|
Post by sibemom on Sept 21, 2006 10:12:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Sept 22, 2006 5:03:10 GMT -5
I can see both sides of this issue. We get a lot of animals surrendered because the owners have become too poor to take care of them. In some ways, I find these the saddest ones.
To properly care for an animal, you do need a certain amount of financial resources. You need to be able to provide have a regular flow of food, shelter, regular worming and heartworm meds, at least some occasional vet care, and grooming equipment.
Let's hope there is no clipping necessary, and the animal never needs long term care for an injury or illness. And that someone else has paid to de-sex them so that they are not contributing to more unwanted animals.
And you need to at least have some form of transport to some overwhelmed and underfunded shelter or rescue that will take over your responsibility when you are no longer able.
That's just to maintain life, not necessarily enjoy life. Homeless dogs and cats on the street have a pretty short hard life, just like homeless people do. So there is a poverty floor under which pet ownership cannot be substantiated in any way that even approaches kindness.
But overall, it is the level of committment, energy and time that matters more. In most communities there are low cost vet clinics, and some not for profit organisations that can assist if money is the only issue. On balance I would rehome to a poor but good home more easily than an affluent but indifferent home.
|
|
|
Post by espencer85 on Sept 22, 2006 9:07:37 GMT -5
Maybe we are mixing a little bit here the fact of having a good quality of life and be poor but have a happy dog
Of course that money will bring better medicines, better food, etc but that is only to increase the quality of life of the dog, dont get me wrong, if i dont have enough money i wont be having a dog BUT that does not mean either that the dog needs all that to be happy
Like i said, a homless person's dog can be waaaaaaaaay happier than Paris Hilton's dog, so since the main topic here is to ask if poor people should have a dog i would say yes, as long as the dog is happy and balanced i dont see any reason why not
We are falling a little bit here with the all time thinking that money brings happiness
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Sept 24, 2006 21:16:17 GMT -5
Rescue queen chiming in here . Yes, people should be able to care financially for their pets, INCLUDING when an emergency arises, but when they can barely pay their own bills and own multiple dogs and continue to get more, the quality of life goes downhill quickly for the animals, so that's when I say no go. Some of the worst neglected dogs I've seen are by those who have money, they tend to go to one extreme or the other, either lavishing the best care, training, equipment, etc money can buy, or they relegate the dog to the backyard when the kids they bought it for grow tired of it when it's no longer a puppy. Don't mistake mental good health with physical good health. Yes, they tend to be bonded with their human companions, but they also die of heartworm at a rate of 74%, a painfully excruciating way to go, easily preventable with ivermectin monthly. I might get slammed for this, but yeah, they shouldn't have children unless they can afford to, procreation is no longer a right if I have to pick up the tab on your welfare check because your baby's daddy won't support the kid.
|
|
|
Post by maryellen on Oct 2, 2006 14:50:12 GMT -5
very good post laura.. i agree with you 100% on all of it..
|
|