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 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.
I don't think something in the $200-$300 range is that outrageous. The price is literally covering the cost of the operation and vaccinations. Seriously, its a basement bargain fire-sale compared to going out and doing it yourself (meaning finding your own vet). It also prevents people from going out and adopting dog on a whim which will likely result in the dog being returned to the shelter. Charging $50 dollars is chump change for parents who think it would be cute to surprise their kids with a dog on Xmas. For $300 dollars, they might stop and think about their decision (fortunately most shelters won't allow adoptions during the holiday season).
In my opinion if the adoption fee is too high, you really, really shouldn't get a dog until your financial circumstances change. Animals, being a living creature, WILL very likely have some medical issue in the future which can cost thousands (case in point, my neighbor spent $5000 on necessary surgery for her dog). It really makes no economical sense to put your family under financial strain even with the benefits of owning a companion animal. Alternatively you can adopt a cat which are usually cheaper and cost less to care for and generally have a longer lifespan.
I don't see why poor people shouldn't own a pet. There are plenty of rich people that own pets and then toss them by the wayside the moment the owners get bored.
If poor people shouldn't get pets, should they be allowed to have children if they can't even afford a pet? As you can see, this rabbit hole is unending.
I can see the reasoning to why poor people might not be the best fit as pet owners, but those people are also deserving of something that provides the love and joy a pet brings to the family. If they can take care of the pet properly and love it as a family member, then by all means, bring the furbaby into your family.
As far as costs go, there are pets that are very, very cheap to own, such as parakeets or a beta fish. As a matter of fact, the price of parakeets are the same they were 20 years ago! I've seen my local pet store try to re-home two parakeets, with the whole cage and all their toys for $100 because their owner died. After that, it is basically some seed, millet, and fresh veggies/fruit for them, which is minimal. They don't need heartworm pills, shots, or vet care like a dog or cat would - only when sick would I advise it. What I spend in heartworm pills alone for my dog per year I can buy a brand new bird cage, three parakeets, bird toys and all their food for the year.
It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, what matters if you have the right mentality to own a pet. I despise the oh I've owned my pet for five years but it interferes with my travel plans so I'll just drop it off at the shelter.
There is way too many irresponsible pet owners both rich and poor out there that think of these animals as just throw away play things.
How do we end this mentality? If we find a way to make pet ownership a luxury because there are so few available then we create a whole under world and black market. Your pet may be stolen and sold, and I'm sure that is going on now as well.
Ignorant pet owners are the problem, not if they're rich or poor.
My besties husband is unemployed, has no insurance now, and is facing a bone marrow transplant. She was given a stray female dog that is nearly 8 years old and not fixed She has 2 other dogs and 2 cats that they can't really afford. I told her to look into taking the dog to animal control because they spay and neuter for a very reasonable price compared to the vets.
I guess you could say that they are poor, yet their animals are well cared for. Her vet bill was up there and I helped her out with it because the animals have to be cared for. I was young and poor when I had a dog and cat. They both ate before I did and had their vet visits. There are ways around huge vet bills if you're willing to put in the effort.
Rich, poor, young or old. There are good and bad pet owners in all cultures, economics, genders, and age groups. Ignorance has no prejudices either.
Talk about timing. It was just on the news that 300 dogs living under deplorable conditions were just seized in Maryland.
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.
The initial cost of a dog isn't really the issue in my opinion. I have adopted all my dogs from shelters for the last 13 years and it never cost me more than $75. It's the long time care that an animal needs which a poor person may not be able to provide. If they are poor enough where they can barely feed themselves or keep the electricity on is it right for them to adopt a pet that they can't take care of properly?
You know, I definitely understand what people mean when they say that a person should be able to afford a pet before getting one. Obviously, it's in the best interest of the animal for the owner to be capable of paying for vet care, a proper diet, etc.
However, with so many animals being put down and living their lives in cages at shelters, I have to say that I think these unwanted pets are much better off with a poor person who will love it and do their best for it, even if they aren't capable of paying for regular vet visits and the like.
First, 10 years ago vet and animal medicenes were a lot cheaper. It is greedy markets which lift the prises insane level. Exactly same medicenes that we had before suddenly got five time bigger price than before.
Second, money has nothing to do with ability to love and take care of pet as washing their teeth, fur, clean eyes, pet it and go to walks or teach stuff.
Third, actually sometimes poor people have more time to give their pets because they work less or there is more ppl in the house.
Then, if pet is healthy most of its life time, there is no money question. But also some rich people don't want to use their money to take care of their pets health, even they would have it.
Some vets are giving for example 3 months to pay bigger bills but not all vets do that.
Elders and lonely people are those who often have more time but less money. They could be super awesome pet owners by their other skills.
Solution is not to ban pets from poor but actually set the prices for normal level. Nobody need insane win percents of health care, really, same with people and animals.
I would say only animal lovers should own pets, those who are willingly give time and study their specie and character and honor them as what they represent. Of course they should try to keep sum of money if something happends to help their animal-friend. Also to keep only one pet to afford shots etc. If insurance is good and pays back when needed, it is fine way to "save" money. Or just to make another bank account just for animal's yearly needs.
But it is real sad when pharmacy industry steals cruelly by animal medication because they use this method "best care for the best friend, there is no price for best friend, nothing is too expensive to your best friend" etc. it is only and only abusing in pharmacy markets and nothing more. Same with vets, we have few cheaper vets who takes 1/3 what others are taking. Still they are doing well.
Poor people make a lot of choices that cost a lot of money. Having kids is an obvious one. But that is everyone's right. If you don't have much money though, be sure to get a pet that is not crazy expensive to take care of. A small dog, not a large one. Or a hamster or a chicken or a hermit crab. Years ago my relative tamed a crow. Having an animal companion does not necessitate an expensive purchase.
Good question, but I think the main problem is that veterinary care costs are so out of control that even solid middle class people have a hard time paying. You can adopt a pet for a reasonable amount from a shelter, or take in strays who show up on your doorstep. Rabies vaccinations are often free or reduced through animal control. Other vaccinations and spay/neuter (if not adopted from a shelter) are also reasonably priced through low-cost clinics.
But eventually, most pets are going to need some measure of non-routine medical assistance. And that is becoming increasingly difficult for most people to afford. The goal seems to be to guilt people into handing over their credit card and letting the vet have at it.
This is a good question and one I've thought about a lot. It's tough and I can see both sides. I have two small dogs and I love them to pieces, but man are they expensive. Their adoption fees (both came from a rescue) were the least of the money I've spent on them over the years. I have a pretty good job, and it's still difficult for me to afford their vet costs. I just took one of them in for his yearly checkup - he didn't even need shots this time and it was $140 dollars. Also they recommended he get his teeth cleaned to the tune of almost $650! Last year my other dog had some issues with his back. By the time we went for a couple of visits, had blood work, and x-rays plus the cost of medicine, it was almost 1K. And he wasn't seriously sick or injured thankfully.
Love is free and you don't need money to love and care for an animal. Yet when they are sick and hurting, it's cruel not to take them to get help because you can't afford it. So, it's really a catch 22. I'm sure vets have certain costs and it's a business and at the end of the day they need to make money, but vet care is outrageous and puts a lot of people who would make very good pet owners in a bind. One incident of a sick or injured pet can put people into serious debt and that's not right.
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.
She has 2 other dogs and 2 cats that they can't really afford. I told her to look into taking the dog to animal control because they spay and neuter for a very reasonable price compared to the vets.
Last year my other dog had some issues with his back. By the time we went for a couple of visits, had blood work, and x-rays plus the cost of medicine, it was almost 1K. And he wasn't seriously sick or injured thankfully.
