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.
Many healthy but unwanted dogs and cats are euthanized every year because nobody wants to adopt them. Many no kill shelters say they do not have room to save them because they have trouble finding homes for the ones they already have and yet they often charge expensive adoption fees that many cannot afford .
Animals offer unconditional love that studies have shown benefit people and make their lives better, and yet many will claim that those who are poor should not own a pet because they cannot afford to care for them properly. Does that mean the poor should do without a loving pet that may benefit their lives, and a dog or cat who would otherwise be euthanized that could have gone to a loving home would be better off dead rather then being owned by a poor person?
And where do you draw the line in deciding who is rich enough to own a pet? Medical technology for pets today can be very expensive. They now have mri and ct scans for pets, surgeries of all kinds and even cancer treatments. Modern medicine can do almost anything for a pet that they can do for a human. When a dog or cat has a health problem how much is an owner expected to be able to afford to pay for their medical care to be considered a good pet owner?
With so many unwanted animals in this world is it really fair to deny poor people the right to own a pet?
Last edited by vanguardisle; 04-12-2016 at 07:12 AM..
I actually fostered-to-adopt my dog from a no kill shelter and they decided to give us the dog for free. I don't recall having to fill out any paperwork or bring W2 stubs to prove we are economically able to take care of her either. How would a shelter be able to determine the person who wants to adopt is poor?
I actually fostered-to-adopt my dog from a no kill shelter and they decided to give us the dog for free. I don't recall having to fill out any paperwork or bring W2 stubs to prove we are economically able to take care of her either. How would a shelter be able to determine the person who wants to adopt is poor?
Well I refer to some of the animal shelters that charge $300 or more for adopting a pet and many people then say that if someone can't afford the adoption fee they cannot afford to own a pet, and I also refer to the general attitude among animal lovers that poor people cannot properly care for a pet and should not own one.
In answer to your question I do not know what questions they ask potential pet owners or whether or not they ask for income information. I was simply using the high adoption fees as an example of why many poor people can't try to adopt unwanted pets.
Thank you for pointing out that there are shelters that will adopt out pets for free. Do you think free or low cost adoptions after a pet owner has been proven to provide a loving home is better then high adoption fee shelters?
It depends on the circumstances. If you allow the animals to be adopted for free all the time you run the risk of people "adopting" dogs for abuse (think dog fighting). However, if a dog (or other animal) was at the shelter for an exceptionally long time many shelters may work with you on a fee (or give the dog for free). That being said, my dog was an exception to most available dogs, she was a puppy mill breeder who had to be rehabilitated to not be scared of humans. She still is jumpy despite being 5 years old (a common problem with dogs who weren't properly socialized), but my husband and I are willing to put in the time for her to adjust. For many people, she isn't a desirable animal since she won't (at first) run up to you and give out kisses like a typical dog.
As for the costs, when it comes down to it, $300 isn't a horrible fee for a pet at all (considering a dog from a reputable breeder will be in the thousands). Also consider shelter dogs will be neutered/spayed and have their shots up-to-date when you get them. This will save you money in comparison to a dog you might get "for free" if your friend's dog has an accidental litter. Dogs simply are an extra expense and there is no work-around this. Aside from vet fees you will have to feed it, possibly board it, buy leashes, toys and poop bags. This will add up fast.
There should not be any law against poor people owning pets.
If the question is whether it's "advisable" for poor people to own pets, then I think there are a lot of variables. Certainly it's inadvisable for poor people to spend money on a purebreed animal, or one that requires expensive medical care, etc.
But if they get a pet for free, there's no ethical requirement to spend a lot on an animal, just an ethical requirement to treat the animal ethically. It doesn't need the best food money can buy, but it does need food that meets its nutritional needs. it doesn't need a fancy bed or cute doggie sweaters, it just needs a safe, warm place to sleep. I'd even argue that ethics don't require pets to be provided with human-level health care as long as actual suffering is avoided. Ethics certainly wouldn't warrant spending so much on an animal's health care that the financial security of a family with children was put at risk.
Plenty of poor people in the country have pets. A dog that happily eats table scraps, gets lots of love from the children, curls up on an old blanket in the den and if he gets ill in a way that rest and comfort can't cure, he'll be humanely euthanized with much tears but much love. You can't tell me that's any worse a life than living with some rich suburban family.
It depends on the circumstances. If you allow the animals to be adopted for free all the time you run the risk of people "adopting" dogs for abuse (think dog fighting). However, if a dog (or other animal) was at the shelter for an exceptionally long time many shelters may work with you on a fee (or give the dog for free). That being said, my dog was an exception to most available dogs, she was a puppy mill breeder who had to be rehabilitated to not be scared of humans. She still is jumpy despite being 5 years old (a common problem with dogs who weren't properly socialized), but my husband and I are willing to put in the time for her to adjust. For many people, she isn't a desirable animal since she won't (at first) run up to you and give out kisses like a typical dog.
As for the costs, when it comes down to it, $300 isn't a horrible fee for a pet at all (considering a dog from a reputable breeder will be in the thousands). Also consider shelter dogs will be neutered/spayed and have their shots up-to-date when you get them. This will save you money in comparison to a dog you might get "for free" if your friend's dog has an accidental litter. Dogs simply are an extra expense and there is no work-around this. Aside from vet fees you will have to feed it, possibly board it, buy leashes, toys and poop bags. This will add up fast.
I agree that it is wrong to offer a pet completely for free ( unless you know the person is safe ) I cringe when I see free pets offered on craigslist and have in the past actually emailed the owners asking them to charge even a small fee. I worry that people will sell those animals to laboratories for animals testing or who know what else, however I really do think $300 is too much . I am sure they can offer shots and neutering for less than that.
Puppy mills are another subject altogether. They are awful and need to be shut down.I am glad you have rescued a puppy mill breeding dog.What a relief it must have been to her to be fixed and what a joy it must now be to be loved.
There should not be any law against poor people owning pets.
If the question is whether it's "advisable" for poor people to own pets, then I think there are a lot of variables. Certainly it's inadvisable for poor people to spend money on a purebreed animal, or one that requires expensive medical care, etc.
But if they get a pet for free, there's no ethical requirement to spend a lot on an animal, just an ethical requirement to treat the animal ethically. It doesn't need the best food money can buy, but it does need food that meets its nutritional needs. it doesn't need a fancy bed or cute doggie sweaters, it just needs a safe, warm place to sleep. I'd even argue that ethics don't require pets to be provided with human-level health care as long as actual suffering is avoided. Ethics certainly wouldn't warrant spending so much on an animal's health care that the financial security of a family with children was put at risk.
Plenty of poor people in the country have pets. A dog that happily eats table scraps, gets lots of love from the children, curls up on an old blanket in the den and if he gets ill in a way that rest and comfort can't cure, he'll be humanely euthanized with much tears but much love. You can't tell me that's any worse a life than living with some rich suburban family.
Thank you for defending the rights of the poor to own an animal, there is not really a law against poor people owning pets it is more of a prevalent attitude and belief. That many animal lovers frown upon it . I do believe that while animals needs should be met and that can cost money, poor people deserve the love of a pet . And they will do the best they can. It is much better than an animal being euthenized
Last pet that we adopted they didn't outright ask for income, but the questionnaire did ask what you expected the pet to cost. Basically ensuring that you understood the commitment you are making requires a budget for food, supplies, annual vet visits with vaccinations, license, and savings for an emergency. They likely wouldn't have adopted the pet out if you failed to express an understanding of that.
$300 for a shelter dog is reasonable. They likely have far more than that invested in the dog. Adoption fees just help keep the lights on. Plenty of other options out there. All sorts of people looking to rehome their pets because they are moving(which is a despicable reason) and other reasons.
We have been "cat people" forever. We had cats for decades and when one died another always showed up. Since our last pet died we have not found another because we want, as we are retired, to do a lot more travelling. We do miss the company but also value the convenience. When we can no longer travel freely we will likely adopt another cat.
Most of my pets have come from shelters and I VERY MUCH support people adopting pets from shelters. Having said that, I see 'free' pets offered in shopping center parking lots fairly often so there are pets available for people who cannot afford shelter adoption fees. I think everyone who wants a pet and will love it and care for it should be able to have one.
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.
