toward the capital, where her single mother sold beauty products in the Tête Boeuf marketplace. “Mama,” she said she repeated to herself. “Mama, I’m coming.”

Abandoning the slow-moving jitney, Daphne, petite and delicate, got separated from her uncle and jumped onto a motorcycle-for-hire. She arrived alone at a marketplace in ruins and ran, in her dusty purple sandals, toward a pile of debris laced with “broken people,” she said.

Growing closer, she saw her mother, lifeless. She froze, she said, eventually watching as her mother’s body was dumped in a wheelbarrow and her only parent vanished into the chaos.

“I wanted to kill myself,” Daphne said in a whisper.

Haiti’s children, 45 percent of the population, are among the most disoriented and vulnerable of the survivors of the earthquake. By the many tens of thousands, they have lost their parents, their homes, their schools and their bearings. They have sustained head injuries and undergone amputations. They have slept on the street, foraged for food and suffered nightmares.

Two weeks after the earthquake, with the smell of death still fouling the air, children can be seen in every devastated corner resiliently kicking soccer balls, flying handmade kites, singing pop songs and ferreting out textbooks from the rubble of their schools. But as Haitian and international groups begin tending to the neediest among them, many children are clearly traumatized and at risk.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/americas/27children.html?ref=todayspaper

Even if you don't care about the dogs, it's important to secure animals that are key to Haitian livelihoods. And pardon me for being grim, but stray dogs and cats living on eating injured humans and dead people is a real possibility. I'd rather not see that happening and it would be a waste of energy and time for rescue workers to have to also perform animal control. This is actually really pragmatic.