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.