Rationnaly (intellectually ?), I have to agree with "Piewacket"...


But love (for a human being or an animal) is not rational; so, emotionally, being a cat person myself, I understand some of Craig position.

Just from reading these posts (I have not read the book), It seems the situation asked for that decision : Shackelton was not sure to be able to save the men, so saving the cat was certainly out of question. And that seems to be a "gentler" death for that cat, that what could have happened. And he could (should ?) have asked the dead cat to be fed to the men or remaining dogs...
Could he have said that man : "keep the cat, but both of you will live on your food share" ? I don't think so... too complicated a situation afterwards

Well, maybe I should discuss with my own cat and see what she thinks about that kind of situation : we are isolated and starving ; which one of us will die first and be food for the other .... ??? ....
I guess for most of us on this forum, that's not even a question ... and certainly not one, when sitting in front of a keyboard, with food (human- and cat-) in the cupboard...
but ... ouch... that could be kind of a deep one.... why do we live and so forth ...what is the exact situation, any hope for one or the other, etc...
aïe ... Craig, help me to get out of it ...