ok, I was going to post this a few weeks ago and thought better of it, now I
would like to

What is it with people not wanting to take their dogs to the vets because
they cant afford it?!?

If you can't afford to give your pets medical treatment take them to a
shelter, why let them live in pain because you cant afford to do so?

I have had some costly vet trips with my dog (after spending $800 to buy him
he fell of a step within a week of me getting him... $500 later he was back
home) I have a great relationship with my vet and they dont mind me paying
them back each week.

Even if this wasnt the case I would still take them!!

I would NEVER not take my pet to the vet because I couldnt afford it.

Do you keep your Children home from the doctor or hospital because you cant
afford it?

"Tee" wrote in message
...

Or they have a ton of bills, or sick children, or they're about to lose
the roof over their head. Maybe they've been laid off, were sick and
missed work w/o pay or maybe, maybe, maybe.... This mindset of 'you don't
love or deserve your pet if you won't immediately drop any amount of money
needed into the animal at every possibility of sickness' is really
disturbing.

they could still give the animal to a shelter, rescue, or friend who could
afford to take care of it. it seems terribly selfish to choose to watch the
pet die rather than give it up with a chance to live.

again, different priorities.

-kelly

"Tee" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I'm offended by your statement and I'm pretty sure my dogs would
be as well.

your *dog* gets offended by what people say on usenet?

that's just weird.

-kelly

"culprit" wrote in message
...


i once had a vet ask me if $400 was too much money to save my cat's life.
they could euthanize him instead for much less.

i asked him if he would euthanize his child if the hospital bill was too
high.

some people just have different priorities, i guess.

I love my pets to pieces, but there is a point at which I have decided (and
I decided this before getting pets of "my own" i.e. those that aren't my
parents' pets too) that I will not dump endless amounts of cash into them.
Of course it is variable depending on what the problem is.

With the cats, that amount is about $750 if it's high risk and about $1500
if it's almost certain they will recover.

With Rusty it's about $1500 if it's risky (maybe more, depends on his
co-owner's opinion of the situation) and probably the $4000 for
semi-guaranteed results.

And for some things there wouldn't be a question, the animal would be PTS
immediately.

--
Emily Carroll
http://www.fluttervale.com/kennel - Fluttervale Labradors
http://www.fluttervale.com/biography - Canine Biography

"culprit" wrote in message
...

"Tee" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I'm offended by your statement and I'm pretty sure my dogs would
be as well.

your *dog* gets offended by what people say on usenet?

that's just weird.

I believe my dogs would be offended at the idea that I should give them away
or dump them in a shelter the first time I couldn't afford to take them to
the vet or have a procedure performed right at that moment.

--
Tara

"culprit" wrote in message
...

"Tee" wrote in message
...

Or they have a ton of bills, or sick children, or they're about to lose
the roof over their head. Maybe they've been laid off, were sick and
missed work w/o pay or maybe, maybe, maybe.... This mindset of 'you
don't love or deserve your pet if you won't immediately drop any amount
of money needed into the animal at every possibility of sickness' is
really disturbing.

they could still give the animal to a shelter, rescue, or friend who could
afford to take care of it. it seems terribly selfish to choose to watch
the pet die rather than give it up with a chance to live.

'Dying' wasn't specifically mentioned as a reason for getting rid of a dog.

again, different priorities.

I don't know that priorities are different. You're talking about a dog
facing certain death due to lack of immediate vet treatment and that's not
what I was talking about.

--
Tara

"culprit" wrote in message
...

"Tee" wrote in message
...

Or they have a ton of bills, or sick children, or they're about to lose
the roof over their head. Maybe they've been laid off, were sick and
missed work w/o pay or maybe, maybe, maybe.... This mindset of 'you
don't
love or deserve your pet if you won't immediately drop any amount of
money
needed into the animal at every possibility of sickness' is really
disturbing.

they could still give the animal to a shelter, rescue, or friend who could
afford to take care of it. it seems terribly selfish to choose to watch
the
pet die rather than give it up with a chance to live.

again, different priorities.

There is no way in hell I'm going to throw a seriously sick or dying dog at
a rescue or shelter situation. Number one--the poor thing is dying and
confused, better to die in the arms it knows then spend a last few weeks in
confusion and loss. Number two--My personal opinion is that shelters and
rescues should be spending their resources on HEALTHY and ADOPTABLE animals,
not sick ones.

Secondly, if you're taking an issue with people who have a "wait and see"
attitude, well, maybe you have extra cash sitting around to waste on
novelties, but every time I've not taken the "wait and see" has been a
situation where the dog was sick because it got into something, and was
healthy in 24 hours without medication. Same with the dang cat.

--
Emily Carroll
http://www.fluttervale.com/kennel - Fluttervale Labradors
http://www.fluttervale.com/biography - Canine Biography

"Tee" wrote in message
...

'Dying' wasn't specifically mentioned as a reason for getting rid of a
dog.

again, different priorities.

I don't know that priorities are different. You're talking about a dog
facing certain death due to lack of immediate vet treatment and that's not
what I was talking about.

i think you might have replied to the wrong post then. i was posting about
a situation where the animal was facing imminent death and the doc offered
to just kill it now if i didn't want to spend the $.

i was relaying what's called an "anecdote".

-kelly

"Emily Carroll/Fluttervale" wrote in message
m...

I love my pets to pieces, but there is a point at which I have decided
(and
I decided this before getting pets of "my own" i.e. those that aren't my
parents' pets too) that I will not dump endless amounts of cash into them.
Of course it is variable depending on what the problem is.

With the cats, that amount is about $750 if it's high risk and about $1500
if it's almost certain they will recover.

With Rusty it's about $1500 if it's risky (maybe more, depends on his
co-owner's opinion of the situation) and probably the $4000 for
semi-guaranteed results.

And for some things there wouldn't be a question, the animal would be PTS
immediately.

this makes sense. there are certainly things i wouldn't prolong if the
animal didn't have a good outlook.

-kelly

"culprit" wrote in message
...

"Tee" wrote in message
...

'Dying' wasn't specifically mentioned as a reason for getting rid of a
dog.

again, different priorities.

I don't know that priorities are different. You're talking about a dog
facing certain death due to lack of immediate vet treatment and that's
not what I was talking about.

i think you might have replied to the wrong post then. i was posting
about a situation where the animal was facing imminent death and the doc
offered to just kill it now if i didn't want to spend the $.

You're right, you did specify that although Cin's post and my other posts
were not specifying it. My comments still stand though. Some people can't
afford the $400 because they just can't afford it and would choose
euthanasia.

--
Tara