7 ms·

Yeah, well if someone can't swing $200 they probably shouldn't own a pet.

ruined 3y ago
one's financial situation may change very rapidly, and humans have an innate need for companionship and comfort.
r3trohack3r 3y ago
> Yeah, well if someone can't swing $200 they probably shouldn't own a pet. I'm not sure poor people not adopting pets would meaningfully change the rate at which pets are born. It just results in fewer pets being adopted. Particularly true if shelters fix pets before putting them up for adoption. Most animals that have been bred as pets over 1000s of years are no longer permitted to live without a human caretaker. If they can't swing $200 for a life-saving procedure for a pet, I'd still advise them to adopt a pet to provide it a home for the window of time when the animal could happily live without any vet services. A no-cost (or low-cost) adoption is often a life-saving procedure for an owner-less pet.
- lazide 3y ago
  What gives you the impression these are adoptions?
  - r3trohack3r 3y ago
    Just an availability heuristic. I grew up poor, by US standards at least, and everyone around me either adopted their pets from shelters or found them as strays on the street. All my pets have been either strays or from a shelter. The only exception I can think of from my childhood were fish, I think those almost always came from a pet store, but fish tanks were very uncommon. Even my Axolotl was a rescue, it was given to me in a Tupperware container full of pond water after its previous owner was unable to take care of it. If you have anything that would suggest it’s common for people who can’t afford $200 in vet services to buy their pets from breeders, I’m open to learning.
InSteady 3y ago
That's an extremely easy thing to say from a place of privilege, and of course there is some truth to it. On the other hand, how many chronically broke and miserable people out there are only hanging on for love of a pet (perhaps the only consistent source of love and meaning in their adult or entire lives)? I'll bet its a lot. But fuck them, they're poor so I guess they should either tough it out alone or die. Sorry to be so harsh about it, but your comment lacks basic empathy so I figured I'd give you a little dose of same.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  Back when I was broke I owned a cat. There were literally times in my life that the only reason that I didn't paint the ceiling with my brains was because I was worried what would happen to that cat.
- yakubin 3y ago
  I'd love to have a pet too, but I don't have the conditions for that (including financial conditions), so I don't. Even though I'd love to. But having a pet is responsibility, which includes financial responsibility. So yes, you shouldn't have a right to have a pet, when you can't afford it. That it may even be controversial is bewildering to me. Animals aren't things which exist for your pleasure.
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    Pets are companions who you steward because you're the name on the lease and the one with the bank account. Like all living things, they're usually healthy without intervention as long as their basic needs are met. If you can fulfill that stewardship 100% of the time for 5 or 10 or 20 years, but then can't pull things together in some exceptional case at the end, that's not a failing. That's just one of those sad things that happens in life.
  - zeku 3y ago
    As long as you can afford basic care for a pet, then you can have a pet. food, water, bedding, the ability to keep it safe, vaccines(they're pretty cheap mostly and often done by animal shelters for free--neutering too). There are so many pets in shelters who could live good happy lives but no one is there to adopt them. Better a pet to live with an owner who cant afford their chemo when theyre 14 years old than to be euthanized at 2 years old.
Zee38484 3y ago
Many "pets" are just farm animals. Nobody will fork out day wage to save some cat, that is catching mice at barn.
yuhaj 3y ago
Unclear to me why this is being downvoted. Caring for a pet has a cost. The obvious cost is its nutrition, but its health costs must be accounted for as well in the decision to acquire a pet. No matter if you pay a lot for the pet or get it for free, now you have full responsibility for this life. It lives in your captivity, so it's your responsibility to ensure it's being cared for. This is not nature, it can't just live on its own and take care of itself as it would do in nature. It's essentially your prisoner, even if it's rare to see anybody understand that, so you need to provide to its needs. Including health needs. And that incurs a cost. Not _if_ it's needed, it's _when_ it's needed. If you can't "swing" that, then your decision to own a pet was an unbelievably irresponsible one. The hate shouldn't go towards the vet charging that money for treatment, but towards this irresponsible pet-owner-who-shouldn't-be-one. It's irresponsible mainly towards the pet, but even towards the vet, as the original article demonstrates quite well.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Perhaps it's downvoted because its facile and ill considered. Its locked into a tiny figure because the parent poster threw it out but in actuality vet emergencies are now mostly $1000-$2500 which exceeds what 57% of households can afford and pets can live 20 years. https://fortune.com/recommends/banking/57-percent-of-americans-cant-afford-a-1000-emergency-expense/ https://fortune.com/recommends/banking/57-percent-of-america... Ordinary responsible people are going to find themselves deciding what care they can provide for their pet both because of financial challenges personal and societal that weren't evident when they got the pet and because its getting expensive as fuck.
westpfelia 3y ago
Most americans cant afford to miss one paycheck. Should most americans not own a pet?
- anm89 3y ago
  You seem to think people are going to cower in fear at giving the socially unacceptable(to a specific kind of person) answer here. Yes obviously people should not buy things they can't afford. If that means you can't have a pet or a 90k pickup truck, or the shoes you want or whatever then so be it. Totally bizarre that you see this as some sort of gotcha to phrase it this way
michaelmrose 3y ago
To be fair the price of education is limiting our supply of vets drastically to the point where every vet is booked to hell and back and can't see your animal on an emergency basis whereas the emergency vet is $500 to walk in the door and frequently $1000-$2500 wherein "emergency" is herein defined as something your animal needs to be seen this week for not next month. Telling people you need to be middle class in America today to have a pet seems fairly inadequate.

one's financial situation may change very rapidly, and humans have an innate need for companionship and comfort.

> Yeah, well if someone can't swing $200 they probably shouldn't own a pet. I'm not sure poor people not adopting pets would meaningfully change the rate at which pets are born. It just results in fewer pets being adopted. Particularly true if shelters fix pets before putting them up for adoption. Most animals that have been bred as pets over 1000s of years are no longer permitted to live without a human caretaker. If they can't swing $200 for a life-saving procedure for a pet, I'd still advise them to adopt a pet to provide it a home for the window of time when the animal could happily live without any vet services. A no-cost (or low-cost) adoption is often a life-saving procedure for an owner-less pet.

lazide 3y ago
What gives you the impression these are adoptions?
- r3trohack3r 3y ago
  Just an availability heuristic. I grew up poor, by US standards at least, and everyone around me either adopted their pets from shelters or found them as strays on the street. All my pets have been either strays or from a shelter. The only exception I can think of from my childhood were fish, I think those almost always came from a pet store, but fish tanks were very uncommon. Even my Axolotl was a rescue, it was given to me in a Tupperware container full of pond water after its previous owner was unable to take care of it. If you have anything that would suggest it’s common for people who can’t afford $200 in vet services to buy their pets from breeders, I’m open to learning.

InSteady 3y ago

That's an extremely easy thing to say from a place of privilege, and of course there is some truth to it. On the other hand, how many chronically broke and miserable people out there are only hanging on for love of a pet (perhaps the only consistent source of love and meaning in their adult or entire lives)? I'll bet its a lot. But fuck them, they're poor so I guess they should either tough it out alone or die. Sorry to be so harsh about it, but your comment lacks basic empathy so I figured I'd give you a little dose of same.

phone8675309 3y ago
Back when I was broke I owned a cat. There were literally times in my life that the only reason that I didn't paint the ceiling with my brains was because I was worried what would happen to that cat.
yakubin 3y ago
I'd love to have a pet too, but I don't have the conditions for that (including financial conditions), so I don't. Even though I'd love to. But having a pet is responsibility, which includes financial responsibility. So yes, you shouldn't have a right to have a pet, when you can't afford it. That it may even be controversial is bewildering to me. Animals aren't things which exist for your pleasure.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Pets are companions who you steward because you're the name on the lease and the one with the bank account. Like all living things, they're usually healthy without intervention as long as their basic needs are met. If you can fulfill that stewardship 100% of the time for 5 or 10 or 20 years, but then can't pull things together in some exceptional case at the end, that's not a failing. That's just one of those sad things that happens in life.
- zeku 3y ago
  As long as you can afford basic care for a pet, then you can have a pet. food, water, bedding, the ability to keep it safe, vaccines(they're pretty cheap mostly and often done by animal shelters for free--neutering too). There are so many pets in shelters who could live good happy lives but no one is there to adopt them. Better a pet to live with an owner who cant afford their chemo when theyre 14 years old than to be euthanized at 2 years old.

Zee38484 3y ago

Many "pets" are just farm animals. Nobody will fork out day wage to save some cat, that is catching mice at barn.

yuhaj 3y ago

Unclear to me why this is being downvoted. Caring for a pet has a cost. The obvious cost is its nutrition, but its health costs must be accounted for as well in the decision to acquire a pet. No matter if you pay a lot for the pet or get it for free, now you have full responsibility for this life. It lives in your captivity, so it's your responsibility to ensure it's being cared for. This is not nature, it can't just live on its own and take care of itself as it would do in nature. It's essentially your prisoner, even if it's rare to see anybody understand that, so you need to provide to its needs. Including health needs. And that incurs a cost. Not _if_ it's needed, it's _when_ it's needed. If you can't "swing" that, then your decision to own a pet was an unbelievably irresponsible one. The hate shouldn't go towards the vet charging that money for treatment, but towards this irresponsible pet-owner-who-shouldn't-be-one. It's irresponsible mainly towards the pet, but even towards the vet, as the original article demonstrates quite well.

michaelmrose 3y ago
Perhaps it's downvoted because its facile and ill considered. Its locked into a tiny figure because the parent poster threw it out but in actuality vet emergencies are now mostly $1000-$2500 which exceeds what 57% of households can afford and pets can live 20 years. https://fortune.com/recommends/banking/57-percent-of-americans-cant-afford-a-1000-emergency-expense/ https://fortune.com/recommends/banking/57-percent-of-america... Ordinary responsible people are going to find themselves deciding what care they can provide for their pet both because of financial challenges personal and societal that weren't evident when they got the pet and because its getting expensive as fuck.

westpfelia 3y ago

Most americans cant afford to miss one paycheck. Should most americans not own a pet?

anm89 3y ago
You seem to think people are going to cower in fear at giving the socially unacceptable(to a specific kind of person) answer here. Yes obviously people should not buy things they can't afford. If that means you can't have a pet or a 90k pickup truck, or the shoes you want or whatever then so be it. Totally bizarre that you see this as some sort of gotcha to phrase it this way

michaelmrose 3y ago

To be fair the price of education is limiting our supply of vets drastically to the point where every vet is booked to hell and back and can't see your animal on an emergency basis whereas the emergency vet is $500 to walk in the door and frequently $1000-$2500 wherein "emergency" is herein defined as something your animal needs to be seen this week for not next month. Telling people you need to be middle class in America today to have a pet seems fairly inadequate.