Should poor people be allowed to have pets?

[Lyric]

If poor people cannot afford to do the following things, should they be banned from owning or caring for animals?

--Feed their pets a quality, preferably human-grade pet food.
--Buy the $40 FrontLine or Advantage flea treatment every 3-4 months for every animal that might get outside.
--Take their pet to the vet for shots, deworming, and all other "routine" care. (Not counting the rabies vaccine, which is both inexpensive and necessary for public safety.)
--Have money set aside to pay for emergency vet treatment in case of accident, illness, or injury.
--Get their pet spayed or neutered immediately.

Should the inability to do all (or even most) of these things legally disqualify someone from owning or caring for an animal? Should there be any exceptions--for example, people doing rescues of an animal that would otherwise starve? Furthermore, should the inability to do certain things for a pet be consider a form of animal cruelty? Just how far is "too far" when considering who's allowed to have pets and who is not?

What about people who CAN easily afford to do these things, but choose not to? Is it more a standard of caring "to the best of your ability" than a solid line in the sand? Where should the line be drawn when determining which things are absolutely necessary, if we were to have a legal standard for pet ownership in America?

The reason I ask is that I've seen a lot of mixed messages when it comes to this issue. It can be confusing, as well as morally arbitrary at times, and I think it's worth talking about. Understandably, this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people here, so it would be nice if we could do this without flaming each other to ashes.

Edit: People seem to be getting the wrong idea. I guess I tried *too* hard to be neutral. For the record, I am of the opinion that there should NOT be any kind of legal restriction on pet ownership, so long as the owner is not a hoarder or an abuser. I am a poor person who has been told by OTHERS that because I cannot afford to XYZ, I shouldn't be allowed to have pets. It hurt. I just wanted to see if this was something that a lot of people felt.

[ogneopasno]

1. Human-grade pet food?

Well, that disqualifies me. Jayzus H. And the emergency vet treatment? Sometimes a pet just has to go when it's time.

[Lyric]

5. I saw someone else mention it on another thread.

It's what got me thinking about it. It was said so strongly that I wondered if others shared that poster's opinion.

For the record, I do not. I feed my pets the best I can afford to get, which (at the moment) isn't anything special.

[Bluebear]

9. An emergency doesn't mean "it's time for the pet to die"

Now, whether we should have more accessible pet care is another subject, it can be horribly expensive.

[bicentennial_baby]

22. Thank you...

Signed,

Someone who recently went even deeper into debt to save an animal. And this was the...4th time in 10 years. Sigh. 3 out of 4 died. but I tried, and I wouldn't have done anything different.

[madmax]

29. Lost my 4 y.o. Yorkie baby

8 months ago. Spent over 2K to try to save him. Didn't happen but, I did get to love him for an additonal month and he wasn't in pain. I'd do it again. Thanks for sharing :hug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. So sorry!

:hug:

[Bluebear]

30. Please. The cancer treatment I bought for my baby down in Waltham...

...would have bought a luxury Greek Islands cruise. It didn't work, but I too would not have done anything different.

[bicentennial_baby]

34. Exactly.

:hug:

[CitizenLeft]

170. I'm so sorry.

I would have too, if I could, without hesitation. :hug:

[CitizenLeft]

169. bless you.

If I could, or can, so will I.

[ogneopasno]

36. That's true, it doesn't.

But I am one of those who generally won't put myself in debt to extend the life of an animal. YMMV.

[Vanje]

62. Vet care can varyextremely in price

Shop around and realize there is usually more than one treatment option.

Vet clinics that treat large farm animals as well as pets are often FAR CHEAPER, and often have practitioners with very savy sgeneral mall animal skills. These practices are used to finding PRACTICAL solutions at reasonable cost.

[wickerwoman]

112. Most pet food in the US is technically "human grade"

I used to know someone who worked for Purina and she said they have to follow most of the same regulations for food safety as companies producing food for human consumption because so many homeless people eat pet food... I guess it's a cheap source of protein and if you're starving, you're starving.

[ogneopasno]

113. Very interesting.

Makes sense, although I've always wondered why buy cat or dog food when tuna is pretty similarly priced.

Nice user name, BTW.

[baldguy]

2. Maybe we should stop them from marrying & having kids, too.

Decrease the surplus population.

[Lyric]

14. It seems like most people are more willing to entertain the idea of

limiting pet ownership to those who "qualify" than limiting child-bearing to those who "qualify." Not that I'd support *either* idea, of course. I'm just trying to figure out what the prevailing sentiment on DU is, while attempting to be as non-judgmental as I can.

[mr_hat]

3. I volunteer for AniMeals

and deliver free pet food to the poor, the elderly and shut-ins.

Yeah. They should be "allowed."

[Lyric]

20. Wow--I didn't know that such a service existed.

That's seriously fantastic. Is it a strictly local thing, or is it possible to start up a branch in other locations? I'd LOVE to see something like that around here.

:yourock:

[mr_hat]

50. I'm in Iowa. AniMeals may be only local, but

I'd be glad to forward contact info for anyone who'd like more info.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Can you give some info on this? I am interested. Thanks!

[gaspee]

31. I like that idea

I'm going to research doing it in my area. I didn't even know it existed.

[aquart]

53. Oh, that is a good thing to do.

I remember my mother taking a long-haired cat from an AIDS patient. He couldn't care for her anymore and was terribly concerned to find her a good home. What it would have meant to him to have her with him...but there wasn't anything like pet care then. It was hard enough getting the volunteers to take care of the AIDS patients.

Which reminds me, I don't care if you're rich or poor, you need a will of some kind for your pets. You MUST discuss who gets your animals if something happens to you.

[Vanje]

63. Yes!

Lend a hand instead of a buttload of judgemental criticism.

[rzemanfl]

4. If McSame and Palin win the election the future question may be

"Is it okay to kill and eat your pets?" Excuse me if I can't get worked up about this right now.

[ogneopasno]

18. Rabbits: Pets or Meat

Perfect.

[rzemanfl]

42. Or frogs....nah, that would be elitist. n/t

[greguganus]

146. Make a law that the poor can only have goldfish for pets.

They don't need watering often.
Eat very little.
They are cheap.
They take up a small space.
They are never taken to the vet.
They can be flushed when they expire.
The homeless can carry them around in a jar.
They can be used to feed a stray cat.
They can be used as bait to catch a bigger fish when you get hungry.
They can be used as fertilizer if you decide to plant a vegetable garden.
They usually die before people get too attached to them.

[liberal renegade]

6. Who gets to determine the worthiness

of future pet owners?

[Tunkamerica]

24. Let's create a special position

they can fly around in helicopters and cull from the air.

[liberal renegade]

38. I want that job!

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

7. Ah. A candidate for Stupidest Thread Of 2008.

[Lucky Luciano]

157. If you watch Animal Planet shows that include Animal Cops Detroit or

Houston or wherever, it makes you wonder....but that show only show the worst cases...usually the people who mistreat the animals in that show are very poor, but most very poor people do indeed love their animals and care for them as best as possible.

[Connie_Corleone]

8. Maybe we should ban them from having kids too. /sarcasm

Obviously, poor people love their pets as much as people with more money. They provide for their pets as best they can.

No, they should not be banned from having pets.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. !!!

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

26. Nah. Just gas 'em outright. Problem solved.

[Edweird]

11. I think many on the left should be banned from banning things.

Let people live their lives the best they can.

[azmouse]

12. When I was growing up in the '60s,

taking a pet to the vet was pretty much not done. In fact, very little of what you mention there was done and our dogs lived very long and happy lives.

[Jamastiene]

86. Bingo.

There are many areas near where I live where it is exactly the same way today. Many people just give them the basic shots they need and just take care of them from there. Those dogs live long, happy lives.

[greguganus]

149. I blame global warming. n/t

[samplegirl]

163. Pet food was not poison then!!!

[lapislzi]

13. Hoo boy

:popcorn:

I understand the OP's point. People should act responsibly when they take on something as serious as another life (!) But this should prove amusing. Hang on, folks...we're goin' down the slippery slope.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. If I could afford it, I'd have many more dogs than I currently have. I am a sucker for rescue dogs

However, I know my limits, financially. *sigh*

[greguganus]

150. I have 3 rescue dogs.

One had heart worms, and the treatment cost around $600.00 and he still had worms after that and it cost another $300.00 for a 2nd treatment.
You can't put a price on love. On unconditional love. On happiness.
I would do it all over again if needed.

[CitizenLeft]

171. I have 3 rescues too.

I've had 5 altogether. Two of them were starved to the brink of death when I got them. One was abused so badly that it was suggested by the shelter that some of the abuse was sexual. It DOESN'T MATTER how much I could afford all those things that are, admittedly, necessary - though I could afford it at the time, and they DID get everything they needed. But if a poor person can give love and shelter to a an abused, starving dog, I say it's better than letting it die or be put down.

Having said that, I've fallen on hard times since my first 2 rescues, and have given up things - like new clothes and things for the house - to make sure my dogs DO get human-grade food (after the shock of the recalls last year, I've become a dog food nutrition freak!), regular shots, Sentinel, and - God forbid - emergency vet visits. I will not put my dogs down, separate them, or dump them into a shelter because I'm struggling to keep my head above water. That would be more than I could take.

Not fussing at you, people like you and all those who love animals and resuce them, are my heroes (as are people who save and work with children and the elderly). But I do get emotional about my dogs. :)

[SammyWinstonJack]

199. Oh I know. Between my two rescue dogs, I have spent probably $1000 and I would do it again, in a

heartbeat! My female Yorkie was constantly sick the first few years I had her. Very expensive,but worth every penny!

I can't imagine my life without them! I wish I could take on more!

[lapislzi]

200. I wish I could have a dog.

But my selfish want does not justify the sub-standard life the dog would have with me. I have 3 cats and cannot afford another vet bill, and I am out of my house for 12 hours a day. The dog would have a miserable life with me, so my wants must wait until I have more time and money to lavish on another animal.

When I lived in Africa on a farm, I had 3 dogs. Not a day goes by that I don't miss them.

[SammyWinstonJack]

203. Pets can be expensive and dogs especially need lots of attention.

Cats are independent and dogs are dependent. :evilgrin:

[gaspee]

15. Well...

We don't have that standard for kids, so why should we have it for pets?

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm quite serious.

However, I breed (very limited amount - I've bred 17 puppies since 2000 which averages @2 pups a year) and show dogs and I charge a lot of money for my pups to be sure the people (I do interviews, reference checks and education before I even consider someone for a puppy) can afford and are willing to pay for top care before they get a life I'm responsible for bringing into this world. I think it might be harder to get a pup from me than it is to adopt a kid.

Am I being hypocritical? I like to hope not, but maybe a little.

If they can afford to do it and they don't, it's neglect, pure and simple. If they can't afford to care for the dog and they want a dog anyway? I just don't have an answer.

Should rich people's children receive better health care than poor people's - of course not, but that is the reality of our capitalist health care system.

I think rabies shots and heartworm preventative should be free to those under a certain income level. Those two things should be mandatory as public health issues.

[glinda]

16. Spay and Neuter please.

[gaspee]

27. Spay and neuter

your own animals if you can't control them.

None of my pets are spayed neutered (except my 13 year old) and they neither cause unwanted litters nor engage in antisocial behavior (the main reason for spaying and neutering.)

Early neutering of male animals (12 - 18 months or so, depending on breed) is now proven to have serious consequences on muscular skeletal health. If you ever want to do performance events with your animal (agility, tracking, lure coursing, carting, sledding) do not neuter males before they have reached maturity.

Some people are responsible enough to own intact animals.

[glinda]

41. Yes

but there are too many unwanted pets as is and spaying and neutering would help the overall population size go down.

[LeftyMom]

51. There are a finite number of homes that can care for or want pets.

By breeding for profit and filling those homes, they are no longer available to take in homeless animals from shelters or rescues.

Every dog bought from a breeder equals a dead dog at the pound.

[Vanje]

68. Oversimplification

Someone wanting a competitive show dog, field trialer, or sheepdog trialer is not going to find their winner at the pound.
Different market

[LeftyMom]

71. Somebody who wants to care for an animal will adopt an animal in need of love.

Somebody who needs a competitive accessory for their ego should buy a motorcycle and be done with it.

[Vanje]

74. Can a motorcycle help with the 600 sheep I work with every day?

My trialing dogs do!

It aint my ego. Its my livelyhood.

[LeftyMom]

75. So one sort of animal exploitation supports another?

That's just fucking lovely.

[Vanje]

79. You really

really really Do not know any thing about it.
Really. You dont.


Not even a little bit.

[Vanje]

94. Do you feed your family and your pets animal products?

Eggs?
Cheese?
Meat?


Do you think its only exploitation when others do it?

I would think That would make you a hypocrite under any definition.

[flvegan]

98. Epic fail.

You're talking to a vegan with a vegan kid.

:rofl:

[Vanje]

100. Do they have vegan cats? and vegan dogs?

Are the pets fed some "unexploited" food source?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vanje]

114. Did you read the whole dialog?

Do please review it.
You will see that my passion, my life, my cherished relationship with the beings I love most in this world , as well as my livlihood were characterized as exploitative.

Note especially the post which includes the phrase, ""Thats just fucking lovely".

No one called her lifestyle "just fucking lovely".


The sheep I produce are natural, organic grass fed. They spend their lives on one farm. They are not placed into trucks and taken away by strangers. When thier time comes, they are butchered right on the farm.


I'll bet you anything that LeftyMom cannot claim the same for the animal products that she buys to feed to her carnivorous animal companions.

PS. Maybe you or she'd like to order up some natural meat sent direct from my farm, for your pets to eat.
My dogs sure do benefit from it.
As do I.

[flvegan]

118. Honestly, no.

Could you bring me up to speed in a sentence or two on your take of it?

[Vanje]

120. Thanks for the honesty.

Before you call me a "douchebag" for my response to LeftyMom, , you really ought to have read what I was responding to.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vanje]

124. Did you read the dialog?

?

[flvegan]

128. From the short exchange

and your answer to me, it would appear that you have a certain number of dogs that you keep to herd the sheep you raise for slaughter.

Am I close?

[greguganus]

151. You got it. Animals forced to take part in the slaughter of other animals. n/t

[Vanje]

181. "Forced"? no

My dogs love their " work ".
To NOT allow them their time working with the flocks would be a cruelty. My sheepdog boys and girls are EAGER. Their work clearly fulfills them as my work fulfills me.

The dogs do not take part in the slaughter. The dogs are put up at that butchering time and I make that solemn duty my own.

The dogs are involved in the sheeps daily lives: the trailing from pasture to pasture, the bringing in at night, sorting the ewes, tending , doctoring, vaccinating, shearing, bringing in a confused ewe who's having a difficult labor , delivering and tending the lambs.
But no. The dogs do not partake in the final solemn hour of a sheep's life. Only the thosands and thousands of hours before that last one.

[gaspee]

104. I sure hope not!

Trying to make cats vegans, and to a lessere extent, dogs, is really stupid.

Humans, no problem. Dogs and Cats? NO. Just no.

Lots of people here obviously think mandatory spay neuter laws are just peachy. Kind of makes me wonder what other part of my life they think they should control.

Most people I know with intact dogs are quite responsible. I must run in a different crowd than a lot of people here.

[Codeine]

145. You're half-right.

A vegan diet for a dog, and omnivorous and opportunistic scavenger, can be just fine. A cat, however, is a true carnivore.

[Tallison]

152. The thought of just one irresponsible owner of an 'intact' male dog or cat

makes me shudder given the dozens of litters it may produce in a lifetime - of which the owner stays blithely unaware because some other stray or another irresponsible person's pet is carrying the consequences. In my circles, just running the risk is considered absolutely unconscionable.

[gaspee]

91. HAhahahaha

Profit? In what universe?

If you had any idea how much I spent in vet bills, dog food, dog shows, health checks on my dogs, stud fees etc, you would know just how stupid the idea of breeding for profit is.

And I reject your argument as simplistic. Ride your high horse somewhere else.

[Tallison]

153. Puppy mills exist because they're profitable

Hope you're not maintaining that the breeding industry is the consummate labor of love? :shrug:

[Vanje]

66. Thankyou!

I've got intact dogs. Nicely bred Hard working and competing sheep dogs (border collies).
Never produced a puppy, but I might some day

[Jamastiene]

84. How many poor people do you know

who own show animals? We are talking about pets here, not thoroughbred champion show animals. There is a huge difference.

[gaspee]

96. Raises hand

I am definitely in the lower 20% of the income bracket. I have a second job that I use the income from only for dog expenses. I don't have kids and I don't have or want a lot of "stuff" but I like doing dog shows (which only cost between 20 and 30 bucks to enter) so that's where I spend my money. I train constantly, handle my own dogs - hell, there's three sleeping on the bed right behind me - they're my kids and they enjoy it. The ones who don't - my best looking dog is one of them - don't do it.

You don't have to be rich to have showdogs.

[InvisibleTouch]

136. "You don't have to be rich to have showdogs."

I know it! I make it to maybe 3 or 4 shows a year, breed a litter every other year or so. I've camped out in a tent and slept in my van to reduce travel expenses to shows. At times I've foregone high-quality food for myself to feed my dogs homecooked and premium foods. I just won't feed them the cheap junk that starts the ingredients list with "ground yellow corn" and "meat by-product meal." I've found ways to reduce vet expenses while still providing the best of care (give my own vaccines except for rabies; do my own microchipping; herbal/homeopathic remedies; etc.). I've got 3 intact males who get along just fine, except for a bit of grumbling now and again; the females are a dream. Sure, I sometimes think about whether the puppies I've produced have taken homes from shelter dogs, but the truth is, someone who's looking specifically for my breed (an extremely rare and ancient one) is unlikely to take a shelter dog. Some might call that ego, and some might call it an affinity for the thousands of years of history that went into the breed. For my part I think it would be a loss to the world if we lost any breed, akin to the loss of a species. By no means am I maligning mixed breeds - some of my best friends have been mixed breeds! - and I have the greatest respect for people who do rescue work, but I don't think it's necessary for breeders and rescue workers to sling mud at each other. In the end we are all animal people.

Gets off topic from the original question, of course. To which my thinking is, if the animal isn't being abused, neglected, or starved, there shouldn't be a ban on pet ownership, though I'd like to see some low-cost low-income vet care more widely available. But to cut people off from the experience of having animals in their lives, that contact with nature and love for our fellow species, can only do harm to the world at large.

[gaspee]

147. Wow

I wonder if we have the same breed... mine are a native Japanese breed, but not the Akita. Have you guessed yet?

Shibas!

What do you have?

[Vanje]

172. Very Low cost vet care

Is there a vet school nearby?

I work at a Universty veterinary teaching facility with a focus on food animal production . Even here, students and teachers are eager to gain surgical experience, and are happy to tret an occaisional small animal.
Vet students working under direct supervision of vet faculty do procedures for cost.
A cat or dog castration costs 5 bucks.
A Spay for a medium sized dog costs 15 bucks.

Even some extraordinary procedures (ceasarian sections, fracture-pinning , gastric surgeries , can be done at cost.

The students do a terrific job. Surgeries may take a little longer than with more experienced practitioners, but the attention to detail cant be beat. You never saw more beautiful suture work.


Anyone living near a vet school ought to inquire about policy for "teaching cases".

[flvegan]

88. I'd like to see that "proof" of yours

in regards to "early" neutering of male animals.

[gaspee]

93. Have you

Never heard of Google?

Why should I do the work for you? You think you "got" me? Do what you want to your animals, but mine will not be needlessly castrated at too young an age.

A whole list of peer reviewed studies are at your fingertips of you give a shit.

[flvegan]

97. Soooo...you don't have one.

Got it. Great, thanks.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flvegan]

101. I did Google it.

You know what I found, vague references made by idiots in the breeding, sporting and hunting world that believed this. NOT ONE peer reviewed study, NOT ONE published paper by a vet. Nothing. Just like what you got.

Also, in my decade of experience in rescue, the 100 or so vets I know and have worked with personally, and my time spent on the board of my Humane Society all suggest that you're full of shit.

So, again, pretty please...put up, or shut up.

[gaspee]

102. Well then

You really are challenged. I prefer challenged to stupid; I think it's a little nicer, don't you?

I'll give you a little head start:


Have fun!

http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf

Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.


Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203

[flvegan]

107. Seriously...an owners' survey from a fucking breeder club?

Your Grumbach study is for people based on mice studies?

Your 2nd JAVMA reference was later trumped by the University of Illinois several years later and JAVMA published their overwhelming support of early spay/neuter.

Anything else?

[gaspee]

110. Whatever

You're obviously an extremist.

Not that it will do any good but here:

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

You do what you want with your own animals. Mine will never add to the homeless animal problem. I think most people should neuter and spay their animals, but unless you're someone who thinks there should be no such thing as companion animals, not every animal should be spayed or neutered.

But I suspect you're an extremist and I'm going to leave it at that.

[gaspee]

105. This one

Is right in the title - think you can handle it?

Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5.

[flvegan]

108. You get all your propaganda from Dr. Zink?

I'm done with you. Good night.

[Vanje]

117. _-_-_-

Did someone say, "epic fail"?

And, who's Dr. Zink?

[flvegan]

122. Yes, I did, to you because you did.

As to Dr. Zink...ah, forget it. On you, it's wasted time.

[zippy890]

17. would have a lot to do with management/landlord policy in public

and subsidized housing.

a lot of Housing Authorities do not allow pets in the low income family complexes. But many states and federal housing for the elderly/disabled allow a cat or a small dog, because it has been found to be beneficial to people.


a flat-out prohibition of pets by low-income,- I think it would be illegal, and 2) it would be impossible to enforce.

[Fumesucker]

19. It depends....

Do ticks and lice count as pets?

[madmax]

21. I don't know what to say

but your post is uh, creepy.

As a poor kid who grew up always owning a 'mutt' who ate regular dog food and sometimes a tablescrap treat. Those mutts were the highlight of a childhood. I did without the latest clothes, toys, etc. My dogs shared my secrets and my pain. I'm glad no one made any rulz that would have to be met such as yours since they would have disqualified me from owning any.

My small town offered reduced rate rabbie shots and distemper which we could afford.

[Lyric]

33. Please re-read my OP. I clarified myself.

I'm actually one of the "poor people." I was just trying to keep from injecting my own opinion, and apparently I did that job a bit too well. :blush:

[madmax]

39. I see that from several later posts

:hug:

[CTyankee]

168. At an inner city community book bank and tutoring center where I work 3 days a week,

one of the children being tutored brought by a little dog, a purebreed (I forget which one), and said his mother paid $700 for it. I have no idea if he was accurate (he had no reason to lie)but we know his situation and I must admit I was appalled. They are very poor people and often this child has come in for tutoring on an empty stomach. We provide snacks but cannot be a feeding program center.

Your post is very touching and I wouldn't be at all appalled by it. I wondered at the purebreed for such a poor family, however. I can't understand how people can struggle so hard and yet spend so much money on a dog. I guess I wouldn't have the same feeling if they had gone to the shelter and chosen a dog that needed a home. And, I will add that I wouldn't have a purebreed myself, nor would I have any pet at this time, so maybe I am prejudiced. (I lost two dogs in the past and simply can't face that again.)

My point is: can you see the insanity in this situation without being an "elitist"?

We have started a "financial literacy" program which we hope will be popular among all the residents. I think this is the way to go, rather than being harshly critical of people's choices. But I still don't understand how a parent can buy an expensive dog and not feed their own child. It makes no sense to me... :shrug:

[Vanje]

174. Maybe tthe family wasnt poor when they got their dog

A divorce, a medical bill, a job loss or foreclosure can change a family's fortunes very fast.

[CTyankee]

179. Actually, he brought it by because it was recently purchased.

It's cute and he wanted to show it to us.

[Vanje]

183. Some people have spending problems

Nevertheless, I hope family and puppy do alright and give each other joy .

[CTyankee]

184. I do too. There was some question in our minds about how they were treating the dog.

The boy said his uncle threw the dog across the room for doing something. It was a bit unnerving because the kid is too young to be a dissembler. I went back to my desk at that point because I didn't want to hear any more.

Yes, there are spending problems (but that is throughout our society today, not just with poor people). That's why we think financial literacy is the way to go: people understanding the cost of credit, how to budget, how to shop at the supermarket, etc. It took me a while to understand this stuff -- I didn't have a budget until about 17 years ago and I'm in my 60s. Hard thing to do!

[Vanje]

185. Oh man!

I dont think lack of financial literacy is that family's only problem.

[CTyankee]

186. Well, no, of course not. Sadly, this is so prevalent among the poor here.

When I worked at the Adult Education building the young adults who were there because they couldn't finish regular high school were getting in constant fights in the hallway. We had to enter through a metal detector, manned by an enormous cop. Cars got stolen in the parking lot. We had "code red" lockdowns with armed police officers called in. Finally, we moved our work to our present location when all of our computers and our fax machine were stolen in a middle of the night break in.

Their world is sad, chaotic and desperate. Keeping safe has been our main concern. I'd like to think that we got this bright young kid before he got the same way. He's learning fast, tho. I'm hopeful about that...

[JVS]

23. poor people +dogs + questioning = flamewar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3768067&mesg_id=3768089

[TankLV]

28. It depends. If they can afford to take proper care of the animal - feed him in addition to water,

plus proper medical care - then sure.

But taking care of a companion animal is not necessarily a free ride...

[bicentennial_baby]

32. Personally...

I believe that it is *irresponsible pet "ownership"* to have pets and not be able to: spay/neuter and provide the required yearly shots/exams.

That, for me, is the absolute minimum, and if one cannot provide those two things, than I think that the human in question is being irresponsible and not properly caring for the animal(s) in question. Having pets is a responsibility, and that responsibility is primarily to keep that animal as healthy as possible.

YMMV.

[Lyric]

45. As a general rule, I agree with you. However,

I think it's not so black-and-white. For example, ThinkBlue1966 and I are very low-income. However, we are also very much animal lovers. We live in a low-income neighborhood, and we get a LOT of stray/abandoned cats that are starving, covered in fleas, etc. We can't afford to spay/neuter them all, get them vet care, etc. But we also can't stand to let the poor things starve. I don't see how anyone could look at a straggly cat whose bones are sticking out, listen to it meow at you in hopes that you'll care enough to feed it, and then walk away, but some people think that walking away is *exactly* the right thing to do--at least, if you're poor.

We can't even take them to the shelter, because we don't have a car, and it's a "kill" shelter--I loathe the idea of taking an animal there. It sucks, truly. I had someone on another forum yell at me and tell me that I was a horrible person because we took in a stray that wound up being pregnant, and of course that led to "unwanted kittens," etc. Apparently it was "our responsibility" the moment we fed the poor thing. I just don't know how to take that. It doesn't seem fair, somehow. We weren't the ones who abandoned her. We've found homes for some of the kittens and are working on the others, but still.

It's really a murky, painful issue to peel apart and examine. :( Thank you for caring, though. :hug:

[bicentennial_baby]

46. Well, that's different than "having pets", I think

And it truly sucks about the local shelter. Ours has a feral feeding/capture/treatment/spay-neuter program, run by volunteers.

:hug:

[Lyric]

48. I really WISH that the local Vets would offer some kind of discount

on spay/neuter for people who are bringing in strays and/or ferals. Two of our cats are neutered (they're the ones we had when we first moved here, adopted from a rescue org.) We still have two females that aren't spayed yet. They are both strays that we've brought inside to keep them from getting pregnant until we figure out what to do. And of course, the kittens,

I've been looking into buying vaccines online and administering them myself--for everything but rabies, at least, which HAS to be done and verified by a professional. Apparently we can get feline leukemia plus the other routine vaccines in bulk for about a quarter of what we'd pay at the vet, and that would be enough to do all of the strays at once.

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. I just came from my local pet store. A local animal hospital hosted a low cost

clinic for vaccines/heart worm tests/flea meds and much more. Also microchips. The line was out the door. My female Yorkie got an update on her rabies vaccine for $8. A three yr vaccine was $18 but I only had $10 on me and they only took cash/checks. It was very inexpensive for all the services.

[Lyric]

59. We had a mobile clinic here this past summer

but it was only for rabies vaccination. I can't even remember the last time I saw an ad for a low-cost spay/neuter event, and I've never seen anything more than that.

My city does a pretty shitty job of that sort of thing, unfortunately. Par for the course in West Virginia, which is sad, because people here are largely low-income and could use that kind of help in a serious way. It's wonderful that the vets in your city volunteer like that.

[clear eye]

127. I think you are letting your sensibilities get in the way of really reducing suffering

If you feed one of a population of feral cats you are not reducing suffering but expanding it as that cat adds many that then starve. Most communities have at-cost spay/neuter clinics for rescued strays. At the very least you need to thoroughly investigate all avenues to cheaply spay or neuter any cat you rescue including an ad with your email asking for a donation posted on your supermarket's bulletin board. Or you could volunteer at your local humane society's feed/capture/spay-neuter program instead of taking in animals you can't sterilize. You would most likely make contacts there who would help you with your local cats. If you don't, I have to question exactly whose suffering are you trying to reduce--homeless cats or your own?

[clear eye]

133. Even some "kill" shelters have volunteer-run feed/capture/sterilize programs

that leave the feral cats in place. But you don't really want to know about those things do you? I mean you framed the question as "should poor people be allowed to own pets" so that people would say "of course they should" w/o mentioning that what you were looking for was ammunition in an argument w/ the other forum's poster who told you that it is irresponsible to feed homeless cats w/o sterilizing them. Even the answers to your push-poll shows that people agree the other poster--that you shouldn't help a starving kitten become a breeding age adult if it will only result in more starving kittens. All but one poster said that spay/neutering is the minimum moral obligation to rescuing cats. You got your answer. Nobody has begrudged that a poor person like yourself is keeping your two neutered cats and a dog. So we all agree that poverty shouldn't bar people from owning pets. But you aren't asking about them. You are asking about sparing yourself from seeing/hearing hungry cats even if it means that in the very near future you are causing the birth of more of the same. I, for one, resent the attempt to manipulate me.

[flvegan]

142. I love it when idiots put "kill" in front of shelters like it diminishes them.

Let me know when you've pushed the needle. Let me know when you've broken down because there's no space but another shelter won't take any animals because gawdfuckingforbid they have to euthanize and risk some shitass fucking $25 donors. Fucking sellouts.

And again, I'm going to ask at what point, very specifically, did the poster attempt to spare his/herself from seeing/hearing hungry cats even if it means that he/she is causing the birth of more of the same.

[clear eye]

144. I was using the language of the OPer in what she posted downthread.

She was saying that she couldn't take the kittens/cats to the local shelter because it is, and I quote, "a kill shelter". See post #45, and take it to the source.

[neomonkey]

40. Feed the kid or the dog first?

Banning is stupid.
Educating is not.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime sorta thing.

Collecting WIC because you can't budget your checkbook...because you can't eschew the consumerist pressures of society...because you've racked up so much debt that you can't pay to feed your own child?

Forget the animals, there are children who pay the price for bad financial management. Look, I'm not arguing WIC, but I know for a fact that some families insist on keeping an expensive pet at the expense of their own children.

Pets are a pricey committment, and not everyone should have one unlike what the Kool-Aid drinkers may tell you.

[Oregone]

43. Should Assholes be allowed to have pets (children/vote/drive), etc.

Because I'm much more concerned about that.

[undeterred]

57. assholes with road rage should not be allowed to drive

until they have been medically calmed down in a time out booth by the nurse

[tannybogus]

44. I was poor growing up.

I lived in an unpainted 4 room house. Lucky us though we had 2 screened in porches.I remember the very day and person I got my first cat from. I called her Kikitty.

I loved that cat to death and I still do. Do I qualify for your little list?? No, not on everything. Most of the people I knew growing up wouldn't qualify.

I took care of that cat like she had a pedigree as far as I could. She had a good life and I had a great one because of her. Anybody who wants to tell me I shouldn't have

gotten her can pound sand.

[JitterbugPerfume]

47. Allowed?

WTF !

[flvegan]

49. Good Lord, no.

Matter of fact, when we're adopting an animal out, income doesn't even come into the picture. Plus, there's going to be an awful lot of animals to euthanize if we ban the ownership of an animal due to monetary ability.

The spay/neuter would be mandatory, though.

oktoberain, I care for my rescues like they are my own dogs, and I know what a decent person you are. I'd happily adopt to you, and I am one strict bastard about who gets one of my critters. And if finances were a problem, we'd just call you an "permanent foster parent" and give you the food and monthly meds. I'm paying for it anyway, and it just creates a free space in my rescue for another dog to save.

[Lyric]

55. ...

:cry:

That meant the world to me. Thank you. Seriously.

We struggle so much, and we catch hell sometimes from people who don't understand that we're trying to help. We aren't the Bad Guys who are out there dropping off inconvenient cats, but we also aren't going to let them starve. Trailer parks are BIG abandonment zones--people assume that because there are so many households in one place, SOMEBODY will adopt the cat. It's so frustrating. It seems like at least once a month, we'll be followed home by some poor crying cat that hasn't had a square meal in a week. We re-home as many as we can, but it's hard. Nobody wants the females. They're too expensive to get spayed.

I'm just grateful that my wonderful, beautiful, "inside" dog is totally healthy and has never needed more than his annual rabies, food, water, shelter, and the enormous amount of love that we give him.

[clear eye]

135. So you are saying that you are "rescuing" female cats only to let them become pregnant with kittens

you don't know what to do with and can't afford to feed. And you blatantly ignored the part of the post you responded to that emphasized that spay/neuter is mandatory for an ethical "rescue". She didn't say what you choose to believe she said. If you're going to distort what you read here about something so important, you really shouldn't have imposed upon us. Nobody likes their words being twisted regarding an issue that's important to them.

[flvegan]

139. Hey, shitbag...over here.

I'm failing to see where that poster said that they were letting them become pregnant. What I read was that someone was doing what they could to feed and rehome, even though the females were tougher because of the cost of the spay.

Since the response you attack is a response to me, I'm going to take this one personally.

My words aren't being twisted, so fuck off. Didya hear that?

[clear eye]

143. Read again. In post #45

she said she was posting here because a poster to another forum told her she was being irresponsible when she took in a stray that she couldn't affortd to spay and it became pregnant. (She claimed he "yelled" at her.) And what she said about the cost of spay in post #55 was that she wasn't spaying them and potential adopters wouldn't take the females because they couldn't afford to spay them either. You've been had.

[Lyric]

155. Wrong.

I said we took in a female that wound up BEING pregnant, and instead of asking me to clarify, some asshole just *assumed* that WE were the ones who had allowed her to become pregnant and yelled at me for it. She was already pregnant when we found her--we just didn't realize it until a few days after she showed up outside and we started feeding her. At the time, she looked so small and young that I didn't even think that she was *old* enough to have had a heat cycle yet, but when we managed to coax her into allowed herself to be touched so I could put some Frontline on her, we saw that she was starting to develop larger, pink nipples and brought her inside. She had her kittens about 10 weeks ago, and we have already managed to safely home two of them. In the meantime, we have been keeping any female strays that we can catch *inside* to avoid them becoming pregnant--as I specifically said here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3993725#3993964

But thanks SO MUCH for demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior that I was talking about.

[clear eye]

161. You use misleading language and then call people "assholes"

who misunderstand you. "wound up" means "ended up" not "was already" or "turned out to be". But that fits with your need to sandbag people to discredit the opinion that maybe what you're doing (operating a rescue with no intention of finding funding for such an expensive enterprise) isn't quite as wonderful as you'd like to think it is. I think if you posted your real question "Should someone be allowed to operate a rescue without any funding or any plans for finding funding?" the answers would be quite different than what you elicited by falsely framing the issue as "Should poor people be allowed to have pets?".

Keeping intact females indoors indefinitely is not viable birth control. They will be desperate to get out and Toms will be desperate to get in until they are pregnant. If you manage miraculously to avoid that, odds are that the females will go into an endless cycle of heats with only short breaks and will be miserable.

If you won't block it I will send you the list of subsidized spay/neuter programs in WV. If, as is likely, none of these is near you, you need to develop a small fund-raising strategy before you take in any more animals. See if any of the groups on the list will intercede with a vet near you to get you a substantial discount. Give your rescue a name, visit the most prosperous church in your area, talk to the person who chairs their charity committee (or whatever they call it) and leave a flyer w/your email address explaining the problem in the trailer park and exactly how you intend to use any donations. You should be specific about how many cats you expect to rescue per year, e.g. 6 males and 3 females. People are much more likely to give to someone who is actually reducing the problem by spaying, than to someone who is either keeping or handing out unspayed animals only to create more unwanted kittens. Operating a small rescue takes even more of an investment in time for fund-raising than for animal care--equal to the time needed to locate homes.

Have you even contacted your county's Humane Society to tell them you would like to do limited rescue of strays in your trailer park but need assistance with spay/neuter? It will take persistence to really reduce suffering; as least as much as you've spent online trying to get people to agree with you that you don't need money for animal rescue. If you don't think you're being self-centered and manipulative, prove me wrong.

[nam78_two]

76. Thank you flvegan-you are right on

There is some amazingly cold stuff I see in threads of this kind.

[CitizenLeft]

175. when I adopted my rescue Sandy...

...I was grilled to the wall by the foster family who had her. Some of the questions were patronizing - unrelated to income, btw, they never asked me anything about that. Sandy had been dumped back on them TWICE by people who (1) couldn't get their other dogs to accept her and (2) someone who decided they didn't want to be bothered. So they were extremely harsh in making sure that "this dog COMES BACK HERE if you change your mind, NOT a shelter." And I had to sign a contract to that effect.

I walked away feeling very happy that there are people who are so concerned for the dog that they grilled me before handing Sandy over to me. I was grateful. There was NO CHANCE I would ever send her back - my 2 Dalmatians had hissy fits when I brought her home, too - one was seriously hostile to her - but we worked through it. So good for you!

It broke my heart, too, to think that such a sweet, gentle, obedient, loving dog like Sandy could be dumped into a pound, rescued just before being euthanized, then dumped twice more. And I know it happens to children too - doubly heartbreaking. I don't understand people at all. :(

[clear eye]

180. The poster misled us by asking if it was ok for her to take in a cat as a pet

since she's poor, when what she meant (read posts #45 & #55) is do we think it's ok for her to "rescue" cats to rehome even though she can't afford to sterilize them, isn't looking for a funding source, and is only able to solicit for adopters her equally struggling neighbors who won't take the females due to the high cost of spaying. In other words, she wanted to use our support for her right to have pets, as approval for running a small rescue operation w/o any money or a web page or any serious effort to solicit donations and adopters. If you want to help, it would be better to host something for her on a website, than encourage her to keep doing what will shortly end up as runaway breeding in her trailer despite what she thinks. Ever try to keep a female cat in heat indoors and the eager Toms out over the long run? And if by some miracle she can, the females will begin to cycle into almost continual heat which will make them miserable.

[undeterred]

52. you might as well ask if the poor should be allowed to have children

or drive cars. There are plenty of people who can't provide well for their children and we don't take their children away.

I lived on the south side of Chicago for many years in the Hyde Park neighborhood. When I needed work done on my car, I had it done on the south side, usually on Western avenue. I remember a mechanic telling me that there were lots of people driving around out there without working brakes- because they couldn't afford to get them fixed. People lived from paycheck to paycheck, and he would see them when they had the money to get stuff done. He was basically warning me- that there were a lot of drivers out there who couldn't stop.

I think we need to be on the side of compassion and think about how we can raise the economy rather than punish the poor.

[MadrasT]

54. Yes, poor people should be allowed to have pets.

In my opinion, giving an animal a home and love is not dependent on income. There are more cats and dogs than there are people who are willing to love them and care for them. Millions are euthanized in shelters every year. Some humanely, and some quite horribly in gas chambers and with heart sticks.

As long as they animals are SPAYED/NEUTERED so they don't keep reproducing, I would rather place a cat in a home where it will be loved, fed, and have a roof over its head than send it to die at an SPCA or let it wander the streets fending for itself.

Yes, a person with more money is in a better position to be able to provide both regular and emergency veterinary care to a pet. But love and compassion is not dependent on income.

Disclaimer: I have been a volunteer with a nonprofit cat rescue for years. I've seen it all. Poor people coming to us, begging for veterinary help for a beloved sick pet, poor people who abuse their pets, rich people who spend thousands in veterinary care, and rich people who abandon their pets because they don't match the sofa. I shit you not. And mostly, lots of people like me. Middle class, take the cats to the vet for routine preventative care, willing to dig deep if one needs special treatment, and mostly, genuinely adoring their animals and doing the very best they can for them.

[clear eye]

129. Totally agree with your post

However the OPer is not spay/neutering her "rescues". She claims to be feeding them so they won't starve but has no idea what she'll do about the next generation.

[MadrasT]

132. That's a problem...

I'm heavily involved in trying to get affordable S/N available to anyone who needs it. We're making headway in this area, but there are some areas of the country (if not most) where there are NO low cost spay/neuter resources.

I spend more time working on S/N issues than rescuing at this point. Got to turn off the "kitten faucet", not mop up the flood!

[Vanje]

58. Nope

You don need Frontline or Advantage. Old fashioned Flea powder still works.
One does NOT need to visit a vet for worming and shots (except Rabies, and low cost rabies clinics are available from time to time for about 5 bucks every 3 years.)




I own 5 dogs and 2 cats, and a lot of sheep. Am I a hoarder?
My dogs are trained. Very trained. Am I an abuser?
I dont feed much dog food. My canines eat home -butchered natural grown MEAT.
You better sit down for this one. Three of my dogs are un-neutered. Yes. Thats right. Reproductively intact. Gasp!
Does that make me a puppy mill? (Note that I've never allowed these dogs to breed. I have produced no more puppies than had they been castrated and spayed.

People who spend time worrying about how others are getting along with their pets, ought to spend more time helping, Less time judging.

[Lyric]

61. I think hoarders are pretty easily identified.

They're the people who have 40 or 50 animals all stuffed into one house--crappy living conditions, diseases, etc. It's really a mental illness. You're nowhere near a hoarder.

[LeftyMom]

60. If people care for an animal, they find a way to provide care.

I'm, to use the technical term, really fucking broke. I have three cats of my own, and I take in others as needed. They all get good food, and whatever medical care they need. While this probably contributes to my really fucking broke-ness, I'd no more let them go without anything I was able to provide than I would my son.

That said, I didn't have the cash to get the kittens I had recently fixed before adopting them out, so I did the next best thing and had the adopting families make an appointment before placing the kitten. That's not really the "correct" way to do it, but the kittens got taken care of, and all is well. If they'd had to wait for somebody with more money to throw at the problem to offer to foster them, they'd have wound up in our local kill shelter and they'd almost certainly all be dead.

Also, there just aren't enough homes to go around as is. If, as people who care about animals, we start rejecting good homes for not being ideal homes, a lot of animals are going to die waiting for the ideal adopter who never comes.

[Lyric]

64. I think you've made the best statement in the thread.

If, as people who care about animals, we start rejecting good homes for not being ideal homes, a lot of animals are going to die waiting for the ideal adopter who never comes.

That's really what it comes down to, right there.

As for our household, we do as much as we can. I get good flea meds (because fleas are a serious problem with the cats around here) but that's about as much as I can do right now. There are just too many of them; we are literally taking care of *eleven* strays on top of our own two neutered cats and our dog. Five of them are kittens, and the rest are an assorted mix of abandoned pets and a couple of ferals that sneak up to eat when I put food outside. I managed to catch one last time, and we tamed him down (I'd bet anything that he wasn't born feral--he tamed too fast) and managed to find a good home for him with an elderly woman who's an aunt of my neighbor's. As for the rest...we feed, we give them love when they want it, and we hope.

Have you heard anything about the safety of vaccines purchased online? I've been trying to figure out how to get these strays vaccinated without having to pay for hauling them all to the vet, and buying a bulk order online seems like it would save us a TON of money. I used to administer my Mom's shots for her, so I think I can manage giving cats a shot or two. I just don't want to spend $150 on a bunch of vaccine if it's not a safe, effective thing to do, ya know?

[LeftyMom]

69. From a reputable pharmacy they should be fine.

My only concern is that some shots (at least human shots, not sure about pet ones) need temperature control, so that might be a concern depending on the time of year and the shipping method. Though someplace reputable should know proper handling.

Some feed stores also sell vaccinations for administering yourself.

[Lyric]

72. The place I am considering getting them from

ships them overnight-only in some kind of cooled packaging, I believe. I'll check to be sure, though.

[LeftyMom]

77. Sounds like you'll be fine then.

As long as you've got info on how to administer (location, depth, size of needle) and know what you're doing, almost anybody can administer a shot, and your cats be much more comfortable at home with familiar people instead of at the vet's office.

[clear eye]

130. Notice you've picked out the one response out of dozens

that agrees with idea that it is ethically responsible to save animals lives w/o regard to the creation of dozens of suffering offspring. Why'd you bother to ask? Again just whose suffering are you taking care of--the homeless cats or your own when you see them? If you do your best by sterilizing and feeding one stray you will be reducing suffering. If you feed and vaccinate a dozen w/o sterilizing them you are creating the suffering of hundreds. You didn't like it when your neighbor said it, and I'm sure you don't like it when I do, but it's the truth.

[LeftyMom]

182. That's not what I said at all.

You can look on this thread or any other- I'm a big advocate of spay/neuter and have offered to help others find low-cost resources or to chip on for altering an animal more than once.

I'm just saying that there aren't enough families with amazing financial resources, so either we have to help out well-intentioned low-income caregivers, or we're going to have even more animals die for lack of homes.

[clear eye]

192. I don't doubt it. But Oktoberain chose this particular post

to praise because it didn't mention spay/neutering. When I sent her a message with contact info for all the subsidized spay/neuter programs in WV, and a short suggestion or two on how to raise a little money for the part that isn't covered, she put me on "ignore". (I'm broke too, so I truly can't offer money.) She now has 11 unsterilized "rescues", and keeps the females locked up in her trailer as birth control (which is likely to fail, knowing cats). She won't take any of the homeless cats in the park to the nearest shelter because it is, in her words, "a kill shelter", hasn't researched the nearest "no-kill" shelter or made a serious effort to get a ride to transport the cats. I tried to send her a link to a page with links to the sites of around 50 cat rescue groups in her state, but that was when I found I had been put on "ignore". I copied the info into a post below (#187), telling her that if she contacts a bunch of groups in her general area, outlines the situation at the trailer park and offers to be a foster home, someone may be able to help her with the costs of "fixing" the cats and/or finding homes with people who can afford to reimburse her, but she won't see that post unless someone else copies it and sends it to her. The only thing she wants is for people to tell her that what she's doing is not only enough, but wonderful, even if it isn't. With her refusal to really seek out the help she needs, it is all too predictable how this is going to turn out.

[CitizenLeft]

177. can relate to fucking broke-ness

I'm very very blessed. My vet - damned expensive, too, they've got to be one of the most expensive vets in the area - has allowed me (and I'm sure others) to pay in installments in the past if there's an emergency. I don't know how common this is amongst veterinarians, I'm thinking it's not. Their clientele is, generally, upper-class. But high vet fees probably cover people like me who sometimes don't have the money at the time. Rather than let the animal suffer, they do what they can to treat the pet, and let you pay later. There have been times when I couldn't pay even the installments, but they were patient, and always got their money eventually. Now I'm lucky enough, at the moment, to be able to pay as I go, and am willing to pay the higher costs in exchange for the chance to NOT have to pay on demand in the future, if necessary. I wish there were more vets like this. I know at least one other vet in the city that is low-cost, pay later - it's in a very poor neighborhood. Bless them for that.

[clear eye]

193. Many shelters use that same way of making sure the adoptee is "fixed".

Nothing wrong with it to me. Unfortunately, the OPer has said that the people in her area to whom she's able to offer the cats, are too broke themselves to even consider adopting an unspayed female.

[Barack_America]

65. Wow. Why didn't you ask the question of whether the government should be making animal care...

....more accessible to low-income people?
pr
Particularly through offering low-cost spay and neutering programs and covering the cost of at least rabies vaccinations? After all, pet overpopulation and rabies are considered to be a HUMAN public health problem.

Would it be more cost effective for the government to offer animal care assistance than to operate the overtaxed animal shelters and animal control services that they currently do?

That I feel is a relevant question. But the question of whether people should be denied the opportunity to bond with an animal due to their economic status is not appropriate, IMO.

[Lyric]

67. I honestly believe that

if the government offered to pay for JUST spay/neuter services alone, it would cost VASTLY less than operating the countless shelters around the country, and would practically pay for itself. I'd support any kind of low-income animal care assistance, of course, but just the spay/neuter subsidy alone would produce almost miraculous results.

Of course, the Repukes with their shallow minds and tiny brains wouldn't see it that way. They'd see another "government handout," regardless of the long-term savings, and throw their weight behind getting rid of it. God, it's frustrating.

[wellstone dem]

70. Who gets to be chief of the "poor" police.

Being poor is hard enough without the rest of us deciding what they can eat, whether they can have pets, whether they can use their money for clothes from the thrift store, target, or garage sales. Being poor doesn't mean everyone else gets to look over a person's shoulder.

Let's spend lots of money monitoring the poor rather than educating folks, feeding folks, mentoring folks, counseling folks.

[bobbolink]

202. Thank you, wellstone dem! You are true to your namesake.

I'm appalled at the attitudes of the "progressives".

It's ever so much fun to decide for others one considers inferior.

:nuke:

[Brazenly Liberal]

73. I would hope that someone who is unable to give an animal the care it needs

would voluntarily wait until s/he can do so before owning a pet. In the meantime, animal shelters and veterinarians' offices/hospitals often are desperate for volunteers to spend time with their animals and help take care of them.

All the things you mention are important to the animal's well-being. I realize a few of them sound frivolous on the surface, but they're really not:

---food. A lot of people don't realize it, but pet food companies are only required to update the ingredients information on their packaging twice a year, regardless of how often the ingredients actually change. In between, all sorts of cheap nasty crap is put into the low end food. It can cause a number of health problems. Dogs, who are much more susceptible to seizure disorders than humans to begin with, are even more so if they eat poor quality food.

---flea treatment. Even dogs who are indoors most of the time and only go out for walks need to be treated in areas where fleas are a problem (which is most places). Flea bite allergies are common in dogs and cats and are absolutely miserable for the poor animal. One flea can bite an animal hundreds(!!!) of times a day and there's never just one. Tapeworms are spread by eating fleas. Flea preventives like Frontline also help to prevent problems with ticks - Lyme disease, Ehrlichiosis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Tick Paralysis, etc.

---"shots, deworming, and all other "routine" care" If you've never seen an animal die from some of the diseases they are in very real danger of getting without shots, deworming and routine care, you'll have to take my word for it that it's something nobody who loves animals would intentionally do to them. I used to be the manager of a veterinary clinic and there would always be people who didn't want to pay for Heartgard for their pets. In some areas, the odds of a dog or cat getting heartworm without Heartgard approach 100%. It's a miserable thing. If it's still in the treatable stage, the dog is given an arsenic compound. S/he cannot be allowed to run or play for up to a month after, but that's usually not a problem because they feel so freaking lousy they have no desire to do anything.

---money for emergency treatment. If you have an ongoing relationship with a vet, s/he may be willing to work out payments for emergency care, but if you haven't been going in for that other stuff, it's pretty unlikely, so what would you do? Just let the animal hurt and hope it gets better on its own? Play doctor and treat it yourself? Shoot it?

---spay/neuter. Spaying/neutering prevents a number of illnesses. While even a "regular" heat can be unpleasant for a cat or dog, a female who is not spayed can go into a constant repeat heat cycle, which is miserable for her. And there is the obvious business of millions of unloved, unwanted, often abused puppies and kittens born in the US every year.

I'm not in favor of legislation on this - it would be nearly impossible to enforce and the attempt would undoubtedly be a bureaucratic mess. I would hope that someone who cares enough about animals to want to live with one would care enough about them to realize they need more than 4 walls and a bowl of Ol' Roy.

edited to clarify: Someone told me this looked like I was saying low income people shouldn't own pets. Upon rereading it, I see she is absolutely right - it does look that way. I'm not saying that at all. It sometimes comes down to priorities. Many people, including some in this thread, have given animals a good home by sacrificing other things when we had to. When I read the posts above where people have gone hungry or let other bills go unpaid to feed or care for an animal, I have no problem believing them because we've done that, too. My car is sitting behind the barn, unusable because the money to fix the brakes went on vet care for our latest rescue (a neglected beagle, very sad story but now being given a happy ending :) ).

[hlthe2b]

78. This is really offensive... I know you want to be provocative..

and I suppose you succeeded.


Sadly, there are some who would grant no rights, no humanity, no dignity to anyone without money. While I don't belive the OP feels that way, the fact that there are many who would immediately "agree" with that premise, makes me very ill. It is as offensive a premise as there could be.

[Lyric]

81. It was offensive when someone said it to me, too.

It hurt like hell, to be honest. My intention was not to be unduly provocative. It was to get people to examine the issue from a broader perspective, and maybe talk about it honestly. A home with a poor person is better than no home at all, and a lot of people don't really consider that aspect when pronouncing their judgements upon others.

I managed to fail at that. Half the people here seem to think that *I* want poor people to be banned from having pets--even after my clarification in the OP. I even wound up with someone making a cruel copycat over it, for the sole purpose of humiliating me. I've been at DU for a few years, now, and that was definitely a first.

[hlthe2b]

87. Well, I could not agree more with your sentiment..

I have observed some of our homeless with their dogs-- clearly as well cared for, loved, well-behaved and incredibly fortunate as compared to many the pooch ignored by their all-too busy wealthy owners, who view them as merely another possession.


This was one of the most poignant issues around Katrina that will haunt me to my death... That the poor were not only left to die, but when offered a chance of rescue or evacuation, they were required to leave their precious pets behind. I still have a hole in my heart, a lump in my throat and tears just barely held below the surface, when I think of their compounded pain... Humans can be so very cruel.

[tpsbmam]

80. When I was about 18 I got my first dog

(other than my childhood dog). There were times I was so poor I had to decide -- feed my beloved dog or feed me. Of course, it was never really even a decision or a question. The dog never missed a meal -- I, however, would sometimes go for a couple of days without eating.

He never missed a vet appointment, had first-rate vet care when he developed a back problem (long-backed dog -- common problem) ate GREAT quality food, led a very healthy and happy life and outlived most dogs I know. By the time he died at age 17, I was 35 and my life was better -- his never suffered no matter how much money I had.

You can't judge a person by their income -- judge by the person. I have two dogs at the moment. I'm not poor but I'm certainly not rich. One had a health crisis last January that drained my savings account of $1500, money I have yet to fully replace. The other is a little fairly recent rescue who clearly had terrible neglect and nutrition before he came to his forever home with me -- he just cost me $715 in dental bills (7 teeth pulled and major oral surgery). I can't afford that either and my savings account is again getting way lower than I'm comfortable with. So yeah, I know that someone who is poorer than I am might not have been able to pay for either of those things and the animals would have suffered as a result. But here's the thing -- if either one of them has another major crisis in like the next six months, I'm not sure how I'll pay for it. If there's some major illness like cancer, there's nothing I can do about it (and I'm not convinced I would if I were a billionaire.....I struggle with that one). So does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to give these two precious souls a VERY happy, pampered life? Does that mean that I shouldn't have adopted an abandoned, abused, neglected animal because I know if he gets cancer 5 years from now there will be nothing financially I can do about it?

[varelse]

82. Pet ownership should be off limits

to cruel people. Abusers, hoarders, "puppy mill" owners, and the like. Such people have proven by their own deliberate choices and actions, that they are not to be trusted with pets.

Poverty, on the other hand, is a condition imposed from outside, for which there are many possible political and social solutions that are far more compassionate and just, it is one to which most of us are susceptible without "prior notice" - and by itself, it does not prevent adequate care of a pet. Thus, declaring pet ownership off limits to poor people is arbitrary and unreasonable.

And boy, and I relieved that you edited that OP. :)

[Jamastiene]

83. Yes.

Poor people SHOULD be allowed to have pets. Whoever told you that nonsense is being an asshole, plain and simple.

[lonestarnot]

85. I had 6 dogs at one time once. Yes I went a little overboard trying to give

homeless homes. They all ate good and were fat and sassy, had lots of treats and love. No dental care though, just chew bones. The two that died one lived her life out to be an old dog. I had to put her down when her little body wore out. One died suddenly, either poisoned by neighbor who hates them, heat stroke from being outside, or something. Anyway she was found running down the street in traffic. When we advertised for her owner, no one answered. She was always having fun and loved her dog family. One had to go to a rescue society because she got into a serious killer fight with my old dog who no one would have but me. She was a beautiful dog and as smart as any dog I've ever had. When I found her this great home with some rich people, I never inquired about her after the day I said goodbye. Then there is my little problem child, I'll just call him big butt. He was abandoned by a rich doctor and his family, they moved and didn't want to take him with them after owning him for 5 to 7 years. Go figure. Then there is my little dog. She just recently presented with glaucoma. I am in such a quandry as to what to do about her. She is about 8 or 9, and I saved her from being drowned in a water bucket because she has a brown nose instead of a black nose. :wtf: Any ways, she is about to break me up in vet bills (all of which I charged on a fucking credit card) She still has one eye that she can see out of but the bad eye's pressure is remaining high and the eye is going to have to be removed. I don't know what to do other than remove it, but how am I going to afford that, I was quoted 2K today. Unfuckingbelievable. I was given a prescription for new medication today for another $100.00 bottle of eye drops to give me time to check around for a vet that can do the whatever it's called to remove the eye. I have thought about her life and how she would have been killed as a puppy because of her nose, and how she has enjoyed running in the yard going for walks, riding in the car, going camping, eating human food on Sundays, playing with her adopted sisters and enjoying being loved. Other than the eye, she is perfectly healthy, but what to do is the question. Do I put her to sleep? That is the cheapest route. Take out her eye and break the credit card company and my budget paying it back with interest? I don't know what I will end up doing yet. I'm going to see if animal wealfare league or an organization like that can help me. At any rate, back to the answer to your question, if you can't afford the basics, like food, and treatment for relief of pain, maybe a gold fish would be a better pet as going hungry for a mom who wants companionship to me is not right. But if it's because you can't afford to have their teeth clean, hair groomed, unless it is for comfort, then you are doing ok. They are just poor pets who live with a poor family, like mine. But they still have had a chance to be comfortable, have life and be loved. :)

[Withywindle]

89. Of course they should!

I'm glad I read your edit and the rest of the thread before I jumped in with guns blazing. :hug:

I'm not really poor, I guess, but I live pretty paycheck-to-paycheck and I don't feel financially secure in the least. I held off on getting another cat for two years after my Marlowe died - he had diabetes, and I took on a LOT of debt and had a lot of anxiety attacks over money while treating him.

It was the staff at the *shelter* who convinced me it was OK to adopt again with my income and my fears, as long as I got a young and healthy cat and stayed in touch with vets who would do payment plans and sliding-scale care if necessary. (I think they wanted me to because (a) it was already known I was the kind of person who'd give insulin shots to a cranky-old-man tabby twice a day if necessary, and (b) the cat I had fallen in love with was a bitey little terror who'd been there four months and they weren't going to let a chance to get rid of her walk out the door. :D)

Now I joke, "Hey, Madimi, if I get laid off again we'll have to find a brand of cat food we can agree on." I would if I had to. (Dirty secret: I've done it before. Ick. But it's protein.)

Is a less-than-ideal home by your standards worse than death or starvation or a miserable life spent entirely in a shelter cage?

Honestly it makes me think of fundie creeps militantly opposed to adoption by single people or gay/lesbian couples because they do sincerely believe in their fucked-up way that it's not good for the kids--but they have no plan whatsoever of what they think is a better deal for the millions of homeless, loveless children in the world. But as far as the child or the animal is concerned, love is always better than no love.

[Naturyl]

90. Whoever told you poor poeople should not be allowed pets...

...is an ass. Case closed.

God... the shit we have to listen to.

[datasuspect]

92. i think the only people who should own pets are the ones that feed them table scraps

and wal mart dog food and let them ride in the back of a pick truck while deer hunting.

[catrose]

95. My 10 year old cat just died

Previously her only vet expenses besides shots were from her first year and the time a few years ago when she walked across a hot stove.

There are so many low-cost and free spay/neuter/shot clinics around here that there's no excuse not to have those for your pet, and the clients obviously love their pets very much.

[adamuu]

106. Who's gonna stop them?

I think our police have better things to do.

[wickerwoman]

115. Exactly.

There's a huge colony of feral and stray cats around my apartment building. Poorer families don't go to the pet shop and buy a cat. They just spot a kitten they like and take it home. Since a lot of the kittens in the colony end up abused or dead, I have to think that the kittens adopted by poor families do better, even if they aren't fed human-grade pet food or given expensive medication when they get sick.

Are the police going to come and pull the cats out of these homes? What are they going to do with them? Dump them back on the streets or take them to the kill shelters? If there were that many loving homes, there wouldn't be a huge feral cat colony in the first place.

[adamuu]

158. one day a declawed cat appeared at my parents back door, crying desperately for a new home

the houses are very far apart...
I guess this is the rich-people version of abandoning your pet.

[KathieG]

109. Having pets doesn't have to cost a fortune...pet ownership should be within reach

of almost anyone with simple budgeting. My husband and I drive older vehicles, we have a tight grocery budget, and we don't spend a whole lot on entertainment so that we can maintain our 9 furry kids (3 horses, 3 dogs, 3 cats). I will eat Ramen noodles 3 meals a day if I have to in order to make sure the furry kids are fed, vaccinated, dewormed, and deflead!

Here is a book I highly recommend for those interested in saving money on pet care...I am saving a lot of money now thanks to this book...http://www.amazon.com/Afford-Veterinary-Care-Without-Mortgaging/dp/0977702707

[ThoughtCriminal]

111. Health benefits

http://www.cdc.gov/HEALTHYPETS/health_benefits.htm

Most households in the United States have at least one pet. Why do people have pets? There are many reasons. Some of the health benefits of pets are listed below.

Pets can decrease your:

Blood pressure
Cholesterol levels
Triglyceride levels
Feelings of loneliness

Pets can increase your:

Opportunities for exercise and outdoor activities
Opportunities for socialization

----

These are all problems that the poor face.

We don't have a pet now, but yes we did through both poverty and prosperity, and having a dog really helped us cope with the former.

When you have over 100 replies and zero recs...

[Withywindle]

116. That's another important angle.

I have depression, and I've come to realize having a little friend is as important as medication, decent diet and sleep, etcetera, in managing it. I'm alone, but not lonely. She's a cat, she doesn't really do much--she doesn't have to. She just has to be cute and warm and funny and glad to see me.

There've been plenty of days when I'm so ragged out by it I can't be arsed to get out and take care of myself...but I'll do it for her.

[slampoet]

119. Poor People NEED SECURITY MORE THAN YOU DO. Dogs guard things.

Someone grow up here and walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

[a la izquierda]

121. Cesar Millan's teachings...

have done wonders for my dogs. If he thinks that frequently homeless people's dogs are often the best off, than yes, poor people with loving hearts can have pets. Just because you can't put your dog in a Gucci dog bag (which is the dumbest fucking thing in the world, mind you) doesn't mean you're not a good dog owner. I can't afford that. My vet would vouch that my husband and I are probably the best dog owners he's ever met.
Homeless and/or poor people know how to love and love is what animals need. Food, water and reasonable shelter will come along too. My dogs only needed love. They didn't give a rat's ass that they got a bed to sleep in next to humans. That they got companionship and someone that wouldn't beat them was all they asked.

[obamaforme]

131. Cesar Millan - my hero.

He has tought me so much about dogs. I have had dogs all of my life - and I am not rich by any means. I always got shelter dogs who are most appreciative of anything you do for them. I love dogs. They are man's/woman's best friends. My dog saved my life during a house fire.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated . . . I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty by man" - Gandhi

[CitizenLeft]

178. ain't that the truth

I always got shelter dogs who are most appreciative of anything you do for them. I love dogs.

They become so loyal and attached to you that it hurts, sometimes, to see how grateful they are just to be loved.

[Tutonic]

125. I saw a dog one day on a property that was decrepit and the dog

was emaciated to the point of being unable to walk without swaggering and falling over. I couldn't stop in time so turned around about two blocks up and circled back but he was nowhere to be found. For about two months after that I would detour on my way home and drive past the area looking for the dog. Never saw him/her again. Still bothers me when I occasionally pass that location. Can't understand how someone rich or poor would allow an animal to waste away like that. Inhumane.

[doc03]

126. By that reasoning should poor people even be

allowed to have children?

[clear eye]

134. The OPer is not really asking if poor people like herself should be allowed pets.

If you read her later posts you find that she has two neutered cats and a dog that are not the subject of her question. She is asking for ammunition to use against a poster from another forum who told her it was cruel and irresponsible to feed a hungry feral or stray cat until it was old enough to bear many more starving cats. She just framed her question that way to manipulate the responses in her favor. She is as self-centered in dealing with DUers as she is in sparing herself from having to look at a hungry cat w/o asking herself what will happen when there are too many for her to feed? What is the kindness of multiplying suffering that way?

[Tallison]

154. I figured this was a spin-off

The best course is to take the cat to a shelter and not starve it or enable its reproduction. Shelters will ensure against either happening to the animal she ostensibly cares about.

[clear eye]

188. Of course, but she says she can't because the nearest shelter

is, in her words, "a kill shelter". And she goes online here instead of getting busy 1)Googling the nearest "no-kill" shelter since she has such a strong opposition to euthanasia, and 2)calling everyone she knows for a ride there for the cats. She has 11 of these cats, including some kittens from a pregnant female in her trailer home. She can't find them homes because she doesn't have the resources to constitute herself as a legal shelter, so she can't post on petfinders.com and her neighbors can't afford to spay them anymore than she can. I sent her contact info about subsidized spay/neuter programs in WV, and a suggestion or two about how to raise a little money to pay for the rest, and she responded by putting me on "ignore". She claims that she is doing fine by keeping the females locked up in the trailer. We all know how this is going to turn out.

[Tallison]

190. Oh dear, it sounds like her cats are fulfilling some kind of needs of hers,

not vice versa. The fact that they're already having litters shows how misguided her 'plan' is. If she only appreciated the long-term suffering she was inflicting on their progeny, she would realize how much better taking them to the shelter is now, vs. 10x the number later when they overwhelm her resources, as they will eventually. What simple-minded thinking. :eyes:

[clear eye]

194. To be fair

her cats haven't bred. Yet. The cat that gave birth was already expecting when she got it. But if she doesn't link up with an established rescue group, it's only a matter of time. I've done her research for her in post #187, but since she's put me on "ignore" she'll only see it if someone else copies and sends it to her.

[Tallison]

195. Copied, pasted, and PM'd to her

Damn, that was a lot of legwork you did! :hi:

[clear eye]

197. Thank you n/t

[Lyric]

156. What kind of person

would look at someone who feeds starving cats that someone ELSE abandoned as "self-centered?" You made an incorrect judgement about me and are slandering me over and over based upon it. You are utterly wrong. I do not "allow" these stray cats to breed willy-nilly.

Go read my other response to you, and stop making an ass of yourself.

[JackDragna]

137. It's a hard issue.

Pets do wonders for people, but at the same time, it's not good to place pets in a situation where the people owning them cannot provide the basics necessary to keep the pet healthy. I have a friend who's a vet and she's told me some pretty heartbreaking stuff about animals that end up pretty badly hurt or neglected because their owners claim they cannot take care of them properly.

[AtomicKitten]

138. Allowed? Of course. Discouraged? Yes.

It costs a wad to care for pets. Particularly elderly pets. It is a lifetime commitment, and too many people don't understand that.

CraigsList is littered with people "re-homing" pets because of a new baby, pesky landlord, etc. Animal abusers prey on those listings. But CraigsList also offers the option to search for an apartment using the criteria of accepting pets.

Adoption is a promise of a forever home, and that's a promise that is sacred.

[progressivebydesign]

140. Tough call, but pets do deserve to have proper care.

I hate knowing how many pets get put to death because there is not enough homes for them. However, so many pets are put to death because people took them on without thinking enough about how much it costs to feed and care for them properly. when times are tight, pets get dumped. And as more and more landlords are slamming the door in the face of pet owners, it gets even tougher.

Someone should have a stable living environment, enough money to feed at least grocery store food, and enough money to spay/neuter, get shots, and basic care including flea meds. Unless the pet gets seriously ill, those things should not cost that much money. And if you cannot afford those things, then perhaps pet ownership is not the best choice. Better that somene gets into a better life position before they take on the responsibility of another living creature...

[progressivebydesign]

141. Tough call, but pets do deserve to have proper care.

I hate knowing how many pets get put to death because there is not enough homes for them. However, so many pets are put to death because people took them on without thinking enough about how much it costs to feed and care for them properly. when times are tight, pets get dumped. And as more and more landlords are slamming the door in the face of pet owners, it gets even tougher.

Someone should have a stable living environment, enough money to feed at least grocery store food, and enough money to spay/neuter, get shots, and basic care including flea meds. Unless the pet gets seriously ill, those things should not cost that much money. And if you cannot afford those things, then perhaps pet ownership is not the best choice. Better that somene gets into a better life position before they take on the responsibility of another living creature...

[Hubert Flottz]

148. If you love your pets you do all you can for them.

And they know it.

[bread_and_roses]

159. It's not about "allowed" it's about real, tough neutering and liscencing laws

I just scanned through this entire thread and if anyone mentioned the appalling figures on dogs killed in shelters every year I missed it (admittedly did not read every word). The most common figure I read is 4 MILLION. And there have to be at least that many feral cats suffering, breeding, dying out there.

Unless people are OK with that, then one has to think we are doing something wrong in terms of animal control.

Saying people "ought to" take care of their pets doesn't work, bemoaning human cruelty doesn't work, relying on adoption doesn't work, and over one-hundred years of education efforts by org like the Humane Society have not worked. Which, it seems to me, leaves tough laws as the only answer. By that I mean that it should be expensive to liscence a dog OR cat, and VERY VERY expensive to liscence an un-neutered animal - dog OR cat. If people want to buy purebred dogs from breeders, they will have to pay enough to offset the VERY VERY expensive un-neutered liscencing fees. Violations should be stiffly fined and the animals confiscated. Use the higher fees to hire enough animal welfare/control officers to enforce the law. Combine that with a sustained advertising and animal-welfare org driven education effort that aims to change the social "norm" around pet owning to make neglect and breeding as socially unacceptable as drunk driving is now (younger people will not remember but there was a time and drinking and driving was considered normal behavior and killing someone because you were driving drunk was "bad luck" and generally garnered light penalties).

Of course, we also need good, family-wage jobs for everyone who wants one, and a social safety net adequate for those who can't/won't work. Family wage jobs should make it possible for those who truely want a pet to own one. Animal welfare orgs could shift focus to help those too poor to pay the fees but able and willing to care for a pet, I suppose (I don't think charity is the answer to much of anything, but that might be an exception).

I love dogs and have a vast respect and affection for cats. I've had dogs most of my life (no puppies, ever) but now only have a cat because I am home too little to care for a dog properly. I am NOT ok with 4 million dogs killed in shelters every year, or with the suffering, public health hazard, and wildlife hazard of feral dogs and cats.

Somewhere in California not too long ago a law similar to what I outline was proposed not too long ago - it was killed by lobbying from the breeders. Tell me again how much THEY love animals?

[LWolf]

160. Responsible pet owners should be allowed to have pets

regardless of their income.

Pets reduce stress and provide companionship. When kept as family members, responsibly, they increase quality of life, regardless of income.

Poor people have the right to increase the quality of their lives, too.

Should poor people be allowed to have family?

That's what my animals are. Family.

[Leeny]

162. I don't feel that way at all

It's up to you to decide what you may need to give up or cut back on in order to live within your means. Pets are family. I think that it's insensitive and plain rude to suggest that you should give up your pets. If YOU decided that you could no longer care for them then you could make the decision to find them a new home... but again, that's up to you. Tell those "helpful" busybodies to take care of their own business.
:pals:

[Pathwalker]

164. Two of my cats were "drop-offs". Abandoned by others. They showed up

at our house, crying, hungry, scared, and desperate. We adopted them both, to the dismay of our other two cats, but they have now made peace with it - for the most part. We joked that maybe we should name the last one "Foreclosure Cat", but decided against it. We are now the servants of four cats, and boy, do they keep us busy!

[demwing]

165. The Real question, IMO: "Should the Government EVER Be Allowed ...

to impose decisions of this nature?" Stay the hell outta my personal life. Don't take my choices by making my choices.

If I mistreat an animal, punish me after the fact. That punishment should serve as a deterrent to others, and that is all that is needed.
Why are we even talking about this? It seems to me that in a free society, the answer is obvious.

Abdicate responsibility, and you give Big Brother an invite to your life. The next thing after pets will be children. Why not? Are human lives less critical than dogs and cats? And if we allow the government to choose who can raise children, we're a small step away from having the government decide who can conceive children. The ultimate mandate resulting from the loss of that right would be forced sterilizations, or restriction on sexual contact.

I know it sounds extreme and outrageous, but who would have guessed in 2000 that we would be having debates in 2008 over whether the US should torture prisoners? Open some doors, and you never close them again.

[Vanje]

167. Like Demwing said

The bonds between most people and their animals are deeply personal, very important, and intimate.
Its love.

I dont want interfence in these relationships from the government or well-meaning zealots.

[Vanje]

166. Fortunes can change fast.

Many people are 1 or 2 paychecks away from "poor."
Foreclosures are happening to people who were'nt poor a couple of years ago.
Foreclosures are filling local shelters here in Idaho.

[ismnotwasm]

173. Try and stop me

In fact try and stop the poor from doing any number of things. Since the poor tend to be socially voiceless and develop their own culture, it would be real interesting to see any type of ban. (actually, I'm not poor, but I've been hungry poor in the past)A ban based on income would be extremely counterproductive, not enforceable and would backfire horribly.

What I personally would like to see animal friendly and responsible programs, say, supported adopt a pet programs in economically disadvantaged areas, larger availability of spay and neuter clinics with sliding scale fees according to income. Same with food and basic care.

Pet education or workshops in schools, INCLUDING what actually can live in dog or cat shit and why you should not leave it around,or even touch it. Poor people don't have the market being disgustingly irresponsible with animal feces.

[KillCapitalism]

176. Of course the poor should be allowed to own pets!

They are the ONLY source of companionship for a lot of poor people. Around here there are a few vets who will do low-cost or free vaccinations and other care, we just have to help the poor seek them out.

Pet ownership is really not too terribly expensive, but kids on the other hand...take the expenses of pet ownership and multiply it by 30. That's why pets are the only companions the poor have in most cases.

[clear eye]

187. This website (link below) has links to all cat rescue groups in VW, but since OPer "ignored" me

someone else will have to tell her about this post.

This website: <http://www.hoosierkitties.com/rescue/wvirginia.htm>
has links taking you to the webpages of the following organizations all doing cat rescue to a greater or lesser extent. The pages give contact info--phone, email, and address, and the policies of their group. If you email or phone them and tell them about the abandoned cat problem in your trailer park, and tell them that you are willing to be a foster home but need help with spay/neutering and, to a lesser extent, adoption there has to be a least one in the bunch who will be able to dig you up some help. You really do need to find a neighbor w/ a car who could take the bunch and you to any vet that will do cheap spaying. If I see you hanging around this thread instead of busy writing emails, I'll know it's more important to you to see yourself as a cat Mother Theresa than to get them real help.

I spent over an hour copying out the info on the first few, before coming to my senses and admitting that, not knowing what part of the state you're in, I was wasting a ridiculous amount of time. You can just go to the linked page above and get the contact info for those that are at least in your quarter of the state. I do recommend contacting Friends-4-Life who started out as individual fosterers similar to you, with the exception of the spaying part. If you really beat the bushes and get a good deal on spaying, you can recover the cost from the adopter because you'll be saving them money.

Friends-4-Life
http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/WV01.html
Email: [e-mail]

Canterbury Tails Animal Rescue
Rt. 3 103 Lick Creek
Hurricane, WV 25526
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

ANIMAL FRIENDS OF BARBOUR COUNTY
P.O. Box 452, Philippi, WV 26416
FOR CAT RESCUE/TRANSPORT INFORMATION: e-mail -- [e-mail]

New River Humane Society
Fayette County Animal Control Center
Beckwith, WV
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

Hampshire County Pet Adoption Program
Tracy, Ashley, and Kim @ 304-856-2696
Melanie @ 304-856-3396
[e-mail]

Berkeley County Humane Society
554 Charles Town Rd
Martinsburg, WV 25405
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

The Appalachian Animal Rescue Friends
Rt. 1, Box 78
Delbarton, WV 25670
[e-mail]

Animal Welfare Society
PO Box 147
Charles Town, WV 25414
[phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Shelter Location:
23 Poor Farm Rd
Kearneysville, WV 25430
(just west of the Jefferson County Fairgrounds on Leetown Pike Rd.
Shelter Hours:
Wednesday - Saturday
11:00 am to 4:00 pm

Animal Friends of North Central West Virginia (Mon County)
252 Brewer Road
Morgantown, WV 26508
http://www.animalfriendswv.org/
Email: [e-mail]

Save A Kitty Feral Cat
Program,Inc.
P.O. Box 1442
Parkersburg, WV 26102
[phone]
[e-mail]
http://www.saveakitty.org

Appalachian Cat Rescue
PMB #188
1150 Carlisle Street
Hanover, PA 17331
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Animal Friends of Barbour County Philippi, WV
Animal Friends of North Central West Virginia Morgantown, WV
Animal Welfare Society of Jefferson County Charles Town, WV
Appalachian Animal Rescue Friends Delbarton, WV
Berkeley County Humane Society Martinsburg, WV
Brooke County Animal Shelter Follansbee WV
Canterbury Tails Animal Rescue Culloden, WV
Fayette County Animal Control Center Fayetteville, WV
Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia Mineral Wells, WV
Hampshire County Pet Adoption Program Romney, WV
Hancock County Animal Shelter New Cumberland, WV
Hill Billy Pets Worthington, WV
HillHaven Animal Sanctuary Rescue Anmoore, WV
Humane Society of Hampshire County Augusta, WV
Humane Society of Harrison County Shinnston, WV
Humane Society of Morgan County Berkeley Springs, WV
Humane Society of North Central West Virginia New Milton, WV
Humane Society of Parkersburg Parkersburg, WV
Humane Society of Raleigh County Beckley, WV
Humane Society of Wyoming County Oceana, WV
Huntington-Cabell-Wayne Shelter Huntington, WV
Jackson County Animal Shelter Cottageville, WV
Kanawha/Charleston Humane Association Charleston, WV
Marion County Humane Society Fairmont, WV
Marshall County Animal Shelter Moundsville, WV
Mason County Animal Shelter Point Pleasant, WV
Mercer County Animal Shelter Princeton, WV
National Humane Education Society Charles Town, WV
Nicholas County Animal Shelter Summersville, WV
Ohio County Animal Shelter Triadelphia, WV
PIGS A Sanctuary Shepherdstown, WV
Pillar's Animal Shelter & Rescue Sandyville, WV
Pleasants County Humane Society St. Marys, WV
Preston County Animal Shelter Kingwood, WV
Puppy's & Purr's Rescue Follansbee WV
Putnam County Humane Society Scott Depot, WV
Raleigh County Animal Shelter Beckley, WV
Randolph County Humane Society Elkins, WV
Rainbow Rescue & Adoption of West Virginia Fairmont, WV
Ritchie County Humane Society Harrisville, WV
Roane County Animal Shelter Spencer, WV
Second Chance Rescue Inwood, WV
Taylor County Humane Society Grafton, WV
TLC (Theresa's Little Critters) Charleston, WV
Tucker County Dog Warden Parsons, WV
Upshur County Dog Pound Buckhannon, WV
Upshur County Humane Society Buckhannon, WV
Webark Estates Moundsville, WV
West Virginia Humane Society Resources
Wetzel County Animal Shelter New Martinsville, WV

[Thegonagle]

189. Are we living in America? This is not the kind of thing we can just ban.

And it would be an administrative and logistical nightmare. In my city of nearly 400,000, they have like 4 full-time animal control officers that are consistently days behind on calls, and a budget that's not keeping up with cost increases.

I think we have bigger fish to fry, like maybe addressing the reasons behind poverty, instead of taking poor peoples' pets away.

[bobbolink]

191. It's so amazing to me that there is such hostility toward poor folk on a supposedly "liberal" site!

Yet, we're constantly told that Dems are SO MUCH BETTER than Repubs when it comes to poverty.

The hostility in some posts is beyond understanding.....

Hey... those of you who harbor such hostility, why don't you just come right out and campaign to have us poor folk "euthanized" rather than the animals that you care about so much more?

The heartlessness makes me SICK.

[Gormy Cuss]

201. Well, perhaps that should be discussed directly.

Sadly, I sometimes think that there are people who believe that poor people should be euthanized for their own good. There was a time not that long ago when low income young women were sterilized "for their own good" -- my aunt who is 82 was one of them. She was deemed an "incorrigible youth" because she dropped out of school and got pregnant at 15.

[Runcible Spoon]

196. I can't even begin to overstate the POSITIVE effects pet ownership has on people, especially poor...

Having a living creature to care for and worry about keeps so many people from just giving up. I wonder how suicide rates among the poor/homeless would skyrocket if we took their pets away. Occasionally there might be a sad case, but honestly I'd rather know an animal died next to someone who loved it rather than in the streets alone or with strangers in a shelter (although I do emphatically support and trust shelters to make those tough decisions).

There are so many psychological and physiological benefits to having pets. The real question is how can we expand access to medical services, food, and supplies for people who struggle to keep their pets? There are many wonderful organizations out there, but I would like to see public assistance for this as well. Fuck, just one less month of our troops in Iraq and we could probably afford a great federal program :mad:

[RedCappedBandit]

198. I have a better idea

We should do more to help poor people, you know, since we're one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and all.