Slate: OMG NEVER SAVE WILD ANIMALS LET THEM BURN IN FIRES!!!!!!

Never go Full Slate

Wild Animals Do Not Need to Be Saved From Fires

Have you seen the viral video of the man who reportedly pulled onto the side of Highway 1, near La Conchita, California, to save a rabbit from the devastating Thomas fire?

In these dark times, I understand the tendency to turn to cute animals and stories of acts of kindness for pick-me-ups. But trying to save wild animals from a fire is a stupid thing to do. We should not reward this behavior, and we should not encourage others to do the same.

No worries, Torie Bosch keeps bringing the cray cray

We don’t know what happened to this man before or after his rabbit rescue. He may have been in shock, or he may have been traumatized. I certainly have no idea how I would react if I were within spitting distance of a wildfire and spotted a cute animal. (OK, I have a small idea: I probably would not have tried to save it, because I harbor an intense fear that I will forget to stop, drop, and roll if the need ever actually arises.) Either way, I don’t blame the man in the video.

But it is irresponsible to spread this video widely and cast him as a hero. If he had caught fire, wouldn’t the bystanders or people in cars passing by have had to help him? Doing so would have put them at risk, too. Several people could have ended up injured or worse because he tried to save a (wild!) rabbit. Or what if no one felt safe enough to help, and he was severely burned or died as a result? The people who were nearby would have likely felt tremendous guilt, possibly for the rest of their lives. Either way, it could have required response from emergency services that are already stretched thin.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

27 Responses to “Slate: OMG NEVER SAVE WILD ANIMALS LET THEM BURN IN FIRES!!!!!!”

  1. Jeffery says:

    We agree on something. Don’t attempt to save wild animals from forest or brush fires.

    • Probably be a bad idea if you tried to save a cougar or coyote or bear. But, come on, a bunny?

    • Dana says:

      Is it any surprise that someone who supports the killing of unborn children thinks we ought to leave animals to die as well, even if they can be rescued?

      Human beings put their lives or health in jeopardy all the time to rescue others, both people and animals, from life-threatening situations. Courage is doing the right thing even when you are scared to death, and the guy who rescued the rabbit had to be terrified, but he did it anyway.

      Other than some mother animals protecting their young, humans are the only species we know which can choose to overcome the instinct for self-preservation to help someone, or something, else. This is part of what makes us human.

  2. JGlanton says:

    The world is made a better place by one small act of kindness at a time. It is not made better by scolds behind keyboards with no heart who feel the need to tell everyone else how to act, or more often how not to act. They don’t get that acts and good hearts count.

    I just drove an hour and forty five minutes to leave fresh baked cookies and coffee that I roasted today on the doorstep of a friend who had surgery today. A know-it-all scold would tell me that she shouldn’t eat cookies and drink coffee after surgery. That’s not even the point. The point is for her to arrive home from the hospital and find that somebody cares. It’s good to know that there are people in the world with the courage and love to save animals from danger. It many not always work out, but those same people would try to save us if we were in mortal danger. The person who wrote that article would be more likely to keep walking by. They’re the other type of person that shows up on viral internet videos. The ones who walk by while someone is being attacked or dying on the street.

  3. Jl says:

    Still searching for how this would be anyone else’s business but the man doing the rescuing.

  4. Jeffery says:

    It’s diagnostic of right-wing authoritarian snowflakes to be driven by emotion and feelings rather than reason and logic. You would risk human lives to rescue a rabbit? Yet you support policies that kill and eliminate the habitats of millions of birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. You support policies that contribute to global warming.

    One death is a catastrophe, the death of a hundred thousand, that’s a statistic. – Tucholsky

    How many millions of animals are killed by these raging fires? How many by the floods in FL and TX?

    Regarding abortion, right-wing authoritarians have no interest in reducing the circumstances that contribute to abortions, preferring to control women’s behaviors. Why not support public education, access to birth control, policies to reduce poverty?

    That’s right. You’re controlled by your emotions and feelings.

    • Fargo says:

      Regarding abortion, right-wing authoritarians have no interest in reducing the circumstances that contribute to abortions, preferring to control women’s behaviors. Why not support public education, access to birth control, policies to reduce poverty?

      Once again if one assumes your opening premise of right-wing authoritarian interests then your words might have merit. They do not.

      The right has no interest in controlling women and anyone who believes that is not using logic and reason. Why would the right want leftist women cranking out babies who will just grow up to vote for more democrats? Where is the win in that for reasonable and logical right-wingers?

      The facts are there is no reasonable assumption that the right is interested in controlling women by denying abortions, birth control or to prevent poverty.

      Poverty is something used almost exclusively by the left to control those very women who continue to live in ghettos and crank out more democrats.

      How do you possibly make the leap that morally abortion is wrong to it is an authoritarian right-wing conspiracy to allow millions of ghettos babies grow to vote for democrats. There is no logical assertion that the right is interested in poverty or a massive welfare state driven by uncontrolled births.

      In fact the right is much more interested in controlling birth rates thru education and the access to condoms thus preventing the locical and reasonable assumption that any births born to poor women in ghettos will lead to more democrats voting against the interests of right-wingers.

      Here you just babble false statements steeped in half truths. For you the beginning logic of helping women and poverty is government handouts. If that is so then of course it would appear that right-wingers are moved by emotion and feelings.

      That however is not true at all. The right believes in delivering to the poor education and jobs so that they can grow to be productive citizens. This is not an emotional response but rather a reasonable and logical response to a situation created by a calculating left who uses this base of voters for their own agenda which has no desire to help them unless it is handing out more welfare to keep them enslaved to their slave masters the leftists Democrats of this country.

      • Jeffery says:

        The right has no interest in controlling women

        Thanks for supporting my point.

        So why DOES the right encourage young, low income, poorly educated, Christian, often abused women to birth babies, even when, as you described it doesn’t serve by reason and logic, your long term interests? What emotional need is satisfied by forcing these women to have babies?

        And you discourage access to birth control. You discourage education. You discourage protections against sexual assault. There’s a reason that abortions decrease during Democratic control. By reason and logic you should support whatever the Dems are doing because it works.

        • Fargo says:

          So why DOES the right encourage young, low income, poorly educated, Christian, often abused women to birth babies,

          So by your calculation low income, poorly educated, Christian women should not give birth?

          Once again who is the authoritarian here. Perhaps you would like it in China where up until very recently you were only allowed to birth one baby per family.

          Anyone who demands the people comply with certain set of values is most likely authoritarian. Now the right and Christians do not force people to not have abortions. The left however in fact forces women to have abortions by setting up clinics, having them come to government paid for clinics and then talking them into having abortions.

          I challenge you to show me which organization or clinic set up by the right is involved in chaining a woman to her bed until such time as she gives birth? Yet by the same set of standards the left convinces this woman to abort the child and then sends her on her way with a couple condoms and 10 minutes of counseling.

          Don’t speak about the right being authoritarian. It is without a doubt leftist dictators around the world who set themselves up as authoritarians and not as benevolent benefactors.

          The right challenges abortion. But Abortion is legal in this country. The left simply challenges the rights challenge with no solutions of their own other than more money and more welfare and more Obamacare so that these women can have abortion after abortion after abortion.

          Somewhere in life one has to stand up and be held accountable. If you do not like that fact, take it up with your shrink, not with a political group that is not responsible for this womans plight half as much as is the left who thrives on keeping people in abject poverty so they keep voting for democrats so their welfare doesn’t dry up.

        • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

          “So why DOES the right encourage young, low income, poorly educated, Christian, often abused women to birth babies, even when, as you described it doesn’t serve by reason and logic, your long term interests? What emotional need is satisfied by forcing these women to have babies?”

          So force a woman to have a baby = not on board to front the cost for a $6k abortion? Racist, bigoted, and stupid, don’t ever change Jeffey.

    • Dana says:

      No, the man who rescued the rabbit chose, personally, to do so; nobody else forced him to do so. I hope that I’d have the courage to do what he did, if I were ever in that situation, but I haven’t been so tested.

      How many millions of animals are killed by these raging fires? How many by the floods in FL and TX?

      So, now one act of kindness is minimized, even ridiculed, because we couldn’t save all animals from a catastrophe?

      And, of course, the vast majority of conservatives would not support making contraception illegal; personally, I believe that is everyone’s free choice to take. But that doesn’t mean that other people should be required to pay for it.

      Contraception is cheap! Planned Parenthood had, on its website before the idiotic birth control regulations came down from the Obumble Administration, the statement that birth control pills averaged between $15 and $50 per month. A couple will spend that much on toothbrushes (teethbrush?) and toothpaste in a month! (If they don’t, they ain’t gonna get laid in the first place!) And people need dental care for their entire lives, not just the period of fertility for a woman. Yet Obysmalcare does not cover dental care.

      • Jeffery says:

        You would risk your life for a rabbit? Why? A couple of friends and I once released cattle from their wooden holding pens during a fire at a major stockyards. It was the wee hours of the morning and as teens we had been out drinking and driving when we saw the orange glow in the distance. The structure, a huge open barn, no sides, but with a roof covering pens with cattle was on fire. The steers were surely re-corralled and eventually butchered. We were young, dumb and full of rum.

        The point on the losses during the major catastrophes is that the right supports policies that despoils wildlife, killing millions, then lionizes a nutjob who tries to rescue a rabbit. Makes no sense. It has to be pure emotion.

        Why not make birth control more widely available? It reduces the number of abortions. Makes no sense. Does you desire “not to pay for something for others” outweigh your hatred of abortion? Via our governments at all levels everyone pays for things we don’t support. I paid to support the invasion of Iraq, although I didn’t support the invasion. I pay the salaries of right-wing politicians in Missouri and DC, but I don’t want to. You could reduce abortions by supporting the wider availability of birth control – it would cost you just pennies a year.

        You hope you’d have the “courage” to run into a burning field to save a rabbit but refuse to pay a few pennies to prevent an abortion. Yet, you support government policies that kill millions of animals, and you would ban abortion given the chance. Makes no sense.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    It’s diagnostic of right-wing authoritarian snowflakes to be driven by emotion and feelings rather than reason and logic.

    You lost the argument right here.

    It is always left and SJW’s that are driven by emotions and feelings.

    Anything after your initial statement is purely false rhetoric.

    • Jeffery says:

      gc,

      As an American, you can choose to believe any lie you want. We respect your belief that right-wing authoritarians choose reason and logic over emotion, wrong that you may be.

      • Fargo says:

        you continue to push a false narrative. Actually your narrative fits the left and not the right.

        The right has no desire to be authoritarian. If you lie about that one thing often enough then it becomes the truth.

        Emotion and feelings vs truth and logic.

        What a choice. Somehow the left who believes they always have the moral high ground do so with logic and reason. If that is true then the allowing of open borders is for one simple reason. To flood the countries with locially and reasonably issued welfare.

        In a nation that has something of valuable it must be protected. If you have a 100,000 dollars in your home, do you leave the doors open the lights on and the safe open with a sign on the door telling all passerbys that there is a 100k in your safe which is open and you are gone for the evening.

        No you build a stout wall, a fence to proctect it. That is a logical and reasonable assumption to make. The USA has a strong economy, wealth and natural resources that do not belong to the world. We have a large welfare economy that must be protected from millions upon millions who would flood into our nation to take what is not theres because people with emotion and feelings feel its the right thing to do.

        Being nationalistic is not authoritarian. It is the natural driver of the motivations to protect the integrity and wealth of our own nation to a reasonable degree.

        Your beginning premise is false thus the rest of your statement is false. To protect what you have is not a feel good moment. Its a reasonable and logical choice made by a nation that values its own natural resources.

        Willing to share them on an EQUITABLE basis is the right thing to do. Everyone knows that the left is open borders so that they can flip the map, destroy the voting patterns in this country and turn America into a world wide welfare state which will ultimately destroy her as the most powerful nation on earth.

        A nation that derived those virtues because she invited the huddled masses who came to America to be Americans. Today those masses come to America to be Muslims and mexicans huddled in ghettos collecting a pay check and voting for democrats.

        So not only is your premise wrong but pretty much everything you say on this website is filled only with enough truth to keep you from appearing as the total troll that you really are.

      • gitarcarver says:

        As an American, you can choose to believe any lie you want.

        According to the Supreme Court, you can tell any lie that you want.

        It does not make your pathetic trolling and ignorance true.

        • Jeffery says:

          According to the Supreme Court, you can tell any lie that you want.

          And Mr. tRump takes advantage of our freedoms more than any President in history!!

  6. Jeffery says:

    Fargo,

    We understand how emotionally invested the far-right is in white nationalism. You’re afraid the Mexicans and Blacks and Muslims are overrunning America and will erode your racial privilege of being a white, “true” American. Fear is the most powerful of emotions.

    We understand the emotions involved in the image of a young man risking his life for a rabbit that may or may not have been in danger. But the risk is too great. If he had been trapped as a result of his actions, real heroes would have had to try and rescue him. While it’s unlikely that the rabbit’s family would miss the cottontail, the young man’s family surely would have… We just happen to believe that any one human is more important than any one rabbit. Many on the far left disagree with us, as do, ironically, many on the far right. Who knew?

    While it’s encouraging to see any sign of kindness in a conservative, we realize it’s an emotional and isolated incident divorced from the larger reality and the evidence that supports decisions based on reason and logic. It’s anthropomorphizing a rabbit. Pure emotion with no awareness of greater picture. When confronted with the evidence that political policies you support kill millions of animals you deny it.

    • Fargo says:

      There is some truth to what you say. You make it a crime to be white in America. 71 percent of Americans are white and its a crime in your eyes to have a vested interest in the direction of our country.

      This country is every bit as much ours as it is “yours”

      That is not emotional nor is it feelings. That is a rationally sound policy to ensure that the country is headed in the direction that you believe is best for your self interests.

      We understand that it is your intent to drive a wedge between Americans. It seems thats what your paid to do. Perhaps its in your DNA. Ask Pochantas over there. The gal from Oklahoma who became the Mass Senator claiming she was an Indian.

      Now there is some DNA to discuss. The fact that habitual liars of the left continue to fabricate and concoct issues based upon the actions of a few. Who would have thought that the group PETA that aligns itself with the Democrats is actually being undermined by talking heads who believe saving a rabbit was somehow a horrible decision. Most likely if you asked the snowflakes the guy stopping was a liberal and not a conservative because a conservative would have logically already been gone.

      This happened in California. The chances of that man being a Conservative is about zero in the land of fruits and nuts.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Fargone,

    You bring your white nationalism and politics into a discussion of whether someone should risk their life pulling a rabbit out of a forest fire?

    Yep, no emotion there.

    Whether the do-gooder in CA is liberal (probably) or not is irrelevant to his incautious action. The far-left is often as wackadoodle as the far-right, but the far-left has little political power. The far-right controls America. So originally you supported his actions as heroic but now use his putative political leanings to castigate him and others you disagree with on abortion??

    Far-gone, indeed.

    BTW, years ago, because of my occupation, I was on a hit list of a militant animal-rights group that was more violent than PETA. They listed my name and home address on their website.

    Do you support strong regulations on the meat processing industries guaranteeing humane treatment of food animals? I do.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      I was on a hit list of a militant animal-rights group that was more violent than PETA.

      Was this after you joined the Army?
      Oh wait…

      • Jeffery says:

        You’re right, it was after I volunteered for the US Army. Our corporate security office (world’s largest drug company, at the time) contacted me in the early 2000s about being listed on the website of a liberal animal rights organization. The group disbanded in 2014. Security had no reports worldwide of the animal rights group actually attacking medical researchers, though. Evidently they just wanted people to show up in front of your house with protest signs. Never happened. As an aside, I hadn’t even worked on the projects or with the animal testing labs as I was accused.

        I don’t have much tolerance for crazies whether they’re far-left or far-right.

        Thanks for your concern.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          I’m not concerned, ltitle guy.

          My point is you lied about joining the Army so why should your little fairytale about being on somebodies’ hit list be any more believable?

        • Fargo says:

          I don’t have much tolerance for crazies whether they’re far-left or far-right

          The biggest lie I’ve seen you write on this site since Ive been visiting it.

          You are a far left shill. Nothing you write is moderate. I have yet to read one moderate stance from you. Everything coming from your mouth is meant to divide.

  8. Fargo says:

    We understand how emotionally invested the far-right is in white nationalism. You’re afraid the Mexicans and Blacks and Muslims are overrunning America and will erode your racial privilege of being a white, “true” American. Fear is the most powerful of emotions.

    It’s diagnostic of right-wing authoritarian snowflakes to be driven by emotion and feelings rather than reason and logic.

    Regarding abortion, right-wing authoritarians have no interest in reducing the circumstances that contribute to abortions, preferring to control women’s behaviors. Why not support public education, access to birth control, policies to reduce poverty?
    That’s right. You’re controlled by your emotions and feelings.

    You really should remember what you write before you start talking about someone else bringing other stuff into a conversation. The above is what I was responding to. You went from saving a rabbit to white nationalism, abortion and snowflakes, emotion and feelings all in the span of about 100 words.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Several dozen racehorses have been killed in the SoCal wildfires, either burned to death or from smoke inhalation.

    A trainer, Martine Bellocq, is currently hospitalized in a medically induced coma at UCSD after suffering severe burns on over 50% of her body after trying to rescue a horse.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7301 access attempts in the last 7 days.