Shipping abandoned animals from Lebanon to USA for adoption?

Question

I read an article yesterday on MSN.com that was about shipping abandoned animals from a war torn area in Lebanon to the USA for adoption. I am an animal lover, but I have a problem with this. The cost of this mission is $250,000 to ship 300 animals. While I am all for saving animals, there is already an over population problem in US shelters. Animals are being euthanized daily, and we are shipping more in? I think the money could have been put to use more logically, and been able to help many more animals in the process.

Am I entirely off base here, or does anyone else agree with me?

Answer 1

I totally agree with you also, Someone need to stop this. Not only to over population, but what will these animals bring with them.
I also worked in an animal shelter and it was more than I could stand. And the US is going to allow another country to bring in more animals and they cant even take care of all the ones that are here with no homes.
I`m all for saving animals, but lets save the ones here, before we start trying to save another country's animals
This money could be put to better use somewhere else.

Answer 2

The animals are being shipped, provided medical attention, and placed in adoptive homes by a rescue organization called Best friends in Utah. Everything was paid for with donations; it didn't cost tax payers anything. The action was taken, too, to support the animal rescue group -- the ONLY animal rescue group -- in Lebanon (to get them some publicity to help them with their future needs).

Animals are being rescued. What difference does it make if they're in the US or somewhere else?

What we need to do in the US is to get MORE rescues, pounds to commit to "no kill" policies (like Best Friends has).

Part of the problem we see in our own community is that the city and county run facilities are still in the archaic "kill" modes, rather than working closely with rescues, no-kill shelters, adopters and foster homes to get the healthy dogs OUT of the shelters and into safe placements.

We're currently putting together a petition toward legislation to make it ILLEGAL for pounds and shelters to kill healthy animals until and unless they have exhausted every effort to find alternative no-kill placement for them.

"No kill" isn't about money; it's about making a commitment not to kill healthy, adoptable pets. Best Friends exeplifies the no-kill commitment.

OK, we're off our soap box now.

Answer 3

I agree. If you check any animal rescue site you will see how much in need the pets of this country are. I could understand if someone were tryong to help orphans but we need to think about the animals close to home.

Adopting a homeless animal gives us all the "warm fuzzies" I have 2 dogs myself I've saved. If you wan tohelp a homeless animal, go to Petsmart or Petco on the weekends and see how many are here. Check the shelters on Petfinders.com.

Answer 4

The "rescue mission" was paid for by private donation given specifically for this project. The animals are actually victims of the war because they were unwillingly left behind by people who had to be evacuated and were told that they could not bring their pets. There have already been more offers for adoption than there are pets available.

I don't think your concerns are "off base", but under the circumstances they are unwarranted.

Answer 5

I absolutely agree. I love the idea of saving these animals, but this is not the way to do it. I used to work in an animal shelter, and I'll tell you, it wasn't pleasant. I ended up leaving because I couldn't take any more home with me. It's sad.......

Answer 6

I agree with you 100%...but then again, I think the US should be more concerned with EVERYTHING that's going on here first and when we have our own problems fixed, maybe start helping other countries.

Answer 7

I agree totally. It is amazing they would come up with such a crazy idea.

Yes they could have saved a few thousand animals in the US.