Comments: The Cost of a Pet is $48,000!

I am so, so, so, so far behind in posting some great comments that I don't know what to do (FYI -- I currently have 407 unposted comments that I at least want to consider posting!). It's not really my fault, of course, it's yours. All of you. You keep leaving such great thoughts and suggestions and so many of them that I just can't keep up!!!! ;-)

Seriously, there are a lot of wonderful comments and I want you to keep them coming. Maybe I'll have "all comments" week one week to catch up (ooooh, now that I say that, I just may do it!). Anyway, if you're not reading the comments here at Free Money Finance, you're missing a lot.

One of the most unusual, controversial, and interesting posts I've ever written was titled "The Cost of a Pet is $48,000!!" I wrote it when I saw that a website estimated that the average pet owner spent $400 per month over the lifetime of a pet. I then calculated the months in a pet's life and got to a total cost of $48,000.

As you might imagine, I got a lot of poo-poo comments like "there's no way my dog/cat costs that much". However, I also received several "you can't believe what I spent on my pet" comments and from these I wrote a follow-up article titled "Financial Horror Stories from Pet Owners". From there, the topic just grew.

I wrote about the fact that "The Cost of a Pet is Now More than $48,000" since people are now paying tons of money for designer dogs. I then ran into posts that other people had written about the wild costs associated with their pets and I wrote "Costs of Pets Posts". I posted on "10 Things Your Veterinarian Won't Tell You" too. Finally, I felt like I'd written so much about a topic that wasn't in the mainstream of most personal finance discussions that I wrote "Costs of Owning a Pet, Part 165".

As you can imagine, I received a few good comments along the way and I want to share a few of them with you. We'll start with a friend of mine who posted the following:

With my dog it comes far less than $400 per month. Heck, I don't spend that much on my two kids! My golden retriever was from the humane society for $100 and that including the "fix". You don’t need to spend big bucks on pure breed champion dogs to get a good one. We bought two dog dishes and got an old quit from the Salvation Army for $5. Her fetch toy costs less than $5 and I got a free doghouse from a friend. The most expense is the once a year vet visit with heartworm pills and shots. That's about $200. Then add in dog food and treats and it's that’s about $25 per month. The amount of pleasure my children get from the dog far exceeds the $500 per year we pay. If you decide do not take the family out for dinner once per month you have covered the cost of the pet with ease. Seeing the kids playing and loving the dog is a greater overall benefit than one meal at a restaurant. Your kids will always remember the dog but they will never remember that missed restaurant meal. This is fiscal responsibility.

Well, I guess he told me! And just in case I wasn't pummeled into submission, someone jumped on the bandwagon to agree with him:

I concur with Bruce, with the exception that I paid more for my dog but even counting that spent far, far less than $400 per month (even for the first six months). I'd had a dog before, so I already had all of the "durable goods" I needed (and much of that from friends, Goodwill, or purchased on sale); the breeder supplied all but one of the shots etc., and I get heartworm preventative at a huge discount from Australia. $5 rabies shots from the county. I have a big dog so I buy a lot of food, but I buy it in bulk so it's cheaper per pound. If I spend much more than $400/year on average I'd be astonished.

Here's the same sort of comment, but a little more balanced:

I have a dalmation and two cats. For my wife and I, the most expensive part is the food. I do buy good food, and on that I spend about 30$/mo. Once a year they all get shots at the discount mobile vet ( www.pet-vax.com). I buy hairball remedy-treats in bulk, but I've heard a little bit of petroleum jelly on their nose will do just as well. The dog won't behave without a little bit of treats, so we buy those in bulk too. Boarding is really expensive, so we have a neighbor who has a pet-sitting business take care of them. She's not cheap either. No doubt, pets are definitely an extra expense and the cost should be thoroughly considered before purchase. I agree that I do enjoy them and I feel that they're worth every penny. My wife and I have made agreements that if anyone became ill, the most we would spend on attempting to return them to health would be a set amount before deciding to have them put to rest. She had the dalmatian and I had the cats before we were wed.

Here's someone who's done the math (which I recommend) and it's not pretty (though they are below $400 per month):

I tracked my dog's costs over the years, she's a Black Lab mix we got from a pound, and is the sweetest doggie in town. Costs for everything average $200 a month, and she's 15 years old. Her meds are quite expensive in her old age, and she had surgery when she was younger. We also incur kennel costs a couple of times a year when we travel. She's the best doggie in the world, and we gladly take care of her. But it occurred to us last year that the amount we spend on her annually amounts to a mortgage payment. Yikes!

And didn't ya just KNOW that someone was going to start the whole "which is better -- a cat or a dog -- argument"? This person also makes a good point -- pets are cheaper than kids:

I'm going to argue that cats don't cost as much as dogs do, but, that said, I probably spend about $100/month on my two cats. They are both young, though, so I so far have not had to deal with too many health problems. But that said... kids are so much more effin' expensive then that. Since I never plan to have kids, nor do I have to send my cats off to college, consider how much money I'm actually saving! ;)

Then, they turn on me again, this time criticizing my logic when I talked about the cost of pets going up due to designer dogs being the rage:

Flawed logic... Just because some people spend exorbitant amounts of money on pets doesn't mean owning a pet is getting more expensive. It's similar to the wedding expense posts. Ms. Princess spends $250,000 on her wedding and raises the average, but that doesn't affect the cost of my wedding. Yes, there is potential to spend more, but the true cost doesn't change.

No matter how much someone spends on their labradoodle, you can still buy a dog for $80 at the humane society. Wait a year, and you will likely be able to pick up a designer dog if you really want one. Throw in $30/month for food, and about $50/month for medical expenses, and you have a cheap exercise buddy and companion.

This then led to a continued "flawed logic" comment and a short analysis of supply and demand as related to new dog breeds (are we over-doing this a bit, people?):

Setting aside for the moment the cost-benefit analysis of owning a pet, I don't see how the content of the post even supports the thesis. How does the existence of a new variety of overpriced designer dogs make owning a pet in general more expensive? It seems like the introduction of more suppliers, even expensive suppliers, should shift the supply curve, and therefore the average market price one would expect, downward.

I also got the philosophical argument which, by the way, I was starting to go for:

As important as it is to control expenses, I'd argue that it is a mistake to ignore that true wealth in life comes not only from saving and accumulating, but also from the act of giving. Our dog cost only $10 from the pound, but her unconditional, unlimited love combined with the knowledge that we've given an unwanted animal a good home has a value beyond simple quantification.

I was starting to go for it, that is, until the philosophical argument took a dramatic turn:

I don't know how realistic the animal cops are on the Animal Planet Channel but I am concerned about owning a pet. I have never treated an animal as badly as the people on the show but still, people are being arrested. These animal cops are also telling people it is against the law to butcher rabbits, own your own animal rescue shelter, fight dogs or roasters. I have wondered where they draw the line. Sure I am against intentinally harming another animal but when will the day come when I will be arrested for stepping on ants or killing bacteria. Aren't these animal life also?

Finally, here's my latest, and most favorite, comment of them all:

I agree that $400 is high, until I factor in what I spend over the lifetime of one of my cats. I look at it this way - much cheaper than therapy. They make me smile, keep me grounded (it's hard, for example, to get too carried away with your importance when you scoop litter on a daily basis.)

Comments

[gabrielle]

I don't know about all this talk about $. I know that people can be obsessive and try to have an animal as a substitute for human relationships, etc. but as for me, my two cats are one of the happiest things in my life. I LOOOOOVE ANIMALS.

For two summer months we traveled together, and camped mostly. My older cat is 14 yet adapted to travel though hasn't her whole life. They are amazing. My younger one walks on a leash and thinks he is a dog. For now they are my kids, and you don't add up the $ amount when you have a kid, so it's the same for me...

[christian's pet]

I am not into pets. but there is no need to have a pet just to understand that it does not matter how much you spend for your pet. Animals are God-created beings like as humans. So basically, what we are experiencing in this world can similarly apply to other creation like animals. Besides, he can afford thousands of dollars so it's not really a biggie.