Should people who can't afford medical treatments for pets own a cat or dog?

[mike_c]

15. majorly conflicted about this one....

I live in a community with lots of transients, especially young transients. Many have dogs on a rope leash-- many of the dogs are young too, often puppies. We call them hippies with puppies on a rope. I often fear for those dogs' futures. At the very least, they are at higher risk of injury (and likely abandonment) than most pets. On the other hand, I understand that many pets are in worse conditions.

Fair disclosure: I used to be a young hippie-- now I'm an aging one. I have rescued many, many cats during my life, including some that I did not have the means to care for properly, although in my defense I will also contend that in the end, I did whatever I had to do, and all of my pets were well cared for and loved.

Therein lies my dilemma. From my current perspective-- I'm doing reasonably well and can afford regular health care for all of my cats and dogs now, but that was not always the case. I was fortunate that when push came to shove, even during the really lean years (um, decades) my commitment to my companion animals' welfare always found a way when it had too.

I just worry about all those puppies (and the occasional kitten) that pass through town on the end of a rope while their companion humans hitchhike up and down the coast. And all the other pets that people WANT to love and provide for, but who end up suffering when they cannot.

Part of the equation is that given half a chance, most companion animals who are well socialized with humans get as much from the relationship as humans do. That counts for a lot. I'm much more concerned about people who keep pets they don't give a rat's buttocks about than I am about people who love and cherish their companions but who lack the means to be the best human companions ever. Still, I'm personally conflicted about the question. I'm really really glad I can take care of my companion animals now.