"If you can't afford a vet, you can't afford a pet" [Archive] - Chazhound Dog Forum

PDA

View Full Version : "If you can't afford a vet, you can't afford a pet"


JacksonsMom
10-13-2012, 01:00 PM
I've seen this mentioned before and wondered your opinions on it.

I think that a lot of times people (on dog forums etc) can be too harsh on people who say they can't afford certain treatments or procedures etc, and are often told that they then need to give the dog up to a rescue who is willing to help, if they can't take care of it, etc.

To me, a family or person who truly CAN'T afford vet care but loves the animal regardless and does their best by it is different from someone who claims they can't afford a vet while they are buying designer clothes, or bar hopping every weekend, or have the latest technologies. Obviously I am not talking about the latter... I think that if you love your pet, you would be willing to part with some of those things in order to take care of it. But sometimes... people just go through hard times! And I don't believe it should automatically be: "well if you can't afford your pet, you need to relinquish it to the rescue" or give it up.

I know that honestly, Jackson would be better off being put to sleep than having to go through the stress of being put into a rescue-type situation, with new people, medical procedures, and all that stuff. He is very very attached to me and I truly don't believe he would be the kind of dog who would do very well in a new situation. I know a lot of people could probably say that, but really, he's sometimes unhealthily attached... but never in a million years would I ever give him up in the first place. I am very lucky that I have the privilege of having the proper money stashed aside for medical emergencies, and if I personally didn't, I have lots of family members who love Jackson too that are willing to help when possible. I am also the kind of owner who will do anything to help him, even if it's a small issue, I don't mind paying money to get him to the vet and get it looked at. I am willing to spend big bucks to make sure he's okay and healthy!

I have seen abandoned animals living on the streets.... starving... looking for their humans. Maybe they won't have the best vet care, or the best food, or an ideal living situation- but I do believe if the animal had a choice, they'd want to stay with their human.

Obviously, I think it's silly to add a NEW pet if you are already in a very tight financial situation. I am waiting to add a second dog until I am a bit more secure financially - while I could swing it right this moment, I am not sure I want to be THAT tight with money yet. So I think if you buy a new puppy, and then claim you can't afford such basic things for it, such as a vet visit, initial vaccines, food, etc... that's just dumb. But I think if you have a 7yr old dog, for example, and have hit unexpected hard times... you shouldn't be judged if you can't take your dog to the vet immediately, etc.

I saw a Dateline show or something a few months ago, where a family who had once lived the high life, was now completely broke and living out of their van with 3 kids AND the family dog. Ideal?? Of course not!! But just because you may be having a year or two slump, doesn't mean you should have to give your dog up forever, when things have the chance to get better again. And I am sure the dog is much happier living that way than in a shelter. There are so many dogs that have NO health care, or food, and live on the streets, or are sitting in cages for years at a shelter or rescue... I think they are better off even with a family who may be underprivileged.

Some of the best kept and well loved dogs I've seen have been from "poor" people and some of the worst treated dogs I've seen have been from "rich" people... so I just don't think automatically being poor makes you a poor choice for an animal, or a bad owner, just as being rich doesn't automatically make you a good choice for a pet.

Just a ramble... opinions welcome.

Fran101
10-13-2012, 01:07 PM
I think that expression, for me anyway, applies mostly to people who are looking to buy a NEW pet.
Going out and buying a puppy when you know you won't be able to afford vet care..IMO is totally irresponsible.

But, I certainly don't think every family who has hit dire times should give up their current pets. We make it work, we hustle, we find the money.. is it ideal? No. but that pet has a loving home with people who try to make it work.
At the end of the day, the best situation is a pet in a loving home.

Just like nobody is saying that people hitting hard financial times should give up their kids!
..but they certainly shouldn't be planning on having a baby just because they want one with NO RESPECT for how much babies costs etc.. and just hoping for the best and putting all their cards on blind faith.

Because sometimes things DO happen and sometimes goodness forbid, things don't work out and the money cant be found..then what do you do?
With that dog you've had forever, it's a sad thing and you do what you can.

but with a puppy/animal you just bought.. one must wonder, WHY did you bring him/her home in the first place? Wouldn't this new animal have been better off if someone else had purchased it instead of someone who was going to buy it, wait until something happens and then give it up when it isn't as easily adoptable.

yoko
10-13-2012, 01:09 PM
I get not being able to afford some of the more expensive stuff like emergency surgery or long term medical care.

But if someone is struggling to even get their dog to the vet when it's obvious something is wrong with the dog I do think maybe they shouldn't own a pet.

With all the low cost clinics around here if someone's dog is in pain or sick and they can't afford the $20 to just have the vet look at them I do question if having a pet at that time is the right thing.

My issue that I have MOST of the time is someone will complain about needing something for their dog because the dog is obviously sick or injured and they won't do ANYTHING to help. I get that I'm not in the majority if Yoshi needs money I don't have I have absolutely no problem selling things or shutting off luxuries. My issue is when someone is picking luxuries over an animals life and that's when I usually speak up.

hedwig
10-13-2012, 01:10 PM
The way i see it is maby we should apply this rule to having children to those judgemental people huh?

You loose your home and job and live in a van for a couple years. Well lets take HAVE THE KIDS ADOPTED.

Why is it trashy people are aloud to breed like rabbits and spit 7 children out and cannot even afford a bog brush?

People should be concentrating on these people. You do not chuck out A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY BECAUSE OF BAD CIRCUMSTANCES! KID OR DOG.

And people judge the poor person about lack of funds for pets/kids. Why not judge the people that put them in that situation instead?

JacksonsMom
10-13-2012, 01:11 PM
I think that expression, for me anyway, applies mostly to people who are looking to buy a NEW pet.
Going out and buying a puppy when you know you won't be able to afford vet care..IMO is totally irresponsible.

But, I certainly don't think every family who has hit dire times should give up their current pets. We make it work, we hustle, we find the money.. is it ideal? No. but that pet has a loving home with people who try to make it work.
At the end of the day, the best situation is a pet in a loving home.

Just like nobody is saying that people hitting hard financial times should give up their kids!
..but they certainly shouldn't be planning on having a baby just because they want one with NO RESPECT for how much babies costs etc.. and just hoping for the best and putting all their cards on blind faith.

Because sometimes things DO happen and sometimes goodness forbid, things don't work out and the money cant be found..then what do you do?
With that dog you've had forever, it's a sad thing and you do what you can.

but with a puppy/animal you just bought.. one must wonder, WHY did you bring him/her home in the first place? Wouldn't this new animal have been better off if someone else had purchased it instead of someone who was going to buy it, wait until something happens and then give it up when it isn't as easily adoptable.

Absolutely agree! I think if you go out and buy a puppy, and then go on to say how you can't afford anything that a puppy needs... that is just stupidity!

hedwig
10-13-2012, 01:17 PM
Another point of view is rescue pets and poor people.

Alot of rescues will not allow people on benefits or have a low income to adopt an animal.

Surely a home with a low income and management of a health complaint is better then a rescue kennel or a death sentence?

So rescuing a puppy from a pound who had 1 day left before being PTS is better off that way then a person on a low income who cannot afford vet bills IF OR WHEN it gets sick?

That puppy may not get ill for several years. Those several years could have been used living in a POOR family home instead of PTS.

Depends on your point of view i spose

Shai
10-13-2012, 01:28 PM
I think it also depends on what you mean by "afford a vet."

Afford basic immunizations, necessary preventatives for your area, and reasonable checkups?

Afford minor surgery? <$500? <$1000?

Afford major surgery/illness?

I mean "afford a vet" can--depending on the dog, the area, etc.--range from less than $100 a year to $10k+ if you have something catastrophic happen.

hedwig
10-13-2012, 01:38 PM
Depends where you live. If you live on a farm i doubt i would vaccinate my dog unless i knew another was coming to the farm and do it in advance.

In the uk we have the pdsa, which helps pay for your vets bills if your low income. Is there something similar in usa?

So minor injurys/surgery would be possible

but anything major i think would have to PTS. But that also goes for myself. If i broke my leg with no funds. I would keep that broken leg

JessLough
10-13-2012, 01:46 PM
To me, affording a vet means doing anything in your power to get that pet to the vet when needed -- be it through selling stuff or borrowing money.

Xandra
10-13-2012, 01:49 PM
I think some people get downright illogical about this topic. In an area like where I live, where a normal dog is easily homed, I can see why one might think dogs should only go to homes that can afford the vet. But in places where shelters kill dogs, PUPPIES even, en masse? If you live in one of these areas, I don't care if you don't have a dime to your name, if you want a dog to feed and love and are prepared to make hard decisions should the pup get sick, I think you should go ahead and get one.

JessLough
10-13-2012, 01:49 PM
Depends where you live. If you live on a farm i doubt i would vaccinate my dog unless i knew another was coming to the farm and do it in advance.

In the uk we have the pdsa, which helps pay for your vets bills if your low income. Is there something similar in usa?

So minor injurys/surgery would be possible

but anything major i think would have to PTS. But that also goes for myself. If i broke my leg with no funds. I would keep that broken leg

I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

You break your leg and do nothing about it? That's OK, you're the idiot making that choice. The dog breaks it leg? Take it to a vet or surrender it to somebody who will -- the dog doesn't get to be that idiot making that choice to keep it.

yoko
10-13-2012, 01:53 PM
I think some people get downright illogical about this topic. In an area like where I live, where a normal dog is easily homed, I can see why one might think dogs should only go to homes that can afford the vet. But in places where shelters kill dogs, PUPPIES even, en masse? If you live in one of these areas, I don't care if you don't have a dime to your name, if you want a dog to feed and love and are prepared to make hard decisions should the pup get sick, I think you should go ahead and get one.

If they don't have a dime to their name why would I allow them to adopt a dog? Would they take it to the vet and get it's shots? If they don't have a dime would they even be able to afford the adoption fee? If not should we give them the dog for free because they'll love it?

If they don't have a dime to their name how are THEY eating? How will the dog eat?

I get having emergencies pop up and running into issues paying for things. But to put a dog INTO that situation is just negligent on the part of the person adopting the dog out.

smkie
10-13-2012, 01:58 PM
I have backup or my animals would not be here. It doesnt' mean God forbid that if something ranking a thousand or more should happen that I could ask for that kind of help, but for basic care we are covered which I think is rational. If you can't afford basic care, you should not have a pet.

Xandra
10-13-2012, 02:02 PM
If they don't have a dime to their name why would I allow them to adopt a dog? Would they take it to the vet and get it's shots? If they don't have a dime would they even be able to afford the adoption fee? If not should we give them the dog for free because they'll love it?

If they don't have a dime to their name how are THEY eating? How will the dog eat?

I get having emergencies pop up and running into issues paying for things. But to put a dog INTO that situation is just negligent on the part of the person adopting the dog out.
Why? Well in the circumstances I just outlined you'd adopt a dog to them so it wouldn't be put down or I suppose so you could walk right down to the shelter and get another that is about to be put down. Would they take it to the vet for its shots, no. Would they pay an adoption fee, probably not? Usually in those areas dogs can be found for free so I can't see my hypothetical person paying an adoption fee. Whether or not you want to give dogs away for free depends on how you operate, are you trying to spare as many dogs as possible or are you trying to take a select few and get them into an ideal home?

I suppose I should clarify, that if they cannot afford to eat or feed the dog, i.e. if they get a dog it is just going to starve to death, then no they shouldn't get it, they should leave it to be PTS.

yoko
10-13-2012, 02:06 PM
Why? Well in the circumstances I just outlined you'd adopt a dog to them so it wouldn't be put down or I suppose so you could walk right down to the shelter and get another that is about to be put down. Would they take it to the vet for its shots, no. Would they pay an adoption fee, probably not? Usually in those areas dogs can be found for free so I can't see my hypothetical person paying an adoption fee. Whether or not you want to give dogs away for free depends on how you operate, are you trying to spare as many dogs as possible or are you trying to take a select few and get them into an ideal home?

I suppose I should clarify, that if they cannot afford to eat or feed the dog, i.e. if they get a dog it is just going to starve to death, then no they shouldn't get it, they should leave it to be PTS.

Ok so in your opinion there shouldn't be an adoption fee and anyone who comes in should get an animal?

I love having a dog. But you have to have SOME sort of financial stability before taking on that responsibility. And while saving a dog sounds good on paper. Sometimes getting 'any' home isn't better than being PTS.

Xandra
10-13-2012, 02:13 PM
Ok so in your opinion there shouldn't be an adoption fee and anyone who comes in should get an animal?

I love having a dog. But you have to have SOME sort of financial stability before taking on that responsibility. And while saving a dog sounds good on paper. Sometimes getting 'any' home isn't better than being PTS.
I don't really have an opinion on whether some organization should charge an adoption fee or not.

You're totally right when you say "any" home isn't better than being PTS. I would rather a dog be PTS then starve to death, then linger with some rancid injury that isn't going to mend etc.

Would you rather a dog be killed by AC today for lack of space then go into a home where it will live happily for months or years?

yoko
10-13-2012, 02:17 PM
Would you rather a dog be killed by AC today for lack of space then go into a home where it will live happily for months or years?

I'd rather a dog to to a dog where it will live happily of course. But if a person can't afford themselves then no I would absolutely not adopt out to them. Does it sound heartless? It maybe. But I'd rather put the dog down than see it back in three months later nearly starved to death because the person learned that love alone won't sustain a healthy dog.

Xandra
10-13-2012, 02:20 PM
I'd rather a dog to to a dog where it will live happily of course. But if a person can't afford themselves then no I would absolutely not adopt out to them. Does it sound heartless? It maybe. But I'd rather put the dog down than see it back in three months later nearly starved to death because the person learned that love alone won't sustain a healthy dog.
In my original post I do say "feed and love." If you can't figure out how to nourish an animal then I totally agree, you might as well leave it to be put down where it is.

Dizzy
10-13-2012, 02:25 PM
It's one things not having money and not even trying to save something for a rainy day.

I think if you just get a pet without any thought of HOW you'll manage if something happens, then you shouldn't get a pet.

milos_mommy
10-13-2012, 02:31 PM
Maybe it's a bit different for me...it is not AT ALL uncommon here to see homeless people with pets (I'd even go so far to say that 50% of them might have pets with them)...people who are shivering in the street and have their sweatshirt wrapped around their dog, who will give their dog half or more of any food people give to them, who spend the change they collect on cans of dog food. Some homeless people have more than one dog with them, some have cats on leashes or in cages on the streets.

But they're euthanizing hundreds of dogs each week...so what the hell are they going to do with their pets? Send them to ACC to be terrified, get kennel cough and have their skin rubbed off by the cement cage, to be put down a week later? A private rescue taking you dog isn't going to happen here unless it's a 6 lb toy dog or some fairly uncommon purebred.

Plus, people in the "dog world" seem REALLY fond of rushing to the vet. Dog gets a tick? Better vet it for blood work. Hot spot? Better get to a vet. He vomited more than twice? He better see a vet. So yeah, if someone's dog gets hit by a car and breaks it's leg and they "don't have money for a vet" I'll be pretty pissed unless they're getting rid of cable and internet to get to a vet. If the dog has a hot spot they can treat at home or is limping slightly after hard exercise but fine otherwise, I'm not judging anyone for not selling their car and tv and soul to pay for vet care.

SkyRock
10-13-2012, 02:35 PM
I know this depends on the area where you live, but we have a free veterinary close to my area where people with little to no income go. Maybe they are not over the top technology advanced, but still, they are a great vet clinic, completely funded by donations. I don't think poor families should be denied a dog just because they can't offer their dog paid vet care. I do think they have to be able to get him food, and even then, there a free or very cheap pet food banks in almost every county.

yoko
10-13-2012, 02:35 PM
Plus, people in the "dog world" seem REALLY fond of rushing to the vet. Dog gets a tick? Better vet it for blood work. Hot spot? Better get to a vet. He vomited more than twice? He better see a vet. So yeah, if someone's dog gets hit by a car and breaks it's leg and they "don't have money for a vet" I'll be pretty pissed unless they're getting rid of cable and internet to get to a vet. If the dog has a hot spot they can treat at home or is limping slightly after hard exercise but fine otherwise, I'm not judging anyone for not selling their car and tv and soul to pay for vet care.

I'm not going to say something if they get a tick/fleas/hot spot and they fix it themselves. Heck if I took Yoshi in every time she decided to drink water too fast and throw up I'd be bankrupt.

I also probably wouldn't say much if the dog got injured and they opted to put the dog down because they couldn't pay the emergency expenses.

If their dog got hurt/sick and it definitely needed vet care and the person came on here complained about it and said they didn't have the money then went and bought a car/tv/cell phone/camera yeah I'd say something.

~Dixie's_Mom~
10-13-2012, 03:30 PM
I agree with the idea that it applies mostly to people getting NEW pets. We are going through VERY hard times right now. If I didn't have a job (which I do) my parents would NOT be able to afford even a $50 or $100 vet bill right now. It's not always that way, but my family is going through some real financial difficulty. But if in this situation I didn't have a job, I would do whatever I could to get the money to help my dog. Selling things, borrowing money/getting a loan, etc. However I do have a job and would put up the money if something happened. I also am in the process of putting money away for any medical emergencies for the dogs. You just do what you have to do. If someone had to opt for rehome/euthanasia if they couldn't afford treatment for their pet, I would understand that and sympathize with someone like that. Always having money is an ideal, not a reality. If it is for you, then its a blessing and it is not the norm. Everyone has hard times. It doesn't make them irresponsible or bad people.

Paige
10-13-2012, 03:46 PM
I can afford some vet treatment but not others. I would not add to my current pets because of this but I'm not about to rehome my dog over it either. Lucky for me I could use a famiyl friend if I really needed to to pay for something expensive but I'd be more likely to put Bandit down if they weren't telling me the success rate would be high. Sounds terrible... but it is what it is. I love him dearly. He is priceless to me. But I wouldn't borrow 5 grand to save his life if he wasn't almost for sure going to live.

elegy
10-13-2012, 04:15 PM
Plus, people in the "dog world" seem REALLY fond of rushing to the vet. Dog gets a tick? Better vet it for blood work. Hot spot? Better get to a vet. He vomited more than twice? He better see a vet.

On the other side of things, of course, there are people like me who work in veterinary hospitals and bang their heads against the no money issue just about every day. Blocked cat, no money. Broken leg, no money. Pyometra, no money. Hit by car, no money. Flat-out from flea-bite anemia and no money. Pets who are suffering horrendously because the owner doesn't have the money for appropriate vet care.

Do I think you need to be able to afford a $5000 bloat surgery in order to own a dog? No, but I do think there needs to be enough money in the bank for an office visit with the emergency vet and euthanasia/cremation.

JacksonsMom
10-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Also, admittedly, it was a very stupid time in my life for me to add a dog. If I had come on here and asked opinions, everyone most likely would have told me to have waited. And really, yeah, that probably would have been the smartest thing to do. 18, just graduated high school, still living at home, no 'real' job. I paid $550 for Jackson from a BYB in Baltimore and asked my grandpa for $200 of it as an early Christmas present... yeah, horrible timing for a dog and anyone would have told me I was stupid! But hey, it worked out. Having him and falling so much in love with him, and realizing the immediate bond you get, and suddenly you have responsibility... I spent all of my Christmas money on him, I've only once asked for help on a very expensive vet bill, everything else I have ALWAYS taken care of. Yup, a lot of things unexpected and things I just did because I had to ... I managed. He's always gotten superb care (including a $1300 visit to the dentist when I could've gone the cheap route and had it pulled for less than $200, but probably would have caused more issues so wanted to give him the best) and as most of you know on here, he's a very well loved and taken care of dog.

JacksonsMom
10-13-2012, 04:20 PM
On the other side of things, of course, there are people like me who work in veterinary hospitals and bang their heads against the no money issue just about every day. Blocked cat, no money. Broken leg, no money. Pyometra, no money. Hit by car, no money. Flat-out from flea-bite anemia and no money. Pets who are suffering horrendously because the owner doesn't have the money for appropriate vet care.

Do I think you need to be able to afford a $5000 bloat surgery in order to own a dog? No, but I do think there needs to be enough money in the bank for an office visit with the emergency vet and euthanasia/cremation.

I can imagine being on the vet side of things you see/hear some horrible things, so I definitely can't relate to that, but I'm sure I'd be banging my head against a wall too.

Jynx
10-13-2012, 04:41 PM
I'm so on the fence about this topic,,I think everyone who loves animals should be able to know the love of a dog and every dog deserves a good home.

I think any animal deserves food/shelter/good health care and not made to suffer for any reason.

Times can be tough, and I think alot of people go out and get that cute puppy with no thought to the future, especially 'emergencies':( I don't know if they don't think about it, think it won't happen to their pet, or what.

I'm not a rich person by any means, I've had some ER's, I've had some HUGE vet bills, thank god my vet takes payments if I have to go that route. I will never PTS any of my animals because I can't afford a vet visit, I'll beg, borrow or sell something if I have to.
I'll never deny my animals a vet visit because I may be low on cash.

It's my responsibility as a pet owner... It's not for me to say 'you shouldn't have an animal if you can't pay for it' altho I'd probably like to at times:) I know a couple of hoarders:(

So for me anyway, it's not a black or white answer:(

Assamiea
10-13-2012, 04:42 PM
I know many people who are on harder times that have pets but technically can't afford vet care on a regular basis, but if their dog needs vet care they find a way to come up with the funds by sacrificing other things in their lives.

The one thing I find appalling is when someone gets a pet, knowing that they can't afford basic vet care, then do nothing when their pet needs to be seen by a vet.

My boyfriends parents are like this. They got a dog (for free) after nearly being evicted from their appartment for not being able to pay their rent (they needed my boyfriend to move back in to help with basic expenses). They constantly come up with excuses as to why the dog doesn't need to be seen by a vet. The dog gets in a fight and has a HUGE gaping hole in it's neck -- it'll heal on it's own. The dog has a raging ear infection -- oh, it's just the weather. Heaven forbid that they should give up or cut down on their smoking to save a little money for their dogs care.

Fran27
10-13-2012, 05:03 PM
I can afford some vet treatment but not others. I would not add to my current pets because of this but I'm not about to rehome my dog over it either. Lucky for me I could use a famiyl friend if I really needed to to pay for something expensive but I'd be more likely to put Bandit down if they weren't telling me the success rate would be high. Sounds terrible... but it is what it is. I love him dearly. He is priceless to me. But I wouldn't borrow 5 grand to save his life if he wasn't almost for sure going to live.

I'm right with you... Some things are just crazy expensive and I wouldn't spend a ton of money for something that might not work either.

And no, people shouldn't get a pet if they can't afford $150 a year for vet care. But I'd rather see a dog adopted by someone who can't afford a $5000 surgery to fix its leg than to see the dog get PTS... because really, how likely is the dog to actually break a leg or need an expensive surgery?

BostonBanker
10-13-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm not really on the fence. I agree that, if you have a dog and you are going through hard times, you absolutely do what you can to make it work. I don't think well-loved pets need to be removed from homes where the owners are going through a bad patch. We all know that, when the bond is there, we will find the money. I've spent six years shoveling money I didn't have to the vet for Tristan. You find it, you talk to the vet, you pay off some every month, and you ask "is there a cheaper drug we can try first?".

But to go get a pet knowing you likely won't be able to treat something that comes up? Nope. And, like others, I'm not saying that you need to have 5k or 10k stashed away. But you should be able to get your hands on a few hundred relatively quickly. My "I don't touch it" credit card got yanked out when Gusto had his emergency last month. It will get paid off as I'm able.

Getting a dog knowing you aren't going to give it any immunizations is foolhardy, both for the dog and for general herd immunity. Knowing you can't even take it to the vet for an evaluation if something goes seriously wrong isn't okay.

Work on getting your life a bit more stable, and then go get a dog, and do so with a smile on your face knowing that you can provide that dog with the basics it needs to be safe and happy.

Laurelin
10-13-2012, 05:12 PM
I'm not really on the fence. I agree that, if you have a dog and you are going through hard times, you absolutely do what you can to make it work. I don't think well-loved pets need to be removed from homes where the owners are going through a bad patch. We all know that, when the bond is there, we will find the money. I've spent six years shoveling money I didn't have to the vet for Tristan. You find it, you talk to the vet, you pay off some every month, and you ask "is there a cheaper drug we can try first?".

But to go get a pet knowing you likely won't be able to treat something that comes up? Nope. And, like others, I'm not saying that you need to have 5k or 10k stashed away. But you should be able to get your hands on a few hundred relatively quickly. My "I don't touch it" credit card got yanked out when Gusto had his emergency last month. It will get paid off as I'm able.

Getting a dog knowing you aren't going to give it any immunizations is foolhardy, both for the dog and for general herd immunity. Knowing you can't even take it to the vet for an evaluation if something goes seriously wrong isn't okay.

Work on getting your life a bit more stable, and then go get a dog, and do so with a smile on your face knowing that you can provide that dog with the basics it needs to be safe and happy.

Pretty much that^^

sassafras
10-13-2012, 07:31 PM
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to have thousands of dollars just laying around in case of an emergency. BUT, I do think it's reasonable to expect people to have a contingency plan - emergency credit card, care credit, an arrangement with a friend or relative to borrow money, whatever. And to take responsibility for your own decisions if you don't have a contingency plan - not expect to get free or discounted care because you didn't plan ahead or try to guilt or bully people into giving it to you.

And nothing makes me sigh heavily more than someone complaining they "can't afford" care because they are leaving for their cruise next week, or something along those lines. You CAN afford it, you just choose to spend your money elsewhere. Which is perfectly ok and your decision, but don't try to emotionally manipulate me so you can have your cake and eat it, too. Grown ups know that sometimes affording one thing means giving something else up, so take responsibility for your decisions.

Southpaw
10-13-2012, 09:04 PM
Just wanna post my 2 cents and then I'll go back and actually read the thread.

Yes, I stand behind the phrase. Owning animals is not a right and it is so sad and so unfair when people take them on, and then can't afford proper care. I see this on forums, I saw this working at a vet clinic, I saw this working at a pet store. I don't like seeing a 1.5 year old dachshund put to sleep because his owner can't afford to treat his back problems. I don't like seeing a dog have a litter of puppies because the owner couldn't afford to have her spayed (and couldn't properly supervise her, but nonetheless). And then when one of the puppies is hit by a car 6 months later, he is put to sleep because of course, they couldn't afford any treatment. Or the owners who maybe don't elect euthanasia, but simply let the health problems drag on and on and on because they can't afford to go to the vet.

Who does this benefit?? No one. Is it really worth it for the owner that their pet dies because they can't afford anything else? Is the animal benefiting when they are suffering because no one will seek proper care for it?

Emergencies happen and I get that. No, I don't plan to spend $1500+ when my cat blocks on a Saturday afternoon. Which he has done twice. I don't normally have that much money just sitting around waiting to be spent. But we always make it work.

And I get that people fall on hard times, people lose jobs or the family dynamic changes and the money isn't always there. I am not saying you need to run out and rehome all your animals if this happens to you. But you sure as hell better not acquire any new ones.

I just don't think you should have a pet if you can't afford the price of an exam. If you can't afford a spay or neuter. If you can't afford routine speed bumps that might happen, like treating an ear infection or a UTI or having a fecal exam done if your dog has diarrhea. That stuff HAPPENS, animals get sick. If you can't even afford THOSE things, then what happens if your pet should have something that requires chronic treatment or if an emergency occurs? Usually this is where the complaining and insulting and hissy fits and "veterinary staff don't care about animals" nonsense comes in.

Sure, maybe you can get lucky and get a pet that is uber healthy and never needs to go in. And then it doesn't matter that you don't have vet money, right? You can't cross your fingers and hope that's the case though, because likely it won't be.

Yeah, I feel a little strongly about this.

Bahamutt99
10-13-2012, 09:32 PM
I make sure my dogs get what they need, but I am also realistic about it. I don't take my dogs to the vet for yearly check ups or anything like that. We do the minimum shots required (on my adult dogs) and figure out where we can cut costs. Emergencies? Well, no, I don't have an elaborate plan for them. But my dogs eat, get their shots, do a show here and there as we can afford it, get their health-testing, etc. I will be the first to admit that a $300 price tag blocked me from spaying Terra, but I don't consider it a necessity to have her spayed at any rate.

And I do plan on having other dogs. They will not be rescues. If that makes me a bad person, oh well.

Shakou
10-13-2012, 10:41 PM
While I have absolutely no issues these days coming up with money for a vet should my dogs or rats need it, there have been times in my life as a pet owner where issues that have required vet attention have snuck up on me during times where I was in a bad financial spot and really couldn't afford a vet. However, that never stopped me from making the appointment and scraping together every last penny I had to make sure my animal wouldn't suffer. If I didn't have enough, I'd talk to the vet and try to see if I could make payments, I'd beg family and friends for money, I'd not buy groceries for a couple weeks, I'd do everything in my power to make sure my pet got what it needed.

Does that mean I was a bad pet owner, because I couldn't afford vet care? No, in fact, I'm pretty proud of myself, because I put my pet's needs above my own and did what I had to, as embarrassing as it was, to make sure they'd get healthy again. Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen that are beyond your control. What makes a bad pet owner are those that refuse to even try to get their pet help when they really need it, and just let it sit there and suffer.

Flyinsbt
10-13-2012, 11:03 PM
I think you should be able to afford basic care before you get a pet, but beyond that? There's just such a wide range of what you could have to spend.

When my old gal, Tully, was sick with what turned out to be Cushings, and I went to the specialist, I felt terrible because I had to be that client who worried about the cost, and had to ask for cheaper ways to do stuff. I spent thousands. And this all came up shortly after spending $2000 for treatment of Tess' kidney infection. I'm now in debt for probably another 4 years to pay off the vet bills. I can't spend any more on Tully, I need to keep some room in the budget available in case something happens with one of the younger dogs.

A couple years ago, I would have said I was in excellent shape to afford whatever vet care my dogs need, and had lots of potential resources. But you can burn through those, faster than you think.

I don't think pet ownership should be reserved for only the wealthy.

PlottMom
10-13-2012, 11:20 PM
I've only owned my own dogs since I was a junior in college (IE. I have always been poor with dogs. Lol) Even with a BS, I have no idea what to do when I "grow up", so I work at a vet clinic. Luckily, this means I get a discount & some wiggle room to come up with payments, but when I was working with the kids I was almost living paycheck to paycheck just to keep us in an apartment that allowed big, dirty, noisy hounds ;) so I've gotta say, you do what you can, but I certainly don't expect people to just have money to burn when they get a dog. Vet care is EXPENSIVE... I agree you should be prepared for initial/annual vet costs... but Daisy needing a premolars removed quickly turned into what would have been a $900 if I hadn't worked for the guy. Even then, I had to cash in a few savings bonds as we were paying our property taxes at the same time.

OwnedByBCs
10-13-2012, 11:21 PM
Well.. the way I look at it, its not an option for me to just let medical treatment slide, and my family DOESN'T have lot of money. A few months ago, Riot ate some Advil PM, and was throwing up and on the brink of death (liver failure). It was 8 or 9 pm so I had to rush her to the E-Vet, and the whole thing cost me a little over $1,000. Yeah, it hurt my wallet a LOT- and I ate a lot of mac n cheese and spaghetti after that, but you better believe I wasn't going to let a 15 month old dog die because I couldn't really afford it. I had to borrow money, owed a lot of people, but I did it. She's alive, and thats all that matters.

Now... do I think someone shouldn't own a pet if they can't do that? I don't know. On the one hand I desperately want to say yes, but on the other hand I think its a tough question. Is a pet better off in a shelter or having a 3 years in a nice home and then getting cancer which the owners can't afford to fix? I don't know. Its too hard for me to say.

All I can say is that had I let Riot die that day, I couldn't live with myself.

However, I can say with some certainty, if you can't afford a $2,000 surgery, you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BREEDING. Seriously. Odds be damned, no one, and I mean no one, who can't afford a c-section, should be breeding ANY litter. I'm sorry, thats just the way it is.

smkie
10-13-2012, 11:21 PM
I wish the people across the street that had the cat feral fixed, and then feed him and treat him like he is there cat, but only so far, cheap food, and such would realize that what they did took away any chance he had of being adopted by a real owner that might have valued him a great deal more. They think they saved Smokie. I think they robbed him. He could have gone up for adoption, it is not an automatic death sentence for a cat here to be turned over. I think that when people take them thinking they are saving them even tho they can't give them basic care, shots, spaying and neutering, heart worm preventative and the like, are under the same delusion thinking that they too "saved" the animal.

hedwig
10-14-2012, 03:10 AM
I have backup or my animals would not be here. It doesnt' mean God forbid that if something ranking a thousand or more should happen that I could ask for that kind of help, but for basic care we are covered which I think is rational. If you can't afford basic care, you should not have a pet.

I AGREE WITH THIS.

Can please everyone take the time to realise how people took care of their dogs before insurence and operations were even available to pets.Dogs were fed table scraps! Not even 150 years ago? If a dog got parvo back then, it was dealt with kindly and respectfully and that was the end of it as their wasnt any real treatments. Was it wrong for all those people to keep dogs? And that goes for people aswell. If a person broke their leg, that could of meant a death sentence back then.

Well i believe the poorest people wont be able to afford care for themselves if something serious happened let alone their dogs such as parvo (with vaccinations of course)

We are reverting back to a time were health care is only for the richest people and pets. Sad but true. Does this mean only the rich should reproduce and keep dogs?

I agree though, if your dog is starving or needs minor treatment such as teeth taken out and you cannot afford it etc then you shouldnt have one

SpringerLover
10-14-2012, 06:50 AM
I also work(ed) in a veterinary clinic and saw time after time the "I can't afford treatment" but let me go get in my Lexus and drive off after you euthanize my four year old male cat for being blocked, my seven year old bernese mountain dog that has a severe case of lyme, etc.

I am lucky in that I have a bunch of resources available to me but it's not like they just fell into my lap. I forged a relationship with my vet long before I worked there... and I had to use that relationship when Rascal was injured and required hundreds of dollars of surgery because I didn't have it all up front but I paid every two weeks reliably until my balance was zero.

BostonBanker
10-14-2012, 07:39 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to have unlimited funds to treat a dog at all times. I'm so far from "wealthy" I can't even see the end of that line. I'm not talking about people who can't afford to throw down 5k on an emergency surgery. I'm talking about people who can't afford to keep their rabies up to date. People who have sick dogs who let them die slowly at home because they can't afford to take them to the vet to be put down. People who have dogs who live in pain every day because they can't keep the dog on pain meds to make them comfortable.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then be put down respectfully when cancer sets in and the owners can't afford treatment? Yes.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then waste away and die slowly over the course of another 18 months because cancer sets in and the owners can't afford to go to the vet and diagnose and make a plan? No.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to keep yourself and your current family going, you should not take on the responsibility of another life. It is not the vet's job to fund your desire to own a pet, nor is it society's. I'd be willing to help in any way I could if someone was going through hard times and needed help keeping their current pets safe and healthy. But if you go out of your way to bring in yet another financial responsibility to your life, that's just foolish.

JacksonsMom
10-14-2012, 07:41 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to have unlimited funds to treat a dog at all times. I'm so far from "wealthy" I can't even see the end of that line. I'm not talking about people who can't afford to throw down 5k on an emergency surgery. I'm talking about people who can't afford to keep their rabies up to date. People who have sick dogs who let them die slowly at home because they can't afford to take them to the vet to be put down. People who have dogs who live in pain every day because they can't keep the dog on pain meds to make them comfortable.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then be put down respectfully when cancer sets in and the owners can't afford treatment? Yes.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then waste away and die slowly over the course of another 18 months because cancer sets in and the owners can't afford to go to the vet and diagnose and make a plan? No.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to keep yourself and your current family going, you should not take on the responsibility of another life. It is not the vet's job to fund your desire to own a pet, nor is it society's. I'd be willing to help in any way I could if someone was going through hard times and needed help keeping their current pets safe and healthy. But if you go out of your way to bring in yet another financial responsibility to your life, that's just foolish.

Good post! I agree with this.

hedwig
10-14-2012, 08:08 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to have unlimited funds to treat a dog at all times. I'm so far from "wealthy" I can't even see the end of that line. I'm not talking about people who can't afford to throw down 5k on an emergency surgery. I'm talking about people who can't afford to keep their rabies up to date. People who have sick dogs who let them die slowly at home because they can't afford to take them to the vet to be put down. People who have dogs who live in pain every day because they can't keep the dog on pain meds to make them comfortable.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then be put down respectfully when cancer sets in and the owners can't afford treatment? Yes.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then waste away and die slowly over the course of another 18 months because cancer sets in and the owners can't afford to go to the vet and diagnose and make a plan? No.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to keep yourself and your current family going, you should not take on the responsibility of another life. It is not the vet's job to fund your desire to own a pet, nor is it society's. I'd be willing to help in any way I could if someone was going through hard times and needed help keeping their current pets safe and healthy. But if you go out of your way to bring in yet another financial responsibility to your life, that's just foolish.


Agreed! This is what i meant by putting dogs in homes by people on low income! As long as they can feed the dog a decent diet, provide enough funds to PTS or provide minor treatments then provide a dog on deathrow at least some sorta life before sickness sets in, then yes i think do it!

But if a dog is taken in by a family on a low income where they cannot feed themselves and let a dogs illness get worse leading to suffering, the family should be prosecuted!

sillysally
10-14-2012, 10:25 AM
Another point of view is rescue pets and poor people.

Alot of rescues will not allow people on benefits or have a low income to adopt an animal.

Surely a home with a low income and management of a health complaint is better then a rescue kennel or a death sentence?

So rescuing a puppy from a pound who had 1 day left before being PTS is better off that way then a person on a low income who cannot afford vet bills IF OR WHEN it gets sick?

That puppy may not get ill for several years. Those several years could have been used living in a POOR family home instead of PTS.

Depends on your point of view i spose

The problem is that sometimes the dog really can suffer if the owner cannot afford vet care. I know a couple who adopted a Samoyed from a breed rescue, and the couple was very low income. The dog turned out to have hip dysplasia and needed surgery that the couple flat out could not afford. A rescue that a good friend runs decided to help and raise money for the surgery-they eventually reached their goal, but if you saw the dog it was obvious that dispute the pain meds he really was in pain, and that pain went on much longer than it really should have for the lack of funds.

This couple loved the dog and are very sweet people, but no, I do no think the dog should have been adopted out to them. He was in a breed rescue, it's not like he was going to go to his death if he were not adopted. I'm not passing judgement on his owners, they really did have good intentions and love him. However, love and good intentions don't fix joints or ease intense pain.

AllisonPitbullLvr
10-14-2012, 10:49 AM
On the other side of things, of course, there are people like me who work in veterinary hospitals and bang their heads against the no money issue just about every day. Blocked cat, no money. Broken leg, no money. Pyometra, no money. Hit by car, no money. Flat-out from flea-bite anemia and no money. Pets who are suffering horrendously because the owner doesn't have the money for appropriate vet care.

Do I think you need to be able to afford a $5000 bloat surgery in order to own a dog? No, but I do think there needs to be enough money in the bank for an office visit with the emergency vet and euthanasia/cremation.

This. Also, on the flip side, people who go broke paying for treatments with a poor prognosis also need to be considered.

We have a case right now of a spitz who was toe-touching lame. Due to money concerns, the owner waited too long to bring him in, and then declined X-rays. When the dog failed to get better, they finally scraped together enough money and rads showed a dislocated hip. We gave options, a higher cost femoral head excision with a lower chance of success because of how long the injury had been left, or a lower cost limb amputation. The family elected to borrow the money and, because of the stigma attached to a "disabled" dog (really?!), opted for the FHO.

The dog has recovered from surgery but any chance of success relied on post-op rehab, which the owner cannot afford. So the dog is still non-weight bearing. He is probably more comfortable but has to carry around this dead limb. The family went in to considerable debt to pay for a surgery that didn't work.

In a similar case, last week we saw a blocked cat. We had seen him for kitten shots/neuter and declaw and then nothing for 5-6 years. He came in severely blocked but also had a significant heart murmur. The owners let us know that they definitely had financial concerns. We gave a few options, including euthanasia, but the teenage daughter was pushing hard to "fix" him. Even if we had unblocked him, the owners wouldn't have been able to afford prescription food to prevent him from re-blocking nor would they have been able to afford any diagnostics to figure out the source of the heart murmur and treat if needed/possible. They (wisely and humanely IMO) elected to euthanize.

Do I think people need to afford thousands of dollars worth of treatments? No.

Do I want to pull my hair out everytime someone calls me for a price for their new puppy's shots and then tell me that they're on EI and can't afford it? Yes.

hedwig
10-14-2012, 11:40 AM
The problem is that sometimes the dog really can suffer if the owner cannot afford vet care. I know a couple who adopted a Samoyed from a breed rescue, and the couple was very low income. The dog turned out to have hip dysplasia and needed surgery that the couple flat out could not afford. A rescue that a good friend runs decided to help and raise money for the surgery-they eventually reached their goal, but if you saw the dog it was obvious that dispute the pain meds he really was in pain, and that pain went on much longer than it really should have for the lack of funds.

This couple loved the dog and are very sweet people, but no, I do no think the dog should have been adopted out to them. He was in a breed rescue, it's not like he was going to go to his death if he were not adopted. I'm not passing judgement on his owners, they really did have good intentions and love him. However, love and good intentions don't fix joints or ease intense pain.

I agree, my only arguement is, how would people of dealt with this dog when this type of surgery didnt exist? Im afraid that we are reverting back to how things were back then.

Maby if dogs with these types of conditions were put down (genetic right?) maby people would be more selective about breeders or where they buy their dogs? I dont no. maby the lack of demand for dogs prone to these problems would make the condition rarer?

Im not saying these are my points of view and just trying to thrash out some knots :D and i do wonder on others opinions on such :popcorn:

elegy
10-14-2012, 11:58 AM
I will be the first to admit that a $300 price tag blocked me from spaying Terra, but I don't consider it a necessity to have her spayed at any rate..

Well, except for the part where $300 is a lot less money than the $1000 it will take to emergency spay her to keep her from dying if she ends up with a pyometra.

I take no issue with people keeping dogs intact when they believe that's the best option for their dog, but they need to have the money in the bank to deal with the consequences.

yoko
10-14-2012, 11:58 AM
Agreed! This is what i meant by putting dogs in homes by people on low income! As long as they can feed the dog a decent diet, provide enough funds to PTS or provide minor treatments then provide a dog on deathrow at least some sorta life before sickness sets in, then yes i think do it!

But if a dog is taken in by a family on a low income where they cannot feed themselves and let a dogs illness get worse leading to suffering, the family should be prosecuted!

The problem is you already stated that you would be ok with giving dogs out with no adoption fee. For me not only does the adoption fee weed out the 'free dog people' it shows they had SOME sort of disposable income. How are people/rescues going to know if the low income family really wants a dog to love or just wants a free dog? Are we going to be cool showing rescues *who imo can already as waaaaaaaaaaaay too personal questions* our bank statements now too?


I agree, my only arguement is, how would people of dealt with this dog when this type of surgery didnt exist? Im afraid that we are reverting back to how things were back then.

Maby if dogs with these types of conditions were put down (genetic right?) maby people would be more selective about breeders or where they buy their dogs? I dont no. maby the lack of demand for dogs prone to these problems would make the condition rarer?

Im not saying these are my points of view and just trying to thrash out some knots :D and i do wonder on others opinions on such :popcorn:

Even if it's not genetics what if one of the dogs was hit by a car. It didn't die but definitely needed vet care. If these people don't have a dime as you stated before they CAN'T even pay to have the animal put down.

That being said I'm poor. After all bills last month and the $20 I put aside for Yoshi emergencies each paycheck I had $1.30 in my bank account. I'm not saying you have to be rich. But there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE different between being low income and destitute and people seem to lump those two things together when they really shouldn't be.

I have no problem with a low income family who can AFFORD a small adoption fee, care costs *with no help*, and have some sort of vet fund set up getting a dog.

I DO however have a problem with someone who can't afford an adoption fee, who will rely on pet food charities, and 'home remedies' because they have absolutely no money.

hedwig
10-14-2012, 01:23 PM
I agree with you! There are two types of people. The poor and the low income.

Now i have a family living down my road with like 10 kids. You hear people screaming at each other 24/7 and the house is practically imploding with damage!

Not only that but they got a shaggy dog that runs up and down the street barking and growling at people. Now they have a tiny jack russell puppy running around the street.

But these people let the kids play naked in the street amonskt the broken bottles they keep throwing out their houses! These people are poor! And i can see why from how they behave!

I absolutely agree that there should be an adoption fee. But not a large one considering the dog is going to be pts.

If at a no kill shelter then i would expect around $100 dollar for a dog.

You need an adoption fee to put off fighting dog baiters! ( will not name any breeds, as no dog was BORN to fight.)

Unfortunatly it will be very difficult to impliment what is being talked about.

I would talk about how to fix the world, but doing it is another matter.

SADLY the world bites

yoko
10-14-2012, 01:27 PM
I agree with you! There are two types of people. The poor and the low income.

Now i have a family living down my road with like 10 kids. You hear people screaming at each other 24/7 and the house is practically imploding with damage!

Not only that but they got a shaggy dog that runs up and down the street barking and growling at people. Now they have a tiny jack russell puppy running around the street.

But these people let the kids play naked in the street amonskt the broken bottles they keep throwing out their houses! These people are poor! And i can see why from how they behave!

I absolutely agree that there should be an adoption fee. But not a large one considering the dog is going to be pts.

If at a no kill shelter then i would expect around $100 dollar for a dog.

You need an adoption fee to put off fighting dog baiters! ( will not name any breeds, as no dog was BORN to fight.)

Unfortunatly it will be very difficult to impliment what is being talked about.

I would talk about how to fix the world, but doing it is another matter.

SADLY the world bites

For me I don't see a problem with a kill shelter in my area charging $100. They fed and cleaned up after the dog for how ever long it was there PLUS most of the shelters here get all the shots and the dog has to be spay/neutered before leaving. I just don't see how a shelter could operate on a 30-50 dollar adoption fee.

smkie
10-14-2012, 01:29 PM
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=406445129408714&set=a.166859836700579.46705.165585960161300&type=1&theater

I love this...I hope you all can see it. THe normal adoption fee is just the tip of the iceburg in what has been put into a rescue. IT doesnt' begin to cover the costs or the time spent on saving the animal and I think it is very appropriate to be asked.

AliciaD
10-14-2012, 01:32 PM
It's something that I think should mostly be stressed upon people looking for a new pet.

My family is extremely low income, and with two dogs. We were better off when we got them, but stuff happens. We aren't at the point where we can't afford a trip to the vet if they need it. We would find the money. I set money aside for them. They still get their check ups, get the vaccines that are legally required, and get registered.

Neither of my dogs would do well in the stress of a shelter.

sillysally
10-14-2012, 01:48 PM
I agree, my only arguement is, how would people of dealt with this dog when this type of surgery didnt exist? Im afraid that we are reverting back to how things were back then.

Maby if dogs with these types of conditions were put down (genetic right?) maby people would be more selective about breeders or where they buy their dogs? I dont no. maby the lack of demand for dogs prone to these problems would make the condition rarer?

Im not saying these are my points of view and just trying to thrash out some knots :D and i do wonder on others opinions on such :popcorn:

So, rather than people and rescues having some common sense when adopting dogs, we kill dogs with possibly genetic conditions in mass? The dog is altered, he's not going to pass any genes along. Why kill him if veterinary medicine can treat him? That just makes no sense to me.

I bought a horse when we were barely covering or bills. Bad idea but that horse always had the vet care he needed even if other bills weren't unpaid or we had to borrow money. You don't have to be rich to get your animal vet care. Barring something catastrophic, it just takes a willingness to plan, borrow, or sacrifice if need be. If your resources are such that you cannot manage that, then you should not be adding another mouth to feed, IMHO.

yoko
10-14-2012, 01:57 PM
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=406445129408714&set=a.166859836700579.46705.165585960161300&type=1&theater

I love this...I hope you all can see it. THe normal adoption fee is just the tip of the iceburg in what has been put into a rescue. IT doesnt' begin to cover the costs or the time spent on saving the animal and I think it is very appropriate to be asked.

This is a good post!

I've admitted it here before. I should never have gone out and got a dog when I got Yoshi. I wasn't even in an apartment I was renting a room from a lady. I was barely making $500 a month.

But I went to the local shelter. Most of the time their adoption fee is $80-$90ish. Yoshi had been there the minimum three days and was going to be put down. The lady at the shelter loved Yoshi and they were picking up the dogs that were there to take them to the vet to be put down. She gave me Yoshi, shots, spay, and all for $15.

I'm eternally grateful she did but she should not have. Anyone making what I was making should not be given a pet to care for. The only reason I could make it work is I drove without insurance, without updated tags, took toilet paper from work home *each night we changed out the toilet paper rolls even if they weren't empty and instead of throwing them away I took them*, and I ate 'tomato soup' every day *and by tomato soup I mean dollar store tomato juice I heated up and put cheese on*. I got free food at work for Yoshi.

As hypocritical as it sounds if I was adopting out a dog and someone said they only make $500 a month I would most definitely turn them down. After going through what I went through I know if you are only living off of $500 a month you are going without things you NEED. Be it decent food, a nice place to live, insurance, tags, medical insurance, gas money, toiletries. And even if you had all those things $500 wasn't going to leave any emergency money if you OR the dog had an issue pop up and that's just for a single person.

I'm not trying to make myself sound awesome *which I am but beside the point* I've always made sure Yoshi has had what she needed. But I would NEVER expect someone, especially someone with kids to give up things like a home computer or basic cell service to cover a thousand or more dollar vet bill. Yes I've always been willing to shut off my cell phone, sell a computer, sell a game console, sell video games, sell books, sell plasma but I think some other people here would do that too. The problem is you can't judge what we on the dog forum would be willing to do you have to judge what the 'normals' would do.

JacksonsMom
10-14-2012, 02:40 PM
I AGREE WITH THIS.

Can please everyone take the time to realise how people took care of their dogs before insurence and operations were even available to pets.Dogs were fed table scraps! Not even 150 years ago? If a dog got parvo back then, it was dealt with kindly and respectfully and that was the end of it as their wasnt any real treatments. Was it wrong for all those people to keep dogs? And that goes for people aswell. If a person broke their leg, that could of meant a death sentence back then.

Well i believe the poorest people wont be able to afford care for themselves if something serious happened let alone their dogs such as parvo (with vaccinations of course)

We are reverting back to a time were health care is only for the richest people and pets. Sad but true. Does this mean only the rich should reproduce and keep dogs?

I agree though, if your dog is starving or needs minor treatment such as teeth taken out and you cannot afford it etc then you shouldnt have one

The only thing with this is though: yes the medical care did not exist at one point in time, but it does now. Why would you NOT fix something simple that CAN be fixed just because "Well back in the day, the dog would have had to deal with it". Humans died from a lot of diseases that are easily curable now, so why not?

Of course it wasn't wrong for those people back then to keep dogs. Just like, just because if their kid came down with the plague or something, it didn't mean they shouldn't have had kids. There was no such thing as 'treating' it. But nowadays you wouldn't let your kid just die from it.

I'm probably not making sense, but I don't really see the logic you are using necessarily. Just because something used to NOT be available, doesn't mean we shouldn't use it now....

hedwig
10-14-2012, 03:07 PM
My gran told me recently that she has never been more worse off then she has now. And that scares me considering he is 80+ and comes from a very good background!

Im not suggesting that we do not use it if it is there, im saying how long is it going to be available for?

If i developed cancer, i would die! Why? MONEY! if i was to develop a disease that was curable, i would still die, due to the lack of funds!

I have hardily any money and i am classed as low income. Low income people do not have access to treatments that people with money do and die, usually suffering!

My friend died recently from cancer. She didnt have the funds to prolonge her life and afford the treatments!

Life isnt fare! Living the way i do and have has taught me that! How can people expect a life to be fare for animals when we cant even make sure people have the basics?

And no im not using any of this as an excuse. Nothing excuses suffering needlessly.

I wish i had the luxury of being PTS when i get ill like that because i wont be able to afford the treatments!

BostonBanker
10-14-2012, 03:24 PM
How can people expect a life to be fare for animals when we cant even make sure people have the basics?

Because we have a choice as to whether or not we own a pet.

monkeys23
10-14-2012, 03:24 PM
Depends where you live. If you live on a farm i doubt i would vaccinate my dog unless i knew another was coming to the farm and do it in advance.

Doesn't matter if you live out in the boonies. Know some people a few miles down the road from my parent's... probably more rural than anywhere you live, just because we have a lot less people overall in ID... their man biting bitch (thats a whole 'nother issue) and one her pups got parvo recently because they don't vaccinate. Doesn't matter where you live.

I know another couple who stupidly went and got a puppy and apparently her mom (the dog was born at her parent's junkyard) didn't realize the puppy shots are a SERIES, so Scott the dog only got one combo shot (while nursing so that probably wasn't even effective anyway)... yeah he got parvo. Luckily it was a pretty mild case because they couldn't afford to hospitalize him. I dunno, he might've been better off if he'd not made it... gawd knows they expect him to be smart enough to stay out of the road and sure never leash him. Ugh!

I couldn't "afford" Lily's emergency when she got attacked in 2010, but I used Care Credit. Took me over a year to pay it off, but it is what it is. I also paid for my best friend's dog to have surgery on a nasty abcess in his jaw because she couldn't. I'd do it again in a hearbeat, he's an awesome dog and he's kept her going through some horrible crap. And speaking of cancer, she's got to go in for a biopsy this next week. Should she give up the one thing that keeps her going everyday because she can't afford her own medical care? :( And her dog is utd on everything, always gets his thyroid meds, and eats good grain free food. He gets everything he needs even though she's poor as dirt. There are plenty of people who can easily afford to do all that for their pets and don't just because "its just a dog/cat/whatever"

The people who had Scout before me had full times jobs and junk, but they didn't vet her the six months they had her. I dunno to me, you'd do that with a new dog. *shrug* Anywho luckily she was just coming due for booster's when I took her (which I found out because I got hold of her first owner and asked what her vet was and had them email me Scout's entire vet history) and the first thing we did was go in for those, a hw test, and to get hw preventative. I didn't have a full time job yet, but I made it happen. Priorities in life I guess.

Bahamutt99
10-14-2012, 04:28 PM
Well, except for the part where $300 is a lot less money than the $1000 it will take to emergency spay her to keep her from dying if she ends up with a pyometra.

I take no issue with people keeping dogs intact when they believe that's the best option for their dog, but they need to have the money in the bank to deal with the consequences.

There is always a possibility of that. Just like its possible that Loki will have problems due to being spayed too early (spay incontinence and whatever else; I'm not a health expert). And her spay was about $150 with supplemental bloodwork. You can't win either way. But right now my intact nutter is in far better physical shape than my spayed girl. She seems far more likely to kill herself by jumping off a cliff than by getting any sort of less-exciting health problems.