@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.