Is this acceptable care?

Question

If a person cannot afford i.e. regular shots and checkups, does that mean that they are or are not abusing or neglecting their animals? If they love their animals, is that enough? Or should those animals who are not receiving regular vaccinations and check-ups be removed from the owner's home? Why or why not?

The owners do not do low cost clinics. They do what they do and their pets are their pets. There are no vaccinations, there are no check-ups, they don't do those things. They won't do those things for whatever reason.

Answer 1

It is a form of abuse -- it is neglect.

Lack of shots and routine care means an eventual parvo and distemper epidemic (unhealthy to the canine community as a whole), heartworm, and worms and parasites that are contagious to humans.

If they cannot afford a vet, they cannot afford a pet, and ideally they should rehome their pet. If they refuse to rehome their pet, then yes -- absolutely the pet should be removed from their home.

Pet ownership is a responsibility, a luxury, and a privilege -- it is not a right.

*******

Amy R, you are spot on -- thank you.

Answer 2

It depends on the situation. If the dog is healthy and is fed and loved, I don't see a major problem with no regular vet checkups. However, someday there may come a point in time when the dog gets old and sick, gets hit by a car, or has other medical needs. Then, if the owner cannot afford a good vet, there would be a problem. The dog would most likely suffer and not live as long a life.

However, I do not think that people who love animals but aren't financially well off should be ripped of the opportunity to have a dog. A person who is thinking of a getting a dog should just realize their dog may not live the longest life, and should be prepared. If the dog is loved and cared for as best as it can be even if he doesn't live for 18 years, he will have had a good life.

Answer 3

Ahhh this is a very good question!

What your asking is if LOVE of the animal is reason enough to not protect it from rabies and other diseases and should that owner be allowed to keep that animal even if it can pose a danger to other animals and perhaps the owner it self..My answer would be no, the person should not be allowed to keep the animal.
There are many low cost clinics and even a old farm doctor can vaccinate an animal if need be. As far as regular check up go I think I could see around that if the basics of a rabies shot was there.

I have seen to many people who love their animals to death because of finances and who keep to many animals because of supposed love of the animals (hoarders).

What I perceive as loving an animal may be totally different than someone else's definition of the word.
I gave you mine.

Add: I also think that every effort should be made to keep dog and owner together. If that fails than what other choice is there. There are programs for seniors and many vets do offer a discount to seniors too. I think the vets and the clinics should do more to make this public knowlede to them also.

Answer 4

There are lots of people who don't believe in vaccinating their animals, even though they have the money. Whether this is right or wrong is a choice they make. If you don't have the money for vaccines, you have to be more careful with your dog, as it is vulnerable to a bunch of diseases. The problem is that if you don't vaccinate your dog and it does catch parvo or distemper, or one of the other diseases we routinely vaccinate for, you are probably going to lose it, because treatment is really expensive, and vaccines are pretty cheap. The only vaccine that is required by law is rabies. Every dog and cat should have a rabies vaccination, both because it is a terrible disease and because it can be spread to humans. If you get it, the chance is almost 100% that you will die. So, in answer to your question, while I don't believe it is abuse, I do believe it is a little neglectful, but don't believe the animals should be removed. Most cities have yearly events where they provide at least rabies vaccines (and sometimes the distemper combination) for little or no money. So, if you're city does this, there really isn't any reason for not keeping your dog safe from deadly diseases.

Answer 5

Vaccinations are just a small part of owning animals. Years and years ago these things were never heard of and their dogs were still healthy. Maybe even more healthy then todays dogs to some degree. Still today there are farmers that do not vaccinate their dogs That is not considered abuse.

I would consider abuse as not feeding, no shelter, beating the dog, letting bad things happen and don;t try to stop it, Not taking the dog to the vet when bad accidents happen, broken bones etc.

Our dogs have all their vaccinations, go to the vet at least once a yr. 2-3 times if bred and need their puppy checck ups.

Answer 6

Would you take a loved dog from a senior citizen on a fixed income just because they have a hard time affording those things? No, I don't think they should be removed. However I do think there should be more programs made avail to low income pet lovers. I also think that instead of harping on too many pets in the shelters, some thing should be done about it. Shelters should offer free spaying and neutering and very low cost vaccinations. I think ALOT more people would have their pets fixed if it was free, then there would be ALOT fewer unwanted pets. Simple huh? Makes sence to me.

Answer 7

"Love" is not enough. If they truly loved their animals, they would be keeping their vaccinations up to date and having them checked out at the vet at least once a year.

Legally, I don't think that is enough reason to remove the pets from the home, but if they are kept in bad condition, not fed, etc then yes they need to be taken away.

If they can't afford shots, but won't go to a low-cost vaccination clinic, then something is wrong with their rationality.
If you can't afford to care for the animal, sell it to somebody who can and will.

Answer 8

What is neglect. Let me tell you about where I work. There are young kids with cell phones that bring their sick puppies in because they didn't get their vaccination and now they are sick with Parvo. Now they don't have money to treat the animal and have it taken care of the way it should. Of course we take care of it because that is our job..but we can't always do this for free. If you can not afford to give your child vaccinations and give them the care that they deserve then it is called neglect and your child will be taken from you, why should an animal be any different. They are innocent and you chose them to love forever no matter what the costs. If a person calls in and wants to know if we have any animals for free because they have no money I tell them NO. If you can not afford shots and yearly exams then you should not have a animal.

Answer 9

It may not be abuse, but it is neglect. If they really love their animal they will do what is best for the animal. Regular check-ups can be once a year. Vaccinations will prevent the animal from basic sicknesses and diseases. Part of loving a pet is being a responsible pet owner. Part of responsibility is realizing you may not have the money to provide and that your pet needs a home that it can be taken care of.

Answer 10

What I personally think is that there needs to be more education for the average pet owner. Many people don't understand the value of regular vaccinations. They don't have the money to pay to go to a vet, and they don't know how to find a low-cost clinic.

I think the animals SHOULD NOT be removed. Where would we put them if they were removed? Do you know of a shelter with plenty of room and a waiting list? I don't.

Answer 11

I wouldn't say that lack of check ups would be good reason to remove a dog from someone's home.. if they are taking good care of the dog, feeding good food and not having any problems.. It would be a personal decision as to whether they need to have regular checkups.. As long as they actually went to the vet if they saw a problem.
When you go to the vet for a check up.. He isn't necessarily going to catch a future problem. If he isn't doing regular blood checks and everything else.. If he is just checking the basics, eyes, ears coat etc, the beginnings of a liver problem wouldn't necessarily be caught in basic examination.. Proper vet care tho by the owner is mandatory, if they are seeing something.. Diarrhea, vomiting, lethargy, not eating etc..

Regular vaccinations is a problem tho.. Rabies is the only one mandatory by law. So I don't think you are going to get dogs removed from homes for lack of regular vaccinations.. BUT they are not only at risk themselves for disease, but they are now out there and risking everyone elses dogs.. If everyone vaccinated properly, alot of disease would be erradicated.. It's those that neglect to keep their animals properly vaccinated that keep the diseases alive.

I think lack of vaccinations is neglect, and abuse, and I think it's also irresponsible to risk their dog's lives to disease that could so easily be avoided, and it's irresponsible to put other people's pets at risk because they don't care about their own dog's health.

There are dog's out there with immune problems who can't be vaccinated.. They are automatically at risk. A dog that is able to be vaccinated should be, so that those with compromised immune systems aren't at such a huge risk..

It's the responsible thing to do..

Oh and Spay / Neuter your pets!