being able to afford a pet

[emszxr]

after reading a thread on another forum about an owner of a gsd probably not being able to afford the medication for the dogs hip problems, it has got me thinking and a bit annoyed to tell you the truth.
shouldnt we all think twice about taking a pet on if money is a problem, and i know it is for a lot of us at the moment.
but esp with a dog as a gsd which are known for their hip probs, is it wise to take on such a responsability.
and this is not just targetted at gsd, all pets small and big. if something happened that was going to cost a lot at the vets, should those who couldnt afford a big vets bill really get a pet in the first place. i know there is pet insurance, which would cover some things depending on the cover.
i am not having a go , i just think before anyone takes on a pet they really should consider how much it will cost, and not just the initial food etc.

[dragonfly]

oooh a somewhat emotive thread you've started here Ems!! can see lots of heated sides emerging

however I am in agreement with you and when taking on any of my 7 pets its been under the premise of a "pet is for life".

too many people see a litter of cute little puppies, go all soft and mushy over the cuddly little thing and buy one without thinking about how much exercising/feeding/training/companionship it will need.

I am aware circumstances change but I would go the ends of this earth to ensure my pets were with me forever and if that means me sacrificing things then thats what I'll do

[emszxr]

i am not meaning it to be a heated thread. but i think i am stating sensible pet ownership. i know curcimstances change and sometimes people may lose a job etc. and find affording a pet a struggle but why give up the pet. tighten the strings in a bit, by getting rid of all the luxuries they have at home, ie sky tv, internet etc etc.
all my babies are for life too.

[brandy]

on the other side of that coin.... you have a cherished pet, when you bought that pet you were able to afford it and what ever costs it ensured.. hey lets say that even now you can still afford the pet and costs normally.. ie vet bills for jags worming ect...
no one can predict when someone is going to get ill or how much it will cost.
should a loving caring owner who cherrishes thier animal be denied the love and companionship because at some point in the future they may have to pay 1000's of pounds in vet fees for something that may or may not ever happen?
lets take it one step further.. and say... hey lets not let people who cant afford to have children get preg. they shouldnt be able to have em.. if they cant pay for em!
because God forbid that they may get sick or out of work and not able to afford everything they need.
because let me tell you... very few people would have pets or children if that was the cause.
and look at all the shelters in the world that have unloved, unwanted children waiting for loving families... both the 4 and 2 legged variety.
ive met wonderful people whose pets were their only children, and they did everything in their power to make sure they had everything they needed, but would never be able to pay vet bills if something were to happen to the animal.
should their child be taken from them because they couldnt afford to pay for uber expensive treatment.. even though they have opened their hearts and homes to an animal that other wise would have been in a horrid place?
sometimes its not about money. its about love.
im my humble (well sometimes, humble) oppinion...
i would be happy to see a pet loved and cared for in the poorest of homes, that neglected and ignored in riches. its not all about being able to afford vet bills at the end of the day.. and its up to us that can afford the extra money to donate where and when we can to charities that help people who do struggle with vet bills to help them carry on being loving parents to thier 4 legged children.
(now saying that, anyone that mistreats and animal no matter how little or how much money that they have.. should just be... well i cant say it on a public forum... but it isnt nice!)

[emszxr]

also reminds me of someone i had a 'discussion' with about her 2 dogs. she quite happily paid about 600 quid for the dogs, not including all the new toys beds food etc she bought as well. but when she wanted to go on holiday without the dogs she wasnt prepared to put them in kennels as it would cost a 'fortune'. and would rather a neighbour threw some food into them and let them out in the back garden, for the neighbour to get the 'thank you' bottle of wine.
i just couldnt take in her attitude towards her dogs.

[brandy]

grrrr.. now that boils me *GGGRRRRR again!*
we are off to inverness for a couple days at the end of the month and ive got to book bubbles into the kennel! would never leave a dog alone! that is neglect!
the longest i have ever left bubs alone is a day trip to inverness when i had a medical app. and even then i had my mate in to take her out for walks and play with her with her dogs ect!
we prep bubbles for holidays!
when we go off for two weeks in the summer, we get her ready for "her holiday" and its a case of getting all her fav. things rounded up, and comfort stuff, from teddy to bedding and balls.. before she goes to the kennels.. then i usally call several times to check on her!
the cat never wants to come home after shes been to the cattery ( in berridale)
she just looks at me, and goes.. oh you... nahh im happy here... no children, no dog.. why would i want to leave? i have my own house and well... good bye.. so nice of you to drop in mum...

[Fran]

People on benefits etc can get insurance from the pdsa which pays for their pets veterinary treatment. You can pick up a form at the local vet and show evidence that you get housing rebate or council tax rebate. not sure of who all qualifies for this.

[stewart4364]

The wisest thing to do when you get a pet is to take out insurance, they will cover you for most of the treatments or injuries your pet is likely to get. Pet insurance can be fairly expensive but not nearly as expensive if your pet needs major treatments.

[crustyroll]

there are ways of having pets and being able to afford them, it all depends on your priorities in life. No one in our household smokes, we rarely go out and don't have expensive holidays. We do have sky, the internet (of course!) and mobiles but if at any point things had to be tightened, these would be the things to go and not the dogs.

Vets bills can mount up but there are holistic alternatives that are gentler on the animals and easier on your pocket. I don't feed kibble as I believe raw is better, it just so happens to work out cheaper, if I did feed kibble it would be one of the more expensive 'natural' brands. A lot of people don't know basic first aid and how to treat their pets when something goes wrong and never think that they may be able to treat their pet themselves. I'd always advise to take your pet to the vet but a lot of the old remedies work so well for minor things like eye infections, skin irritations etc.

As an example about affording a pet.... I spent quite a lot of money having blood tests carried out on one dog as I knew something wasn't quite right. Everything came back normal but I persisted and spent more money and now she is on medication after further tests revealed a problem. Luckily we could afford the bills but I did make sure that we could afford them. If you really want a pet and only have their best interests at heart, then you will find the money and the means to have care for them.

[GruesomeTwosome]

I would like to think that people who cannot afford pets just dont get any, is it not as simple as that?? I was always under the impression that the pdsa are there for emergency purposes only not as a means for people who cant afford a pet to get one and rely on them to subsidise the daily care of these pets. I think the pdsa are a fantastic organisation and always put money in their box when in at the vets but again was under the impression they were only used in extreme situations such as existing owners losing their job, incapacity etc.

[jings00]

what about the old lady/man who lives on her own and has a wee dog/cat for company. relies on pdsa to help with the vet bills, ah, no sod her. she canny afford the dog/cat - she shouldn't have one.
you could say the same for folk having kids then. dont have em unless you can afford em.
that's more like it.

[GruesomeTwosome]

I would expect the "old lady/man" to be responsible enough to prioritise their finances and if they could allocate money to a pet at the end of the day yes I expect they would and of course if they already owned a pet when an unexpected change in circumstance which then the pdsa would be approached and most likely would help with vetinary care. Pets certainly do help when people are on their own and provide companionship and company, IMO, like no other BUT the care and expense of any pet has to be considered and like I said I was under the impression the pdsa were an organistion to be contacted in emergency situations not as a means to obtain a pet.

I think that is a poor similarity comparing having children to obtaining a pet. A surprise pregnancy can not be compared unless you are referring to a very distastful arguement for this forum.

Enabling the "old lady/man" to obtain a pet when they can not afford one could be another opportunity for a new charity/organistion?

[ShelleyCowie]

I dont seem to understand how a person can take on a pet without the money or time! Yes if circumstances change then thats understandable completely! i have one cat, he has one box of Go Cat a week, sometimes meat as a wee treat (it makes him hyper), then flea collars every 4 months plus i do that spot on stuff, worming, cat toys to keep him stimulated. We are now thinking about getting a kitten to keep our cat company because he is used to having a companion but the other cat died a while back by eating neighbours slug pellats.

I would never ever consider taking on another cat without the time and money.

[ett23]

[quote=GruesomeTwosome;480451]I would like to think that people who cannot afford pets just dont get any, is it not as simple as that?? I was always under the impression that the pdsa are there for emergency purposes only not as a means for people who cant afford a pet to get one and rely on them to subsidise the daily care of these pets.[quote]

Quote from pdsa website: "This year PDSA will provide more than 1.8 million free treatments to sick and injured pets and more than 200,000 preventive treatments"
So clearly it's not simply for emergency situations but also for everyday treatment like vaccinations and also routine sterilising to prevent more unwanted babies! As you said, though it is is a great charity and does a lot to help people in need to afford treatment for their pets when this would not normally have been possible.
Personally i don't have any pets myself, although I did in the past, because I couldn't afford to have one financially or time-wise. Two little monkeys are quite enough!!

[GruesomeTwosome]

Quote from pdsa website: "This year PDSA will provide more than 1.8 million free treatments to sick and injured pets and more than 200,000 preventive treatments"
So clearly it's not simply for emergency situations but also for everyday treatment like vaccinations and also routine sterilising to prevent more unwanted babies! As you said, though it is is a great charity and does a lot to help people in need to afford treatment for their pets when this would not normally have been possible.
[/quote]

Thank you for looking that up. I fully support that but I would expect these preventive treatments to be carried out for exsisting pet owners who's circumstances have changed. I personally think vaccinations and neutering is a must for all pets but that is just my opinion and think its great the pdsa recognise this and cover them. What I was getting at is the pdsa should not be used as a means to obtain a pet. When thinking about getting a pet you should take these preventive treatments into consideration when working out whether you can afford one.

[router]

for as little as 8.80 a month you can have a pet insured for this kind of problem.

[Oddquine]

after reading a thread on another forum about an owner of a gsd probably not being able to afford the medication for the dogs hip problems, it has got me thinking and a bit annoyed to tell you the truth.
shouldnt we all think twice about taking a pet on if money is a problem, and i know it is for a lot of us at the moment.
but esp with a dog as a gsd which are known for their hip probs, is it wise to take on such a responsability.
and this is not just targetted at gsd, all pets small and big. if something happened that was going to cost a lot at the vets, should those who couldnt afford a big vets bill really get a pet in the first place. i know there is pet insurance, which would cover some things depending on the cover.
i am not having a go , i just think before anyone takes on a pet they really should consider how much it will cost, and not just the initial food etc.

Strikes me that if you pay good money for a dog, the seller should be upfront and honest about its genetic inheritance. There is a big difference between taking on a pet and being prepared to meet the usual regular/emergency bills for vets fees and being dumped with a dog which is going to require upwards of £5000 worth of surgery at some stage over and above anything else.

I know that I have never, with any of my dogs, considered the prospect of vet's bills more than injections and minor complaints........because I was never made aware that it was a possibility.

I'm of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the seller to have the dogs they sell vetted for hereditary problems.......and to make any prospective purchaser aware of any future costs.

Selling a dog with hereditary problems without warning the buyer is no different, imo, to selling anything not fit for the purpose.

And given rescues now charge silly money because dogs are chipped, vaccinated , neutered etc.........what excuse do they have not to check the possibility of hereditary problems?

[Oddquine]

I would expect the "old lady/man" to be responsible enough to prioritise their finances and if they could allocate money to a pet at the end of the day yes I expect they would and of course if they already owned a pet when an unexpected change in circumstance which then the pdsa would be approached and most likely would help with vetinary care. Pets certainly do help when people are on their own and provide companionship and company, IMO, like no other BUT the care and expense of any pet has to be considered and like I said I was under the impression the pdsa were an organistion to be contacted in emergency situations not as a means to obtain a pet.

I think that is a poor similarity comparing having children to obtaining a pet. A surprise pregnancy can not be compared unless you are referring to a very distastful arguement for this forum.

Enabling the "old lady/man" to obtain a pet when they can not afford one could be another opportunity for a new charity/organistion?

Can't see a lot of difference between someone having offspring when on benefits and someone having a dog without being able to afford large vet's bills.

After all, you don't get a "surprise" dog.......just as very few who don't bother to use contraception get a "surprise" child. I can't see that the argument is distasteful at all....just a question of responsibility.

Offhand, I can't think of anyone I know who has taken on a pet without being aware of the necessity of looking after it and training it...........especially if they have doled out hard cash to buy it. But nobody can can guarantee that their personal finances/circumstances will be the same in ten years..........Can any of you?

Some parents aren't even that responsible.....but then they don't have to find upwards of £100 to acquire their offspring...maybe if they did, they'd take better care of them.

[Oddquine]

for as little as 8.80 a month you can have a pet insured for this kind of problem.

I'm a pensioner...I can't afford to insure me for death benefits...........far less a dog for vet's bills!

So you are saying the dog I have had from a pup should be rehomed at ten years old in case it becomes ill and I can't afford to have it treated?

[Oddquine]

You know..I read all the "holier than thou" posts on here (and on other forums)........and I wonder where the common sense has gone.

I don't for a second believe that people take on commitments with an eye to the possibility of future failures/problems....because if they did, would there be such an institution as marriage?

To all of you who are being supercilious about other people's decisions with regard to having pets...I hope that you never find yourselves in years to come being obliged to approach charities to help the pet you love..and could afford when you took it into your home and life.

I was always taught when growing up that I should never denigrate the decisions/actions of others as I did not know what faced me in the future.......whether that may be having an illegitimate child/grandchild /great-grandchild........or taking on responsibilities which I could not fulfill for a reason beyond my control.

Maybe I'm an overly PC bleeding heart.......but I'd rather be that than someone so judgmental that I make other people feel bad just so I can feel superior.