If you haven't noticed, there's been a lively exchange between a couple FMF readers over the past few days. The issue started with my post titled Sell Your House to Save Your Pet's Life which detailed some of the expensive medical care decisions pet owners faced. I ended by commenting:
1. Pets are an expense, and you need to consider this before you get one. Sure, it's a reasonable financial decision to have a pet (it's your choice what to spend your money on), but realize what you're getting your budget in for. In the end, you may have to choose between getting a pet and sending a kid to college.
2. If you don't believe pets can be expensive, look at the words that appear above:
- "a staggering cost of $700!!!!!"
- "$5,000 CAT scan which may have been inconclusive!!"
- "holiday spending on pets surpassed spending on human children"
- "We also have spent a small fortune going to a vet ophthalmologist for special eye surgery"
- "there is no cost that we wouldn't spend to give a pet the quality of life it deserves, even if only for a few more months or years"
3. All this "pets are the same as children" talk is driving me crazy. I've had pets and I have children and all I have to say is that there's a HUGE difference between what I'd do to save one of my children (I'd do anything) and what I'd do to save a beloved pet (weigh the cost/benefit as one reader above commented). Pets may be similar to children in some ways, but come on, people, would you really do as much for a pet as you would for your child? If so, that means you'd do anything it would take to keep that pet alive one more day. You'd sell your house to heal your pet. You'd quit your job to stay home with the pet. You'd borrow as much money as you could to keep it on life support. These are things you'd do for a child -- but would you (or does anyone) really do this for a pet?
In response, Bruce left the following comment:
One observation I've made about the "pets are equivalent to children" people is that 90% of the time they are childless, and clueless. They make those statements, and we parents catch each others' eyes and we *know* what the others are thinking. We know that this person has no clue, and that the only reason we aren't tearing into the paper wall of their cluelessness is that we are being nice. The sad thing is that often, the person often seems to think he or she is being cute or endearing, when it has just the opposite effect to many.
Still, even if I am projecting most of that (which I may very well be), it makes me grit my teeth each and every time. Decide beforehand how much you will pay. Perhaps leverage your maximum amount by purchasing 80/20 pet health insurance. But decide and don't feel bad that you've put a number on a life.
For me, that number is $1500 for either of my dogs. That's it, and that would be only if I thought the dog had a chance of living a pain-free, long life afterwards. For my cats, $200, but don't tell my kids that number. For my chickens, $0, since they are old and I could use new vigorous egg-layers. :)
Mike took exception with Bruce's thoughts and commented the following:
I can partially see the first commentors point (Bruce) about the majority of the "pets are the same as children" are childless. Not clueless however. I have made that pets [are the] same as children statement a number of times, and as was mentioned in the post, most (if not all) people, probably including me would go to as extreme an extent, like selling your house, to save a pets life as for a childs life. Obviously I wouldn't have first hand experience with making decisions like that with a child, but I am willing to bet most of the readers of this blog, including the first commentor have had to either, so you really can't say what you would do. My point, which I have mentioned before here and elsewhere, is that if you are a responsible person, maybe even just a "humane" person, you shouldn't have a set "death limit" for your pet. When my dog started having all the problem he did, some of which were similar to the one in this article, like the monthly fee for life part.
Your saying...as many of the commentors have, that you will just stop at $1500, and that is only if you decide it is "worth it". So what happens when you hit $1500? Do you tell your kid "sorry Timmy, we had to kill Sparky because if we spent any more, I would be dipping into the cable bill, and daddy would rather watch the superbowl."
That to me is irresponsible and is just plain wrong. You shouldn't be going into owning a pet with his death sentance already planned out. Sure, everything has its and I, just like probably anyone else that said they view their pets as children, would do whatever was necessary to save my kid. You're not even giving your dog a chance. If your not willing to even attempt to make a sacrifice to save your pet, maybe even if it is only for another year, then you just plain shouldn't have one. Get a fish tank, they are cheaper and don't live as long.
You would really feel fine going to sleep the night after you put your dog to sleep when you hit that $1500 mark? especially knowing that their are plenty of reasonable sacrifices you could have made. It wouldn't....and didn't sit well with me to think that I chose cable TV, a better car, high speed internet access, a cell phone, or whatever other amenities you can think of over a pet...a companion...and a member of a member of the family, like your child, but I don't think anyone said that they would treat both the same.
Setting a limit of $200 on a cat? many of them live a good 20 years. That is just cruel, which again ties into the whole child thing. When you read in the paper about some parent who had been abusing their kid or depriving the child in some way, that is cruel, and shouldn't happen. Obviously not the same as with a pet, but a reasonable person can understand the differance. People spend $200 going to dunkin donuts. That is worth more than spending a little on your cat?
If you go into getting a pet with its death tally already planned out. Just do everyone who actually likes their pets a favor and just not get it.
I spent a ton of money to save my dog. He lived at least 2 years extra just because of that. The sacrifices I made were petty and insignificant. But I, am my dog enjoyed those 2 extra years. When the dog had to be put down when nothing else could be done, my younger brother had a real tough time dealing with it. The decision was all mine since it was my dog, but he lived with that dog his entire life, and now he had to watch him get put down. Fortunately he is old enough to understand why, but how do you parents that know so much more than me tell that to your 5 year old? Is the heartache and torment that they deal with worth anything? or is there a price on that too?
As I said in a previous comment on this topic, the $15,000 plus I spent just in the last 3 years of my dogs life were worth every penny. I would spend it again if it meant that I didn't have to see how heart broken members of my family were. I would have continued the $80+/month for the shot that was stabilizing his system, and I would have gone further if it hadn't reached the point where he couldn't breathe on his own, and would have died...more painfully, on his own days later.
Maybe instead of setting a predetermined limit on a pets life, you should figure out what "adjustments" you could make in your life to keep him alive.
Or maybe instead just watch your kids cry when you needlessly kill your pet.
To which Bruce responded:
Mike, both my kids and I cried when I put down the feral dog I'd foolishly tried to rescue. That's part of life, learning to live with loss and understanding that sometimes hard decisions have to be made. I sleep fine, however. I understood that the priority of safety for both my and other peoples' children outweighed the obligation to keep a feral and dangerous dog alive. In fact, I think it is a good thing for children to learn that Mom and Dad do not have the power to solve all problems.
Similarly, I understand and I am perfectly at ease with my choice to value a dog's life lower than the future education for my children and a comfortable retirement for me and my wife. I would sleep just fine, trust me.
The cat comment? Eh, it was a stray, and it hung around long enough that I started feeding it. Luckily, it wasn't as feral as the dog I mentioned. I consider any continued life it has to be out of pure generosity from my family. We don't owe it a thing.
I strongly disagree that setting limits ahead of time is in any way equivalent to "abuse", "cruelty", or "neglect". They get vet visits, they just don't have an infinite budget because they simply are not infinitely important to me or to my family.
Every dollar entering my family's life has a planned destination. The "latte factor" is not a factor in our lives. There are no instant savings of $200 to be made by stopping going to "dunkin' donuts".
I am amazed that you consider $15,000 to be "petty and insignificant". I wish I had that kind of deep pockets. My family makes well above the mean for the country, but we don't have that kind of discretionary income. A $15,000 windfall from cutting "insignificant" expenses in my family would be spent as follows:
Fully fund 2005 Roth IRAs for my wife and me: $4000
Fully fund 2007 Roth IRAs for my wife and me: $8000
Partially fund Oregon 529 for my three children: $1000 each
As you probably can imagine, Mike wasn't having any of that, and responded with the following:
It isn't that the $15,000 is petty or insignificant. That money would have put me at least $15,000 closer to buying my first house. It would have made my life significantly easier than it is right now. My point was just that in my case I don't really regret that I spent all that money on my dog. I just have big issues with having a set budget beforehand for living things. I also took the clueless comment more personally that you may (or may not) have ment. I would be a fool to think that a dog and a human have the same value.
I may have over simplified the "latte factor", my point was that for "most people" as you originally mentioned, some smaller sacrifices could be made to possibly save the pet. I am sure you budget your money magnitudes better than I do, maybe you don't make a lot of frivilous purchases, but like you originally said. Most people don't go to that extent. I have been trying to get my finances in order for a while now. That was next to impossible having things like a pet that I considered an obligation to take care of. Since he had to be put to sleep I havn't gotten a new dog because I don't have the extra money for anything aside for the regular vet visits. That is pretty much what point was. If you can't afford a pet, you (people in general) shouldn't get one
I just can't see past the set budget part. Pets aren't toys. They can very easily end up being a massive expense. My case being a good example. I don't think people should go into owning a pet with the mindset that they aren't going to do much for the animal if a big problem arises. What happens if a problem arises and everyone in your family became really attached to the pet? I am not trying to say you are heartless, but that budget could easily change if something actually happened. I can see the $1500 or whatever budget you chose as being more of an emergency fund. I don't know how far I would have gone financially with my dog if I was married at the time, or had kids, but [comment ends here].
Here are my thoughts:
1. Good discussion, guys. And entertaining.
2. As you can guess, I am more in agreement with Bruce, but that's a personal preference. When I asked people previously how much they would spend to save their pet, the average was in the $1,000 to $2,000 range, so Bruce is in the middle of the pack. I don't have pets (my kids have allergies), but I am in agreement with the principle of setting a limit on what you'd spend to save a pet. It's what I would do if I were an owner.
3. Mike has every right to spend whatever he wants on his pet (did he say $15,000???!!!!). After all, it's his money. I wouldn't, but it's his choice. What I do disagree with is the thought process that equates (either consciously or subconsciously) a pet's life with a human's (Mike says a child is worth more than a pet, but his following comments indicate he really believes otherwise). It's just not even close no matter what anyone says. Not only morally as people do we know that humans are worth far more, but our laws reflect this. (When was the last execution of a criminal for the murder of a dog?) I'm not trying to be crass, but come on, there's a HUGE difference here.
Unfortunately, some people don't live this way. Instead, they value pets as much as or even more than humans. Here's a comment from a third person to my post:
Aside from chickens, I grew up in a pet free home. Maybe that makes me heartless.
Sometimes it seems that my bf's parents love their dogs more than they love him. When he was a young child and he had nightmares, his mother wouldn't let him sleep in her bed at night because he would crowd the dog out of her place on the bed. His mother wants to commission an artist to paint an oil portrait of her current dog, but I've only found one baby picture of him in the entire house. His father, buys steaks for his dog, but couldn't spend a penny on his only son's college education, or on child support for that matter.
So yes -- some people are a lot kinder to their dogs than they are to their children . . . and maybe they even love them more than their children. And yes, those people should go with their heart because they deserve the consequences of their twisted love.
4. I regularly write about the topics of pets and money because these are the issues all would-be and current pet owners need to consider -- the former needs to grapple with the potential costs before getting a pet and the latter needs to consider what to do if/when the "expense versus pet's life" issue arises.
I also see the other extreme of pet ownership: college students who decide to all rent a house together, and someone gets the bright idea of getting a cat. So they adopt a cat, feed it when they remember to, clean its litter box when they remember to, try to feed it beer because they think it's funny, and when they all move back home in the summer, they either can't take the cat or don't want to. "Oh, just let it go," they say, "It's a cat. It'll get along okay." Consequently, our college town is full of abandoned cats every summer -- many of them un-neutered and un-spayed, because some young men can't distinguish between their own sexuality and that of their pet. "Ha, ha, neuter him? He gets laid every night! Guffaw, guffaw!"
And then there's the couple that recently surrendered an elderly Boston terrier to an animal shelter because they didn't want to be bothered with its care any more. "It's just going to get expensive from here."
I can't stress enough that responsible pet ownership means taking on full responsibility for care, feeding, and medical expenses. However, we also have to realize that pets are NOT children. Humans understand that what the doctor is doing may help, and can intellectualize their illness. Pets do not. When you have a very sick pet, you have quality of life issues to deal with. There sometimes comes the point when it may be crueler to make the animal go through painful and frightening medical procedures and subsequent recovery than it is to have the animal quietly put down. It's a hard decision, and a highly personal one that only a pet owner can make.
Posted by: Stock Mama | July 21, 2006 at 04:13 PM
And let me also add that I recently spent over $100 to get a feral cat spayed and vaccinated, after she graced our garden with a pair of kittens. The vaccinations are out of kindess for the cat, so she'll have a healthier life, and so she won't spread rabies and distemper, and the spaying is out of kindness for a neighborhood that doesn't need another litter of feral kittens. One kitten that got left behind in a botched trapping attempt earlier is with a foster momcat, and the other is coming around with mama to get food, and is responding well to food and toys. He allows me to pet him a little and even pick him up briefly, so he's just about ready to come indoors.
I got advice and a discount coupon from our local feline rescue association, so the spaying wasn't quite as costly as it might have been, but I did have to pay extra for dissolving sutures, post-op pain medication, and the vaccines.
If feral cat rescue stories fascinate you, there's more here:
http://readingdirt.blogspot.com/2006/07/feral-kitten-update.html
Posted by: Stock Mama | July 21, 2006 at 04:23 PM