"If you can't afford a vet, you can't afford a pet"

hedwig

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
586
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Bottom of the well
#41
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

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,415
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
B-ville
#42
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

Active Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
8,854
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Vermont
#43
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

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#44
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
586
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Bottom of the well
#45
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

Obey the Toad.
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,074
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
A hole in the bottom of the sea.
#46
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.
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
886
Likes
0
Points
0
#47
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
586
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Bottom of the well
#48
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

overdogged
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
7,720
Likes
1
Points
0
#49
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
5,347
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Oklahoma
#50
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
586
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Bottom of the well
#51
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
5,347
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Oklahoma
#52
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.
 

AliciaD

On second thought...
Joined
May 15, 2011
Messages
1,560
Likes
0
Points
36
#54
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

Obey the Toad.
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,074
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
A hole in the bottom of the sea.
#55
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
5,347
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Oklahoma
#56
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...36700579.46705.165585960161300&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

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#57
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
586
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Bottom of the well
#58
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!
 

monkeys23

New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
1,621
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
PNW
#60
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top