The other day, I made a passing comment in my article about judging (or not judging) others. I mentioned that although my friend Michael is in dire financial straits, he’s still making life decisions based around the fact that his family has two dogs. (They’re renting a larger, more expensive home than they otherwise would, for example.) “What about getting rid of the dogs?” I asked.
Well.
This suggestion struck a nerve with a lot of people. Many GRS readers argued that giving up pets during financial crisis is irresponsible. Tiffany’s response was typical:
Sorry, but dogs are like kids, you can’t just get rid of them in hard times. Certainly, you shouldn’t take on dogs when you’re not financially able to (and similarly, you should do your utmost to not have kids when you can’t support them). If you’ve already got dogs when the financial hard times hit, well then too bad, they’re still your responsibility. You can’t get rid of the kids, can’t get rid of the dogs. No real pet owner would want to, either.
Let me quell some concerns: I own four cats, and if Kris would let me, I’d own a dozen more. Plus a couple of dogs. And some birds (I really want a parrot). And some fish. I’m an animal person, and am often amazed that I still eat meat. (That cognitive dissonance is a topic for another time.)
I’m about as pro-animal as you can get. (Except that I’m not vegetarian — yet.) In general, I actually agree with those who scolded me. Pets are not furniture. They’re not possessions to be disposed of carelessly. They’re thinking, emotional beings, and ought to be treated with consideration and respect.
As many of you know, one of my pet projects (ha!) is an ongoing documentation of animal intelligence; I read everything I can find on the subject. (My friends are always sending me stories about amazing animals because they know I love them.) At the same time I started Get Rich Slowly, I started an animal intelligence blog, though that site has long since faded to nothing.
People are passionate about pets
Despite my deep respect and admiration for animals, I don’t think this issue is as crystal clear as many GRS readers make it out to be. This debate is interesting, and for a variety of reasons.
- First, it shows that different people value different things. If my family were in a rocky financial situation, the pets wouldn’t be the first to go, but they’d certainly be on the list of options.
- Second, when talking about spending on pets, we get to explore questions like “How much is too much?” When do you stop spending on pets? Do your pets take priority over your children? Over your home? Over your self? Again, different people have different answers.
- Third, this clearly demonstrates one of my mantras: Money is more about mind than it is about math. Everyday, all of us make financial decisions based on factors other than the numbers. Numbers are important, but they’re far from the only factor.
Last fall at MSN Money, my pal Donna Freedman — who will share her reader story here on Sunday, by the way — wrote about the financial implications of pet ownership:
When people say “I’d never give up my pet,” they’re usually speaking from a position of privilege. Sure, they may feel broke right now, but they’re still in a place where they can say what they would “never” do. If you were ever truly destitute, you’d know better than to make that kind of claim.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you lived in your sedan with four cats or out in a culvert with a husky-shepherd mix. Maybe all of you survived. But most of us aren’t cut out to take that kind of risk — and frankly, we shouldn’t. It’s too dangerous. A human life is worth more than the chance to nurture a corgi or a ferret for a few more years. Besides, Fido deserves better than car camping and eating old Wonder bread from the food bank.
As you might expect, her article received a lot of comments — over 1200 responses, in fact — many of which were nasty. But, you know what? I think Donna is right, and agreeing with her doesn’t make me a heartless bastard.
My best friend
I’ve had my cat Toto since she was a kitten. (In fact, I’ve known and loved her since the day she was born, 01 May 1994.) Aside from Kris, Toto is my best friend. When I’m home, she’s usually by my side, helping me write about personal finance. But Toto is getting old. Her body is failing, and it breaks my heart. She’s often in pain. The vet isn’t sure exactly what’s wrong with her, so we keep trying different things. With each vet visit, my costs mount. So far, I’m okay with that. I’ve maybe spent a thousand dollars in the past few months, and it’s bought me more time to cuddle with my cat.
But where do I draw the line? How much do I spend to keep Toto alive? (Especially when her quality of life is beginning to deteriorate?) Do I tap the money I have saved for our trip to France and Italy just to buy her a few more weeks? What if I were still in debt? How much would I spend then?
The calculus of pets is complex; there are no easy answers.
Bonus video: My two cats, Toto and Max, demonstrate “how to be bad”.
A vet’s voice
As I was finishing this article, my vet phoned. She was calling to give me Toto’s latest lab results: Her kidneys are beginning to fail and she may have thyroid problems (still waiting on a last set of tests).
After we finished talking about Toto, I told Dr. McDaneld about the discussion at Get Rich Slowly. It turns out she volunteers with the Humane Society to provide veterinary care in low-income areas throughout the country. She shared her thoughts about folks who find themselves unable to afford their pets.
“I don’t like to see pets neglected just because their owners are in financial distress, but it happens,” she told me. “When somebody’s not financially able to care for their pets — even the bare minimum — then that pet really is best off in another situation.”
But Dr. McDaneld also noted that for some, pets really are members of the family. Sometimes, an animal can be a person’s closest companion. “People’s relationships with their pets can run a wide gamut,” she said. “Some people would lose their house and health before they’d give up their pets.”
Fortunately, there are programs to help pet owners in need. “There are a lot of groups out there trying to help people who want to be responsible pet owners but are in financial trouble,” Dr. McDaneld said. She gave me three examples in the Portland area:
- The PAW Team (Portland Animal Welfare Team) provides free vet care to the pets of people who are homeless or in extreme poverty.
- FIDO (Friends Involved in Dog Outreach) offers a number of programs to assist dog owners, including Animeals (meals-on-wheels for cats and dogs) and a Dog Food Bank (for dog owners in financial need).
- Cat Adoption Team, which provides a cat food bank.
There are sure to be similar programs in most major cities. The bottom line: If my friend Michael gets into a situation where he can’t afford to keep his dogs, there are organizations that can help.
Pets aren’t people
That said, animals aren’t people. Somewhere — and where, I do not know — there’s a line between what you do for your children and what you do for Fido or Fluffy. I believe that it’s this line that bothered so many people in Wednesday’s article; I was suggesting that Michael give up his dogs much earlier than some readers would consider such an option.
So, where is this line for you? How long do you keep a pet, even when you can’t really afford it? Do you sacrifice your family’s well-being for that of the animal? How do you prioritize when you have to make a sacrifice? Is it ever better to give up an animal than to fail at other obligations?
GRS is committed to helping our readers save and achieve your financial goals.Savings interest rates may be low, but that’s all the more reason to shop for the best rate.Find the highest savings interest rate from Ally Bank, Capital One 360, Everbank, and more.
This article is about Ask the Readers, Choices, Relationships
Disclaimer: This content is not provided or commissioned by American Express. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of American Express, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by American Express. This site may be compensated through American Express Affiliate Program.
Discover is a paid advertiser of this site. Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES
I have a question (it was posed earlier by someone else but no one answered). For those of you that condemn those that consider pets below humans and even below human comfort: Would you deny an animal years of comfortable living because the owner doesn’t meet your standards? The vast majority of pet owners have this type of practical standpoint.
Even in these homes animals live far better lives, and usually far longer, than feral and wild animals. I think the average life for a feral cat is around 8-10, years outdoor domesticated cats a little longer, house cats are 12-15 years. If we didn’t have a concept of ‘pets’ and all animals were wild their lives would be scrappy and typically short. There aren’t wild vets to take care of diabetes and rotten teeth, much less invasive surgery for tumors and the like.
I am not talking about people who actively or passively abuse animals (tying them up alone all day, etc), but more the people who say “I’ll put an animal down if the vet bill is greater than $500″. Some of these people are the most responsible animal owners I know (typically ranchers and farmers) they just have a very utilitarian view of animals.
loading....
As another poster pointed out, many times there is not a responsible no-kill solution available. I would add to that that even if a solution appears to be “no-kill”, it is not necessarily so.
In many if not most areas of the US, unwanted animals are getting killed every day. People delude themselves when they think that there is no negative impact when they find another home for their animal.
The reality is not really so formulaic, but to illustrate, if there are 50 available homes (1 animal each) and 100 animals needing homes, 50 animals die. If someone decides their pet would be better off elsewhere, they have added to the numbers of animals that need homes. Now there are 101 animals needing homes, still just 50 homes, and 51 animals die.
Sure maybe they found one of those homes for their animal, and they go on with their lives feeling all responsible and pro-animal, but somewhere out there another animal has died because of their decision.
Again, this is just an illustrative example – the real world is more complex, but in general if you take an available home to rehome your pet, that is one less home that all the other unwanted animals can compete for.
So that understanding, for me, is why it hurts and makes me mad to hear people cavalierly suggest finding a new home for a pet as a solution to problems. Their decision is based on the false belief that if they find a new home, no one gets hurt.
The truth is, if someone chooses to do that, they likely were responsible for another animal’s death and didn’t even know it.
But I know it and that’s why I have trouble being civil to such people or allowing them to keep their delusions of responsibility without at least shining a light on their (willful?) ignorance.
loading....
So why do you think your friend needs to give up his dogs? Is this because he has debt and does not see the cost of owning the dogs? How would giving up the dogs make his -unseen- debt issue any better for him? OR Are you suggesting giving up the dogs, because they would prefer to be owned by a human with no debt?
As a pet owner & parent, there is a line. As an owner of a large breed dog, a Great Dane, I do understand the money aspect of owning a dog! Their bills for food, medicine and vet visits are 4xs the cost of a cat. We adopted our dog from a rescue when she was 3. I am grateful for that owner giving her to us. Gracie truly made my family happy and complete.
I put my Great Dane down after many years of sliding down hill. She lost the ability to control her back legs, get up/down, eating became less and controling herself. During the many years of vet visits, acupuncture, surgeries and long nights, I did not see the pain she was in. I tried so very hard, emotionally, physically, and fiscally to make her better. Only after letting her go, did I see how much life it took from her in a few years. She was not the same dog, she became tired. I wanted so badly to heal her. I tried more medicines and vets, none of worked. I had to let her go, because of her life, not mine. At no point did I say, Gracie – I love you, thank you for the great years, but your line item fell off my budget this month – good bye. Money never entered into the thought process when I had to give her life saving surgery for bloat. This cost nearly $3k. She lived 4 more yrs after the surgery.
Today, I have debt and am working on BS#2. This is one of the reasons I do not have another great dane today. I know the huge cost of having pets and kids.
In the end, we have 1 life, how do you plan on $pending it? For me and my family, we choo$e this life with pet$.
loading....
@35 Jason: Did you ever buy food based on taste, rather than nutrition? Shame on you; kids are starving. Have you ever bought a newspaper? They’re wasteful and disposable. You should have bought a book for a poor kid. Ever bought shoes that weren’t crucial to your survival, but looked nice or felt cushy? Selfish clod. Why won’t you think about the bloody feet of the poor shoeless children?
Oh, and by the way, while you’ve been spending your money on your morally superior life, I’ve been spending mine to undo the damage to my cat perpetrated by the sick bastard who thought it was fun to kick her around like a football.
loading....
The reason why there are so many problems in this world is because we continuously place humans above every living.
There is a study that suggests that places where there is a slaughterhouses have a higher rate of crime.
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/809521–probing-the-link-between-slaughterhouses-and-violent-crime
There have been enough studies to prove that lots of animals (dogs, cats, chimps) have feelings. In labs a chimp is killed in another room so as not to upset the other chimps.
In the end, the responsible person will do everything to keep their pet and the irresponsible will give them away.
So sad.
loading....
Regarding putting an animal down, I think it’s kind of common sense: Are they in pain and will it not get better? Yes, put them out of their misery. They will thank you for it (if they could I believe). Will they get better if you can afford their treatment? Then do it.Would they get better if you could afford it, but can’t? I don’t know the answer to that except to look around at every option you have–maybe some of your commentators have already touched upon this subject. I just know that my pets are with me for life, seriously. If times became really bad (and I know they can for some people), personally, I would feed them and get them medical attention over me…much like I would do if they were my child. Same thing. Pets and children are both dependent upon their parents. That is why it is very important to think things through before you have either. And, if you have a pet (as in stray that needs a home) or child and didn’t plan for it, you make do. Somehow.
loading....
My cat is 17 years old, and in the past 5 years has developed a heart condition, cancer and elevated calcium levels in her blood. Fortunately oral medication has controlled the first, the second has remained manageable without meds, and we’ve finally concluded that the last is simply a result of the aging process.
Elevated calcium can also be caused by other things, such as a tumor on the parathyroid gland. While that’s rare in cats, it does occur and Kitty Two fish fit the criteria. The sonogram to check wasn’t terribly expensive, and thank goodness she didn’t have a tumor. Besides the cost, I was hesitant to subject her to surgery between her advanced age and her heart condition. If she were younger, that would have been a different story.
In all other respects, Kitty is still plenty spry and healthy. Her annual heart checkup is the only big thing now. If down the road the cancer or the calcium changes, at her age I won’t do anything that would also negatively impact her quality of life.
loading....
Just so long as you and vet fully grasp that, more often than not, getting rid of the pet means that pet is going to die. Only when I could literally no longer both feed myself and my cats would I consider that a viable option.
loading....
Either extreme is bad. It’s a little sickening how quickly a dog winds up at the pound because of a little barking or mess, and it would be worse to see somebody letting their child go hungry so that dog can eat.It’s a living thing, a commitment, and although one must be willing to let it go, it should not be done as lightly or as easily as old books and toys.
loading....
Where do you draw the line on when enough financial support for the pet is enough. Do you spend $8K on cancer treatment for your dog or not?
We all make choices in life and if we choose to have a pet then they become a responsibility. All of us go thru money issues at some point in their life and with everything we must cut back. But the emotional anguish of giving up a beloved pet for me is just too overwhelming.
Cut back other areas…there are always choices. But I believe pets are a responsibility.
Mark
loading....
I’m glad you chimed back in on this subject. It takes courage to ask questions that will likely be seen as morally reprehensible by a lot of people in a particular culture.
The rationale that “we make our own choices” only works to the extent that a person believes we truly act in isolation from society. In my view, it’s a naive worldview. What I do impacts the environment and other people. Yet American individualism allows us to continue believing that this isn’t true. When you travel abroad, the glut of our lifestyles becomes obvious. Further, “the United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas. As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers, and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles were among the best-selling vehicles.New houses in the U.S. were 38 % bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.”
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810
I love animals, and grew up with pets but prioritizing them over the well-being of human beings and human societies is itself inhumane. Does anyone figure their pet’s carbon footprint? Include the production, distribution and waste disposal of products you buy like food, toys, treats, clothes, housing, etc.. Do you feed your pet organic food? Was is a pure-breed? Include the fact that you may drive your pet to get groomed, or to the park and include the resources needed for the groomer and park to exist.
It’s not a matter of “we make our own choices.”
loading....
I hate the dogs who are currently living in my home.
I did not grow up with dogs or other pets, but when my husband and children wanted a dog, I went along with it. We first took in the elderly dog of a friend who had cancer, loved her for two years, and adopted a puppy when the first dog died, loving her for another 14 years. Like a lot of puppies, she did silly things, like eating the kitchen floor, and not so silly thing, like destroying a handmade quilt that I had labored over. Still, when we put her down to spare her any further pain in her old age, I thought that we were through with dogs — only one child left at home, we were now free to travel and do things that we could not previously.
Unfortunately, four days after our dog died, our youngest got her psychologist to declare that she NEEDED a dog and another puppy appeared. Then my husband decided that the puppy needed a companion and took in a rescue dog. Then my son returned to town with two dogs he could not keep in his apartment.
Let me stress that NONE of these four dogs was adequately trained. The amount of damage they have done to the furniture is incalculable — put that into your calucus as well. And I returned from spending five weeks at my mother’s deathbed to find that they had been allowed to destroy all my gardens as well.
I feel that the family has chosen the dogs over me. Although two of them have moved on to other homes, we are stuck with the other two. I have told my husband that he needs to make arrangements for his dog, because if he dies it will be the first thing to go. I am not a cruel person, but I am not a pet person, do not see the sense of treating dogs as if they were amusing but naughty children, and INFINTELY prefer my house and my gardens to these small creatures.
loading....
I find this whole debate silly. Who cares what other people think about how you deal with your pets and finances? So they’ll judge you and may be nasty to you if they don’t agree with your choices, BIG DEAL. It’s none of their business. The real boundaries that dictate what people can do with their animals are defined by law (animal abuse and whatever other laws apply in your state). Outside of that animals are chattel property, and it’s up to the owner to decide what to do with their animals as long as they don’t break the law. No one can enforce any higher standards for animals on anyone else, unless they change the law to give additional protections or rights to animals.
loading....
Personally, I would have to be in some SERIOUS financial trouble before I would even consider giving up my dog (serious as in… living out of a car, foraging for my own food in the park and bathing only when it rains and isn’t too cold). But, at the same time, assuming more ordinary financial troubles are a temporary state, I would have no problem downsizing where I lived to a place I could better afford, even if it meant my dog would be a bit crowded. I would try to compensate for that discomfort with longer walks and such when I’m home, but imo pets, like people, don’t need PERFECT living arrangements to be okay, especially when, hopefully, that not-great situation will improve soon. In my perspective, dogs are pretty happy just to be around their people, go for walks and be fed and played with. They can be temporarily cramped a little bit, imo.
When it comes to caring for a pet during an illness, I would say that finances definitely do play a role, especially if the chance of your pet improving and going on to live many more years is low. There is also the issue of how much a pet is suffering and such. In many cases, euthanasia is not only the more financially sound choice, it is the kindest choice too. (however… I do think pet owners have a responsibility to routinely bring their pets to the vet and to take care of more minor/non-life threatening health issues, which can nonetheless cause discomfort and pain).
loading....
I own two cats that were both given up to shelters by people who couldn’t take care of them anymore. I like to think that they are happy with me, but I know that if something happened and I couldn’t afford to keep up with their care (they both have moderately pricey conditions that need to be dealt with by a vet frequently), I would need to find a good home for them. Perhaps a temporary one, if possible. It would be the last step on the ladder, but a step nonetheless.
loading....
I would give up just about anything before I gave up my dog. It is my opinion that a lot of people who get a pet and then say they “can’t afford” it really mean that they don’t want to. Yes, there are people who lose their jobs and use up their savings trying to live, but they aren’t as numerous in my life as the people who decided that the dog was a luxury less appealing than the iPod.
When people keep luxuries and dump their pets, I think less of them. If I saw them making sacrifices before finally deciding that they cannot afford a quality life for their pet, I would think better of them.
A dog/cat will be in your life for 15+ years; if you don’t have an emergency fund and a commitment to keeping it as best you can, you should never get one. I don’t believe in spending my last dime trying to eke out an animal’s life, but I do believe that pet ownership is a privilege that too many people take for granted.
loading....
So, which “transfer payments” come without strings? SSI, nope, that’s a resource & income based benefit that you are eligible to receive if you are disabled (can take years to have a claim approved) or elderly. Very few people can survive on SSI without also living in subsidized housing. Usually so low income (below the poverty level) that they’re eligible for food stamps too. Somehow, if a disabled person manages to scrimp & save enough to afford to feed & otherwise care for a pet, I’m not able in myself sufficient arrogance to decide that that person doesn’t “deserve” to have a pet because he/she is elderly & low income or disabled & low income.
SSDI? What you receive is based on what you paid in (or another wage earner) when you were working (i.e,. a “responsible taxpayer”)- and you must meet SSA’s definition of disability (see above, can take months or years for a claim to be approved). At this point, Medicare premiums are going up so much that a Medicare B premium can consume quite a bit of a monthly SSDI payment. So, is it ok for someone getting a benefit based on how much he/she paid in (or a deceased/disabled parent or spouse did) to have a pet?
VA service connected disability? Again, often takes a while to get the benefit or to get more than say a total rating of 30 to 40%. I guess that really is your hard earned money going to pay for that veteran’s benefits and how dare he/she support a pet w/some of that money.
Let’s make sure & tell someone injured in Afghanistan, Iraq or in the first Gulf War how you resent his or her spending any of his/her disability benefit on a pet–there are plenty of them around and plenty more to come, so you shouldn’t have any difficulty finding one-w/a pet–to communicate your righteous indignation to.
TANF? (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) means tested again, so strings, plus the string of being for, I believe, a max of 5 years, and irc, those receiving have to attend classes on budgeting & job skills, look for work, take the work, etc. Prior to the recession, the average time on TANF (in OR, where I live) was 6 months.
UE? Paid for partly by employers, now also by the federal gov’t. Maybe some people enjoy being on UE, but most people didn’t want to lose their jobs and might’ve gotten a pet while they were working, no?
Judgmental, yes.
Why not switch to judging the banksters & their bloated bonuses–paid for by you for the past year or so, the responsible taxpayer? It’s not just pets with them, its multiple expensive homes, yachts, and who knows what else.
Umm, people are animals, just like cats & dogs are. All are mammals too.
That said, if people value their children more, that’s fine, that’s their choice. However, it’s not true that society takes care of elderly humans if others do not. At least in the US, the safety net is not that good or well knit. Elderly people die of neglect in the US (as do some children) and end up homeless.
I’ve lived in a not so great place because it was one of the few places I could find that I could afford and I could (legally) have my cat. One of the reasons (just one) I bought a home was so that I could have a dog–because the coastal city I live in, unlike Portland, is not particularly “pet friendly.” The motels/hotels may be, but not the rental market, unless you can pay a fairly high rent.
She died/was euthanized (illness) 5 years ago. My cat & dog, both elderly, died w/in 3 months of each other. The medication for my dog, for the 10 months before she died, was a bit of a strain, partly financial, but mostly because my work schedule wasn’t always easy to coordinate w/the medication administration schedule.
I adopted two young cats, I have not gotten another dog, first because I wasn’t sure I wanted the responsibility again & now because I am unsure if I can afford a dog (in addition to the 2 cats). I share an office now for part of the workweek and I’m not sure if I could bring a dog (obedience trained) to the office w/me as I did when I had my own office. Not sure how a dog would be staying at home alone–my dog wasn’t happy about it–the main reason I first took her to the office w/me.
For the time being, I take care of a friend’s dog when the friend is out of town. She travels fairly often on business, sometimes I take care of her dog, sometimes another friend does. Sometimes I just borrow Casey (the dog) so I can have a companion on a beach walk. I’ve also taken her camping with me. I plan to find out if other people might have dogs they’d like walked/run on the beach while they’re working or otherwise occupied.
For now, the company of my friend’s dog, and perhaps other dogs, and that of my cats is enough.
If I could not afford to keep my cats, I would try to find them another home although I adopted them from a no-kill shelter. The adoption agreement requires me to either return them to the shelter or get a new home approved by the shelter personnel.
loading....
Nice article, JD!
Interestingly, I didn’t think your comments in the last article meant they needed to *give up* their dogs, just that they needed to move into a place that didn’t seem entirely dog-friendly. People make their kids bunk up in financially hard times… some families even end up with someone on the couch… I don’t see a problem doing something similar with dogs, IF it’s temporary and the owner makes the effort to go to the dog park or otherwise get their dog some space to move around every day. But, our dogs are not kids, no matter how much we like to think of them that way. If anyone had to chose between the well being of their child (or their child’s future… like college) and giving away their dog, I certainly hope they’d chose the child.
I’m looking for work, temporarily living in an extremely small space (studio apartment sized), am currently unemployed, and have 2 dogs (one largish, one small). At this point, I wouldn’t give up my dogs because by giving up other unnecessary expenses I can afford them… and there’s tons of space outside for them to stretch out. But, if any health issues arise, there’s no way I could afford it (I have paid out huge chunks of money in the past — one of my dogs had a broken back and a year of physical therapy — but my current unforeseen situation prevents me from doing anything like that now). Given the age of my oldest dog, I harbor a lingering concern about the possibility. If that time comes, it’ll be hard, but I *will* be making the decision to give him to someone who is willing and able to provide a better life for him — for both of our sakes. If I can’t find someone? I don’t know what I’ll do, but I can’t see cutting truly necessary expenses (like health insurance).
A couple of years ago, I had a friend with two dogs and no health insurance for himself or his family (even though he could get it through his employer by paying a portion). Like your friend, he also had an expensive cell phone (etc) and two dogs. When his kid got sick, he took her to the emergency room because he couldn’t afford a visit to the doctor’s office. Of course, he couldn’t afford the emergency room charges, either, but they’ll give medical care regardless. Every one of us gets to pay for his choices in higher costs. It’s hard not to judge.
loading....
I’m finding the reasoning in this post pretty muddled and confusing.
For one, it’s hard to take a claim to being extremely pro-animal seriously when the person admits almost in the same sentence that they eat them.
Plus, the quote regarding people speaking from a position of privilege is a little off (like a commenter above mentioned, it’s not like many people go from middle-class stability to a van down by the river overnight), and is quite frankly insulting to those of us that have made significant financial sacrifices so that they could not give their pets away or have them put down.
loading....
I would never give up my border collie for any amount of money or poverty. She isn’t JUST a pet, she’s my family. You are correct that pets aren’t people but I can tell you for a fact that I value the life of my dog over that of another person.
loading....
There is no way my GF would give up our dog – I think she’d give up me before that as I can fend for myself and the dog can’t
We insure our dog for the sole reason that we don’t have to have the ‘can we afford this treatment’ worry, which we would have already had several times in the 2 years we have had her (rescued at 3 yrs old). She would have already cost us upwards of £10,000 ($20,000?) due to various random injuries and conditions. If we gave her up I would worry that no one else would take her on, despite being a fabulous, soppy and beautiful dog because she has a medical history longer than the Encylopaedia Britannica, and requires firm, expert training to get the best out of her.
loading....
It really, really, really bothers me, at a deep level, when people view their pets as disposable. I don’t begrudge people who give up their pets for legitimate reasons, who are really in the most dire of straits or can’t physically care for their pets. But if ONLY the people in the most dire of straits gave up their pets, shelters would have no problem rehoming that many. The thing that galls me is that people give up their pets when it’s not dire, but simply inconvenient.
If you are this type of person, who would give up a pet simply because it’s become inconvenient, DON’T GET A PET.
I feel that getting a pet is a lifelong commitment. Because that animal is completely dependent on you, and while people may think they’ve found a good home or the shelter will find a good home, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH GOOD HOMES FOR EVERY UNWANTED ANIMAL. That’s why so many animals are put to sleep in shelters every single day. Human irresponsibility.
You cannot 100% control what’s going to happen to the pet after you relinquish it. Stories abound about people rehoming horses with a “nice” person who find out later the horse was sold to slaughter. You may think the shelter will find your sweet Fido a great home but when they do a temperment test, find that Fido is food aggressive and not adoptable, and puts him to sleep.
And people should know, going in, that they cost money, not only in basics like food and vet bills, but they also cost time. You need to clean kitty’s box every day, talk your dog for a walk every day.
It bothers me when friends who rent get a dog. Cats are a different story. Cats can live happily indoors, cats are usually tolerated by most landlords. Where I live, it’s exceptionally difficult to find housing that allows dogs, and what is available tends to be expensive. When their situation changes, a breakup happens, etc… suddenly they realize how much more complicated they made their lives by getting a dog. And sometimes they have to give it up to be able to get affordable housing. It’s unfair to the dog.
I understand that not everyone feels the way I do about pets or animals. I get it. That’s fine. Just don’t get pets. Problem solved!
I don’t feel bad about the money I spend on my dogs because I have chosen not to have children. So even when another unexpected vet bill comes along, or the price for flea preventative goes up again, we just sigh and say “They’re still cheaper than kids!” My dogs enhance my life in ways that money alone cannot buy, so it is justified to me.
loading....