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.
And - increasingly - it seems to me that a lot of seniors are willing to spend lots of money on animals. And - in many cases - as a result - they're unable to spend money on themselves. When it comes to food - housing - medical care - similar. I have even read messages where people are buying the best food for their dogs - while buying garbage for themselves to eat.
This doesn't seem right to me. If a senior can afford it all - ok - that is his/her choice.
But when do you think a senior is going overboard spending on animals as opposed to himself/herself? When do you think a government body should step in? Especially if you're dealing with an animal hoarder type (which - in my opinion - is anyone who has more than a couple of cats/dogs). Note that livestock is a different issue IMO. But more seniors tend to have cats/dogs than horses/goats/sheep. Robyn
Hoarding is a totally separate issue, IMO. Never paid attention to the ages specifically but if memory serves, hoarding isn't a senior issue.
That aside, it's up to the individual. If they want to spend more on their pet, probably their most loyal companion, it's up to them. Personally, I don't think the govt should get involved at all. Seniors should be as free to spend their money as anyone.
When I read about people and their pets, I often think how absurd the expenditures are. The priority placed on pets by some seems to be something from a different planet, as if a cat or a dog could be equivalent to a human being. Now having said that, I am very reluctant to have "a government body step in". We have way too much Big Brother government anyway. Let everybody set his own priorities, no matter how absurd or irrational. The exception would be for a pet owner creating a public health problem or a public nuisance.
I think we have much bigger issues the government should be dealing with than a senior and their pet costs. I find it silly what some seniors spend on cars,boats, houses and plastic surgery, etc.. but it's their money, their life.
As stated earlier hoarding is a different issue and not a senior one.
Many years ago a dear friend had to let her beloved pet go, instead of trying to treat an end of life issue over money. She might have had a few more quality years with her pet but she couldn't afford it.
At that point, I also got to hear about end of life issues from a couple of people who were going through this with parents.
Let's face it...it's not cheap. That's when I started a fund specifically for my cats' care. That being said, there is line where you are treating for you, and not the pet. I trust my vet to let me know when it's time to let go. I trust her because she's helped me save cats that could have cost me tons in fancy treatments with older techniques that worked at 1/3 the price.
Robyn, For me the time is never. When I adopt a cat it is my cat and my responsibility. If I become less prosperous I will not adopt another, but while an adoptive companion animal is still treatable and alive, that creature/companion has my full support. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility, imo.
I hate this idea that animals are expendable. Matisse should not adopt one if she feels that way. She should not scold others for honoring a bond that is very binding indeed, to anyone with ethics.
I am not talking about ending the suffering of an animal near its life's end anyway.
But people who euthanize pets b/c the pet has a serious medical problem they could easily survive with treatment? Better euthanasia than an animal shelter but I wouldn't do it myself.
Never have, and there have been times in my life when I was very poor and had tough vet bills. No way--adoption is a commitment for the viable lilfetime of the pet who is adopted, and there are no-kill shelters when people are desperate and cannot afford the treatment. Our animal companions are not throwaways.
Adopters with financial issues don't have to leave animals at kill shelters. My two cats were both left at those....as kittens. Both were very sick. Treated, they are doing well 13 years later.
Adopted pets are not to be adopted on a whim and thrown away when inconvenient. They should not be "shopped" for at puppy and kitten mills. They should just be respected for what they are: loving creatures totally dependent on caregivers. I helped with my dad for 20 years (who had early onset Alheimer's disease) and developed a sensitivity to people, mainly doctors and nurses, who thought he should somehow be left to die without palliative treatment.
No way. People who don't honor obligations are ... dishonorable. If you don't want a pet don't adopt one. If you do, it is a commitment.
Last edited by ladyalicemore; 06-23-2016 at 05:37 PM..
And - increasingly - it seems to me that a lot of seniors are willing to spend lots of money on animals. And - in many cases - as a result - they're unable to spend money on themselves. When it comes to food - housing - medical care - similar. I have even read messages where people are buying the best food for their dogs - while buying garbage for themselves to eat.
This doesn't seem right to me. If a senior can afford it all - ok - that is his/her choice.
But when do you think a senior is going overboard spending on animals as opposed to himself/herself? When do you think a government body should step in? Especially if you're dealing with an animal hoarder type (which - in my opinion - is anyone who has more than a couple of cats/dogs). Note that livestock is a different issue IMO. But more seniors tend to have cats/dogs than horses/goats/sheep. Robyn
Animal hoarding and other mental illness aside, I think some of the seniors who do this have no one else and cannot imagine a life without their beloved pets. I cannot imagine being in this state but I have understanding and compassion for those who are. And frankly, poor people have just as much right to financial autonomy as those who are more well-off.
I am allowed to have 3 dogs in my county before I have to apply for a breeder or kennel license. At the moment I have 2 and I also volunteer at a local shelter. Mine don't run wild, they are trained and well behaved. I don't use retractable leashes either. I have big dogs, not those little ankle biters. My dogs are well fed, the proper weight, in good health, and they receive veterinary care. One of the 2 is a senior, practically ancient in people years and probably doesn't have much 'good' time left. I'm not hysterical about my dogs but I do like them better than many people. Both my dogs are purebred rescues, 1 GSP, and 1 Weimaraner. They were both abused. My dogs do get better care than I do. I am guilty of that one! And they are a lot of work but taking care of them helps to keep me in good shape.
If I had the funds to care for more I might have more! But I know my limitations and I won't go beyond 3. I have pretty much decided no more puppies because they could theoretically outlive me.
Dogs do cost money but even if I gave mine up today, I still couldn't magically afford everything I NEED, like health insurance. Everything included, they cost about $70 per month. I do buy good food but I also cook for them and make most of their treats myself. And honestly they are worth every penny! I also shovel poop myself to keep costs down.
I see myself as a responsible owner and I don't think the government has any reason to care one way or another. There are already plenty of laws on the books about the number and type of pets one can have. They just need to enforce the laws that already exist.
The apartments I have lived in have restrictions that have to be followed if you want to have a pet live with you. At least in New York state, but would guess it is a widespread thing among the rest of the states.
First you have to pay a one-time deposit which can be $300-$400. You may have to pay an extra $10-$15 rent each month for the pet. And more often than not, you are allowed only one pet. I think cat owners would agree that having one cat is often a lonely thing for the cat. It is nice if you can have two. They keep each other company when you're not home. I don't know if dogs are like this. And there can be limits on the weight and breed of your pet.
Given the fact you have to do these requirements for the landlord, it sure would rankle me a lot if the government got involved re my having a pet.
I live alone. She is company for me. Most pet owners understand how this goes. They become a family member.
NYgal1542
formerly NYgal2NC
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.
