http://news.yahoo.com/rachael-ray-donates-500-000-food-sandy-pets-184418309.html

You all agree or disagree with this??

Giving back is good and all but shouldn't (imo at least) she focus her efforts on feeding the hungry people out on the East Coast affected by Sandy??

It is a major effort right now and there is no coverage of people going hungry.

nothing wrong with second tier relief efforts.

The article says through her Yum-o foundation she is giving $100,000. to the City Harvest Food Bank for Food Banks of New York City AND $500.000 to American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.She has a dog food company as well as her Yumo-0 Foundation. I'm sure more people donate food for people and have trouble getting food for pets during disasters. I read it as she is helping to feed people and pets.

?

WHY would ANYONE 'disagree'?

'the thought makes reason stare'!

My point being is that I think they should focus relief/recovery efforts on the PEOPLE not their pets.
Based off what I've seen, various areas of New York/Staten Island were hard hit. More important things need to be done before the pets get the pet food.

I love my dog but I would rather have my dog starve so that other people could be fed.

Read this this morning:

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2012/nov/05/elderly-residents-spend-another-cold-night-queens/

A lot of these elderly need food and someone to bring it to them. If they have pets, they may need to start eating them..

Feeding a hungry stray as an individual is not a problem, but it's ludicrous to expect all that money to go where they want it to. It'll end up lining someone's pockets. It's just an inane feel-good stunt, much like the COJCOLD's heavily publicized relief efforts sometimes are.

I think if this is going to help people who own pets or established shelters feed the pets they have or have found since Sandy hit, it's probably a good thing. If you have a dog or cat, you are not going to let it starve in a disaster - you are going to give it some of your food. Not being able to feed your pets would be much more stressful to me than one extra night without power. We usually have an extra 50 lb bag of dogfood around the house for emergencies and we just rotate it out with the one we feed the dogs with so we'd be good for a few weeks. But not everyone has the room to do that so they'd be stuck feeding their dogs people food to make it through. So I really don't see what she is doing as a bad thing - the people who do nothing at all and have donated nothing at all are worse. Something is better than nothing.

"If you have a dog or cat, you are not going to let it starve in a disaster - you are going to give it some of your food"

Thats exactly what I was going to say. If all I had to eat was a single can of green beans, you best believe I would be splitting it with my dog.

Why neglect anyone?

Of course, I'm one of those nutty dog lovers, so I'm sure you don't give a poo for my opinion. I think one can have compassion for ALL creatures.

But for all you folks that think helping animals is such a big waste, I know the perfect answer to your dilemma. Let them eat their pets.

Pet relief is a huge issue. It was one of the charities I donated to with katrina, as well.

Pets are family members, hearts break over the loss of pets. People, no doubt, are up wondering if their beloved pet is somewhere starving to death, or dead.

99% of shelters for people DO NOT accept animals and people have to make the gut wrenching choice of saving themselves or staying with their pets.

How insensitive to belittle this effort.

"How insensitive to belittle this effort."

I'm not (trying to) belittle this effort but instead prioritize. I prioritize human life over animal life, including my own dog.