Financial problems and Pets

[Scanner]

I was on another forum and I heard a story of marital problems and how the elderly mother was helping out with a couple who was in their upper 50's because they were out of work. She was paying them $750/month.

SOmeone suggests they sell their house and move to an apartment and downsize and she says, "Well, I'd have to find a place that is pet friendly."

Is it just me and my "country-boy" upbringing? But I have no sympathy for people with financial problems who own pets.

The average pet ownership costs $100/month.

So this mother was shelling out $750/month so they didn't lose their house and then they were shelling out $100/month for the pet? There's more to the story too. . .the husband apparently didn't want to hand his National Guard check over either and was putting it in savings.

IN the forum's opinion, when it is time for Paw to get rid of the dog, even if Half Pint is crying and the Little House on the Prarie violin music is playing?

I'll await an answer with my fiddle in one hand and my tobacco pipe in the other. . .

[riverwed070707]

I think that's a tough situation to judge. I give them the side eye more for not finding work than for not getting rid of their pet. For some people pets are part of the family -- you don't go and give up children when times get tough and some people would argue the same about pets.

In regard to how much they cost, I have 2 large dogs (both ~60 lbs) and a cat and don't spend $100 on the three of them combined, let alone individually, so I'm not sure where you're getting your figures especially since you don't seem to be an animal person.

[Coronet]

$100/month seems steep to me, too. I have two cats. Aside their yearly checkups I think I pay somewhere around $10-15/month for food for both of them (I buy bulk bags and bulk canned cat food of good quality, but they're tiny so they don't eat much), and $10/month for kitty litter. Their toys are free (cats loveeee paper bags). Grooming is minimal.

Even factoring in yearly checkups and emergency visits if one of them gets sick, I hardly think I hit the $100/month area.

I'm also one of those people who considers a pet part of the family & a commitment. I wouldn't get rid of one of my kids if I was having financial hardship, so I can't imagine giving up a pet. I made the commitment to take care of them when I adopted them for their lifespan, so I commend the couple not wanting to give up their pet. It's the responsible thing to do.

There are always food banks/churches who can help provide pet food for your animal during hardship times too. No reason to add another poor animal to the shelter to be put down.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Just from what you've told us, it bothers me more that the couple would put away his National Guard earnings while taking $750 from his mother-in-law. Slap yourselves in the face and grow up, people!

And yes, that $100 per month sounds way high.

[MonkeyMama]

I see too many people who can't afford their pets and do lose them (to shelters), so I personally think it is extremely irresponsible.

Of course, MANY people I know who can't even get a handle on their own finances thinks buying animals from breeders (on credit) is a great idea. So, yeah, I just see so much stupidity in this area.

The pets in the shelters need people/families who can make a long-term commitment to care for them - financially and otherwise. These animals don't need people who pick them up on a whim and can't afford to keep them.

I also think most people under-estimate the long-term costs of pet ownership. (Vet bills being the biggie). When ever my cat needs more than a checkup, it is assumed I can not afford to pay. They start hemming and hawing and apologizing and offering care credit, etc. It's like "$200 for some tests? I'll pay cash." It is obviously not the reaction the vets are used to getting. & I haven't even dealt with any big vet issues. It just pains me to see that most people are obviously not prepared to offer any real vet care to their pets.

[cypher1]

Originally Posted by Coronet

I wouldn't get rid of one of my kids if I was having financial hardship, so I can't imagine giving up a pet.

I know I'm going to get chewed out for saying this, but I don't know how anyone can compare an animal to a child. This is just me, but if its the choice of affording to feed either my kid (hypothetical) or pet, its really no choice at all. And yes, we grew up with a dog when i was younger. I guess its just weird when you have friends posting pics on FB of dog's full wardrobe of clothing.

[shanecurran]

If you are in or can foresee financial problems, then a pet is not a good idea. But when someone gets into financial problems that bought the pet when they were in a good situation, that is a tough spot to be.

Obviously no one would feed a dog before their son, that is a bit extreme. It is not to say that pets can not be extremely important to some people and may be the next most important thing to them after their family.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by riverwed070707

In regard to how much they cost, I have 2 large dogs (both ~60 lbs) and a cat and don't spend $100 on the three of them combined, let alone individually, so I'm not sure where you're getting your figures especially since you don't seem to be an animal person.

I currently have two Labrador retrivers and am an occasional breeder. These are hunting dogs so they must be trained and fed better than the typical pet. I can assure you that you can spend that much or a lot more when you factor in vet bills, stud fees, training supplies, breeding supplies, etc..

I know this isn't typical pet ownership but I've known people who have done it without realizing the cost and the fact that you're unlikely to get it back when you sell your pups.

My point is that people should have a plan when they acquire a pet regardless of costs.

[Fizgig]

I do not expect people to give up their pets when they hit hard times financially. Besides, there are plenty of pet friendly apartments around and they are just making up excuses not to downsize, just like he has an excuse not to use his National Guard check.

(My two dogs have cost me an average of $50/month for the last ten years, and I spoil them rotten and buy them the best possible food.)

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by shanecurran

If you are in or can foresee financial problems, then a pet is not a good idea. But when someone gets into financial problems that bought the pet when they were in a good situation, that is a tough spot to be.

I think this is really the bottom line. Many people buy pets who shouldn't buy pets due to their financial situation. If, however, they got the pet when things were better and now they are having trouble, chances are getting rid of the pet wouldn't be enough to fix the problem. Even if they do spend $100/month on the pet, if their financial situation can be corrected with $100/month, there are likely better ways to get that money, like a PT job. Picking up $100/month is pretty easy. 5 hours/week at a minimum wage job would cover that.

[riverwed070707]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I currently have two Labrador retrivers and am an occasional breeder. These are hunting dogs so they must be trained and fed better than the typical pet. I can assure you that you can spend that much or a lot more when you factor in vet bills, stud fees, training supplies, breeding supplies, etc..

I know this isn't typical pet ownership but I've known people who have done it without realizing the cost and the fact that you're unlikely to get it back when you sell your pups.

My point is that people should have a plan when they acquire a pet regardless of costs.

I didn't say pets *can't* cost $100/month but it's certainly not the norm for basic pet needs. Some people say babies cost $200-500/month too... of course they can if you buy them new clothes, toys, accessories, etc but I certainly never budgeted that much for my daughter when she was an infant. $25-50 a month was ample for baby necessities once the major expenses were paid for. I would expect that someone who was going through financial hardship and was only receiving $750/month in income would not be breeding dogs.

[MonkeyMama]

I would think the judgement of *if you can really afford a pet* has little to do with if you were financially sound when you bought the pet, or not. If you can no longer afford it, you can no longer afford it. People don't like to make tough choices. At least I can understand the emotional attachments a little more with pets than when it comes to homes and cars. But that doesn't mean it can't be a really terrible decision to keep a pet, at times. There are people out there who do make the loving choice to give their children and their pets better homes, in certain circumstances. There will always be some threshhold where these choices have to be made. What that threshhold would be will be debated fiercely.

In regards to OP - should this pet be given up? I don't know. I admit it is not an overly extreme case, but just gets me all riled up thinking to all the irresponsible pet owners that are out there.

[DebbieL]

My dog is a family member - period. He costs (between insurance, food, shots, flea/tick preventive treatment, etc) probably between $150-$200 per month if averaged over the year (we feed him human food - I want him to live forever, lol). That is for a 100% healthy dog (he's never had a problem yet). If anything were to happen to him, we have vet insurance up to $30K. He is worth much more than that to us for the friendship and love he gives. He adds so much happiness to our lives. He is the best running partner I could hope for (he is a little Jack Russell - and he goes on a 6-7 mile run with me daily). Full of energy, he's always ready to go and up for anything. Even on the days I might get lazy and not want to get out and run, having him keeps me motivated to go. In short - he's good for my health in more ways than one. It is proven that pet ownership is beneficial to seniors too. Those with pets are healthier, live longer and suffer less depression.

I get annoyed when the first thing people want to do when anything comes up is dispose of a living creature that they took on knowing full well that it could be a 20 year+ commitment.

[Scanner]

I am not sure Paw Ingalls would get rid of the dog as the first lline of defense in hard times, but yes, the dog would go live with Grandpa Ingalls or Mrs. Olsen and Nellie if times got too tough.

Again, probably my country-boy upbringing where my father would put a hen down with an axe if it stopped laying eggs and just ate a lot of feed. Some people though carry around dogs in their purse though. . .

Of course, I eat meat too and some people don't.

An animal is critter and critters don't belong on furniture, on the bed, are only allowed in certain rooms, and most of all, don't run you into the Poor House.

[Scanner]

And don't "Oh Paw!" me, Debbie.

It won't work.

[Scanner]

You know. . .this dicussion is a microcosm of what goes on with taxes, budgets and townships (or any government).

There are certain things that people look at and just say, "There is just no way we can cut the budget any further." Yet, they are spending money for lights for a baseball field, or people spend money on pets. . .

It really is about choices. Yeah, the pet may be one of the family but if it means a utility bill or the pet, it should be the pet. It does usually mean Paw (the government) is the villian and thus the conflict of any story goes. . .is Chris Christie the villian for cutting school sports? Is Paw the villian for getting rid of the dog during famine?

Makes you think about what is a necessity and what is not.

[shanecurran]

I agree with DisneySteve, even if it does cost $100 per month (which is higher than my experience) there are other steps that can be made to keep the pet around. I also eat meat but I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion. I can think of much more extreme measures that I would personally pursue before I decided to part with my best friend.

[shanecurran]

Originally Posted by Scanner

You know. . .this dicussion is a microcosm of what goes on with taxes, budgets and townships (or any government).

There are certain things that people look at and just say, "There is just no way we can cut the budget any further." Yet, they are spending money for lights for a baseball field, or people spend money on pets. . .

It really is about choices. Yeah, the pet may be one of the family but if it means a utility bill or the pet, it should be the pet. It does usually mean Paw (the government) is the villian and thus the conflict of any story goes. . .is Chris Christie the villian for cutting school sports? Is Paw the villian for getting rid of the dog during famine?

Makes you think about what is a necessity and what is not.

As Disneysteve pointed out this could all be solved by getting a part time job, for me, all it would take is one night a month of bar tending on top of the 8-5 to solve the problem. If that were not a possibility I would sell material possessions, downgrade car, apt or other possibilities. Short of not being able to feed my hypothetical children or myself, the dog would stay. Is the line different for other people? Absolutely. I have farmer friends who view cats and dogs as "farm tools." The value they place on the pet might be much lower than me. Their view is not irrational and neither is mine. We all place different value on different things, but the family member or child comparison is not that far fetched for some people.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Scanner

There are certain things that people look at and just say, "There is just no way we can cut the budget any further." Yet, they are spending money for lights for a baseball field, or people spend money on pets.

I completely agree with you here. People draw the line of where they are willing to cut in very different places. What could be cut is a whole different story. We spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on things that, when it comes down to it, are luxuries. We enjoy them. They are important to us. We would hate to give them up. But if the stuff really hit the fan, we could cut them to make ends meet. There are things that are down low on our "cut" list that others might put a lot higher on their cut list because we have different priorities in our lives.

[DebbieL]

But Paw - I must keep my bestest buddy. Paw Ingalls had a pretty big heart - hopefully I could have worked my magic on him, lol.

Seriously, there are so many things I would do without in order to keep him - it just isn't even an issue. Plus I have a huge emergency fund if need be, and I would use it all if necessary.