Dog Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm just curious what other people think about this as it's recently become an issue. I don't know if any of you heard but the Humane Society International recently imported about 250 or so dogs from a meat farm in Korea and they have since been distributed to many shelters across the US for adoption. Hordes of people have come forward to adopt these dogs, many of which understandably have psychological problems.

While I think it's nice these dogs are getting a home...I just, I don't understand why so much money and effort was spent on transporting these dogs when there are still millions of dogs in need in our own country, or even US possession like Puerto Rico. Not only are these dogs closer and cheaper to transport, they're less likely to have dangerous parasites and diseases that dogs in some other countries have. And a lot of them are less psychologically shot than these meat dogs will be. I also think it's unfair so many people line up to adopt these dogs and yet they look over so many other dogs who were born here and are more mentally sound and healthier.

Also, while I don't like the dog meat trade in how they often steal people's pets... I feel like Western cultures going into other countries and telling them the way they live and the animals they eat is wrong is just imperialistic and not ok. I mean can you imagine if other countries tried to tell Americans as a whole they need to completely stop the beef and pork industry? Would not go down well.

But meat farm dogs aside, I just think that dogs in the home country should be given priority, even if transport between states/provinces is involved. What do you think? And if you live outside North America is this something that happens in your country too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
All dogs in that situation tug at my heart.

I think in a larger context, people make this same argument when they think that the US should not allow people, particularly those in difficulties because of political situations, to emigrate here.
While it is true there is expense involved, and there are plenty of needy dogs here, I always think of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I have a heart for homeless and abused dogs, everywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
The dogs will probably be 'clean' having to have to go through quarantine, so I don't think that's an issue.

I also think that instead of looking at man made 'borders' we shouldn't be so parochial in trying to help others find solutions to some problems. There will be, regardless of whether or not 250 dogs are shipped in, millions of fine nice dogs put to sleep anyways....250 compared to millions is an absolutely minute number.

I took in a dog from outside of my town that had major issues just because I loved her looks. This meant that some dog here in town, with mental/emotional probably won't have a home now, or even get put to sleep because I didn't chose it. It's not something that can be easily fixed or justified...it is what it is.

As far as the money...if there are people out there with the funds and they know what they want to do with their money, then that's also kind of something that is hard to say is wrong. Like me, I spent my money on a rescue to adopt Jaya and don't think I was wrong to do so....maybe some here in my small town might argue otherwise....that I should have supported my local shelter and handed over adoption fees to them for a dog.

I guess what I'm getting at, is as long as some dog, somewhere is rescued, and ends up with a good home...then it should be celebrated, and in the meantime, hopefully countries like Korea and the USA will continue to try to improve the lots of those less fortunate animals.

Stormy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I have mixed feelings about it. I've noticed that people are drawn to animals with "sob stories", and have a desire to adopt a "real rescue" as opposed to going down to the no-kill shelter and adopting a generic looking dog with no back story. Not always, but many times, the stories attached to the dogs coming from other countries are exaggerated to make the stories sound more heartbreaking. This helps the dogs find homes faster after they arrive in their new country, which is good for them, but not so good for the dogs that had been and continued to sit in the rescue facility because they had no special story attached to them.

There is a rescue here in Taiwan that occasionally sends dogs to the US and Canada. A few years ago Dogster did an article on two of those dogs and it made no sense at all to me due to the exaggerations (one being that the dogs had been employed by the government as mountain guides!!). I'm sure those dogs are happily adopted by now, although no follow up story was done that I could find. I certainly hope they are not still sitting in the rescue they were imported to.

One good thing Taiwan is doing is revamping it's shelter's. It's a slow process, but there is progress in some areas. Adoption is already up due to public education and better facilities. No, the majority are still not up to par with most American shelters, but better than before. I think Taiwan has no need to send it's dogs overseas to find homes (unless someone finds a dog on the rescue website and is willing to pay for it to be shipped, I don't have a problem with that), they have other things they should be spending the money on, such as improving the facilities and paying vets to care for the dogs that are injured or have treatable medical conditions. I do not agree with having a rescue or shelter pay from their own donations to send a dog overseas and not having a home already lined up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
I opened this post thinking it was going to be about importing purebreds from around the world - that I have ZERO issue with and think it's fabulous for improving the genetic variety within breeds.

For the importing of rescues...meh, I'm of the opinion that if it helps out dogs then overall it's a positive. It's private funding, the dogs will have to pass health inspections, etc so I don't see much harm. It seems a bit silly to me to go across the ocean for a rescue when, as you say, there are lots of dogs in need here -- but to each their own.

I'm in northwestern Europe and nearly every single adopt-able dog here is brought in from eastern Europe, Turkey/Hungary, or southern Europe (Spain, Greece, Portugal). Dog populations are a problem there while they aren't a problem here, so it makes sense to redistribute the excess dogs to where the demand is.

You see it in the US too, dogs being shipped from poorer/more rural areas to wealthier/more urban areas for adoption. My first family dog as a kid had been shipped up from some random town in West Virginia to the New England area for adoption. I don't think throwing in an aritificial construct such as a country border should change that "market" process.

However, there are the large transportation costs associated with shipping rescues over the Pacific. Not just monetary, but environmental as well. But, if these dogs are being shipped over in large enough numbers, I think the benefit to the dogs outweighs the environmental costs.

I don't *get* why people prefer to adopt a dog from a different continent (seems inefficient to me), but I don't have an issue with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
Personally, I don't really like it. We have plenty of dogs in need here, and importing them is incredibly expensive. It just seems like we should be addressing the problems closer to home. We can't fix everyone's problems. Humans are another matter, we should help all we can(within our limits), but dogs I don't think can in good conscience be shipped into a country with overflowing shelters.

Also, I don't think we even really need to rescue dogs from the meat trade. Do I like that people eat dogs? Heck no. I would never dream of doing that, and I wouldn't ever want it allowed here. But their culture is different, and I could never say that eating dogs is morally wrong. Obviously stealing pets for the meat trade is wrong, but that's a separate issue.

If someone wants to pay out of their own pocket to rescue a dog from another country, so be it. There's nothing wrong with that. But I don't think that's where the focus should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,634 Posts
I'm happy to oppose dog meat because I don't see any humane way of raising dogs in great numbers. Most meat comes from herd animals for good reason. I'm lucky to come from a country where grass feeding is the norm so the animals can roam and have a decent quality of life, stall feeding freaks me out. I can't imagine the cost of raising a carnivor to a decent size with room for a decent quality of life and I suspect that dogs raised for meat end up in overcrowded kennels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I personally agree with Chas, large numbers of dogs in crate feeding etc etc.... Nature of a cannine in these conditions would undoubtedly end in fights and harm to eachother.
On subject of importing dogs, they may not be suitable for everyone but, all the working dogs taken over to Iraq, Afghanistan are abandoned over there as cost to bringing them home is to much. However if you have the money you can get in touch with the MOD here in UK or Military in America and pay to have these Hero's brought home. Like I said these dogs are not for everyone.
Here's an artical.
They say charity starts at home in the UK.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386953/dont-abandon-our-dogs-war-jonah-goldberg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I didn't realize military dogs were being abandoned in the Middle East, that's awful. It's a different story if it's an American or English dog that was brought there and needs to be brought home, rather than a dog born in a foreign country that's being imported for adoption.

They say "charity starts at home" here too. It's a commonly misunderstood quote. Often people thinking it means you need to be charitable to your own family/home before others but actually it means you're supposed to learn to be charitable as a child, in the home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
There are "dog problems" in every country but there is a difference in the the degree of the problems. Having been traveled to some of these "more troubled" countries, I fully support any attempt to rescue dogs in those areas. It is truly incomprehensible what is norm or allowed in some countries for the treatment of dogs.... small puppies chained to barrels without any food or water etcetc.... I will spare you all the horror stories but just sleep in peace tonight knowing that even if there are some messed up people in UK/US/AUS/anyeuropeancountryofyourchoice the majority of the dogs in your countries have a high quality life.

Before going to Greece I thought dogs in Estonia had a bad life... how wrong I was. I was worried for the neighbour`s mutt who has been kept on a chain for the last 6 years, or the dogs that never get taken on walks. Now I know their life is a life of LUXURY compared to the lives dogs have in Greece.

My dog was a stray and comes from a foreign country and knowing how heartbreaking lives dogs there lead, I don`t understand how anyone could have ANYTHING against someone trying to help them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Yes they really are just left over in these war zones, most times in terrible conditions.
Your interpretation of charity starting at home Tracy, is one I'm aware of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
I find it odd that people rescue dogs from other countries while their OWN shelters are filled with homeless dogs. One lady living in Belgium said that Belgians rescue dogs from, say, Greece and Spain while their own shelters have many good dogs waiting for the right home. We have homeless cat problems yet people import similar cats from other countries (although the number is probably insignificant?). Rescuing helps that one animal and for that animal, it is definitely a perk. But to help all the animals we have to address the source. Not adopting them does not stop the problems.

Finns rescued dogs from Estonia. I've understood that the situation in Estonia has gotten better because of education. Now I hear more often how Finns rescue dogs from Russia, Spain, Romania and other countries in south and east Europe. And the same argument is going on here. "Imported animals bring parasites and disease." "They have behavioral issues." "They should help the people." ""An imported pet will take the place of a homeland rescue."

Another thing that gets criticized is pouring money on expensive and difficult veterinary treatments on animals that may still be crippled for the rest of their lives instead of PTS while the same money would have fed dozens of dogs, spayed many or provided advertising space - if it ever was raised without that sob story.

One thing many organisations already do is to help animals in their location! It is just invisible in our eyes because we only see the imported pets. Educating the people, busting myths, trying to change attitudes. Help poor people feeding their pets, offering cheap vet services, speuter and vaccination clinics, educating in training and health care, campaign against gas chambers, teaching people not to abandon their pets on the streets, improving the conditions in shelters and pounds.

We have occasional animal abuse cases or abandoned dogs but I am not aware of the numbers. I have been under the impression that the situation is not catastrophal and thus rescuing from other countries is understandable but the local organisation for helping animals in need though has recently shared a post that they are in dire need of homes and foster homes for all kinds of animals. I have been wondering if I could foster a cat or a small dog.

Does the US army really leave the war dogs behind? Like wandering on the streets?

One thing is the breed/dog tyope variation available. I don't want a pit bull. Nor do I want the hound-hunting spitz-GSD-Rottie mix which is or used to be a typical Finnish rescue dog. So if one wants to rescue a poodle mix because it is a better choice for their lifestyle than a hound mix why not import one if our shelters only have them rarely. But people also get "blind" - the podengo/podenco type dog which is the "hunting spitz" of south European countries is suddenly a lot better companion dog than the elkhound mix? This touches pure-breds too though. In the US the Finnish spitz is in Companion category? Does anyone there hunt with one? Here it is a thorough-bred hunting dog. In Japan, akitas and other Japanese spitzes were hunting dogs but here people buy them for their looks and do not see them like our own hunting spitz breeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
The dogs will probably be 'clean' having to have to go through quarantine, so I don't think that's an issue.

I also think that instead of looking at man made 'borders' we shouldn't be so parochial in trying to help others find solutions to some problems. There will be, regardless of whether or not 250 dogs are shipped in, millions of fine nice dogs put to sleep anyways....250 compared to millions is an absolutely minute number.

I took in a dog from outside of my town that had major issues just because I loved her looks. This meant that some dog here in town, with mental/emotional probably won't have a home now, or even get put to sleep because I didn't chose it. It's not something that can be easily fixed or justified...it is what it is.

As far as the money...if there are people out there with the funds and they know what they want to do with their money, then that's also kind of something that is hard to say is wrong. Like me, I spent my money on a rescue to adopt Jaya and don't think I was wrong to do so....maybe some here in my small town might argue otherwise....that I should have supported my local shelter and handed over adoption fees to them for a dog.

I guess what I'm getting at, is as long as some dog, somewhere is rescued, and ends up with a good home...then it should be celebrated, and in the meantime, hopefully countries like Korea and the USA will continue to try to improve the lots of those less fortunate animals.

Stormy

I disagree entirely.

It's not an issue of man-made borders in this case as much as it is making the most of limited resources.

The dog overpopulation should be looked at like a triage after a disaster.

In triage, injured patients are ranked. Some patients are known to be very injured but saveable. However, the medical resources to save that person would mean 5 lesser injured people would die. If there is only 1 doctor, you have him save the 5 lesser injured people vs devote all his effort to the absolutely worse injured person.

It's not just about dogs beyond our borders. It's about dogs that have serious medical issues and serious behavior issues. Yes, you can invest a hundred hours rehabilitating the dog from terrible to good, to make it adoptable OR you can take 10 dog and invest 10 hours in each to take them from poor to good, making them adoptable.

ALSO a lot of these hard-luck cases pull at people's heart strings, and the dogs get adopted. But pretty soon people realize they can't handle the issues and the dog is surrendered again. Not only are other more adoptable dogs being put to sleep vs going with forever families, the dog that gets recycled again and again is traumatized yet again.

In some cases, you have to cut your losses, put animals to sleep, press forward with the spay and neuter campaign, and then put your remaining resources toward the best candidates for long term placement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
@akodo1

In the case of the dogs coming in, it doesn't always mean they have physical or emotional issues.

If 100 foreign dogs a with certain breed look to them, are sent to the states, their novelty can get them adopted...same with the USA breeds...take them someplace where people would love to have like say some golden retrievers, because in that area they are scarce.

Thus 200 dogs can be saved that might Never get adopted in the area they are in.

People adopt for weird reasons, good reasons and for no reason...and if it takes a little money to shuffle dogs around to certain areas I don't see that as a waste of money.

I also have to say that is the reason why I went outside of my 'territory' to adopt several of my animals. Around here, it's hard to find anything at our shelter that isn't a full bred or mix of: pit bull, blue heeler, hounds, or border collie. None of which I'm interested in. In some areas, the shelters are full of chihuahuas...and so it goes.

At what point should transportation stop, or people Not travel elsewhere to get a dog that fits their life? 50 miles? 100 miles? 1000 miles?

I traveled round trip 600 miles to get one of my dogs...a rough collie x Pyrenees mix (Harper, my avatar photo). I spent probably $300.00 between getting my car ready for the trip, gas, time off work, and adoption fees.

With your 'triage' theory I probably should have stayed home and adopted 1 dog I didn't want from the local shelter and donated the rest of the money to help out other dogs in my area ???

Sorry... I think if people have money and want to spend it on something that's their right, and I think more dogs can be saved by moving them to areas where the 'market' is flooded with certain breeds and bringing new types might work and taking out the excess of certain breed types and moving them else where works out pretty good.

Our shelter actually started to do this about 3 years ago. They bring in smaller dogs now, and export a lot of those border collies, hounds, blue heelers, and pit mixes to places where people seem to like them. People here in town, now get a chance to see poodle mixes, small terrier mixes and even bigger dogs like labs, and golden retrievers.

Stormy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
I was surprised when I first read of those dogs being brought into the US, given the huge overpopulation of dogs there, especially in all the southern states (from California to Georgia).

Here in Canada we hear the same complaints about rescues who bring dogs up from the US. In Western Canada it's nearly impossible to find a smaller (under 20lbs) dog, unless it's from a backyard breeder on Craigslist. None in the shelters, and most stratas only allow for smaller dogs, so what's a dog-lover to do?

Hundreds of small dogs are brought here from California every year, dogs who would have died as they're part of a huge over population problem there (15,000 chi-mix dogs are euthanized in California each year). In this case it works great - people who otherwise wouldn't be able to have dogs and dogs who otherwise wouldn't have lived are being brought together. Ideally, spay and neuter programs would be brought in to curb the overbreeding, but in the meantime at least some dogs' lives are saved.

As for bringing dogs to the US, I understand why it's done (hard to leave them to die if you see it happening), but it would be great if people would open their homes to nearby dogs who are needing homes, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
When I was searching for a dog to adopt, I had no preference. Frankly, could not care less where a dog came from. I had criteria, young, healthy, mentally sound, a breed mix I liked (bc, gsd or belgian) and under 50 lbs adult weight. It's a big decision to be living with a living breathing sentient creature for the next, hopefully, 10 to 15 years.
For several weeks, I checked the local shelters and nothing clicked. Kajiji, nothing clicked, Petfinder, and all sorts of dogs with 'histories' that spelled trouble, so now I have Sonic, from the Dominican Republic, pretty, 40 lbs, bc mix, socialized with dogs and people and cats, ready to go to the nursing home within the first two weeks (awesome house manners), etc.
I would have happilly adopted the first dog that matched my criteria from any country, including my own, and Sonic happened along first.
I have had mixed reactions to telling his 'story' and I always wonder if there is a correlation between the negative attitudes to his origins and the speakers feelings about immigrants and refugees. I never ask, so I am just left wondering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,652 Posts
Well, Sancho is from Spain, so i can't say I'm totally against it, but there are a few things I don't like about the matter.

There's generally not much control when it comes to the rescue organisations.
some are awesome but there's also a lot of schmu out there.
one problem is, that there's not much medical control, since a lot of the dogs are brought privately.
Some diseases that are barely known in middle Europe come from Russia, South Eastern Europe and Southern Europe to central Europe and the people here don't keep them properly separated, so the diseases spread.
donation money disappear without seeing any effect and some don't castrate the dogs so they have always puppies to adopt out.

there's also some cheating when it comes age, health and general well-being.
our dog was severely underweight eventhough he'd been in the rescue for some time and they made him a few months younger to be better able to adopt him out.
they also didn't have an eye on the dog enough to tell us that the dog was limping and they didn't check for the cause (HD).
It's too easy to cheat papers and say the dog had a thorough medical exam and is healthy.

and then there's the cheating when it comes to the breeds.
if you can't see the dog yourself and just see pictures youv'e got to trust the organisation a lot that they don't lie when it comes to the breeds.
I've seen several Kangal and owtscharka or other life stock guarding mixes that came over the borders as "Retriever mix"...

the thing is, if you sent a dog breed that usually bred to guard big territories and herds of lifestock in a small city appartment in a house with 10 different families, it often doesn't work.
the dog is stressed and tries to do its "job" and the people are overchallenged and are disappointed since they wanted a nice family-friendly retriever, not a blond canine blockwart.
these dogs end up in the shelter again and it's difficult to find a fitting home for dogs like these.
They're not bad dogs, but they were put in a home that doesn't fit them.

there are a lot of dogs in shelters that would be a great fit, but people prefer "ordering" a rescue dog online over visiting the local shelter...they come the local shelters if they're overchallenged with their rescue to get rid of it. :/

I'm not generally against getting a dog from an rescue organisation outside the own country, but people should keep eye out for fraud.
Just adopting out will also not change anything, supporting castration programs and informing the people on location is much more important to change things in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
@akodo1

In the case of the dogs coming in, it doesn't always mean they have physical or emotional issues.
It does not. However, there are hundreds of thousands of dogs here that are unwanted that have no physical or emotional needs. Bringing dogs across national borders is both expensive and time consuming (quarantine)

If you have $10,000 to help dogs, I'd use it to get 1000 dogs get adopted not 100. It's not a direct matter of 'these dogs are here...those dogs are there' it's an indirect matter. 'because those dogs are there, each dog will cost us 10X'


If 100 foreign dogs a with certain breed look to them, are sent to the states, their novelty can get them adopted...same with the USA breeds...take them someplace where people would love to have like say some golden retrievers, because in that area they are scarce.
First - novelty adoptions, my experience says if the novelty of the situation drives the adoption rather that the best fit, it is more likely to result in a future surrender.

Second, these aren't rare breeds being brought in, they are mutts. And I don't use that word in a derogatory fashion. But we aren't talking about exporting rare landraces.

But let's play this out another step. Let's say there is a state on the west coast that has a huge supply of dog type A in it's shelter. And on the east coast that dog type is rarely found in shelter. In a situation like that, spending the money to move the animals around may in the long term pay off in increased adoptions overall because the east coast folks get access to dogs, but only if it actually drives up overall adoption rates NOT if adoption rates stay the same and it's just substituting one dog for the other.

Now, put a national border in place. Now the dogs need to be in quarantine and have all sorts of additional costs added in. So even if you had an oversupply of a breed in one spot, the additional cost is high enough that you lose ground. The cost of increasing the likelihood of 1 dog getting adopted by international relocation could have probably facilitated the adoption of 10 dogs.

Thus 200 dogs can be saved that might Never get adopted in the area they are in.
True, but the money to facilitate those 200 adoptions could be used to facilitate 2000 adoptions, or prevent 2000 surrenders in the first place.

People adopt for weird reasons, good reasons and for no reason...and if it takes a little money to shuffle dogs around to certain areas I don't see that as a waste of money.
Yes, which is why plans that move dogs due to breed popularity that increase overall adoption rates CAN SOMETIMES BE a good move. Again it depends on dollars spent and increase in adoption. If two cities 'swap' and it costs $10,000 to do that swap, but each city now adopts out 200 more dogs that year than they would be $50 per bonus adoption. To decide if that's a good use of money you'd have to compare it to other uses. If $10,000 is spent on (for example) grooming dogs and having a various public adoption days and that causes 300 more dogs to be adopted, then the money spent for the 'swap' was underutilized.

I also have to say that is the reason why I went outside of my 'territory' to adopt several of my animals. Around here, it's hard to find anything at our shelter that isn't a full bred or mix of: pit bull, blue heeler, hounds, or border collie. None of which I'm interested in. In some areas, the shelters are full of chihuahuas...and so it goes.
yes, which is why in SOME places, the difference is enough that swap programs THAT DON'T CROSS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS are smart.

At what point should transportation stop, or people Not travel elsewhere to get a dog that fits their life? 50 miles? 100 miles? 1000 miles?
If you are interested in saving dogs, you are interested in saving dogs not in travel. If your shelter gets a$100 donation, it pays $100 to move one dog 1000 miles to increase the chance of it being adopted OR it pays $100 to have two dogs get attention from a dog behaviorist to increase it's chances of adoption, (assuming the chance of adoption increase is the same)

Also in the above situation 3 potential adopters, only 1 is happy if the $100 is spent on transportation, and 2 are happy if the $100 is spent on training.

It's got nothing to do with how far someone has to travel, but what effect each dollar has on getting the most dogs adopted.

The best solution is which $100 gets the most dogs adopted. Now, if it turns out that transportation is better than training. So be it. But it's all about spend the dollars that get the most dogs adopted.


I traveled round trip 600 miles to get one of my dogs...a rough collie x Pyrenees mix (Harper, my avatar photo). I spent probably $300.00 between getting my car ready for the trip, gas, time off work, and adoption fees.
And that's fine. Your money. But for a shelter, it's job is to get as many dogs adopted as possible. If you are suggesting the shelter should have spent money to move flock guardian mixes from where they are overpopulated in shelters to where they are rare so 10 can get adopted but the same money could get 20 dogs adopted if spent on a TV ad or adoption event, then that's foolish.

With your 'triage' theory I probably should have stayed home and adopted 1 dog I didn't want from the local shelter and donated the rest of the money to help out other dogs in my area ???
First off, that's putting words in my mouth.

Secondly triage isn't about your individual needs, or any one person's individual needs. It's about getting the most lives saved. Yes, that means if you have 1 doctor, and 6 very injured people, and he can save 1 OR he can save 5, that's equivalent of telling a mother 'tough beans lady, your kid isn't getting saved'. But telling 1 mother that is better than telling 5 mothers 'Yup, you 5, I let your kids die because I was saving 1 other kid'

In the case of triage of the pet overpopulation problem, it's not about your individual needs, or any one person's individual needs as well. It's about using scarce resources to get the most dogs adopted. In the above scenario, scarce resources is doctor and time. For dog adoptions, it's money.

Sorry... I think if people have money and want to spend it on something that's their right, and I think more dogs can be saved by moving them to areas where the 'market' is flooded with certain breeds and bringing new types might work and taking out the excess of certain breed types and moving them else where works out pretty good.
I agree...If moving dogs is the most economical way of increasing adoptions, then so be it. But knowing the cost of moving a dog, and knowing the cost of having an adoption event, I find it very likely that moving dogs is the financially smart thing to do. Note this is moving dogs within 1 country. I imagine moving a dog across international lines causes the total cost to skyrocket...especially with the quarantine time/cost factored in as well.


Our shelter actually started to do this about 3 years ago. They bring in smaller dogs now, and export a lot of those border collies, hounds, blue heelers, and pit mixes to places where people seem to like them. People here in town, now get a chance to see poodle mixes, small terrier mixes and even bigger dogs like labs, and golden retrievers.
Again, sometimes this can be the right thing to do. But sometimes not. It's all about using dollars in the most effective way to get the most dogs adopted. It's not about making certain people who are very breed specific happy. I'd rather see 100 mutts adopted then 99 specific breed dogs adopted...simply because 100 is more than 99.

And having some inkling of the expense of moving dogs via airlines, and knowing about quarantines, telling me that it is is more cost effective to move a dog from New Delhi to New York is a more effective way to increase adoption PER DOLLAR SPENT than education, training, grooming, or advertising, well that's the same as telling me a Ferrari is better than a van for delivering packages because 'it goes faster'...it clashes with my personal understanding of how the world works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
If you have $10,000 to help dogs, I'd use it to get 1000 dogs get adopted not 100.
I'm glad you framed it that way. Money is hard to earn and save, and each of us should spend it in a way that resonates with us. You have made a clear case for your spending, but as I said, gifts given are not a science, they come from the heart, and others may feel differently.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top