[STLCardsBlues1989]

I'm all for animal rights. I love animals. At the same time, I have seen on those animal shows where if a person is too poor, the animal is taken away. I don't think that's right. Not everyone can take their dog to the vet regularly. Does that person not deserve the love of a pet also? Around this area, most people can't afford to take themselves to the doctor, but they love their pets. Although people sometimes use home remedies. My Grandpa used to give his dog Pepto-Bismol when his stomach was upset.

But sometimes people can't afford to take their animal to the vet. I think sometimes we vilify people without understanding the circumstances. There often aren't a lot of resources for the poor, especially in the rural areas where shelters are few and far apart, and the ones that are around are often full.

[ShelbyGirl1]

I don't disagree with you...but most times, these people are looking out for the rights of the animal. An animal shouldn't have to suffer because their owners do not have the funds to treat them.

[AliceT]

Agreed. Animals are generally taken away because they are ill or in dire need of veterinary care and the owner simply can't afford it. So, rather than handing out money or free veterinary care to everyone claiming to not be able to afford it, the dog is removed for its own health and welfare, with the consent of the owner, to then treat it and attempt to place it in a home where the owners can take better care of it. People who cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are ill are not the best choice for a special needs animal that may need insulin or transfusions or cataract surgery.

Certainly all people deserve to be loved, but not if the pet they choose needs medical attention that it will never get.

[JanuaryGirl]

I have noticed, on these forums, some people being verbally assaulted when they say they can't afford to take their pets to the vet. Now, I completely agree that everyone should do EVERYTHING they can to take care of their animals. However, not everyone has control over their financial situation and, in my experience, it can be really difficult to find vets with payment plans or complementary services. Also, not everyone knows the health of the pets they adopt and when you have a sick pet it may be difficult to find a no-kill shelter willing to take them if you can't afford it.

My husband and I adopted a kitten last summer. We were told he had a common parasite (coccidia) that would be easily cured with the 2 week supply of medicine they gave us. Well.... turns out it wasn't that easy or cheap! Since then we have spent upwards of $1800 trying to fix this cat's severe "digestive upset." He is finally better, only after a scary episode involving $600 worth of emergency treatment.

Luckily for the cat, my husband and I can afford this right now (sort of, at least). But what if we couldn't? The choice would be to keep him and try to treat it on our own, or give him back to the shelter where he may or may not get adopted by someone willing to foot the bill.

[Minervah]

I think many of those animals you see on TV suffer from months sometimes years of neglect. If they are suffering and medical attention is needed, then yes I believe they should be surrendered to a rescue organization. This is not just neglecting to take them to the vet for vaccinations and such.

They have also shown on Animal Planet where if the pet owners are trying to take care of the animal, the ASPCA or whomever will try to furnish low-cost veterinary care. Each case should be judged on an individual basis. I would like to see some kind of low-cost vet care avaiable to people who otherwise could not afford it but not for those who deliberately neglect their animals and wait until they are almost beyond help.

The animal should not suffer because of the poeple with whom it lives cannot afford to take care of it.

[Viny80]

I think people aren't realizing that there is a difference between animal neglect and suddenly not being able to afford an animal due to a sudden change in money. If something minor and can be cured at home, I say go for it, but if the animal is suffering, you have to put your own selfish feelings aside and due what's best for the animal.

[Bluw]

I'm for animal welfare, Such as their care, well being and treatment. Animal rights, is a whole different story. They way some of these extreme groups are behaving the animals will soon have more "rights" than we do. Our town is already talking about having vets determine what care you must give your animals. I'm sure if my dog needs a tooth cleaning my vet will consider it mandatrory, when I can rarely afford this care for myself. I normally do the teeth cleaning myself, if this passes, anytime a vet deems something necessary I will be forking over more and more money. The yearly shots and physical already is about 200.00. Funny thing is when I was able to purchase my own shots it ran me about 18 dollars a dog.
Peta loves this trend though, because people are being priced out of owning pets.

[mrs1885]

If you can't afford basic vet care, there are programs in most larger cities that will help with that expense. I've vaccinated and spayed / neutered many local pets for the people that are on tight budgets. But what happens if that dog runs out the door past someone and gets hit by a car? If they can't afford the $60 vet visit for an annual vaccination how are they going to be able to afford thousands for surgery to repair broken bones? Is that fair to the pet?

Shelters and animal care groups don't just pull up in the ghetto, look at your savings account book and decide you can't have a dog. But they do look at the dog's current condition and if it needs medical treatment that they've not gotten for it because of lack of money and made no attempt to contact one of the groups that help out, then they don't need the pet. I won't adopt to someone that can't afford basic vet care, but if someone has one they can't afford and they ask me to help out, I'll gladly do so.

[Walla450]

This is a tough situation. Often, very poor and even homeless people care for their animals more than well off people do, simply because the animal is often one of the only friends they have. The animals is one of the only things they have, sometimes. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of money to properly care for most pets. I do find it sad when animals are taken away from people because they cannot afford to care for them, but sometimes it has to be done. It gets really sticky when you start to say, "It's okay for animals to go without routine vetting in this situation, but not this one." In general, I think if an owner cannot afford to pay for an animal to be treated for something that obviously needs to be treated, or they can't groom the animal, feed it, and other basic needs, then alternatives must be sought for the animal. I hate to say the animal should be taken away. In some larger cities they have low-cost animal clinics, which are great. I really think it'd be to our benefit to establish more of these clinics around the country. There are some really good homes out there for animals, but people just can't afford the animals. I know that many rescues ask for the income bracket of anyone applying to adopt. Some people are annoyed by this. I think it's smart. Most people don't realize how much it actually takes to care for a dog, and I'm not talking about what I consider "extras," such as teeth cleaning. So many dogs are surrendered or dumped at the shelter because people can't afford them.
I'm sorry, this post feels like a long, unintelligent ramble.

[mrs1885]

I know that many rescues ask for the income bracket of anyone applying to adopt. Some people are annoyed by this. I think it's smart. Most people don't realize how much it actually takes to care for a dog, and I'm not talking about what I consider "extras," such as teeth cleaning. So many dogs are surrendered or dumped at the shelter because people can't afford them.
I'm sorry, this post feels like a long, unintelligent ramble.

I don't ask for an income bracket, but I do have reduced fees for low income families. There is a different contract and I tend to stay in closer contact with those people. They are told that when annual vaccination time comes around they are to contact me. If you're going to be a few weeks late vaccinating, tell me. If you can't afford it for a few months I'll pay for it. I can vaccinate them for $8 for you as a last resort if you do the rabies. But even that can be done for $10 around here. There's just no reason to not vaccinate. As for the major medical, they are told if something comes up - the dog gets cancer or is hit by a car - they are to contact me immediately. If it's cancer that's going to cost thousands to treat, they'll have to put it down. I can't afford that and they certainly can't either. But if they've been hit by a car or something I can possibly help to foot that bill for them and try to get a fund set up for people to donate to help.

It is a sticky situation. And with 4 million pets a year put to sleep for lack of a home, you have to decide what's worse. Getting the basic medical, food, water, a home or being PTS. It's a sucky decision to have to make.