Putting an animal down.

[Kyle]

I have a friend whose ten year old dog is sick with some kind of parasite and needs to have a treatment that costs money they don't have- something around $2,500. Exacerbating that problem is that the situation was preventable-- if they'd taken the dog to the vet regularly and had it on worm and flea and tick medicine, this probably wouldn't have happened. But again, going to the vet is $100 every six months per dog and the medicine is expensive. And they have three dogs (they live on property). They just don't have that money. Exacerbating THAT problem is that they can't afford the treatment and are thinking about putting the dog down, but even that costs $200 and they are going to have to find that money somewhere, even though they don't have it.

So then I have another friend who heard about this and said-- to me, not to the person-- "If they can't afford a pet, they should be allowed to have one."

Two questions: (1) should people who financially live on the margins of their income-- i.e., people that live check-to-check-- be allowed to own pets; (2) do you think those people can be responsible pet owners if they can't afford basic treatment like regular vet visits and all the recommended preventative care; and (3) what are our expectations on how much people should spend to provide treatment to their animals.

[mimekiller]

[WillyGilligan]

I have in-laws who live on a farm. They have farm cats. Well, honestly they "have" the cats in the sense that the cats live on the property. They have provided a shelter, but the cats are not allowed in the house, and they provide no food or medicine at all for them. While we were visiting, we found out that kittens were being stolen by a local fox while the momma cat was hunting food, and now my son has a farm kitten that won't stop biting our faces and almost died on the table when we tries to get his hernia (and him) fixed.

I think people should seriously think about their ability to support a living being before taking one into their life, but I don't know about "allowed to". That attitude sounds like "waiting to have kids until we're ready". You're never ready, just start with a steady paycheck and see where that gets you.

Your friends probably shouldn't have the cat, but if it's had a steady supply of food and a place to get in out of the rain, it's had a better go of it than its more wild relations. Who am I to judge?

Edit: Forgot I had a question in this vein. How many people on the forum have had their pets put down? Because a few year's ago I found out that although my wife had several pets growing up, she never had to go through the process, because life on the country took them before it was a question. So when our family dog was in failing health a few years back I found out that I'm the "designated deceaser", because she can NOT handle it. I thought everyone had that moment as children, but I was wrong.

[bralbovsky]

The older I get, the less I feel anybody has a right to incarcerate an animal. Folks whose dogs live in boxes, folks whose animals are surrounded by concrete...there's something broken about the whole picture. It's not a stuffed animal. Maybe robots will fill that void, but that opens up entirely new questions about sentience and subservience.
I know, I know... farm dogs, guide dogs, barn cats. But, chihuahuas, pocket dogs, persians.... we may someday pay for what we have done to dogs and cats (not to mention cows and horses and chickens), but it's also a tragedy what they have done to us. I sometimes wish we had been raised by bears instead.

Back to the question: What do we say about people who can't afford the children they have? Maybe we can discuss the inequity in the medical system, hell, we should discuss the inequity in the medical system, but it's not news. The challenges are a surprise to only the fond and foolish, and I would suggest willfully ignorant. (No consumer of american media can be unaware that child rearing as a string of disasters, however comically portrayed) There's zero excuse, and I spent decades doing triage.....

There I went again. sorry. The animal will likely perish. It's sad. It's also their fault. The animal, like the child, needs to be in the budget, regardless of how tight it is, or it needs to be offered energetically to someone else. If it is a rescue, fine, foster, don't adopt, or give up starbucks or smoking, or movies or the car, or whatever it's worth to have the thing in your life. If there's no room in your life, there are still resources that might help subsidize rather than take on wholesale, its care. It's like any thing that needs maintenance, except it's not a thing. Hopefully this will teach them something.

There is an animal graveyard in our woods. We have sung dirges for rabbits, elegies for fishes, on and on. Mostly, they just fail. I (usually, because I pay attention better than other family members) find the corpse. Occasionally the passing is sudden and accompanied. I taught high school for thirty odd years (punctuate that as you will) and I feel like if I'm doing my job, I am a specialist in goodbyes. Commencements, goings on to better things, or just other things, are not just part of the game, but the point of it. That fish die is the reason they were the first pets in our house. Some defy the lesson and live a long time, and are wizened and twisted and pale before they finally just stop swimming, which is another kind of lesson.
Is that enough reason to imprison an animal? I really don't think so, but I'm definitely in the minority.

[Kyle]

[Tahlvin]

I think owning pets is similar to, but a bit different than, having kids. No, there doesn't necessarily need to be a minimum financial affluence in order to have one. But while having kids is not always voluntary, having a pet IS voluntary.

You should be able to at least meet the local legal requirements for pet ownership: license fees and associated vaccination requirements. Being more affluent allows you to provide higher quality care for the pet, which will prolong its lifespan and provide it a better quality life. But that doesn't mean that a pet with a family that cannot afford that level of care is less loved or has a horrible quality of life. But similar to how children of wealthy families reap the benefits of the familial affluence, so to do the pets of said families.

In addition to meeting the legal requirements for pet ownership, priority should be given to meeting the basic needs of the humans in the family. Only once those needs are met, and only if there are surplus funds available, should someone consider having a pet. Letting a child go hungry because you spent the money buying pet food is reckless.

[Kyle]

Two things: (1) I think having to register your pets is stupid. I understand it's the law, but it's dumb. (2) I think many people would disagree with you that pet ownership is a voluntary act. I know many people that have found a sick or injured animal that they've taken in and nursed back to health and feel its their obligation to keep is as a pet because it would be cruel to release it and the pound will probably kill it.

[Tahlvin]

[Kyle]

That's like saying it's voluntary to grab your kid up when you see him running into the road. Sure- everything is a voluntary choice. Not opening my neck with a letter opener this very moment is a voluntary choice, I suppose. My point is that some people feel there's not a real alternative other than to take in the animal because leaving it to a cruel death is not a moral option for them. To be clear, I am not one of those people. But I know many people that feel that way.

[Mike]

So let's say you have a pet and you can afford basic upkeep for it... food, preventative care, the occasional doctor visit for minor issues, but there is an unexpected medical issue that costs more than you can afford. Not a lot more, but let's say it requires a $400 surgery and you don't have $400. How do we feel about that?

What if you could afford $400 but it would be a hardship (or serious inconvenience) so you choose not to spend that?

What if your dog requires $70 per bag dog food, and even with that, still needs a $500 operation every 12-18 months for bladder stones?

In order to be a responsible pet owner, how much does a person have to have set aside? How much do they have to be able (and willing) to spend on their pet so that they aren't bad pet owners?

Kids are different, because in the case of unexpected medical costs, there are resources to help people (in theory) and no one's going to let a child die due to lack of care (in theory).

If you have an animal with unexpected and unaffordable medical costs, your choices are A. Kill them, B. Let them live without treatment, C. Try to give away a sickly and costly animal and hope some generous soul is willing to take them in.

Assuming that C is difficult to impossible in most cases, what level of cost should potential owners be prepared to absorb before taking on an animal? How much cost should they be ready to absorb to be considered "responsible"?

[Bonefish]

Things die. Sometimes you die. It happens. Sometimes it's too painful to live. Sometimes it's just pointless.

I can barely keep myself alive, so I don't keep animals. Hell, I don't really keep plants, I just help tend them.

I don't judge other people for what they do. I mean, I do, but I don't talk about it. Considering my own failures, I don't feel justified in judging other people for their own failures.

Not everyone is comfortable being alone. I get it, and sometimes they need a cute little animal to give them a reason to live.

[WillyGilligan]

[Phoebe]

I don't think you need to be able to put $2,500 into dog Medical Care without becoming a bad pet owner. On the other hand, I do think you need to be able to take your dog once a year for vaccines and other preventive care (who's going twice a year? our vets have always required only one because that's how often the vaccines are given), and in this particular case maybe that would have meant not facing the high bill.

I have absolutely zero interest in hearing the line of argument that people need to be able to afford children before they have them. Yes, in theory they do, which is why you didn't see me having children until I could. But except for luck, that can change on a dime, and in practice most people on the face of the globe, even in the U.S., struggle to be able to afford this at least at some point. So there are much larger structural problems with society when it comes to human children, and the great desire on the part of our current political order to give tax breaks to everyone who already has all the resources, while getting very testy about offering free food and health care to hungry children. Those politicians probably shouldn't have chosen to be born human unless they could afford to do so properly, but we're all stuck with them now.

[Mike]

Okay, so to be responsible as a pet owner I should be prepared to cover food and vaccinations and some incidentals of pet ownership.

No one thinks I'm a bad pet owner for taking a pass when the medical bills hit 2,500. But where's the line? Or at least, in what ballpark might I find the line?

If I say $85 for a check up and medication when the dog has open sores and an obvious skin infection is too much for me, am I a bad pet owner? What about $115? 200? 575? If the pet is suffering to some degree with something that some amount of money will almost certainly fix, about how much money makes me an asshole when I say no? What amount of money says that I wasn't responsible enough to own a pet in the first place?

[Kyle]

$500 for a cat and $1000 for a dog. That's my personal limit- but I don't hold others to it.

I have a question about vaccinations. The only thing that's required in Texas is rabies- and it's not expensive (although I'll admit that after their initial rabies vaccine, I'm terrible about remembering to do it). What vaccines are y'all talking about- because there's about two dozen you CAN get- but I don't really want to pay for rattlesnake vaccine.

[Phoebe]

I'm about to take my dog to the vet soon so I'll let you know. I don't think you can set a dollar limit because that's not the way that ethics works even if you're a good utilitarian. Obviously it makes sense to pay more if the dog is young and can recover from his or her injuries; it makes little sense to pay a lot of money for a medical intervention for an elderly dog who is going to continue suffering pain regardless. You can spin this out with various factors. Do the people have a little surplus cash even though they are generally poor, or do they have more money but children who have serious medical expenses of their own that might flare up at any time? Etc etc.

[Kyle]

I hear what you’re saying- but the ceiling for us is $500 for a cat and $1000 for a dog. That’s not to say if the dog is very old and very sick that is still spend $1000 on them, that’s silly. But we won’t agree to treatments or procedures that cost more than $500 for a cat or $1000 for a dog.

[Phoebe]

So suppose you have two young and healthy dogs who get into a fight with a pack of possums or something. They're both bleeding and whimpering in agony. One has injuries that they estimate will come out at $800 with treatment and pain meds, and the other one has a bill that will come to $1100. Do you kill one of them?

[Kyle]

I’d get pissed at my kids for having two puppies they didn’t have permission for and have them both be put to sleep.

[Mike]

The kids, obviously. The dogs he'd save.