Q? re: Pet ownership and income/money

[JBaxter]

I love my dog but he's a dog. He's been neutered and gets his shots ( we use a mobile vet truck $8 rabies & other vaccines) He hasn't been TO a vet in about 3 yrs. I get his monthly heart worm medication I wouldn't let him suffer but I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on him. He's a chinese crested so grooming is a bath on occasion.

[khm]

Well, I think the vast majority of pet owners wouldn't spend that much for any one issue. I also think there are a lot of wonderful pets who are euthanized every year in shelters who could have lived happy lives for many years in loving homes before this happens. I don't think it's such an easy call.

While I personally would spend the money, as long as it did not financially hurt us, I would not condemn someone who didn't want to do this.

I agree. Shelters and rescues are completely overwhelmed. It is naive to think that all those pets will end up in homes with people willing/able to spend thousands of dollars on any medical issue. If they stay in the "system" until their medical need arises, the shelter and the rescue cannot spend tons of money for one animal.

Animals are not created when the perfect financially-able person comes along. Animals are waiting, and waiting. I would really rather a pet be loved and part of family than to live out their days in a shelter/rescue. I've witnessed some fantastic rescues in our search, but even the great ones still aren't a "home", and their resources are limited. There is only so much they can do. Then, there's the not so great shelters/rescues....

I also think that it is hard to think about in the abstract. Once the pet is part of the family, it seems most WILL find a way to take care of medical needs as they arise, depending on the whole set of circumstances (age, prognosis, etc). Giving a dollar amount limit to an imaginary pet is one thing, but it is another when they are part of the family.

[ha98ed14]

Well, I think the vast majority of pet owners wouldn't spend that much for any one issue. I also think there are a lot of wonderful pets who are euthanized every year in shelters who could have lived happy lives for many years in loving homes before this happens. I don't think it's such an easy call.

While I personally would spend the money, as long as it did not financially hurt us, I would not condemn someone who didn't want to do this.

This is what I am getting at. I just paid $2500+ to have my bathroom replumbed and rewired. It was not just cosmetic. There were real code violations based on how a previous owner had "redone" the bathroom. I chose that level of responsibility when I bought the house. If tomorrow I suddenly needed to spend $2500+ on my pet, I would be hesitant to do it. (Putting down an elderly or low QoL animal relative to the cost is a no-brainer). This is somewhat hypothetical, but where do we draw the line? Don't buy a house if you cannot afford the upkeep and repairs. Don't own a pet if you aren't willing to spend $1000+ on emergency surgery. Don't have (more) kids unless you an pay their way through 4 years of Oberlin... I'm just wondering where the "line" is? How much money do you need before you start living?

[maestramommy]

Your question is really hard to answer. I think we could go with $500, depending on what it was. Maybe up to $1000? Again depending on what it was. Our neighbor just spent thousands on their dog after she ate a washcloth and almost died. She's perfectly fine now. I don't know if we could spend that much, and we don't have pet insurance so anything is out of pocket. We even took Shep off the Banfield wellness plan because we didn't think the monthly fee was paying off since he hardly goes to the vet. Boy we saved a lot right away because they didn't push the deworming or fecal exam, just because we are already giving him heartguard. They didn't do any blood draws either, and they used to when he was on the plan.

[carolinacool]

When our cat was 2, she swallowed a button. But it took us spending close to $2,500 before the vet figured out what had happened. My family thought we were crazy, especially since we had to charge a good bit of it. But I wouldn't have been able to to live with myself if we hadn't kept doing different procedures. That was 10 years ago, and she's still with us! That said, now with a house and a kid, I'm not sure if we will get another pet after she's gone. She was diagnosed with diabetes back in the fall, which has meant insulin, more frequent vet visits, and also pet sitters. With cats, you can go away for a couple of nights as long as you leave plenty of food and fresh water. Now we're looking at spending $30 a day to hire someone to give her shots. It's all starting to add up.

[TwinFoxes]

The way that you phrase the question, yes, that would stop me from getting a pet. For me, it's not so much the total cost of a procedure, but the relative value of the procedure/intervention - ie, is the pet otherwise young and healthy and will the procedure in question add significant value to the pet's life in terms of quality of life or increasing lifespan? If the answers to those questions are yes, I am more willing to spring for an expensive procedure.

This. Euthanisizing a sick, older animal is one thing. Taking on an animal that might have an unforeseen health issue with many potentially healthy years ahead of him if you can't address that health issue is totally different, and not something I would do.

Yes to both of these. Sutures plus meds and an exam would probably cost $500. So if your pet got attacked by another animal would you say, eh, too bad?

[MelissaTC]

Our puppy is our baby. Given his age, we would do as much as we could to give him the best quality life we could, in line with our finances and what we can afford. I can't imagine too many situations where we wouldn't go forward with treatment for him. He is a part of our family and has brought us all so much joy. I can't imagine not taking care of him when he needs us. I have gotten him groomed three times already since we got him in December (pekepoo mix). He has gone to the vet for shots. He is on monthly meds for heart worm and flea& tick prevention. Just yesterday, I had to get him a harness as the regular collar was not working. I've spent money on toys (he loves to play with toys and is still teething), crate, pet bed, microfiber towels, a sweater for the cold weather, etc.. He has cost us a fortune but we love him and do it all with pleasure.

[TwinFoxes]

I agree. Shelters and rescues are completely overwhelmed. It is naive to think that all those pets will end up in homes with people willing/able to spend thousands of dollars on any medical issue. If they stay in the "system" until their medical need arises, the shelter and the rescue cannot spend tons of money for one animal.

Animals are not created when the perfect financially-able person comes along. Animals are waiting, and waiting. I would really rather a pet be loved and part of family than to live out their days in a shelter/rescue. I've witnessed some fantastic rescues in our search, but even the great ones still aren't a "home", and their resources are limited. There is only so much they can do. Then, there's the not so great shelters/rescues....

I also think that it is hard to think about in the abstract. Once the pet is part of the family, it seems most WILL find a way to take care of medical needs as they arise, depending on the whole set of circumstances (age, prognosis, etc). Giving a dollar amount limit to an imaginary pet is one thing, but it is another when they are part of the family.

I understand this argument. But, there are people who are willing to spend thousands of dollars on lots of "stuff" but treat pets as disposable. I think there's no one right answer.

BTW, I just found out our county's shelter has a 95% placement rate. They are awesome, they work really aggressively to adopt out animals. So not all shelter animals are doomed.

[ahisma]

We spent about $700 last year to try to save our 1 1/2 year old dog, unsuccessfully. She came down with an autoimmune disease, we couldn't have prevented it.

I'd do it again, I think. We do have pet insurance on our dog now, although I don't know how well it actually works.

I think that pets in homes are 100x better off than pets in shelters. If someone is willing to open their home to a pet in need of a home, I don't feel it is my place to judge their financial decisions.

[ha98ed14]

So if your pet got attacked by another animal would you say, eh, too bad?

Maybe... Where's the line? I posted upthread, and a few PPs have mentioned that the $1000s they freely spent on a pet pre-kids and pre-house may not be as easy to do now. Again, this is hypothetical.I'm just struck by how expensive it is now to do things that seemed like the norm when I was a kid-- like have a pet-- because of the level of commitment we attach to them. My cousins' father (aunt's DH) came from a family that thought they owed their kids food and shelter until they were 18; then they were on their own. I cannot imagine doing that to DD. She can live with us forever if she needs to provided she is being productive. But do I owe my young, otherwise healthy dog/cat a $2500+ operation?