I surely do agree. It's ridiculous.

However--I don't have a problem with servicemen who have become attached to dogs bringing them back to the U.S. These men and women deserve to have those dogs if they want them.

I agree. These people (athletes, most of them) need to spend a little time investigating their own communities with regard to animal population. Such good intentions but misdirected.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how all of this was funded?

A puppy saved is a puppy saved. And if the rescuers weren't already aware of their local shelters and the plight of the animals within, maybe they will be now.

I think the rescuers' actions created a public awareness as well. Even those who opposed the rescue might now be motivated to take steps to help their own local shelters.

The Russian dogs touched those athletes' hearts, and moved them to action, which turned out successfully. I can't imagine being against something like that. I should add that I have rescued many local dogs and cats, and have been an animal rights activist since 1970.

I don't understand the mentality that local dogs are more important than dogs in other countries? Pretty sure they didn't have a say in where they were born. At least strays in the US are usually fed and cared for while waiting for a home, even if they sadly do get euthanized eventually. At least they have a chance.These dogs are often round up and poisoned or shot, and rarely get a chance.

Yes, it's more expensive to bring dogs from other countries, and yes, that money could have been used for other things (unless it was specifically donated for the cause, I don't know) but I would be willing to bet that this publicity has raised awareness of the plight of strays and caused many, many local dogs to be adopted from local shelters. Plus, you know, it's saving lives, even if they aren't as valued as local lives.

But people love to criticize even the best intentions even though lives were saved. On a similar note, I often hear the same argument about adopting children outside of the US.

Many of the Olympians brought back the strays on their own dime. Here is a link about St. Louis Blues Hockey Player David Backes & his wife, are animal lovers who were already involved in an animal shelter in MO before their trip to Russia.
And, BTW, most of the strays were being adopted by the players and other (non-hockey) Olympic athletes getting first dibs at the pups.

The Backes' were mostly trying to raise awareness about the need for homes for animals all over the world that are neglected, abandoned & unwanted. These animals just need love & forever families.

These athletes ALL brought home "GOLD" in my book. jmho

Here is a link that might be useful: Sochi Strays of Russia

If the athletes paid to bring the dogs home themselves, then fine. However if USA rescue organizations paid, I think that's wrong. That money would be better spent on spaying and neutering of dogs and cats here. Most rescues are funded through donations and I bet the donors did not think they were supporting air fare for Russian strays. Sochi needs to get it's act together to solve the problem of all those strays.

I had some friends who were very wealthy. They owned a home on a Caribbean island as well as a beautiful horse farm here. A stray started hanging around their home in the Caribbean and they ended up flying it home. That dog went from being a mutt on the streets of an island to a pampered pooch living in a beautiful home in the states!

You are not going to like this:

Better dogs that may live a few years than damaged children who will use US taxpayer funds for decades.

A number of children adopted from other countries turn out to have serious physical and mental problems. Fetal alcohol syndrome is common. Naive adoptive parents can't cope with or afford care for these kids. Some fear for their families' safety from these kids. US taxpayers end up paying for care for these adoptees throughout their lives. Meanwhile, the country of origin is relieved of the burden of care.

The difference is that in Russia stray dogs and more importantly (sarcasm) cute little puppies are roaming the streets. They are in your face with their cuteness. Locals are probably hardened to ignore them, North Americans are not.

Here, stray puppies are in shelters and we never see them unless we decide we actually want a dog and go to a shelter to adopt them - unless of course we decide that we need a designer dog instead. They are behind closed doors (out of sight, out of mind) so to speak, and are not in our sphere or vision to tug at our heartstrings as they were in Russia.

And wrt to soldiers in war bringing home dogs - I agree on letting them bring them home. For many in war I suspect that the dogs maintained an emotional leveling for the soldiers and a tiny sense of normalcy.

Yes, Chisue, I have read those stories but I think those kids are the minority of adoptees from foreign countries. I have two neighbors who adopted overseas, one from China and the other from Kazakhstan. Both kids are delightful and make the good old US of A a better place.

It sure made the Russians look bad by their treatment of these animals to "clean up" the area for the Olympics.

Hmmmm..... So, the OP and those who agree with the OP also are of the opinion that the US should not send monetary aid, food, water, clothing, etc., to other countries because the US has an abundance of homeless and disadvantaged that should be taken care of first???

We cannot compare human beings with dogs.

Oh, for heaven's sake.....where did that assumption come from? Lol. Stray dogs in Russia are hardly in the same category as humans devestated by tragic conditions.

It's important to keep to the same topic when in a debate. Swapping the subject from Olympic athletes adopting stray dogs to orphaned children to vast populations facing famine, homelessness, and worse is hardly appropriate.

I disagree, I think the issues are all related when it's an "us first" mentality. I don't see a difference between private fundraising to help animals from other countries and private fundraising to help people in a natural disaster. Yes, the money could go elsewhere but isn't that the case with any fundraising? People are free to contribute to whatever they feel is worthy of their money, whether it be animals, or children, the homeless or earthquake victims in Haiti. But declaring one area to be more worthy than others is a slippery slope.

Similarly I don't see a difference in government funding to help victims of natural disasters in other countries, and government funding helping orphans from other countries become adopted in the US in the remote possibility they may become a "burden" as an adult (though I'd be willing to bet the actual percentage of children who grow up to contribute nothing is pretty low, but I am unaware of any studies on the issue)

I think it's funny that when people/animals suffer because of mother nature it's okay to help out, but when people/animals suffer because of human nature, it's suddenly not the same.

Looks like some can make pretty outlandish extrapolations from a simple comment about helping the many dogs vs the few. If it was from some official resources, I don't think it was very good stewardship. More of a temporary fix to an ongoing problem. A "feel good", impractical solution, imho.