S/O of pet and income: update and backstory

[kellij]

So here's the real problem: May aunt lives 1.5 hours away in what we call the High Desert. (Some would call it Hickville). My uncle died at Christmas. My aunt has decided to sell the "ranch" (read 4 acres of desert with scrub brush and random wildlife) to go live with her daughter in the Midwest. She has a dog, part Belgian something, part golden retr. He's a big dog and 10 y.o., which to me means he will prob have some health issues in the coming years. Big dogs live shorter lives; she got him when he was a puppy. She told me that she is going to put him down because she cannot take him with her, and I believe her because 1) my cousin doesn't have room and 2) attitudes about animals are different out there. She's not going to go through the effort at rehomeing him before she moves with the pain of losing her husband, having to get rid if things, sell her home, etc. Whatever you may think of that, that's how it is. I am the only family in SoCal. I asked her if she would consider letting me take him. She said yes. I said I needed to talk to DH. I feel like $500 is about what I am willing to commit to for an emergency/ health crisis. The regular heath maintence is not an issue. I'm just not willing to pull money out of savings to pay for medical costs for the dog. $500 is what I have in my monthly budget to "play with" in terms of still living within my means. So, do I take the dog?

I'm confused about how this is a question. Your choices are either to take the dog (then either keep or re-home), or she'll kill the dog. If you can take the dog, even if it's only to find it a different home, I don't understand there is even a tiny issue.

[kdeunc]

I would definitely take the dog in this situation. I hope you are able to work it out even if it is only to find him another home. Your backstory makes me sad but that is because I am a crazy animal person. I understand not everyone is. Good luck and it is great that you are considering it.

[ha98ed14]

I'm confused about how this is a question. Your choices are either to take the dog (then either keep or re-home), or she'll kill the dog. If you can take the dog, even if it's only to find it a different home, I don't understand there is even a tiny issue.

It's a huge issue for me because it is a lot of responsibility. Whether I keep him or rehome him, it's time, effort, money and perhaps most importantly my own sense of moral obligation. If I take the dog, his life becomes my responsibility and I feel morally obligated to provide for him to have a good life-- which is why I asked the original question about taking on a dog knowing you had a finanacial limit to what you would spend to keep him healthy.

If I take the dog and he does get cancer (or has another health crisis that is expensive to treat), and I say no to treatment because I do not want to incur the expense, I will feel guilty because I have taken on the dog and his life as my responsibility. If I choose not to take the dog and let my aunt do as she will, then I have a lot less emotional guilt. Yes, I will feel a little sad for the dog, but I do not see myself as morally culpable because I have not made a committment, and I cannot possibly save every dog.

ETA: To the PP who said it sounds like I do not want a dog, you're right. I was not shopping for a dog, and if I don't take this one, I have no plans to seek out another one.

[trales]

I would take the dog. It will be a great addition to your family.

[bnme]

I don't think you should take the dog if you are not really excited and happy about the idea of getting a dog. You will not be doing him any favors if you just feel he is a burden or obligation you may regret. It is a huge responsibility and does change your life in many ways. It really has almost nothing to do with the money.

[specialp]

Yeah, I tend to agree. I feel bad for the dog, but this isn't the right situation for you and it really has nothing to do with how much you are willing to spend on a hypothetical emergency. It just doesn't seem like something you want to do. I took in my mother's old cat for the same reason, but I liked the cat and was happy to do it.

[Kindra178]

Yeah, I tend to agree. I feel bad for the dog, but this isn't the right situation for you and it really has nothing to do with how much you are willing to spend on a hypothetical emergency. It just doesn't seem like something you want to do. I took in my mother's old cat for the same reason, but I liked the cat and was happy to do it.

I agree with bnme and special. This isn't really about money. Although an adult dog will be certainly easier than 10 week old puppy, there will be definite changes to your life. There will be some positive benefits too - like exercise, bonding with your daughter and dog together, meeting other pets in the 'hood. Think about whether you want those changes.

[kellij]

It's a huge issue for me because it is a lot of responsibility. Whether I keep him or rehome him, it's time, effort, money and perhaps most importantly my own sense of moral obligation. If I take the dog, his life becomes my responsibility and I feel morally obligated to provide for him to have a good life-- which is why I asked the original question about taking on a dog knowing you had a finanacial limit to what you would spend to keep him healthy.

If I take the dog and he does get cancer (or has another health crisis that is expensive to treat), and I say no to treatment because I do not want to incur the expense, I will feel guilty because I have taken on the dog and his life as my responsibility. If I choose not to take the dog and let my aunt do as she will, then I have a lot less emotional guilt. Yes, I will feel a little sad for the dog, but I do not see myself as morally culpable because I have not made a committment, and I cannot possibly save every dog.

ETA: To the PP who said it sounds like I do not want a dog, you're right. I was not shopping for a dog, and if I don't take this one, I have no plans to seek out another one.

I guess I think as getting cancer (which is probably not curable) as a natural way for life to end, rather than putting a dog to sleep. If you help him and get to enjoy him while he's healthy and then he gets cancer, I think putting him down at that point is totally different than putting him down because he's inconvenient. So I guess I think a extra expense from cancer is unlikely and he wouldn't be worse off, he'd be better off because he got to live longer.

Maybe you could just take him and if it isn't a positive experience, you could try to find a rescue for him. Then just plan to put him down if he gets a terminal disease, so you wouldn't have to spend a lot of money on him.

I can't help you on the poop issue. However, we have one of those scooper things where you scoop it into a shovel type thing and it is awesome. Much less gross.

[Kindra178]

Re: poop, give a high quality food (no grains, corn or fillers, rated high on dogfoodadvisor.com), and the poop will be very easy.

[squimp]

I agree that it's a good idea; however, my aunt isn't someone who is going to make that effort. If I were to do it for her and then tell her to do it, it would be interpreted as my "taking over," which is something she has been in conflict with others about since my uncle died.

Isn't taking the dog also "taking over"? Couldn't you take it and find a home for it if it she is so difficult? I would not adopt it myself, but then we are not dog people.