You might enjoy reading the utilitarian philosophy work of Peter Singer [1]

A lot of charity donation is based on feelings rather than calculations about saved lives. Otherwise there would only be one charity, and it'd be distributing malaria nets and deworming tablets in Africa.

In my experience, if someone donates $20 to animals in response to lowpro's post, that's not money subtracted from their fixed charity budget that would otherwise have gone to humans. That's money subtracted from their household budget, that otherwise would have been spent on hobbies and bills. People who have fixed charity budgets simply don't donate from them in response to social media posts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_You_Can_Save

> The dogs will feel no pain from being put to sleep.

> Nobody can, will, or wants to even suggest that the children be put to sleep. We will let the children suffer horrible pain before we ever even consider suggesting such a thing.

Sounds like the proper solution is to convince people that putting kits to sleep is OK, then...

(Not really, but it does seem to follow from your statements)

> The fact that there are people asking for money for the dogs before all the people on that little island have full bellies is just sad.

You're operating on the assumption that the people with the means to donate prioritize human life over a dog's life, which isn't always the case.

I may get downvoted for this and I would not advocate this under normal circumstances. But dogs are a source of protein that would be a shame to put to waste given that people are starving otherwise.