MMM pet owners: your pet emergency fund needs to be bigger than you think

[Shane]

it puzzles me that anyone is cool with eating meat but then spends thousands to keep a dog alive.

Well, dogs are qualitatively different from most meat animals.  Also, even though they are not humans they are very definitely individuals with personalities, so it is not so much "spending thousands to keep a dog alive" as "spending thousands to keep that particular dog alive".

Pigs are smarter than dogs and can have very close relationships with humans who keep them as pets, but most of us don't hesitate to eat pork chops or BBQ pork sandwiches. I think our whole attachment and special treatment of cats and dogs is a cultural thing. In some countries people routinely eat dogs. I know someone who ate a cat once, but I haven't heard of anybody raising cats specifically for meat, probably because their feed conversion ratio is so lousy.

My attitude towards animals is different from most urban/suburban dwellers because my wife and I have spent the last ~20 years raising animals for meat. I have personally killed, with a sharp knife, thousands and thousands and thousands of animals, chilled their meat on ice, bagged it, weighed it, and sold it to our customers. When you raise animals as a business, it usually doesn't make sense to pay a vet more to fix a sick animal than the animal is "worth," which in reality means that you never take an animal to the vet. Over the years, if we couldn't treat an animal that was sick ourselves, either the animal got better, died on its own or I ended up killing it because I felt sorry for it because it was suffering.

I realize most people consider cats and dogs to be different from livestock, but it still doesn't make sense to me, personally, to pay money to keep them alive when there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of healthy animals at our local shelters that will be killed tomorrow or the next day if nobody adopts them.

[Cassie]

Where we live our local humane society is no kill so no need to put down an animal that can easily be saved to give another a home. People that don't want to spend $ on pets should not get one.

[Astatine]

I'm all about the quality of life for our cats. Even if I was a billionaire and money was no object, I would not subject any pets to chemotherapy. I've just gone through 3 months of chemo and the side effects were pretty horrendous, and I was miserable for most of it (my surgery was trivial in comparison). I wouldn't want a pet to go through that, because you can't explain to them that they're going to feel utterly miserable for months but it could be worth it in the long run because the stats show that there is an increased chance of survival, but no guarantees.

I would do surgery on a young, healthy animal. However, one of our cats has a genetic kidney disease and has very little kidney function left. He HATES being at the vet, freaks out completely if they do anything beyond taking his temperature or weighing him and does not cope at all with being given tablets or anything. So, we will never have him have surgery or anything more intrusive than an anti-nausea injection when he starts going downhill. We don't even strictly follow the renal diet with him anymore. He mostly eats renal food, but the joy he gets from his treats and water flavoured with cheap tinned food is worth it to us, even if it reduces his lifespan by a few weeks or months. Quality of life is everything IMO.

Our other cat, however, is young and healthy. If she broke a leg, for example, we would pay for surgery for her because it would only give her temporary discomfort and let her live a long, healthy life.

As other posters have pointed out above, there are many, many, many healthy pets that will be killed if no one adopts them from shelters. Why waste money on sickly animals?

If I had that lack of empathy or love for pets, then I should not have a pet, because it would be a burden to me, not a joy. This statement just feels very cold and emotionless to me, even though there is logic to it. Having pets is not logical. It's about the joy and pleasure they bring to your life. If they do not bring you joy and pleasure (and the flipside of that is grief and sadness when they die), why bother having pets?

[Shane]

Where we live our local humane society is no kill so no need to put down an animal that can easily be saved to give another a home. People that don't want to spend $ on pets should not get one.

Sorry, Cassie, but I think your attitude is what discourages many people from having pets.

Over and over again I read threads on the MMM Forums where members proudly recite how many thousands of dollars they've spent on vet bills for their pets. Especially for young people who are just starting out and maybe still have some student loan debt to pay off, reading that owning pets has to be really, really expensive probably turns off many people who would, otherwise, really like to have pets, because they're afraid of having to declare bankruptcy if their pet gets sick and they end up stuck paying huge vet bills.

I'd rather see more people own pets than fewer. That's why I try to point out that after you get pets spayed/neutered, you don't have to take them to see the vet again - ever. There are no routine medical treatments that cats and dogs need that can't be done at home by reasonably intelligent, resourceful Mustachian pet owners. To me, treating your own animals is a very sensible, Mustachian thing to do. If an animal is repeatedly sick enough that it needs professional medical attention, I think it's totally reasonable to put the animal down and get a new one.

Your local Humane Society may be no kill, but ours isn't and I'll bet most aren't.

[BPA]

My condolences for your loss, Urchina. 

My decision making is influenced by the pet's age and his or her ability to tolerate tests and vets as much as finances.

I loved my 14 year old cat so much.  He was the one who helped me more than anyone when I was lonely after I split from the father of my children.  Such a pal.

But he hated the vet, he was old, and at the end, I just wanted a good quality of life.  The vet offered to do more tests to find out more specifically what was wrong, but I'd spent $1k, they thought he had cancer, and it seemed that he didn't have the muscle tone to defecate.  Plus, I strongly suspected his last days would be spent being poked and prodded and having to stay overnight at the vet's.  He would hate that. 

I'm glad that his last night of life was lying next to me on my bed where he was happy.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that an emergency fund for pet care is a good idea, but I agree with those who say that sometimes you just need to let go because it's what's best for the pet...and your finances.

[Shane]

As other posters have pointed out above, there are many, many, many healthy pets that will be killed if no one adopts them from shelters. Why waste money on sickly animals?

If I had that lack of empathy or love for pets, then I should not have a pet, because it would be a burden to me, not a joy. This statement just feels very cold and emotionless to me, even though there is logic to it. Having pets is not logical. It's about the joy and pleasure they bring to your life. If they do not bring you joy and pleasure (and the flipside of that is grief and sadness when they die), why bother having pets?

We love our pets and get great enjoyment and joy from having them. Death is part of life, though, and I don't believe it is something to be avoided at all costs. I also would not allow doctors to pump me full of poisons to give me a statistically higher probability of "surviving" cancer. In many cases, I believe, the treatments we subject humans and animals to are worse than the underlying conditions they're suffering from.

[onlykelsey]

In many cases, I believe, the treatments we subject humans and animals to are worse than the underlying conditions they're suffering from.

Agreed for both humans and animals.  Often the best time for an animal to die is not the same time that its loved ones are ready for it to go.  I've spent an inordinate amount of money on my dog, but only because it was a treatable illness in a two-year-old dog.

Too many people try to keep their parents, loved ones, and pets alive because it serves their own interests.  Serving the interests of an elderly family member or animal dependent on you is hard when it conflicts with your own desires.

[Shane]

In many cases, I believe, the treatments we subject humans and animals to are worse than the underlying conditions they're suffering from.

Agreed for both humans and animals.  Often the best time for an animal to die is not the same time that its loved ones are ready for it to go.  I've spent an inordinate amount of money on my dog, but only because it was a treatable illness in a two-year-old dog.

Too many people try to keep their parents, loved ones, and pets alive because it serves their own interests.  Serving the interests of an elderly family member or animal dependent on you is hard when it conflicts with your own desires.

Agreed.

[LeRainDrop]

Urchina, I'm so very sorry for your loss.  Thank you for sharing.  I have two 7-year-old cats right now -- my first pets besides fish -- and I can't yet fathom what it will be like to go through serious health troubles or the loss of them.  Your post and the other commenters' have given me something to think about.

I'm so, so sorry.  We lost a dog a little over a year ago very suddenly, and it still hurts all the time.  I cried about it this week.  On almost the exact one year anniversary of his death, MMM wrote his "Dog Ownership is Optional" post.  I wrote this based on the feelings I had in response (which are not angry, just resolute that I am better for having had my dogs as family members).

http://frugalvagabond.com/2015/09/17/dog-ownership-is-optional-and-wonderful/

As with all things MMM, it is to us to be thoughtful when it comes to our spending, and for me, our expenses related to our dogs are tiny in comparison to the improvement we perceive in our lives when sharing with them.  As I said in the article, if not for this, then what is money for?

iamlindoro, that was a beautiful post that you wrote on your blog.  I especially love the note you wrote to your friends about Sputnik's last day.

[iamlindoro]

iamlindoro, that was a beautiful post that you wrote on your blog.  I especially love the note you wrote to your friends about Sputnik's last day.

Aww, thanks. I still miss him all the time. It's not as fresh, but his absence is still felt strongly.

[Cassie]

Shane: apply this same logic to your kids, parents, your self and friends.  When you get sick-bye bye.

[Shane]

Shane: apply this same logic to your kids, parents, your self and friends.  When you get sick-bye bye.

Somehow, you seem to be missing the point that cats and dogs are NOT the same as our kids, parents, friends, etc.

Do you eat pork? How about beef? Chicken? Lamb? Veal? Why is it okay to raise these animals under nasty confinement conditions, kill them by the millions, every year, and serve their meat up at Taco Bell or McDonalds?

It just doesn't make any sense, Cassie. If you really believe that animals are worth spending thousands of dollars on medical tests and procedures, then you must not eat meat, right?

[Cassie]

WE did not have pets when we were young because we could not afford them.

[zephyr911]

Over and over again I read threads on the MMM Forums where members proudly recite how many thousands of dollars they've spent on vet bills for their pets.

I can't speak for the rest, but it's not about pride for me. It's about illustrating that if you're going to be totally callous toward the animal, you probably have the kind of attitude that produces unhappy pets and unsatisfied pet owners. If you don't love 'em enough that you'd give up at least a little something to keep them healthy and happy, how much are you really enjoying their company in the first place?

[SeanMC]

OP, I'm sorry for your loss. I also really appreciate your goal here - to reveal just how difficult it can be to set financial limits on emergency pet care, even if your intention is not to treat major illness.

I've also volunteered in no-kill shelters working with dogs. Shelters and rescues have to make many 'hard calls' about how much $ is too much to spend giving medical care. That is one reason adoption fees for at some places are higher - it spreads out the medical care given to ALL animals they take in. If you don't like how a shelter handles these difficult choices, don't support it, don't adopt there. And don't get me started on people who surrender their senior pets to a shelter once they can't afford care (or because they can't "deal" with euthanizing). What makes them think the shelter has the $? Taking in a pet means that you budget and plan for the entire life span of the animal, however you make those difficult judgment calls.

I am involved in training working dogs. Many of these dogs are considered family or beloved partners by the people they work with or live with. These dogs are not worth "$30" of spay and neuter - it would cost you thousands of dollars to replace them. It is also much harder to find shelter or rescue dogs for many working dog roles (though not all), so many come from ethical and careful breeding that aims to weed out problematic medical or genetic conditions.

When working dogs are no longer able to do their jobs, you better believe that I think they deserve a happy, pain-free retirement surrounded by someone who loves them and can care for them. (Of course, I think pets shouldn't be discarded casually either. I'm just adding this example for the animals are animals so who cares about one crowd.)

[Sofa King]

Very sorry for your loss. When I was a kid in the 70's it didnt seem like vets strung people along because they could see the family is very emotional. They were more straight with you about what the probable outcome would be. Now first they tell you there is hope (when in many cases this is not true) only to tell you a week or so later (and THOUSANDS of $$$$ later) that there is nothing more they can do.  It's fucked up but I see this as what is really going on these days. 

[onlykelsey]

Over and over again I read threads on the MMM Forums where members proudly recite how many thousands of dollars they've spent on vet bills for their pets.

I can't speak for the rest, but it's not about pride for me. It's about illustrating that if you're going to be totally callous toward the animal, you probably have the kind of attitude that produces unhappy pets and unsatisfied pet owners. If you don't love 'em enough that you'd give up at least a little something to keep them healthy and happy, how much are you really enjoying their company in the first place?

I think it comes down to how interchangeable you think pets are.  On a brutely rational level, if every dog is the same to you, you should maximize overall dog happiness by putting yours down when it starts to have chronic health problems, and rescuing another dog from the pool.  I actually admire that mindset, although I am the woman paying ~400/monthly to a dog walker and 120/monthly in epilepsy meds for my dog's life.

[zephyr911]

I think it comes down to how interchangeable you think pets are.  On a brutely rational level, if every dog is the same to you, you should maximize overall dog happiness by putting yours down when it starts to have chronic health problems, and rescuing another dog from the pool.  I actually admire that mindset, although I am the woman paying ~400/monthly to a dog walker and 120/monthly in epilepsy meds for my dog's life.

I don't think they're interchangeable at all. They have personalities, they know who I am, and they trust me and rely on me for their every need. To me, they're no more interchangeable than family members. When they die, and I adopt again, it's not about replacing them. It's about starting a new relationship that I would expect to be equally awesome.

[Shane]

I think it comes down to how interchangeable you think pets are.  On a brutely rational level, if every dog is the same to you, you should maximize overall dog happiness by putting yours down when it starts to have chronic health problems, and rescuing another dog from the pool.  I actually admire that mindset, although I am the woman paying ~400/monthly to a dog walker and 120/monthly in epilepsy meds for my dog's life.

I don't think they're interchangeable at all. They have personalities, they know who I am, and they trust me and rely on me for their every need. To me, they're no more interchangeable than family members. When they die, and I adopt again, it's not about replacing them. It's about starting a new relationship that I would expect to be equally awesome.

Cows, sheep and pigs all have personalities too. They know who the people are who care for them and can trust them. Are they interchangeable?

Why, on the one hand, do most of us casually support CAFOs by purchasing our meat in supermarkets and fast food restaurants, but on the other hand many claim to love animals and have deep, meaningful relationships with their cats and dogs?

To me, there seems to be a pretty big disconnect there...

[JoRocka]

Where we live our local humane society is no kill so no need to put down an animal that can easily be saved to give another a home. People that don't want to spend $ on pets should not get one.

That's ridiculous. It's reasonable to spend a certain amount on them yes. But not thousands and thousands.
They are pets.

Hell- I think we spend to much money on people who don't want to live but yet string their lives out on life support. We put old/ailing pets down for their own sake- why we spend so much on people who have no quality of life is beyond me.

Telling some one it's unethical to have a pet because they don't want to spend thousands on curing AN ANIMAL is ridiculous. It's as pet. not your first born child.

[Cassie]

I didn't say you had to spends thousands of $'s.  But some people are not willing to spend much $ at all and pets don't make sense for those people. Each animal has a precious individual soul and when we take on pet ownership like anything else in life it isn't free.

[SeanMC]

I think it comes down to how interchangeable you think pets are.  On a brutely rational level, if every dog is the same to you, you should maximize overall dog happiness by putting yours down when it starts to have chronic health problems, and rescuing another dog from the pool.  I actually admire that mindset, although I am the woman paying ~400/monthly to a dog walker and 120/monthly in epilepsy meds for my dog's life.

I don't think they're interchangeable at all. They have personalities, they know who I am, and they trust me and rely on me for their every need. To me, they're no more interchangeable than family members. When they die, and I adopt again, it's not about replacing them. It's about starting a new relationship that I would expect to be equally awesome.

Cows, sheep and pigs all have personalities too. They know who the people are who care for them and can trust them. Are they interchangeable?

Why, on the one hand, do most of us casually support CAFOs by purchasing our meat in supermarkets and fast food restaurants, but on the other hand many claim to love animals and have deep, meaningful relationships with their cats and dogs?

To me, there seems to be a pretty big disconnect there...

I agree. But my takeaway is that people should do more to eliminate factory farming and then make an informed choice to what extent they will eat animal meat or consume animal byproducts. It doesn't mean people should care less about dogs or cats.

Then again:
https://frinkiac.com/caption/S07E05/555954

[DragonSlayer]

Very sorry for your loss. When I was a kid in the 70's it didnt seem like vets strung people along because they could see the family is very emotional. They were more straight with you about what the probable outcome would be. Now first they tell you there is hope (when in many cases this is not true) only to tell you a week or so later (and THOUSANDS of $$$$ later) that there is nothing more they can do.  It's fucked up but I see this as what is really going on these days.

That's why I loved my old vet. He was old school and would tell you: "Look, here's the deal. Now, if you want to spend the money we can do this, this, this and this, but it's not likely to change the outcome, and/or the resting is going to be painful for the animal and not likely to tell me anything I don't already know. If you want quality of life care, we can do this and this and it will keep them comfortable for a while." He gave you all the choices ranging from "Put the animal down now" to "Spend all your money and hope for the best." And whichever you chose, he didn't judge.

Unfortunately, he recently retired and sold the practice and the new vets are much younger. They seem to be more all about doing the testing, etc. first, and only then telling you the likely outcome. I know medical technology can do a lot more than it used to, but I always appreciated the frankness of the older guy.

That plus the fact that the new vets are judgy has me looking for a new place. I'm willing to spend money on an animal if the odds are good/the animal can have years of quality life ahead of it, but I don't appreciate guilt trips and judgment when it's clearly in the better interest of the animal to let go, or to at least stop treatment and go for comfort care.

[sol]

I didn't say you had to spends thousands of $'s.  But some people are not willing to spend much $ at all and pets don't make sense for those people. Each animal has a precious individual soul and when we take on pet ownership like anything else in life it isn't free.

The chicken you had for lunch had a precious individual soul, too, but that didn't stop you from enjoying it with barbeque sauce at $1.99/lb.

[MayDay]

Where we live our local humane society is no kill so no need to put down an animal that can easily be saved to give another a home. People that don't want to spend $ on pets should not get one.

Because every animal sitting in a no-kill shelter, taking up space, means someone else has to drop off a pet at a kill shelter.

I found four kittens dumped at a park in November. I called every cat rescue and vet in the area. Even the kill shelter "wasn't accepting" which basically means they would be immediately put down.

No kill shelters are a nice idea, but don't change the reality in a meaningful way.

[Shane]

I didn't say you had to spends thousands of $'s.  But some people are not willing to spend much $ at all and pets don't make sense for those people. Each animal has a precious individual soul and when we take on pet ownership like anything else in life it isn't free.

Actually, you're wrong. Pets are free. Right now, I can go to my local general store and on the bulletin board I guarantee you there are several kittens/cats & puppies/dogs available for exactly $0. The market values pets' lives at zero, yet pet owners are willing to spend thousands and thousands of dollars of their scarce resources to keep their little kitties and doggies alive.

You still haven't answered my question, Cassie. How do you rationalize your belief that, "each animal has a precious individual soul," but yet you support the horrible, unnatural living conditions of millions of animals in confinement facilities on factory farms every day through your passive acceptance of our country's industrial meat production paradigm?

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

[Shane]

I agree. But my takeaway is that people should do more to eliminate factory farming and then make an informed choice to what extent they will eat animal meat or consume animal byproducts. It doesn't mean people should care less about dogs or cats.

This seems rational. I've spent the past 20 years of my life raising animals in as natural and healthy an environment as we could, so that my family, our friends, neighbors and customers could have healthy meat to eat that doesn't contain any antibiotics and hormones. It costs more to raise animals that way, which makes the meat more expensive. The overwhelming majority of consumers choose to buy cheap, CAFO produced meat. When given the option to buy chemical free, humanely raised meat, most consumers vote with their dollars to continue supporting the torture or animals in CAFOs. To me, this makes absolutely no sense. On the one hand, consumers are willing to spend thousands and thousands to prop up sickly cats and dogs which are valued at $0 by the market. On the other hand, when given the option to purchase healthy, humanely raised, chemical free chicken, beef, pork and lamb, for a couple of dollars more per pound, the overwhelming majority of consumers willfully choose to continue supporting the suffering of industrial confinement produced meat.

[sol]

the overwhelming majority of consumers willfully choose to continue supporting the suffering of industrial confinement produced meat.

Of course they do.  People are shallow and personally biased.  Watching one animal suffer is personally uncomfortable, so they spend thousands to save a family pet.  Paying more for hamburger is personally uncomfortable, so they actively fund the torture of thousands of meat animals in factory farms.

Don't be fooled into thinking that spending big on the family pet has anything to do with animal welfare.  It's just to protect your fragile human guilt reflex, which is desperately trying to ignore the much greater animal cruelty you are causing by buying industrial meat, eggs, and dairy.

[Lyssa]

I think there is a difference between buying meat as cheap as possible while dropping 1000nds of dollars on vet care and a simple discrimination between 'my animal' and 'other animals'. There are many discussions about charity an donating money going on on this board and yet nobody has stepped forward and declared: all human being are equal hence you should be willing to spend as much on strangers as on your own family or donate till your living conditions are about the same as the people you are donating to!

While this would also be 'logical' in a sense it simply contradicts basic human nature to an extent that makes such a statement positively inhumane.

Re diagnostics: it is indeed a trend especially among younger vets to run the whole battery of tests before discussing possible outcomes with the owner of the pet. I had to put down one animal in my life. A little boycat with FIP. He became inactive and would not eat and his belly was swollen. I took him to the vet who found fluid in the abdomen. She told me: it's probably FIP which has a fatal prognosis. Believe nobody telling you he can cure it. We could run all sorts of test but the most conclusive would be a blood panel screening for FIP marker. A sonogram and x-ray would only add inconclusive data. We ran the blood test and indeed the FIP markers stuck out like sore thumps. Vet then told me: we could put him on meds that would push back the inflamation a little and you have a few more days with him. But you should not get your hopes up when he starts eating and seems better. There is no way to change the outcome. I had him euthanized the same day and was thankful for the good advise and the certainty that it was indeed FIP and I thus did not need to wonder whether he could have been saved. I later learned that the vet was described as 'cold' by a lot of people. I guess a lot of pet owners like to hear that 'there is hope' and that is one reason more and more vets act accordingly. This and the money to be made by stringing people along.

An important point that has been mentioned before is: animals are not rational. They do not know that treatments that are uncomfortable or even painful are beneficial for them. They just know that they hurt or are being hurt.

If one keeps this in mind I think it is up to individual pet owners to set an individual limit on vet bills. But the equation 'you can adopt another and maximize pet happiness makes no sense to me because all pets in all the shelters of the world are not my responsibility. My pets are.

As a sidenote: we don't have kill shelters. On the websites of shelter you typically find younger and healthier animals who have been there a few months and then animals that have been there for years and sometimes a decade because the have behavioral problems, chronic illnesses or (in case of dogs) belong to a 'listed breed', which goes along with all sorts of restrictions. Of course shelters have a limit as well what they spend on chronically ill animals, but it does not seem terribly low.

[FrugalKube]

Sorry about your dog op. I think Im going to have to setup a pet emergency fund. My little 12 year old Chihuahua had to get some pretty spend xrays and what not on her neck a few years ago it was over $400.

I would like the vet to be honest and tell me its going to cost this much but the chances of it getting better are slim

[gt7152b]

We just don't have an emergency fund for pets because we don't consider expensive medical care for our pets to be an emergency situation. As someone else mentioned, there are plenty of pets out there that are being euthanized because nobody wants them. I'd rather let my terminally ill pet pass on in a painless way and save a healthy pet from destruction rather than rack up huge bills on an emotionally charged gamble. Not judging the OP or anyone else for their decisions but just wanted to throw out that there are options when faced with these kinds of situations regarding pets.

[RetiredAt63]

Jumping in late - there are annual medical costs to consider.  Where I live my dog has to have a rabies vaccine (required by law, we are in a rabies area).  She needs other vaccinations.  She needs the preventive heartworm meds 6 months each year, and the test beforehand to be sure she is heartworm free.  I probably spend $200-$300 annually on preventive health care for her.  On the other hand, she would be an expensive dog to take to a groomer, but I do all her grooming, so those cots are minimal.  Still costs - nail clippers, combs, rakes, shampoo.The takeaway is that if a person cannot afford the annual costs of a pet, they should not get that pet. 

Unfortunately many pet purchases are impulse buys, and then the cute puppy/kitten grows up.  Impulse owners often have no idea about the total time commitment as well as money commitment needed for the pet, and then the burden becomes too much.  So the time to be "hardhearted" is before the pet ever comes into the home. An if the pet is planned, then people need to think about choices before heading out - what breed (or mix) what size, what sex, age, etc.  I'm 65 and the dog is 9, she will be the last of this breed I have - when she goes, I will be too old for a dog her size. Then I will have to decide, another dog of a smaller easier breed, an older rescue (i.e. lower energy) of her breed, or no dog? 

[KBecks]

This is a good conversation to have, and I will chime in with my own experience.

I have only had 2 pets in my adult life; and I was a reluctant pet owner.  At around age 26, one of my friends encouraged me to get a pet -- you'd be a great pet owner!   I ended up getting a cat from a pet store/shelter partnership.

The animal was wonderful, but I kept him too long.  I did not know I kept him too long until after he was euthanized and I reflected on it.  The cat had started to urinate on my furniture, he was diagnosed with kidney issues.  At first I cleaned up, and we got special $$$ food.  I lived with that, although having cat pee around my house was gross.  Very gross but I loved the cat.  Then the cat declined to where he needed fluids administered at home.  The vet taught us how to give subcutaneous fluids, but after we did this a few times, I realized that it was completely stressing us out.  My husband and I had to catch the cat and pin it down and poke it and it was terrible for all of us.  Knowing the cat was on a steady decline we chose to let it go.  I held him in my arms as he was euthanized, first with an anesthesia and then with an overdose.

It was terrible, but it was ultimately the right decision.  My cat was not feeling well, we were stressed and in retrospect we probably let it go on way too long with the cat. 

I am happy now in retrospect that I did OK taking the cat in to be euthanized and that he died in my arms.  He was always loved, and we still love him even though he is gone.

I am not sure how much earlier I would have euthanized the cat because it was still difficult to make that choice.  We were all miserable at the end.  I probably should have let him go much earlier when the peeing on the furniture did not get better.  I cleaned up after the cat a lot.  My sofa is old and stained but we still have it.  It was a problem for sure.

We took about a year off from pet ownership and I thought I would not have an animal again until a friend posted on Facebook that she found 2 strays and she needed one to have a home.  I got our current cat for free.  He is a wonderful animal.  I have taken him to the vet for a couple check ups and teeth cleaning.  We do not go every year, he is not microchipped, and I refuse shots unless they insist on it for care.

The cat is wonderful and we love him so much.  He has had no issues.

Now, my kids aunt has 2 new adopted cats at her house and my kids want a second cat.  I am afraid but we might do it.  A little extra food and more litter box cleaning, and a hope that they get along.   We could adopt for $25, very cheap.

After our experience with our first cat I feel that I can let a cat go easier and faster.  I learned.  We have money and I can spend a couple thousand on an animal for care, but I will try to be very practical about those decisions.  We enjoy our cat every day.

When I think of commitment to an animal, I think of having the cat for its life, and I would not abandon a pet.  We will care for a sick pet within reason.  We try to get good food. (My first cat had cheap grocery store food and I am trying to do better going forward.) 

I do not believe in quickly replacing one animal with another; I prefer to have some space between pets to grieve and prepare my heart for a new relationship.

We don't have dogs because dogs take more energy than we have.  If we would ever get dogs, we would get guard dogs and consider them working members of the family.  For now we are busy enough with our kids.

[Shane]

Jumping in late - there are annual medical costs to consider.  Where I live my dog has to have a rabies vaccine (required by law, we are in a rabies area).  She needs other vaccinations.  She needs the preventive heartworm meds 6 months each year, and the test beforehand to be sure she is heartworm free.  I probably spend $200-$300 annually on preventive health care for her.

If you'd like to save some money, it's easy to dose your dog with ivermectin a couple of times a year to prevent heartworm and give her vaccinations yourself at home. You don't have to take her to the vet, and testing your dog to see if she already has heartworm is pretty much just a scam so vets can make more money.

Here's a good explanation about the life cycle of the nematode that causes heartworm so you can decide for yourself when she needs to be treated based on the temperatures in your area. A quote from the article:

Almost everything you have been told and taught about heartworm is probably an exaggeration or an outright lie, and this misinformation is probably costing you more money than it needs to.

Here's an explanation including how-to videos on how to vaccinate your dog at home in case you've never done it. Hint: it's not rocket science. A quote from the article:

Vaccinating at home is a much less expensive way to vaccinate your dog. You can save a lot of money doing your dog's vaccinations yourself.

It sounds like governments are more anal about rabies vaccines than other stuff. I don't have any personal experience with rabies vaccines because there is no rabies where I live. Apparently, you can do the rabies vaccine at home yourself, as well, but you may need to jump through some hoops. Here's an article on how you can give the rabies vaccine to your dog yourself at home. It's U.S. based, so your laws in Ontario may be different.

[Cassie]

I have been actively involved for years with educating the public abut puppy mills and trying to get them shut done.  I do believe that our animals that we raise to eat should be raised humanely.  It doesn't mean I am going to stop eating meat.  Getting a animal may be free but caring for it is not.

[RetiredAt63]

I know the heartworm cycle and mosquito life cycles (biologist here).  So as I said, 6 months a year - once we have had a frost, she gets her last treatment until I have been seeing mosquitoes for over a month the next spring.  We are in a heartworm area, it is worth doing.  We didn't used to be, but once dogs started traveling more (pets, show dogs) it came north with them.  And of course now that it is here, we have the coyotes and foxes acting as reservoirs, so it is not going away. If I were to take her to Florida for a month by car, I am sure I would give her one dose when we got home. Looking at coastal BC, I will probably be able to discontinue totally when we move there.

Vaccines - hard to get online here. Some are optional, depend on circumstances, so what she gets depends on where we live and what we do.  I can certainly do injections, I have done subQ, IM, IV and IP during my career.  They are all easy except IP.  Of course the animal's size affects this as well, mice are small and therefore more difficult than something easy like a dog.

Rabies - required by law here, we are a rabies endemic area.  The Eastern Ontario Health Unit subsidizes low cost rabies clinics every fall, I pay $20.  I need the vet certificate when I cross the border, so worth doing at a vet clinic.

Prescription meds - it is always good to discuss them with your vet and a pharmacist.  I have had prescriptions for my dog filled at a pharmacy, the human drugs cost less and of course the quality was fine.  This is not always true, some drugs used in vet practice are not commonly used for people, or may cost more for people.  Cats are iffy, their livers detox things differently and many things that are fine for dogs or for us are toxic for them.  Sometimes these "toxic to cats" things are surprises - some insecticides in flea meds are fine for dogs and will kill a cat, others are OK for both.  There are also carrier ingredients to be careful about, something that a horse or cow can tolerate may not be healthy for a dog or cat.  A large animal practice vet who also does some small animals will know which ones cross species well.

Jumping in late - there are annual medical costs to consider.  Where I live my dog has to have a rabies vaccine (required by law, we are in a rabies area).  She needs other vaccinations.  She needs the preventive heartworm meds 6 months each year, and the test beforehand to be sure she is heartworm free.  I probably spend $200-$300 annually on preventive health care for her.

If you'd like to save some money, it's easy to dose your dog with ivermectin a couple of times a year to prevent heartworm and give her vaccinations yourself at home. You don't have to take her to the vet, and testing your dog to see if she already has heartworm is pretty much just a scam so vets can make more money.

Here's a good explanation about the life cycle of the nematode that causes heartworm so you can decide for yourself when she needs to be treated based on the temperatures in your area. A quote from the article:

Almost everything you have been told and taught about heartworm is probably an exaggeration or an outright lie, and this misinformation is probably costing you more money than it needs to.

Here's an explanation including how-to videos on how to vaccinate your dog at home in case you've never done it. Hint: it's not rocket science. A quote from the article:

Vaccinating at home is a much less expensive way to vaccinate your dog. You can save a lot of money doing your dog's vaccinations yourself.

It sounds like governments are more anal about rabies vaccines than other stuff. I don't have any personal experience with rabies vaccines because there is no rabies where I live. Apparently, you can do the rabies vaccine at home yourself, as well, but you may need to jump through some hoops. Here's an article on how you can give the rabies vaccine to your dog yourself at home. It's U.S. based, so your laws in Ontario may be different.

[Elliot]

I definitely don't think rabies vaccine is a government racket. Bats, skunks, raccoons and other animals carry it, and there a couple animals found to have it by the state wildlife agencies each year. You may think that having an indoor dog would negate the need for that concern, but once a raccoon followed my in the house one night while I had the door open bringing groceries in from the car. when my dog raced past me, I saw it in the living room bold as you please. He killed it, and luckily it tested clean. An animal acting unsually and not being afraid of humans could very well have been infected, and in that case his vaccine would have protected him.

[Cassie]

WE had a duck that must have died while flying over my fenced in backyard and my dog brought it in. YOu never know how they will get rabies.

[Kitsune]

Jumping in late - there are annual medical costs to consider.  Where I live my dog has to have a rabies vaccine (required by law, we are in a rabies area).  She needs other vaccinations.  She needs the preventive heartworm meds 6 months each year, and the test beforehand to be sure she is heartworm free.  I probably spend $200-$300 annually on preventive health care for her.

If you'd like to save some money, it's easy to dose your dog with ivermectin a couple of times a year to prevent heartworm and give her vaccinations yourself at home. You don't have to take her to the vet, and testing your dog to see if she already has heartworm is pretty much just a scam so vets can make more money.

The vet we'd take my parents dog to agreed with that. Heartworm meds for the summer, yes, obv, but he didn't recommend or push the testing, and he'd tell you that straight up.

[BPA]

Regarding spending money on pets being hypocritical if one eats meat, I love my dog.  I did not love the chicken I ate last night.  Well, maybe I loved the way it tasted.

I also wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on a stray animal.  It has the same "soul" as my dog.  I will feed the stray cats on occasion and if I saw one suffering I would call Animal Control so it could be humanely put down.

But my dog trusts me and I love him.  I spent $500 the other night for x-rays and tests and will spend another $1200 on surgery for him.  If he were terminal, I wouldn't.  But he could have many happy, healthy years. 

To each their own.  Pets get high priority when it comes to spending in my life.

[tipster350]

When I adopted my dog, I took on the responsibility for feeding and caring for her. That includes vaccinations (which are required if I want to board her and also by licensing requirements); routine veterinary care, and some emergency and major services within reason and my ability to pay. I can't understand the mentality that would drive a person to put an animal down or let it suffer for a small amount of money, say antibiotics that could quickly take care of an infection. I would not spend many thousands on heroics if there wasn't a good chance of survival/quality of life, or that would cause my pet undue and prolonged suffering.

Caring for my pet in this way is not hypocritical if I also eat meat. This is not a zero-sum game. I support causes that push for humane treatment of animals. I make choices about the foods I buy, trying always to select meats that have been humanely raised and slaughtered. As others mentioned, these animals are not my family and I don't love them, but I do care about preventing needless suffering, and that is what I support.

[Cassie]

I would not spend thousands if my dog had a poor prognosis. But there is a huge difference between that and not being willing to spend a decent amount on a pet you love.  Our no kill shelter is a model for the nation because they never turn down an animal. They have aggressive adoption events every week to keep the animals moving out so more can be taken in.  It does no good to have a no kill shelter that will consider itself full and not take more animals. OUr HS goes around the country and teaches those that want to learn how to do it. They do it with a great staff and many volunteers that they value greatly.

[TabbyCat]

I'm sorry about your dog, it's hard to lose a pet and absolutely necessary to have a plan for the cost of a medical emergency. My parents took their dog to the local dog park as a puppy and a grate Dane puppy ran up to him to say hi, perfectly friendly but huge and clumsy, stepped on their little dogs leg by accident and broke it in two places. $3k right away. Even young health pets can have sudden large expenses.

[BTH7117]

I think the above poster is spot on re: when the desires of the owner and what's best for the animal conflict.  As much as I love my senior dog, the thought of him suffering is 1,000 times worse than the thought of him dying.  One day it will be his time, and I'll pull another dog from the shelter, whom I will surely also love.

(FWIW, I gave up meat after adopting my first dog, for the reasons argued about above.  Much easier than expected and a very effective way to cut down on the grocery bill.  Thus concludes my evangelism for the day.)

[onlykelsey]

I think the above poster is spot on re: when the desires of the owner and what's best for the animal conflict.  As much as I love my senior dog, the thought of him suffering is 1,000 times worse than the thought of him dying.  One day it will be his time, and I'll pull another dog from the shelter, whom I will surely also love.

(FWIW, I gave up meat after adopting my first dog, for the reasons argued about above.  Much easier than expected and a very effective way to cut down on the grocery bill.  Thus concludes my evangelism for the day.)

Yeah, I have wondered how other people reconcile living with a non-human animal and loving it, and eating other non-human animals.  I was vegetarian for 15 years and actually gave it up around the time I adopted my dog (for unrelated reasons), but still eat probably 3 servings of meat a month (often strategically for blood drives or monthly cycle-related reasons).  I do all sorts of other things that I think are worse for the planet (print reams of paper for clients, use air conditioning, fly once or twice a year), though, and I don't think becoming vegetarian or even vegan would significantly change my overall demands on the planet since so many of them come from things like drinking alcohol or buying electronics.

[peace99]

I have a pet emergency fund that is equal to the purchase price of the dog. In my case i got a pedigree and all in to get it home and the bits and pieces it needed it cost $2,500.

 I figure that if the vets bills are below that per year then its okay. If i get a bill larger then $2,500 i would have her put down (before then i would ask the vet to reduce the bill to this amount as I am sure their mark up is massive)


Its a simple ROI. For me its not worth investing more then the purchase price for medical care (on top of the ongoing costs of owning a dog).

My fiancee thinks that i am evil for having this mentality and I suspect she would spend the last dime of her savings to keep the dog alive.  Its all about how you value a pet vs FI and other financial goals.