"If you can't afford a vet, you can't afford a pet"

Discussion in 'Dogs - General Dog Chat' started by JacksonsMom, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. JacksonsMom

    JacksonsMom Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    8,694
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Maryland
    I've seen this mentioned before and wondered your opinions on it.

    I think that a lot of times people (on dog forums etc) can be too harsh on people who say they can't afford certain treatments or procedures etc, and are often told that they then need to give the dog up to a rescue who is willing to help, if they can't take care of it, etc.

    To me, a family or person who truly CAN'T afford vet care but loves the animal regardless and does their best by it is different from someone who claims they can't afford a vet while they are buying designer clothes, or bar hopping every weekend, or have the latest technologies. Obviously I am not talking about the latter... I think that if you love your pet, you would be willing to part with some of those things in order to take care of it. But sometimes... people just go through hard times! And I don't believe it should automatically be: "well if you can't afford your pet, you need to relinquish it to the rescue" or give it up.

    I know that honestly, Jackson would be better off being put to sleep than having to go through the stress of being put into a rescue-type situation, with new people, medical procedures, and all that stuff. He is very very attached to me and I truly don't believe he would be the kind of dog who would do very well in a new situation. I know a lot of people could probably say that, but really, he's sometimes unhealthily attached... but never in a million years would I ever give him up in the first place. I am very lucky that I have the privilege of having the proper money stashed aside for medical emergencies, and if I personally didn't, I have lots of family members who love Jackson too that are willing to help when possible. I am also the kind of owner who will do anything to help him, even if it's a small issue, I don't mind paying money to get him to the vet and get it looked at. I am willing to spend big bucks to make sure he's okay and healthy!

    I have seen abandoned animals living on the streets.... starving... looking for their humans. Maybe they won't have the best vet care, or the best food, or an ideal living situation- but I do believe if the animal had a choice, they'd want to stay with their human.

    Obviously, I think it's silly to add a NEW pet if you are already in a very tight financial situation. I am waiting to add a second dog until I am a bit more secure financially - while I could swing it right this moment, I am not sure I want to be THAT tight with money yet. So I think if you buy a new puppy, and then claim you can't afford such basic things for it, such as a vet visit, initial vaccines, food, etc... that's just dumb. But I think if you have a 7yr old dog, for example, and have hit unexpected hard times... you shouldn't be judged if you can't take your dog to the vet immediately, etc.

    I saw a Dateline show or something a few months ago, where a family who had once lived the high life, was now completely broke and living out of their van with 3 kids AND the family dog. Ideal?? Of course not!! But just because you may be having a year or two slump, doesn't mean you should have to give your dog up forever, when things have the chance to get better again. And I am sure the dog is much happier living that way than in a shelter. There are so many dogs that have NO health care, or food, and live on the streets, or are sitting in cages for years at a shelter or rescue... I think they are better off even with a family who may be underprivileged.

    Some of the best kept and well loved dogs I've seen have been from "poor" people and some of the worst treated dogs I've seen have been from "rich" people... so I just don't think automatically being poor makes you a poor choice for an animal, or a bad owner, just as being rich doesn't automatically make you a good choice for a pet.

    Just a ramble... opinions welcome.
     
  2. Fran101

    Fran101 Resident fainting goat

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Boston
    I think that expression, for me anyway, applies mostly to people who are looking to buy a NEW pet.
    Going out and buying a puppy when you know you won't be able to afford vet care..IMO is totally irresponsible.

    But, I certainly don't think every family who has hit dire times should give up their current pets. We make it work, we hustle, we find the money.. is it ideal? No. but that pet has a loving home with people who try to make it work.
    At the end of the day, the best situation is a pet in a loving home.

    Just like nobody is saying that people hitting hard financial times should give up their kids!
    ..but they certainly shouldn't be planning on having a baby just because they want one with NO RESPECT for how much babies costs etc.. and just hoping for the best and putting all their cards on blind faith.

    Because sometimes things DO happen and sometimes goodness forbid, things don't work out and the money cant be found..then what do you do?
    With that dog you've had forever, it's a sad thing and you do what you can.

    but with a puppy/animal you just bought.. one must wonder, WHY did you bring him/her home in the first place? Wouldn't this new animal have been better off if someone else had purchased it instead of someone who was going to buy it, wait until something happens and then give it up when it isn't as easily adoptable.
     
  3. yoko

    yoko New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    2
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I get not being able to afford some of the more expensive stuff like emergency surgery or long term medical care.

    But if someone is struggling to even get their dog to the vet when it's obvious something is wrong with the dog I do think maybe they shouldn't own a pet.

    With all the low cost clinics around here if someone's dog is in pain or sick and they can't afford the $20 to just have the vet look at them I do question if having a pet at that time is the right thing.

    My issue that I have MOST of the time is someone will complain about needing something for their dog because the dog is obviously sick or injured and they won't do ANYTHING to help. I get that I'm not in the majority if Yoshi needs money I don't have I have absolutely no problem selling things or shutting off luxuries. My issue is when someone is picking luxuries over an animals life and that's when I usually speak up.
     
  4. hedwig

    hedwig New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bottom of the well
    The way i see it is maby we should apply this rule to having children to those judgemental people huh?

    You loose your home and job and live in a van for a couple years. Well lets take HAVE THE KIDS ADOPTED.

    Why is it trashy people are aloud to breed like rabbits and spit 7 children out and cannot even afford a bog brush?

    People should be concentrating on these people. You do not chuck out A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY BECAUSE OF BAD CIRCUMSTANCES! KID OR DOG.

    And people judge the poor person about lack of funds for pets/kids. Why not judge the people that put them in that situation instead?
     
  5. JacksonsMom

    JacksonsMom Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    8,694
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Maryland
    Absolutely agree! I think if you go out and buy a puppy, and then go on to say how you can't afford anything that a puppy needs... that is just stupidity!
     
  6. hedwig

    hedwig New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bottom of the well
    Another point of view is rescue pets and poor people.

    Alot of rescues will not allow people on benefits or have a low income to adopt an animal.

    Surely a home with a low income and management of a health complaint is better then a rescue kennel or a death sentence?

    So rescuing a puppy from a pound who had 1 day left before being PTS is better off that way then a person on a low income who cannot afford vet bills IF OR WHEN it gets sick?

    That puppy may not get ill for several years. Those several years could have been used living in a POOR family home instead of PTS.

    Depends on your point of view i spose
     
  7. Shai

    Shai & the Muttly Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it also depends on what you mean by "afford a vet."

    Afford basic immunizations, necessary preventatives for your area, and reasonable checkups?

    Afford minor surgery? <$500? <$1000?

    Afford major surgery/illness?

    I mean "afford a vet" can--depending on the dog, the area, etc.--range from less than $100 a year to $10k+ if you have something catastrophic happen.
     
  8. hedwig

    hedwig New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bottom of the well
    Depends where you live. If you live on a farm i doubt i would vaccinate my dog unless i knew another was coming to the farm and do it in advance.

    In the uk we have the pdsa, which helps pay for your vets bills if your low income. Is there something similar in usa?

    So minor injurys/surgery would be possible

    but anything major i think would have to PTS. But that also goes for myself. If i broke my leg with no funds. I would keep that broken leg
     
  9. JessLough

    JessLough Love My Mutt

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    13,402
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Kennel Manager
    Location:
    Guelph, Ontario
    To me, affording a vet means doing anything in your power to get that pet to the vet when needed -- be it through selling stuff or borrowing money.
     
  10. Xandra

    Xandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I think some people get downright illogical about this topic. In an area like where I live, where a normal dog is easily homed, I can see why one might think dogs should only go to homes that can afford the vet. But in places where shelters kill dogs, PUPPIES even, en masse? If you live in one of these areas, I don't care if you don't have a dime to your name, if you want a dog to feed and love and are prepared to make hard decisions should the pup get sick, I think you should go ahead and get one.
     
  11. JessLough

    JessLough Love My Mutt

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    13,402
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Kennel Manager
    Location:
    Guelph, Ontario
    I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

    You break your leg and do nothing about it? That's OK, you're the idiot making that choice. The dog breaks it leg? Take it to a vet or surrender it to somebody who will -- the dog doesn't get to be that idiot making that choice to keep it.
     
  12. yoko

    yoko New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    2
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    If they don't have a dime to their name why would I allow them to adopt a dog? Would they take it to the vet and get it's shots? If they don't have a dime would they even be able to afford the adoption fee? If not should we give them the dog for free because they'll love it?

    If they don't have a dime to their name how are THEY eating? How will the dog eat?

    I get having emergencies pop up and running into issues paying for things. But to put a dog INTO that situation is just negligent on the part of the person adopting the dog out.
     
  13. smkie

    smkie pointer/labrador/terrier Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    55,145
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have backup or my animals would not be here. It doesnt' mean God forbid that if something ranking a thousand or more should happen that I could ask for that kind of help, but for basic care we are covered which I think is rational. If you can't afford basic care, you should not have a pet.
     
  14. Xandra

    Xandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Why? Well in the circumstances I just outlined you'd adopt a dog to them so it wouldn't be put down or I suppose so you could walk right down to the shelter and get another that is about to be put down. Would they take it to the vet for its shots, no. Would they pay an adoption fee, probably not? Usually in those areas dogs can be found for free so I can't see my hypothetical person paying an adoption fee. Whether or not you want to give dogs away for free depends on how you operate, are you trying to spare as many dogs as possible or are you trying to take a select few and get them into an ideal home?

    I suppose I should clarify, that if they cannot afford to eat or feed the dog, i.e. if they get a dog it is just going to starve to death, then no they shouldn't get it, they should leave it to be PTS.
     
  15. yoko

    yoko New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    2
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ok so in your opinion there shouldn't be an adoption fee and anyone who comes in should get an animal?

    I love having a dog. But you have to have SOME sort of financial stability before taking on that responsibility. And while saving a dog sounds good on paper. Sometimes getting 'any' home isn't better than being PTS.
     
  16. Xandra

    Xandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I don't really have an opinion on whether some organization should charge an adoption fee or not.

    You're totally right when you say "any" home isn't better than being PTS. I would rather a dog be PTS then starve to death, then linger with some rancid injury that isn't going to mend etc.

    Would you rather a dog be killed by AC today for lack of space then go into a home where it will live happily for months or years?
     
  17. yoko

    yoko New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    2
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I'd rather a dog to to a dog where it will live happily of course. But if a person can't afford themselves then no I would absolutely not adopt out to them. Does it sound heartless? It maybe. But I'd rather put the dog down than see it back in three months later nearly starved to death because the person learned that love alone won't sustain a healthy dog.
     
  18. Xandra

    Xandra Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    In my original post I do say "feed and love." If you can't figure out how to nourish an animal then I totally agree, you might as well leave it to be put down where it is.
     
  19. Dizzy

    Dizzy Sit! Good dog.

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Not enough.
    Location:
    Wales
    It's one things not having money and not even trying to save something for a rainy day.

    I think if you just get a pet without any thought of HOW you'll manage if something happens, then you shouldn't get a pet.
     
  20. milos_mommy

    milos_mommy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    15,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Maybe it's a bit different for me...it is not AT ALL uncommon here to see homeless people with pets (I'd even go so far to say that 50% of them might have pets with them)...people who are shivering in the street and have their sweatshirt wrapped around their dog, who will give their dog half or more of any food people give to them, who spend the change they collect on cans of dog food. Some homeless people have more than one dog with them, some have cats on leashes or in cages on the streets.

    But they're euthanizing hundreds of dogs each week...so what the hell are they going to do with their pets? Send them to ACC to be terrified, get kennel cough and have their skin rubbed off by the cement cage, to be put down a week later? A private rescue taking you dog isn't going to happen here unless it's a 6 lb toy dog or some fairly uncommon purebred.

    Plus, people in the "dog world" seem REALLY fond of rushing to the vet. Dog gets a tick? Better vet it for blood work. Hot spot? Better get to a vet. He vomited more than twice? He better see a vet. So yeah, if someone's dog gets hit by a car and breaks it's leg and they "don't have money for a vet" I'll be pretty pissed unless they're getting rid of cable and internet to get to a vet. If the dog has a hot spot they can treat at home or is limping slightly after hard exercise but fine otherwise, I'm not judging anyone for not selling their car and tv and soul to pay for vet care.
     

Share This Page