Do you think lower income people can make good pet owners?

[Britster]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

I still, in my next life, want to come back as Britster's dog. Every dog should have an owner like her.

Haha! Thanks -- I'll tell Jackson how lucky he is after I give him a bath today and he gives me the stink eye for it.

[lil louis]

Originally Posted by Britster

Edit-- quoted lil louis but it was deleted so I took out the quote.

And again, I'll say I know a lot of people who have money, whose kids are treated like crap. Sure, they get bought anything they want and have the finer things... but they have no moral values, or sense of family, etc.

Yet, the poorest folks in the world are usually the closest families you'll find because they had to work together and the kids appreciate what DOES get done for them.

Sorry, I accidently deleted my post. My computer is running slow and causing me to double post.

[lexi43]

There are alot of rich people whose priorites leave much to be desired. I know a few people like that. We just bought a new home so that our dogs and cats will be happy. We don't have alot of money now and our Bassets eat Pedigree dog food instead of all the high priced dog foods and my cats eat Friskies but they are all healthy and happy. We have a fund put away for the vet bills. All of our 15 cats are neutered and spayed as well as our dogs except for Zach who goes in for surgery on Dec 18th. So I don't think your income has anything to do with love for an animal as long as they are kept healthy.

[lil fu fu girl]

Originally Posted by Darlin Beauxs

That is too sad, I was in this position this summer. The vet prescribed science diet I/D and I did feed it, even though it is ranked horribly until Cooper's blood came back normal. I resented it being so much more than food I knew was healthier, but the important thing was, IT WORKED. Before that, I was feeding Merrick, which I thought was good. I truly think the dehydrated chicken strips made him sick (I had changed to another brand)

BUT I want to shed some light on something. The lady dressed to the nines driving a fancy car could be poorer than you. The reason why I say this is because people always think my husband and I have money. We have decent cars but NOT BMW's, but we are very nice dressers and I have nice jewelry and a name brand purse collection. But those are things we bought when I was working, and we take good care of our things, because we are not buying new right now.

Looks can be deceiving.

I can understand about looks being deceiving. Two friends from Chicago look like bums off the street, however, they are the biggest commercial realtors in the nation. No one would every recognize them for their wealth.

However, if you owned a BMW or a Gucci, and could not afford the vet bills for your pup, would you or would you not sell off those material items and get the help for your pup? That was essentially the point I was aiming at, with not much success! I think that you would. The women who had the yorkie that was rescued showed no empathy and made no effort to afford its needs. Being poor or rich is not the telltale sign off who will or will not be a proper pet owner. As we all have seen both sides of the coin. It is as I believe, boiled down to ones level of humanity.

[katienme2002]

I would be classified as lower income, I actually live in a mobile home, never had a brand new car. But I pay the bills and it works. Roxie never lacks in vet care or grooming for that matter. I think anyone in any class can be a wonderful parent to a furkid, IMO.

[Ellie May]

Low income people can make good pet owners. I have noticed that the people who really can't even afford one animal tend to have several... Can't say I agree with that.

I think maybe the definition of good pet owner is changing. Good used to be food, shelter, and basic vet care. Now good is emptying the bank accounts and mortgaging the house to be able to put thousands of dollars into surgeries and cancer treatments. Maybe things have been taken too far.

Sure, if you have the money, absolutely spend what it takes. If you can get the money with some trouble, do it. But if the money really isn't available and you are putting yourself and your family in extreme financial danger, maybe it's time to euthanize. IMO, lower income people need to be willing to euthanize faster so the animal doesn't suffer. And I didn't say they need to be willing to surrender their pets if a major problem comes up because shelters are already too full. That seems to be an easy "out" if something comes up and it really can't be anymore. And as much as it may upset us on YT because we want the best for our pups, managing a problem with drugs is not a terrible thing even if surgery would be a much better option.

The new things that are available in vet med cost a lot of $$$. Maybe people shouldn't be pressured to go this route as long as they are willing to euthanize when the animal is clearly suffering (or for the lucky pups, surrender if there is a spot available).

[Dara311]

I have been unemployed for 7 months now, and my income has declined by about $400.00, but I am getting paid weekly....Even though I don't have as much money as I did when I was working, I still make sure that all our animals are in great health, get walked frequently, and of course have fresh food and water every day....I don't think me not having as much money is making me any less of a pet owner.......

[FlDebra]

I think most of the examples people are posting have nothing to do with having money or not having money. Sure there are rich people who neglect and abuse just as there are poor people who neglect and abuse. That has more to do with the individual people's lack of compassion than their income. But this whole thread was started because of a breeder thread where someone thought the FIRST question out of a buyer's mouth should not be price. I agree that they need to ask (there are some breeders asking ridiculous prices) but it should not be the only thing they are interested in.

We are not talking any dog -- we are talking Yorkshire terriers. They are expensive dogs. They are MORE prone to medical problems, both injury and illness than the regular medium to large dogs you see on the street. They also have more distinct needs for diet. I do not think many Yorkies would fare too well on a diet of Old Roy or survive going without food for a day or more. Sure, you could do that, if you have a large breed, but Yorkies do have more delicate systems.

I think there is a distinction. I waited a long time to have my yorkies. I knew it was not just their initial price that would be more costly. I got Yorkies when I knew I could adequately tend to all of their needs. I think that is what everyone must do.

Britster -- you say you don't have much money -- BUT you have thought it through and have a plan for an emergency. You make things work to provide. That is all I am asking from any Yorkie owner. They don't have to be rich, but they DO need to be able to commit to doing what is necessary to care for all the needs, whether that means doing it themself or having their parents kick in, using a Care Card, or Insurance.

I also disagree that most people don't have money set aside! I think most have savings. I am sorry that all do not. But I personally only know one family without some set aside for emergency. With them, it is not because they couldn't do it, it is because when they get it, they spend it. My kids all have savings as well. I encouraged them to do that. Especially in this economy, you have to have some emergency funds that are not touched for anything EXCEPT an emergency. I know some have been hit hard, and had to use up their savings. That is different. But we should all build a savings when we can. That savings needs to be adequate to take care all of one's responsibilities -- children, pets, bills, etc. Savings required is different for everyone based on all of their other obligations. But $2,000-$4,000 thousand set aside (or another plan like insurance/card) for a Yorkie is not asking too much. If they don't have it, they should wait til they do. Does not mean they are not GREAT potential pet owners -- it means it is not yet their time to own a yorkie. If they are truly responsible they will agree!

[Mardelin]

Case in point. My grandson's mother, whose dogs are now in my possession (one of the dogs I gave to my grandson as a gift). She married wealthy and feels dogs are throw away. She has stated her budget for the care of any dog is $500.00 if it costs anything beyond that, they're surrendered to a shelter or put down. She's never once vetted them. Needless to say, should I hear that she is attempting to obtain another pet, I'll do everything in my power to make sure that doesn't happen.

[hugz4all4]

Originally Posted by Dara311

I have been unemployed for 7 months now, and my income has declined by about $400.00, but I am getting paid weekly....Even though I don't have as much money as I did when I was working, I still make sure that all our animals are in great health, get walked frequently, and of course have fresh food and water every day....I don't think me not having as much money is making me any less of a pet owner.......

We live from paycheck to paycheck, we live in a small home with 4 kids kids (13 to 7) and I will admit we have more animals than we probably should, and just took on one more. However, all of them are fixed (except for the new dog), well fed, groomed, vetted when needed, excersized and well loved. I wouldnt give up a single one. We dont have a savings account for our pets, but have always paid the bill when something came up. Our bills are paid, we have food on the table, and clothes on our back and my kids or animals dont lack for anything. So yeah, I think its fine for lower income families to have pets as long as they are taking care of they way they should be.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

I think most of the examples people are posting have nothing to do with having money or not having money. Sure there are rich people who neglect and abuse just as there are poor people who neglect and abuse. That has more to do with the individual people's lack of compassion than their income. But this whole thread was started because of a breeder thread where someone thought the FIRST question out of a buyer's mouth should not be price. I agree that they need to ask (there are some breeders asking ridiculous prices) but it should not be the only thing they are interested in.

We are not talking any dog -- we are talking Yorkshire terriers. They are expensive dogs. They are MORE prone to medical problems, both injury and illness than the regular medium to large dogs you see on the street. They also have more distinct needs for diet. I do not think many Yorkies would fare too well on a diet of Old Roy or survive going without food for a day or more. Sure, you could do that, if you have a large breed, but Yorkies do have more delicate systems.

I think there is a distinction. I waited a long time to have my yorkies. I knew it was not just their initial price that would be more costly. I got Yorkies when I knew I could adequately tend to all of their needs. I think that is what everyone must do.

Britster -- you say you don't have much money -- BUT you have thought it through and have a plan for an emergency. You make things work to provide. That is all I am asking from any Yorkie owner. They don't have to be rich, but they DO need to be able to commit to doing what is necessary to care for all the needs, whether that means doing it themself or having their parents kick in, using a Care Card, or Insurance.

I also disagree that most people don't have money set aside! I think most have savings. I am sorry that all do not. But I personally only know one family without some set aside for emergency. With them, it is not because they couldn't do it, it is because when they get it, they spend it. My kids all have savings as well. I encouraged them to do that. Especially in this economy, you have to have some emergency funds that are not touched for anything EXCEPT an emergency. I know some have been hit hard, and had to use up their savings. That is different. But we should all build a savings when we can. That savings needs to be adequate to take care all of one's responsibilities -- children, pets, bills, etc. Savings required is different for everyone based on all of their other obligations. But $2,000-$4,000 thousand set aside (or another plan like insurance/card) for a Yorkie is not asking too much. If they don't have it, they should wait til they do. Does not mean they are not GREAT potential pet owners -- it means it is not yet their time to own a yorkie. If they are truly responsible they will agree!

No it was started because someone on there said she thought the people she knew that were comfortable took care of the pets better. I am middle income and Im not comfortable but I am able to take care of my pets to the best of ability. I also dont think you have to be comfortable to have a savings or make the best choices for your pet. I liked Ellie Mays post and there does seem to be a difference in what some people consider adequate care. And yes they are yorkies but in the end they are also a dog with a dogs needs

[StarrIreland]

Heyo there...

I am one of the aforementioned 'poorer' people- I am a single disabled mum, with a disabled son; who lives on £8000 a year....

Most of my animals [a aged one eyed westie, a hand-reared cat and a disabled tortoise] are in fact rescues... the only one I purchased was my yorkie...

I may not have money but I DO care for my pets... a darn sight more than a lot of the richer families around my area.

All of my animals bar my yorkie are neutered [she's going to have a litter; to pass on a puppy to my mother... who is wealthier]... they have all their shots, vet checks regularly, wormed, de-flea-d, dress in warm clothes when it's cold out, kept warm, fed 4 times a day[small meals], gets supplements.

I've had a month were ALL of my animals have required urgent vet care which cost over £1000 and I've had to do with one meal every day to pay the vet....

I look after my pet BETTER than the people around here who lock their dogs out all day and night in howling rain and gales and their own waste BECAUSE I am poorer....

I KNOW what it is like to be without... that's what gives me my 'animality' [pun on humanity] to care... to make sure they are spoilt beyond belief during their short years!

I have worked as a foster carer for dogs put in death row at the pound and their only requirements are love, a secure yard and the ability to feed the animal...

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by chachi

No it was started because someone on there said she thought the people she knew that were comfortable took care of the pets better. I am middle income and Im not comfortable but I am able to take care of my pets to the best of ability. I also dont think you have to be comfortable to have a savings or make the best choices for your pet. I liked Ellie Mays post and there does seem to be a difference in what some people consider adequate care. And yes they are yorkies but in the end they are also a dog with a dogs needs

Chachi -- she ONLY said that in answer to someone who said rich people DID not take care of their pups and always boarded them when they went somewhere. She was only answering that OF THE PEOPLE SHE KNEW the ones with money took their dogs with them and were inclined to do even more for them. She did not say all rich people did or poor people didn't. This is all getting so blown out of perspective it is not funny.

I reiterate -- the things people are talking about do not depend on MONEY! If you had lots of money, I am sure you would still take great care of your dogs. It is about your HEART and not about your money. There are people with less money still taking great care of their dogs because they are willing to do whatever it takes. It is in their heart. There are also people without the money to do it no matter how much they might want to, or how much they might cut backon other things, there may not be anything to cut back on -- they still have HEART but -- they should not own a yorkie.

[bellababy08]

Originally Posted by Britster

I am 20 years old and a college student still living at home. In my unbiased opinion I make a fabulous pet owner. Sure, I'm not rich or made of money... I "support" Jackson all by myself with no help from anybody and I MAKE it work. He gets top of the line food, he gets proper exercise, training, and socialization.

He gets great vet care, but I'm also not one of those people that will run to the vet at the sign of a slight problem because I really don't have an extra $500 to "spare" if it's unnecessary. Back in January, he came up limping and it lasted for 3 days... so I took him in, and it ended up being a $400 vet visit. I felt like that was completely necessary because he was obviously in pain. He got neutered at a low cost clinic that I researched heavily before using and just because I only paid $65 to have my dog neutered does not make me any less of a pet owner that someone who pays $200++. I get him his necessary shots from that same clinic where they cost me $7 for a rabies vaccine where I would have paid alot more at a regular vet. So, yeah, often times I will find cheaper ways to do things... but if any huge emergency ever came up, I do have a plan set.

There's quite a few homeless people who own dogs. I don't think they should have to get rid of their dogs simply because they're homeless and poor. They get help from shelters and I saw on TV a homeless shelter that allows you to bring your pet(s) and they are really uplifting to have around. There was a Vietnam war veteran who refused to give up on his dog when a lot of others did. Sure, the dog may miss a meal or two, and doesn't get the top of the line food, collars, bedding, etc... but he's well taken care of and loved. Everyone goes through hardships in their life and I wouldn't ever think that someone, simply because they may be under-privileged, haven't earned the right to be owned by a dog.

There's a lot of rich people I know who have dogs and sure, they can afford them. But they live in a big ole' house with a big yard with little interaction, socialization, no training, or proper exercise. That, to me, is more abusive than not taking a dog to the vet every year. That's not to say that if a dog is pooping blood, for example, or having seizures, etc, should not go to the vet.... obviously that's not the case. But my uncle's Siberian Husky probably went to the vet all of 5 times in her whole entire life of 14yrs and was always healthy up until the last year.

Well said

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by chachi

No it was started because someone on there said she thought the people she knew that were comfortable took care of the pets better. I am middle income and Im not comfortable but I am able to take care of my pets to the best of ability. I also dont think you have to be comfortable to have a savings or make the best choices for your pet. I liked Ellie Mays post and there does seem to be a difference in what some people consider adequate care. And yes they are yorkies but in the end they are also a dog with a dogs needs

Actually no one said either took better care of their pets! The real issue was about whether or not they took their pets on vacation or boarded them. Here are their REAL words.

kjcmsw said: "I'm not generalizing...but it seems to me "many" of the people I have met where price is not a consideration are the types that can afford frequent vacations and dropping off their dog to be kenneled while they are vacationing is the norm. I don't think that's in the best interest of one's dog...but that's my opinion. Some kennel at the drop of a hat and think nothing of it. I commit to the dog, if it can't go with me, then I don't go. That being said, management of one's money and making any purchase that is within a person's budget shows intelligence and responsibility, just the type of person that should buy a dog.

rhettsmomma said: And not to be argumentative, but I've found the opposite to be true with the people I know. Those with a comfortable life style tend to be a little more picky about being separated from the dogs for a vacation- if the dog can't go, they don't go...and boy, do those dogs go to some NICE places; while those who are not tend to see nothing wrong with leaving the dogs out in the backyard with a big pile of food and a couple bowls of water for a long weekend away because kenneling is too expensive. Of course, there are exceptions to every argument.