Should poor people own pets? (program, income, gun, permit)

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Of course poor people should have pets. And they do, all over the place. They may not be adopting pets from shelters, they may be getting them from neighbors and friends, but they have pets. I've seen homeless people with dogs. I've known elderly people to share a can of cat food with their cat.

I worked with low-income folks for years. Many, many have mental health issues that prevent them from moving up in the world and pets can make such a positive difference in their lives.

Soe shelters have sliding scale fees to allow the financially strapped to take a cat or dog home with them. There are low-cost spay/neuter clinics and low cost vaccination clinics in some communities.

As noted in a number of posts, it is not only the initial fee and the cost of pet food, but the vaccinations, the heart worm medicine, the medical care... that run up the cost of owning a dog or a cat.

Not an easy problem to solve.

[Delahanty]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

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?

Who are these "many" people claiming that the poor shouldn't own pets? Where is this clamoring? Who's denying them a pet? I've never seen this on anyone's list of important issues.

I bet most prospective pet owners don't even initiate the process unless they're certain that they can afford a pet. Here, the "adoption" application asks the applicant to estimate expected annual care costs. If they drastically underestimate those costs, I'm sure they're then educated about them.

As far as medical care, there's no requirement (legal or moral) that owners provide cancer treatment, or other treatment, for terminally ill pets. Quite frankly, there's no requirement that they incur costs to treat them for any disease; euthanasia is always an option.

I think the old canard about people feeding their pets before they, themselves, eat is probably true. And most will be happy to provide reasonable medical care (they're not required to provide anything more, as we've always been committed to do in our family).

Pets provide love, affection, and a connection to the outside world. That's why many shelters have programs to assist with adoption fees and "seniors [older pets] for seniors" programs. Owning a pet is a responsibility, and most know what they're getting into.

This is simply a non-issue.

[vanguardisle]

Originally Posted by Taluffen

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.

Can you please explain more about what "bloat" is? What medical condition is that I have not heard of it before in a dog, what problems does it create and how can you tell if a dog has it or not? What do you do about it ?

[ConeyGirl52]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

Can you please explain more about what "bloat" is? What medical condition is that I have not heard of it before in a dog, what problems does it create and how can you tell if a dog has it or not? What do you do about it ?

Dog Bloat (Gastric Dilatation Volvulus): Symptoms, Causes, Treatments

Prevention

Bloat can be scary, but there are ways you can keep it from happening to your dog:

Don’t use a raised bowl unless your vet says your dog needs one.

Don’t let him run or play a lot right before or after meals.

Feed him a few small meals throughout the day instead of one or two large ones.

Make sure he drinks a normal amount of water.


Honestly, I think its probably associated with a breed that eats too much and too fast. I have a basset hound mix that practically inhales her food,

Grain-free is for breeds that suffer from candida - a yeast infection. On both counts, a lot can be accomplished by a raw diet. Even many very expensive foods do not provide many breeds with the protein they need.

On Topic -

YES, poor people should be allowed to own anything anyone else does, at least in America. It would be a violation of basic human rights to do otherwise.

[Scooby Snacks]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

I did not ask about your pets to criticize your choice of breed you got me wrong, I asked because the great dane was one of the breeds my daughter actually likes. They are beautiful and gentle ( and huge) but I had considered the larger dogs too expensive because they would eat too much. I had assumed if we could afford a dog at all it would have to be a small or medium sized dog only. That is why I asked .

Oh, now I understand. Sorry I got defensive. Many people have criticized my having Danes, saying "They eat too much," "They live short lives," "They are horses," "They are very sick dogs," etc, etc, when they know nothing about them at all. Danes are very easy dogs to keep and a good breed for beginners. They are less prone to disease than many other breeds. They are prone to bloat, cardiomyopathy, and a couple of types of cancer, while some breeds are prone to 10+ diseases. Contrary to popular belief, they are not very prone to hip dysplasia. You can keep them in homes with a small yard but they need a good walk/run once a week or so at least. They are shorter lived than smaller breeds but their lifespans have increased a great deal, and most conscientious owners keep theirs for 10-12 years.

They are are extremely sweet loving and social breed, often nicknamed "velcro dogs" thus do not do well being left alone for long periods of time, and should never be outdoor dogs exclusively. They are very low energy, and spend most of their off hours sleeping on the couch. They are not necessarily good watchdogs. Some are, some aren't. The ones that are frighten strangers with their deep bark, and the ones that aren't drown strangers with their sloppy kisses Foodwise, they eat around 4 cups a day. I hope that helps you make a decision.

[chiluvr1228]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

I'm pretty sure most pet owners have not gone the heavy drugs route. I myself have been told about all the stuff I should take at one point, and said no thanks. Well, they fixed a few things but made more problems.

Sad thing is, old dogs and cats are just like us, we get old and sometimes, we/they know when its time to surrender.

What concerns me is the poor person who cannot afford to take the dog or cat to the vet if it's sick. Animals get sick just like people sometimes. Should the animal be euthanized simply because its owner cannot afford to take it to the vet no matter how old it is? And how about the family that cannot afford to euthanize their old or sick pet so they let it suffer until it dies or tries to take matters into their own hands?

[mishigas73]

Originally Posted by Delahanty

Who are these "many" people claiming that the poor shouldn't own pets? Where is this clamoring? Who's denying them a pet? I've never seen this on anyone's list of important issues.

I've seen the issue come up quite a few times in discussions on here.

Not too long ago, there was a poster who said she worked for a rescue. When the subject of home visits came up, she mentioned that the type of house a prospective adopter lives in and the type of car they drive are used as measurements for their suitability for pet ownership.

While I can't speak to whether it's "many people" or not, the issue is out there.

[NHartphotog]

Pets--absolutely yes. They don't cost much, they add to physical and psychological well-being, and the taxpayer is not automatically robbed blind by Big Government politicians that use "the poor children" as an excuse to expand their own wealth and power.

Children--absolutely not--not in an economy where even two parents rarely make enough to support a single child.

are subsidized so much by the taxpayer that that baby breeders don't even consider limiting their breeding to only those kids they can afford to support.

[vladlensky]

I haven't seen any statements which directly suggest that poor people should not own pets, however, if you look at the pet adoption scheme, you'll see that there are many inherent factors built into adoption procedures that may discourage or prevent low-income people from adopting.

1. Adoption fees - already mentioned here, but these usually range in the hundreds of dollars for a standard cat/dog adoption.
2. Adoption Application Requirements - many adoption applications list certain requirements, such as a yard with a fence, etc and other home characteristics which are not always available to low-income individuals who may rent and not own a home with a large backyard/invisible fencing etc.
3. Home Visit - again, some may disagree, but I think the home visit requirements may also be used as a reason to screen out potentially low-income individuals who do not have a home which the rescue feels suitable for the pet. For example, a low-income person may live in a smaller home/apartment, may not have access to the best areas/parks/etc to walk a dog or may not have a large, fenced backyard area.

Anyway, just a few thoughts - not sure how this plays out practically speaking but I think these factors can be used to screen out low-income applicants, albeit indirectly. And, in many cases, low-income prospective pet owners will probably turn to rescues/shelters since pet stores and breeders often charge in the thousands. So the more burdensome the rescue adoption process becomes, the more potential there is for potentially screening out poorer applicants.

[Gunluvver2]

I don't feel like I am "poor" but I do live in a low income part of town Many of my neighbors are truly poor and there is quite a bit of crime. Many of these "poor" neighbors own large breed dogs. Not only are those pets companions but they are also great protection. I don't own a dog because I am not physically able to give a dog the exercise they need. I have two kittens I love but they are not much protection. For protection I depend on a S&W handgun that costs close to $1,000. Add on the cost of fees and training for a CCW permit and that is almost $500 more.

One of my "poor" neighbors is a Single Mother with two little girls and a trained Pit Bull. Her puppy was a gift from her ex so her main expense is a bag of Dog food every few weeks. For about $25/month she has protection for her and her kids. So in an indirect way the ownership of a Dog might be protected under the umbrella of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment.