Should income affect pet ownership?

Question

Reading through answers, I've found the recurrent message: "If you can't afford to take your pet to the vet, you shouldn't have one." Every time I read it, I'm troubled.

Obviously in an ideal world every person, not to mention every animal, would have access to health care. But in the meantime, we compromise.

Is it fair to criticize low-income people for having pets (leaving the question of children aside)? Obviously there are practical limits; if you can't afford to feed an animal, obviously you won't be able to keep it. But if you can provide a loving home, and can afford basics like food and water (and perhaps one-off fixed costs like neutering), isn't that a reasonable compromise? Isn't that better for an animal than life (or death) in a shelter, or as a stray?

I assume that most people on this forum are reasonably affluent. But I believe that sometimes people who can't afford professional help come here for amateur advice, and should be given that advice, not a reproach.

Answer 1

Usually even if you get a pet from a shelter they will want you to be able to give it proper care. You can't blame them for that. I'm not that well off and I know that even a small health problem with a pet can be quite costly. We had a dog with allergies and it cost $900 to diagnose and 15 a month for shots. That's a lot, especially if you don't have it and it's not fair to the pet to let it suffer. That said, it's still better for it to have a loving home than be out on the street. That's why they want you to spay and neuter pets.

Answer 2

To have a BMW, you have to be able to afford the monthly payments, and you also know that PARTS are going to be expensive. I know I cannot afford one. So I drive a Nissan.

People have to think the same way with pets. They have to be able to afford the pet, the first year of care...which can be quite costly...and PLAN for illness. It is rare that an animal lives it's life without sickness and just one day dies in it's sleep. When people get a pet that they cannot afford, or didn't plan for, they seek out others to pay the bills or take the animal. Why should Humane organizations have to pay others people vet bills, or use the resources on those people when they could be putting that towards helping animals truly in need.
It is one thing if someone suddently falls on hard times, but too many people get a pet, knowing full well that if a $200 vet bill popped up, they could not afford it. And MANY times these people DO NOT spay or neuter and ADD to the overpopulation problem.
This is why many shelter ask for some kind of proof of income to adopt an animal. We do not like to see the person come back asking for help with vet bills, or turning the pet back over to the shelter for that reason.
Too many people impulse buy pets, with no thought to the future. Pets are a LUXURY and should be thought of as such!!!!! May sound harsh, but it is true!!

Answer 3

I believe if you can't afford an animal it is in the ANIMAL's best interest not to have it or get a pet. A few weeks ago I decided i wanted a dog for a companion so i went to a shelter to adopt one. I already knew that there would be the adoption fee, the first few sets of shots, heartworm pills, and etc. that would need to be taken care of. Well the puppy got VERY sick within the first few days i had it due to some sort of viral infection or what not the puppy was on fluids and meds. to recover properly. It's been 3 weeks now since i have had her (still recovering) and I have already spent over $3000.00 on vet bills. Thanks goodness i was able to afford the bills because otherwise the pup would have probably died without proper care. It is only fair to the pet that you can provide it with the healthcare and etc. it needs.
I worked at a vet a couple of years ago and someone brought in a healthy 5 year old lab they wanted to put to sleep just cause they couldnt afford some medication for the dog for its thyroid problem....that is RIDICULOUS!

Answer 4

It isn't income that causes problems so much as the lack of it.
The ASPCA will tell you that most people mean well, but simply become over whelmed, especially if they tend to 'hoard' animals. Their hearts are in the right place, but they take on far too much responsibility then they can handle.

Certain questions should be asked when considering a pet, of any kind.
Can they afford the food, care, and upkeep? That includes emergency medical care, and insurance...both home and for the animal itself, should they ever need it. If you have children, they must be added into the equation as well.
Most of the time common sense will dictate what can and can not be handled.

Answer 5

At present we have 3 Chihauhaus and since I was disabled 3 years ago we have a limited income. But since our pups have pretty much taken the place of our kids we make real sure they get whatever they may need even if it means that we do without. Our vets know that our pups have a happy home and they will have great lives. We have been told this when we are brought problem dogs and get them checked out ASAP. We look at them like helpless kids and would rather do without a comfort than to let them suffer. I think our answer to this lies more in the care and responsibility that the owners give to their animals care and comfort.

Answer 6

People like to get on a soap box and preach their sanctimoniousness to everyone. I was actually thinking the other day that my pets have better health care than my husband.

I think a lot of people provide good homes to their pets and never take them to the vet. It's not a problem until the animal is really sick and in need of care.

What bothers me is people who say they can't afford to take their pets to the vet, but then have money for all kinds of other things like new clothes, or partying.

I have three cats that stay inside all the time. Sometimes they get sick from vaccinations, so I don't take them. My dogs get vaccinated at PetSmart pet store, because it's much much cheaper than paying for a vet.