should poor people own dogs???

[linnie]

Well I was thinking of this from a different angle than we have previously debated on.

Some people are of the opinion that being poor means you cant care properly for your pet. So I started thinking about it and my personal opinion is that it doesnt matter how rich or poor a person is, if something is important to them then they will find the money to care for it.

One only has to think of Paris Hilton ( revolting person )
She has tonnes of money yet doesnt have any great care for her pets if the media reports are to be believed.

Yesterday I met a man who is walking around Australia, He is 60 so not old enough for a pension. He has a little tent and a trolley and the most beautiful merle blue collie named Levi.

I stopped to chat to him and couldnt help but notice that the first thing he did was give Levi food and water.
Also his beautiful long coat was beautifully groomed.

We got to talking about animals in general and he told me he has walked 57000 kms in the last 20 years and has always had a dog with him.
The last collie died at 14 years old
This man has very little means but his dog was very rich because not only did he have food and water but an abundance of love.
This chap even made sure where his dog walked wouldnt harm his pads.
So my answer to this question is. Anyone who honestly loves their pet can afford whatever that pet needs to make sure its life is good

Money doesnt neccessarily mean a good life for an animal

[WhitneyDiann]

Aww...I definately believe that. Some people that dont have a lot of money, there dog is all that they do have.

[Sharni]

Just because you're not well off doesnt mean you won't or can't do the best by your dog

While i'm neither poor or well off *L*...i'd do anything humanely possible for my furkids!

[IceyBlueSibes]

I completely agree Linnie. I am much like one of those people.

I don't have money to go out every weekend, most times we don't have money to even buy a loaf of bread or some butter, but we ALWAYS make sure we have food for the dogs and we always have a way in order to pay for our dogs when they need a trip to the vet. We love our dogs dearly and we would do everything possible to make sure they are happy, healthy, and well cared for.

[Cassiepeia]

My view is this...

If you truely love pets and want to do the best for them, you won't get them in the first place unless you are absolutely certain you can provide for them.
This doesn't mean you have to have a million dollars in your bank account, it just means that you've taken into consideration all that can (and does) happen and are prepared for the costs....whether that means saving up a small amount as a safety net before you buy the animal or putting aside some money when ever you can, after you get it (or at the very least having a solid plan to deal with things, that puts the animal first).

I only object when people buy animals on impulse or buy them 'because I can and I want' with not only no thought put into how they can financially care for the animal, but no wish to provide them with expensive vet care if they need it.

Hope that made sense. Basically I don't think being poor should exclude you from pet ownership...you just have to be responsible and completely aware (and prepared) for what's neccessary.

Cass.

[theGOOCH]

I don't know. Here in America we tend to call people poor even though they have homes, cars, cell phones, cable TV, internet access and not only are they not starving, they are obese. Maybe these kind of people can afford a pet, but not if you are truly poor.

When Blitz got his neck injury I probably shelled out $1000 all together. I'm sure there are people who couldn't do that.

[calgal]

There is a homeless man in our town who has a larger mix dog. The dog is so healthy looking, but I often wonder what happens when the dog needs medical care! I don't think poor people should be banned from having a dog if they can provide for it properly.

[Glitzie]

I am one of those "poor" people. Only made $7000 last year. I struggle alot of the time with kids & such. But, my animals are very well cared for the best to my ability. I've had DaKota for about 6 to 7 years now. I have spent at least $4000 to make sure she is in the best of health & training. I was very honored when Glitzie's previous
owners thought I would be the best home for her & that she was well care for in my hands. The previous owner's have a very well off neighbors who breed Pugs & would of loved to get their hands on Glitzie for breeding. They weren't even considered for owning Glitzie.
My family was.

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

I would have to agree with Cass, because animals shouldn't suffer for our selfishness (which in my mind is what Cass said, obtaining an animal without being able to provide for it first). I don't think only those with money should own dogs, but I think there needs to be sufficient fund at the VERY LEAST to have the dog euthanized should an emergency or condition occur that the owner wouldn't be able to pay for, and in the event no one else could step up and take the dog or pay for it's treatment. Even if the safety net is friends or relatives that do have stability and would be willing to help out if needed (I have many friends and relatives I consider part of my safety net!).

I've said it before, too, that if a dog can live a life where it's loved and cared for so that it's well, and then the owner is unable to pay when the there is an emergency or medical condition, I still would rather that the dog had that home as long as it could. There are just too many dogs in the world that will never know that, so even if shortens their lifespan somewhat, to me it would be worth it. If we didn't have such an overpopulation problem I probably would change that stance, however.

[shandoggy1]

I have an Aunt who has money up the whazoo and has always had a dog from a second hand home. All of her dogs have eaten the crappiest food (whatever was on sale) table scraps and were let outside loose and free to roam and hardly ever went to the vet. She always had owned male dogs and never neutered them. My uncle who is a cop and helped trained police dogs had always done training with his own and they were incredibly great dogs and lived many years usually in there teens. Needless to say that they weren't the best dog owners and we live in the city not country so letting there dog roam was not the smartest decision. So here is people who have money and can give the best care possible and they give there dogs minimal care. I have known more people with less money in there pocket who go above and beyond to care for there pets. I have also seen alot of poor street people around Boston who have there beloved 4 legged friends walking the streets with them. Who am I to say that someone less fortunate than I can't enjoy the love and companionship of a dog. If I lived on the streets I would have a dog to. Something to protect me and keep me warm at night and love me even though I am poor and have very little to offer. I have witnessed some of them feeding there dogs before they feed themselves. To me its not about money, but having the love of a dog can make you the richest person in the world.

[GSD]

anyone that can offer love, food and water is eligible in my book. If something catastrophic were to happen that is nobody's business but the owners IMO in how they can best deal with it.

[Ashlie]

I think I'd rather have them allowed to have any number of dogs than allowed to have the amount of kids that they do...

[mrsgrubby]

I don't think income is the factor, it's the education of whether they treat them well that is important.

In my job I work with low income families. Many of these families should NOT have dogs. Most of their dogs are tied up because they can't afford to fence in their yards, most of the dogs bite, all of the dogs jump as they have not been trained at all. The dogs are fed poor quality of food, and often only once a day so that they go potty less often.

I often see families getting dogs only to get rid of them in a few months, but then they get another one later...only to get rid of it too.

So education and treatment is more of an issue than income.

[My4Dogs]

I think it is really about the person or family and how they treat the dog. There are a lot of people with tons of money who don't give their pets a second thought, and when they get sick or old they don't have the time to deal properly with them. If a poor family loves their dog, they will try to do whatever they can to keep the animal healthy and loved. And that is all you can ask for.

[KennelMom]

I think an owner is responsible for providing minimum care. The question, though, is what constitutes miminum care. IMHO, vaccinations - at least to remain compliant with the law (rabies), heartworm prevention, food, water, shelter, and protection from/treatment of parasites (worms, fleas, ticks). If a "poor" family can provide these things in addition to love and attention, then I have no problems.

Money, whether it's lacking or plentiful, is not the sole indicator of whether or not someone is a "good" owner.