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.
Any savvy pet adoption organization worth their salt and not just about the cash knows intrinsically who should be entrusted with the blessings of owning a pet thru the signs a potential pet parent gives off.
Failure to be able to feed NUTRITIOUS food, adequate temp controlled housing and love are basic. If someone cannot afford to feed the animal, there is no sense in taking one in. Period. Starving an animal or setting one loose to go fend for itself is a fate far worse than euthanasia. I just cannot get over people who are so thick headed to not agree.
And that.s not even figuring in medical care, toys, snacks, boarding, litter, poobags, etc...
Big dogs? Fuggetaboudit. Just feed them a $50 bill every week for food and bones/treats ALONE.
Toys? Are you SERIOUS? Sticks are free. Frisbees can be had for about $5. A bouncy ball about the same or a little less. Cats are happy chasing string, flashlight beams, and wads of crinkled up paper. And if the house is warm enough for humans, its more than warm enough for critters that have their own permanent fur coats.
Boarding wouldn't be an issue for poor people, who by and large DON'T TRAVEL.
Nobody is advocating starving the animals, either. You don't have to buy the latest fad diet expensive actually untested as to whether or not it actually meets any of its claims dog food. There are lots of affordable choices that are no worse, and sometimes better, than the more expensive alternatives.
I don't know of ANY dog that goes through $50 worth of dog food in a week (unless its gold-plated), and "bones and treats" are by and large totally unnecessary to the health of your average canine. Sure, some dental chews or equivalent, but you can even bake your own doggy treats so that's really not an issue.
I have had (many of these simultaneously, overlapping) - Border collie mix, American Staffordshire Terrier mix, Doberman-Shepherd mix, Rhodesian Ridgeback, an elderly Havanese who was more than half-blind and had been abandoned, and a Basenji mix. Oh yeah, and an American Eskimo dog who had been abandoned because he had a birthmark and a flop-ear.
Every single one a stray who had been abandoned. All the cats I've ever owned, also strays or abandoned.
Even when I had several large dogs at the same time, they didn't even go through one 50 lb bag of dog food per week, let alone $50 worth of dog food (which would be 200-250 lbs of dog food given the price at the time).
Pets are an expense, but most of us are not feeding Kitty Fancy Feast.
I'm not really up to pets like that anymore. Birds and fish are about the sum total of my speed these days.
While older dogs tend to play less, toys are very important for dogs because they mentally stimulate them. They're also handy to prevent a dog from taking out his chewing instinct on something other than your couch or shoes. Some animals like birds absolutely need toys to thrive. Trust me, if you don't give your dog some toys they'll find their own, and usually something you don't want chewed up.
As for boarding, its true you may never need to use it, but situations happen when you need to travel suddenly and no one is available to take in your dog for a few days. A funeral is a good example.
Food is up to the owner. Some people don't mind paying for what they perceive as higher quality food, some people may even cook for their pet, but it is still an extra expense per month which has to be factored if you're on a tight budget. There is nothing worse than buying a 50lbs bag of dog food in bulk only to learn the dog is allergic to it (happen to us, but with a cat and we had to test a million food types until she was able to handle one).
Of course this entire thread is to debate if poor people should even own a pet. If you consider some poor people live in low-income housing and can't even own a pet this whole argument may be moot.
A buddy gave me a kitten to replace an elderly cat (Big Bear) I had for 14 years who died (Cat was FIV+, according to my vet, he lived a relatively long life considering.
Anyway. I have a great vet who does very good work for a very reasonable price. To give Valentin (new cat) a full set of vaccinations was, I think, about $200. And that is the "brother-in-law" price.
I have not had him "fixed" yet, that will probably round it up to close to $300.
I'm not arguing that people who can't pay $300 should not have a pet, but, just to make an "honest citizen" out of my new cat appears to be costing me about that amount.
Someone who has intact cats breeding and these cats not having at least rabies vaccinations - not a desirable situation. Particularly cats, they can have 2 generations in a calendar year and each litter is easily 6 new kittens. They are cute but do the maths - in a couple of years you are up to your eyeballs in cats!
So I vaccinate my own animals except rabies. A round can be purchased for about 9$ at the local Co-op. Rabies clinics $6. Spay/neuter clinic ~ 55$ for males $65 for females.
All depends on how much you want to spend. Unless there is an accident or medical condition that arises its fairly cheap to have a dog. Flea and tick meds are the most costly for me.
I agree with the posters who said its not rich or poor, its being a responsible pet owner. I know poor people who are great, loving, loyal responsible pet owners, from elderly on SS to a couple homeless guys. And I know well to do people who are so irresponsible their pets are running the neighborhood and getting hit by cars, having unwanted litters or, my personal fave, they have a kid, have to move, or just dont have time so they, re home them, dump them or have the euthanized.
Do Great Danes the gentle giants of the dog world eat a lot? I assume that they must. And probably need a large yard ? How much do you feel that it costs you for all of the low cost medical care they are receiving ? And how much was it costing you for the full price places?
Ugh. Not this again. Yes, they do. But dog fanciers don't choose the breed that they love. They love the breed they love, and they can't just choose another based purely on financial considerations. Your reasoning is the same as, "Because having kids is expensive, I won't have any." A person can't choose not to have kids just on finances. Having kids is instinctual. And having a large yard is handy, but not necessary. They actually need less exercise than much smaller breeds like Weimeraners, Border Collies, and many terriers. As for medical care, the only thing which is more expensive is the Sentinel because they need the amount for the larger weight. All the shots and testing cost the same no matter what a dog's weight is.
And before you go into the argument that they live very short lives compared to other breeds, thus having them isn't worth it, once again, I would never choose another breed. I have had them 25 years. And there is no guarantee any pet (or human) you have in your life will live one month, one year, or ten years. Everything eventually dies. And Danes' lives have increased considerably as the knowledge of the breed and technology has improved.
Ugh. Not this again. Yes, they do. But dog fanciers don't choose the breed that they love. They love the breed they love, and they can't just choose another based purely on financial considerations. Your reasoning is the same as, "Because having kids is expensive, I won't have any." A person can't choose not to have kids just on finances. Having kids is instinctual. And having a large yard is handy, but not necessary. They actually need less exercise than much smaller breeds like Weimeraners, Border Collies, and many terriers. As for medical care, the only thing which is more expensive is the Sentinel because they need the amount for the larger weight. All the shots and testing cost the same no matter what a dog's weight is.
And before you go into the argument that they live very short lives compared to other breeds, thus having them isn't worth it, once again, I would never choose another breed. I have had them 25 years. And there is no guarantee any pet (or human) you have in your life will live one month, one year, or ten years. Everything eventually dies. And Danes' lives have increased considerably as the knowledge of the breed and technology has improved.
Just want to chime in for about dog food. Some breeds which are more prone to bloat, Great Danes being especially prone, need to have an owner who is especially diligent regarding food and eating in general. While you may not entirely prevent it you can possibly reduce the chances of it occurring. I myself own an Akita and while they're a middle of the range risk for it we treat her as we would a Dane and make sure she has grain-free dog food with wet food mixed in. We also make sure to let her digest her food for an hour or more before we take her on a walk or try to play with her. She seems to not drink anything after she eats for a few hours so that is always a plus.
I agree with the posters who said its not rich or poor, its being a responsible pet owner. I know poor people who are great, loving, loyal responsible pet owners, from elderly on SS to a couple homeless guys. And I know well to do people who are so irresponsible their pets are running the neighborhood and getting hit by cars, having unwanted litters or, my personal fave, they have a kid, have to move, or just dont have time so they, re home them, dump them or have the euthanized.
This comment illustrates, IMO, why the word "should" isn't really useful.
While the point about being a responsible pet owner is well-taken, I do wonder where this line is drawn.
I know one couple who had to (very, very reluctantly) give up their dog when they moved. Essentially, it was a choice of being homeless or moving to a place which did not allow dogs. They found, on their own, someone who wanted the dog. IMO, this was the most responsible thing they could have done under the circumstances (which were absolutely unforeseen when they got the dog).
My point in bringing this up is that when we start speaking about "should" and "should not", bright lines are drawn that perhaps should not be.
they can't just choose another based purely on financial considerations. Your reasoning is the same as, "Because having kids is expensive, I won't have any." A person can't choose not to have kids just on finances.
They most certainly can, and should! Anyone who lacks the means to properly care for an animal or a child should not have an animal or a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks
Having kids is instinctual.
No, the urge to procreate is instinctual. Having a child is a decision.p
They most certainly can, and should! Anyone who lacks the means to properly care for an animal or a child should not have an animal or a child.
No, the urge to procreate is instinctual. Having a child is a decision.p
So what about the people who DID have "the means to properly care for animal"......but a little further down the road, due to circumstances beyond their control, lost their jobs.
What then?....have they suddenly gone from worthy dog owners to unworthy dog owners???
Any "poor" people I know who have pets, treat the animal like it's their child...with love and care.
And when they move, they don't just dump the animal because it's no longer convenient to their lifestyle.
I know people who'll feed their animals before themselves.....true love and devotion.
To even consider denying the poor the love of a pet, or a pet the love of someone who wants them, is pathetic......to think the animal is better off dead is tragic.
A more important question is: why should a third party be empowered to decide who gets to own a pet or have a child?
As to the first part:
There are generally two "third parties" that can get to decide who owns a pet.
The person (or entity) who has custody of said pet and is looking to re-home it, and the government/ judicial system.
As to the latter, in the case of cruelty (as defined by local law) or other defined egregious conduct, someone can be prevented from owning a pet for a period of time.
As to the former, since animals are considered chattel (property) in most jurisdictions, essentially he or she who has custody makes the rules when it comes to re-homing. Owning an animal is not a "right", therefore it is generally up to the person or entity who has custody of the animal to make the rules. Someone wants five years of financials prior to letting the animal be adopted? That's their prerogative. Don't like it? Look somewhere else.
As to why these two "third parties" should be empowered to decide who gets to own a pet? One is enforcing the laws enacted by an elected government. The other is abiding by established property laws. Personally, I have no issues with saying that both should continue to do what they are doing.
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.
