Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading the article about shelter dogs being imported from other states, and was struck by an argument that appeared in the comments section. One poster was insisting that they would never spend more than $1500 on a treatment for their dog and would instead put it down and get a new dog. They claimed this was the only thing they could do without financially endangering their family and implied that other owners were being unethically extravagant and financially unwise by paying a lot for vet treatments. After all, they said, a farmer wouldn't do that with a cow or a pig on its farm.
I figured with $1500 being a below-average ER visit charge for anything from broken bones to bloat, the poster had no business owning a dog. I also thought it was an incredibly unsound economic argument once you factored out the emotional arguments.
Unlike a cow or a pig, which has a finite value (the worth of its meat, the milk it produces, etc), a dog is an investment of sorts. My time is worth something. When I get a new dog, my time investment in them is SIGNIFICANT. If you factored in the time I've spent working with and socializing my current dogs (ages 14 and 3) and multiplied it by my current per-hour salary, I could probably take a couple years off. I have the perfect dogs for my current life, and that is worth far more than a $1500 vet visit - or even a $5000 vet visit, frankly (such as for an ACL surgery for a younger dog). A dog is not the pounds of meat you can get out of it, but an ongoing project that offers a return on the investment you put into it - its good behavior and affection. Whenever you get a new dog, it becomes a bit of a crap shoot as to how well it will fit into your life, so there is a significant financial risk, in my view, every time you get a new dog to replace one that is deceased. You're starting over with untested materials, after all.
Beyond companionship, my one dog offers me household protection that cancels out the need for an alarm system - he probably pays for himself 10 times over in that regard.
But you really CAN'T factor out the emotional component with a dog. They are the only species that has evolved alongside us, with both species having a symbiotic effect on each other's development. Certainly, a working dog is often viewed as a commodity or a tool, but there's no reason to do that with a pet - you have them specifically for the emotional rewards they provide. That's hard to put a price to, especially when you layer it over the investment of time.
Finally, arguments about large expenditures on dogs because people are starving in Africa, there are a lot of other dogs in need of homes, they're just dogs, etc. are invalid because we're in a country where we spend ridiculous sums on a wide variety of things. If you mandated that everyone prioritize the bare necessities and donate the rest to various causes, we would not have the economy we have. That's basically communism, which really doesn't work as a foundation for a society (we can debate socialism and capitalism, but communism has proven over and over again that it isn't sustainable).
The amount I would pay depends on the age and prognosis. I would not pay $1500 for a something only to get months or a year of poor quality life for any animal. I would definitely pay $1500 for a treatable issue with a good prognosis.
The amount I would pay depends on the age and prognosis. I would not pay $1500 for a something only to get months or a year of poor quality life for any animal. I would definitely pay $1500 for a treatable issue with a good prognosis.
Well, yes. The implication in this case that the $1500 was entirely non-negotiable. I have a 14-year-old border collie in good health. I would fork over $1500 in a heartbeat for a curable condition, but if she has cancer, I'm just gonna pay for pain meds.
Tuck is a Shar pei Lab mix, and in 3 1/2 years has been to the ER with a three day hospitalization ($1200, illness), had a bought with with food poisoning - I think from a caught rat in the yard ($600, vet and medications), has been to the vet 2 other times ($130 per visit average with medication). Shelter adoption was $250. He has recurring boughts of Shar Pei fever (genetic disease) that are relatively under control with over the counter meds (about $20 a month). He has to eat no grain, food grade, dog food because of wheat/grain problems with Shar Pei at a cost of about $70 per 28 lbs bag (goes through about a bag a month) as opposed to the cheap stuff at $30 for 40-60 lbs of food. Also, he's allergic to grass! (Yup, you read that right, GRASS!)
He is a great companion, and has brought me home from a dark place after combat, and is worth every penny I spend on him and all the effort required to keep him healthy and happy.
Taffy is a cast iron all American dog that can eat anything, do anything, and is impervious to pain, but I'd do the same for her if required - she gets fed better than needed, because of Tuck's food issues... She's thrown up once in her life, and had an ear infection in three years - that's the extent of her illness.
Now, I have the income to be able to make the comittment financially I have just outlined above for Tuck, in my case, it's completely disposable income, but am aware that to a lot of people, especially younger people starting out in careers, a $1200 vet bill and stay may be 1/2 or more of their monthly income, and comitting to managing/maintaining a genetic illness may not be something they can't keep up with.
It's easy to say "Well, they shouldn't get a dog if they can't afford it." And I have some leanings that way myself, but most people expect they are getting Taffy, not Tuck, and are comitted to some amount of health expenses over the life of the dog, but not several hundreds (or thousands in some cases) per year.
Tuck is very loved, and to me priceless. He's also lucky I adopted him and can afford his health requirements, because in all fairness, not all people could.
You simply can not compare your choices with someone else's, you aren't living in the same circumstances. In some families that $1,500 is an insurmountable amount. I have found pet owners without children don't always understand that every expense for a dog in a family with children is thought of in terms of what paying for it will mean to the family's ability to pay for something one of the kids may need. A family can dearly, deeply love their family pet but be simply unable to afford high expense treatments for their pet.
We took on a dog that the previous owner, an older lady, could not afford the monthly medication expenses of a couple of years ago, she is snuggled up to me right now. I never met the lady but I did write her a letter and I hope it made her feel better about what had to be a crushing choice. I am always troubled when animal advocates express views that show a lack of compassion for their fellow two legged animals.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Well, yes. The implication in this case that the $1500 was entirely non-negotiable. I have a 14-year-old border collie in good health. I would fork over $1500 in a heartbeat for a curable condition, but if she has cancer, I'm just gonna pay for pain meds.
I agree that having a specific (and low) limit for dog or cat care is kind of odd. I expect my animals to cost me some money over time. If I didn't have some extra funds for my pets in case they needed care, or some way of getting them taken care of, I wouldn't have pets in the first place.
Tuck is a Shar pei Lab mix, and in 3 1/2 years has been to the ER with a three day hospitalization ($1200, illness), had a bought with with food poisoning - I think from a caught rat in the yard ($600, vet and medications), has been to the vet 2 other times ($130 per visit average with medication). Shelter adoption was $250. He has recurring boughts of Shar Pei fever (genetic disease) that are relatively under control with over the counter meds (about $20 a month). He has to eat no grain, food grade, dog food because of wheat/grain problems with Shar Pei at a cost of about $70 per 28 lbs bag (goes through about a bag a month) as opposed to the cheap stuff at $30 for 40-60 lbs of food. Also, he's allergic to grass! (Yup, you read that right, GRASS!)
He is a great companion, and has brought me home from a dark place after combat, and is worth every penny I spend on him and all the effort required to keep him healthy and happy.
Taffy is a cast iron all American dog that can eat anything, do anything, and is impervious to pain, but I'd do the same for her if required - she gets fed better than needed, because of Tuck's food issues... She's thrown up once in her life, and had an ear infection in three years - that's the extent of her illness.
Now, I have the income to be able to make the comittment financially I have just outlined above for Tuck, in my case, it's completely disposable income, but am aware that to a lot of people, especially younger people starting out in careers, a $1200 vet bill and stay may be 1/2 or more of their monthly income, and comitting to managing/maintaining a genetic illness may not be something they can't keep up with.
It's easy to say "Well, they shouldn't get a dog if they can't afford it." And I have some leanings that way myself, but most people expect they are getting Taffy, not Tuck, and are comitted to some amount of health expenses over the life of the dog, but not several hundreds (or thousands in some cases) per year.
Tuck is very loved, and to me priceless. He's also lucky I adopted him and can afford his health requirements, because in all fairness, not all people could.
I'm told that vets who want a profitable practice make sure that there is at least one Shar Pei breeder in the immediate vicinity.
You simply can not compare your choices with someone else's, you aren't living in the same circumstances. In some families that $1,500 is an insurmountable amount. I have found pet owners without children don't always understand that every expense for a dog in a family with children is thought of in terms of what paying for it will mean to the family's ability to pay for something one of the kids may need. A family can dearly, deeply love their family pet but be simply unable to afford high expense treatments for their pet.
We took on a dog that the previous owner, an older lady, could not afford the monthly medication expenses of a couple of years ago, she is snuggled up to me right now. I never met the lady but I did write her a letter and I hope it made her feel better about what had to be a crushing choice. I am always troubled when animal advocates express views that show a lack of compassion for their fellow two legged animals.
Relax, I'm not being a draconian fanatic - the commenter on the NPR site was scrapping with everyone left and right, calling people fools for spending large amounts on their animals when there were starving children in Africa, and bragging about being an informed consumer. I get that some people run into problems and some people have very little money.
But this person knew exactly how much they were willing to spend and if they were an "informed consumer," they would know that the odds that they would be putting their dog down at an early age would be pretty high. I think if you get a dog while having a predetermined hard stop expenditure limit at something less than the average ER visit, there's something messed up there. You certainly don't put your dog before your kids, but if things are so tight you can't even consider a payment plan with your vet (which a lot of vets do), then maybe it's time to look at how you're allocating your resources. Because if you're that broke, you need to be setting something aside for an emergency involving your children, not taking care of a dog.
I'm not one of those people who runs around freaking out about poor people having iPhones, but when someone views their dog as an interchangeable commodity rather than a commitment, I DO have a problem.
I rescued a Shih Tzu that has a frozen pallet, he was going to be put down at 8 weeks. At that time it was unknown what the problem was, took him to 5 vets and a specialist of sorts in Tampa, they put a small camera down his throat and finally figured it out. I was told that it was doubtful he would live beyond 3 and that I should probably put him down.
Gave it a lot of thought and decided that was not an option for me. I am glad to report that my Flash is turning 8 at the end of this month! Yes, my wallet is lighter, but, my heart is more full of love, he is a loving, sweet guy who never ceases to amaze me.
I would estimate that I have spent at least 10K on him over the last 8 years, my choice, my money, I would do it again in a heartbeat, for me, it was the right decision. Some people spend their money on vacations, me, it's on vet bills...LOl!
Other than trying to save an animal who would have no quality of life even after treatment, I think spending money on your pet is all relative. You spend what you can afford to help your pet.
Some people have plenty of money to pay life-saving vet bills. Some don't. It doesn't mean they don't love their pet any more or any less. You do what you can afford.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
