One of my earliest pet-related posts that got a big reaction was titled Cost of a Pet is $48,000!!! It was written tongue-in-cheek (though not everyone took it that way) but also meant to show people how there is a real and significant cost to having a pet.
I've covered the "cost of pets" topic off and on again since then, but it's been awhile since my last post. Couple that with the fact that it seems "my pet is costing me a fortune" pieces seem to be oozing out of the web as well as some personal experiences lately, and I thought it was time to post on the subject again.
The first piece I'd like to highlight is How My Stupid Cat Has Cost Me $5,500 Over Three Years. The Consumerist details the high costs one cat owner incurred. Their highlights (costs from August 2009 until now):
- First-year vet checkup and vaccination rounds: $200
- Ear mites: $50 for meds
- Intestinal worms: $50 for meds
- Vet visit to figure out why his hair was falling out in nasty clumps: $200
- Ringworm: $50 for meds
- Anti-fungal medication for my boyfriend, who got ringworm from the cat: $10
- Neutered: $250
- Emergency vet visit because my roommate thought he had eaten a couple of her Adderall pills (yes, true story, and no, he had not): $200
- Urinary blockage 1: $500 for catheterization
- Urinary blockage 2: $500 for catheterization
- Urinary blockage 3: $1500 for overnight stay and catheterization
- Fancy dancy C/D or S/O prescription-only cat food to prevent future urinary blockages: $40/month x 16 months (and counting!) = $640 (and counting!)
- Vet visit because he was pooping blood: $200 for x-rays and TWO enemas
- Vet visit because he was pooping blood again: $150 to diagnose the problem as "stress"
- Pills for "stress": $50
Really? The cat is pooping blood because it's stressed? What does a cat have to be stressed about? Maybe he did eat some Adderall pills. :)
The next piece is from Budgeting in the Fun Stuff. She and her husband adopted a rescue dog with separation anxiety and he ended up destroying a door and some carpeting (see the link for photos). The repair costs coupled with the initial expenses of adopting him ended up costing them almost $3,000 over a 2-3 week period (they eventually returned him to the shelter.)
Then there's TV. My kids and I were watching Income Property the other night when the owners of this place said they wanted to remodel their basement because they needed income. The reason? Their dog had "major health issues" and they were now in debt $25,000 as a result. Yikes!!!!
Finally, when we went home to my parents' house we saw the damage her dog had done to the garage (ate molding, destroyed a wall) as well as chewed the deck in various locations. They weren't sure why, but the dog did it one day and hasn't done anything since. They aren't going to repair it but I'm guessing it would cost them several hundred dollars at least to get things back to normal.
My purpose in highlighting these stories isn't to bash on pets, but to remind us all that there are real costs associated with owning a pet (see here for estimates from the SPCA) and that those costs aren't inconsequential. In addition, pets can have major issues (as shown above) that can significantly increase their cost. As such, anyone considering a pet needs to 1) be sure to count the cost in advance and make sure they can afford the pet and 2) increase their emergency fund just in case they get a pet that needs $25k in medical treatment or decides to rack up $3k in repair bills. Otherwise, you could find yourself in a financial bind if a pet emergency occurs.
I recently adopted a pet and I think I'm prepared for the "14 to 18 year commitment" as my fiance put it. However, I never thought about increasing my emergency fund to cover my pet and I think it's a really sound idea.
Posted by: In Budgets We Trust | May 02, 2012 at 04:08 PM
When I used to listen to Ric Edelman's radio show on personal finance, one of his updates was on tracking the expenses involved with his family's (or his wife's, as he put it) new dog. He said he stopped bothering with tracking the costs when the dog ate his new $4000 hearing aid.
Posted by: PennySaved | May 02, 2012 at 05:20 PM
It's still a LOT cheaper than having a human child, and you don't see people weighing the costs of that nearly as much.
You won't need to spend nearly as much money with pets if you feed them right and actually pay attention to them.
Posted by: JM | May 02, 2012 at 06:17 PM
I like JM's comment, it IS cheaper than having a human child and you don't have to deal with their drama!
We have a 3 1/2 yo yellow Lab. We bought her from a breeder for $900. She has cost us on average $5,000 a year (food, vet, boarding, toys). We walk her twice a day, so thankfully, she hasn't chewed up the house. I can't imagine my life without her, she's brought lots of joy to our family.
Posted by: Abbie's Mom | May 02, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Don't forget the costs of the pet sitter or kennel when you go out of town. $$$
I'm interested to see if people believe there is a limit to your moral obligation to a pet. For example, I'm just not going to spend $500+ for my dog to get cancer treatments, etc. Does this make me a bad person? Alright all you pet lovers - let me have it!
Posted by: SR | May 02, 2012 at 07:02 PM
SR,
Purely anecdotal, but I believe people are far, far more defensive of pet/pet costs now than twenty years ago. I'd be willing to bet that a far greater percentage of households have pets now compared to then, with an even greater number having multiple pets (especially dogs). I'm not sure why...but then again I don't like the "upkeep" and massive expensives associated with pet ownership, so I'm probably "cold" and "heartless".
Maybe it was Sarah McLachlan and those horrible commercials?
Posted by: Mark | May 02, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Wow, there are a lot of things here that I conveniently forget about when I'm seeing a cute pup walk down the street! My boyfriend and I have been tempted to adopt a dog for months but this is a great reminder that before we take the plunge, we should really make sure we're financially prepared to do so!
Posted by: Shannon-ReadyForZero | May 03, 2012 at 02:13 AM
Here is a good tip for anyone considering a cut little miniature dog... don't buy it! The 'toy' versions of most dogs have been bred so badly that their little bodies cannot handle it and they have a ton of health issues. My parent's and grandparent's both bought 'toy' versions of dog's and they have had seizures, breaking bones and other miscellaneous issues $$$$.
I disagree with this post if you are buying a healthy full-side dog or cat, there are more than just financial reasons for doing so. We have 3 cats and I find that the cost of them (around $50 a month) is nothing compared to what they give us in return.
Having had dogs and cats, I can say that cats are MUCH easier to take care of, especially if you leave the house for periods of time.
Do not be discouraged by people who probably don't want animals in the first place and use these financial figures as justification, these amounts are worst case scenario and probably if you do not take good care of them.
Posted by: Brent | May 03, 2012 at 09:21 AM
As a twenty-something year old, a lot of my friends are beginning to get puppy's because they have their own places and think they're cute and that they're mature enough to handle is. Hah! Not only do those things take an immense amount of time, effort and care, but they suck you dry of money. I don't know why all my friends think that they'll somehow be able to afford everything that goes a long with owning a dog, but most of the time I end up feeling so horrible for the poor things who don't get enough exercise, time played with, or space in small apartments to really get the care they need. I know its nothing like having a baby, but for people my age its the closest thing too it, and who wants that responsibility?! Not me! I want to be able to take off to Miami for the weekend without having to worry about my puppy, that's what being young is all about.
Posted by: Kelly@All-FinancialNews | May 03, 2012 at 09:51 AM
Pets cost money, no two ways about it. Some cost more than others depending on the type of pet and how well you care for it, as well as factors out of your control. I absolutely agree that prior to getting any kind of pet, people should consider the commitment they are making, and beef up their e-fund.
Our dog has cost us TONS of money. I've never added it all up because it would depress me. However, the love and affection we get from him is invaluable. He will go anywhere, do anything (or nothing) and be perfectly happy, as long as he's with us. And he's still cheaper than a kid will be! ;-)
Posted by: Walden | May 03, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I think I spend approximately $20 a month on cat food and cat litter for our cat. Thats it. We had a dog that cost us a couple thousand within a year period. Mostly due to vet bills, but it was a pretty old dog at the time.
Income property is a pretty cool show.
Posted by: jim | May 03, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Mark wagered : "I'd be willing to bet that a far greater percentage of households have pets now compared to then"
From 1983 to 2006 the % of homes with dogs went down from 42.5% to 37.2% Cats went up from 28% to 32%. Both hit lows in 1996 and rebounded. 2006 is most recent Census data I see on it. The average # of pets owned per household increased a bit from '91 to '06 though with dogs going from 1.5 to 1.7 and cats from 2 to 2.2
I bet the longer term trend changes are more about the demographics of households. The more people a home has the higher % of pet ownership.
Posted by: jim | May 03, 2012 at 01:09 PM
The other expense renters don't think about is they are more limited in their ability for apartments and folks often end up paying more rent to rent houses because of the pet(s). In perpetually tight rental markets, this lack of flexibility can be a big problem and expense.
Posted by: mysticaltyger | May 03, 2012 at 01:28 PM
One thing not mentioned yet is that they are expensive but the benefits of pet owning has been heavily studied and the results are significant. Pet owners live longer, have lower stress levels and are less prone to certain types of disease and illnesses (mostly related to lower stress levels.) There are actually significant life expectancy and quality of life benefits to owning a pet that is well worth the significant finicial impact of pet ownership. See link on WebMD for some of the studies.
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/5-ways-pets-improve-your-health
Posted by: Arimack | May 03, 2012 at 01:36 PM
So you can have lower stress and actually be healthier by having a pet. That will save you money. I wonder if the savings from improved health will offset the cost of the pet? Of course a large bulk of the cost of pets is paying for their health. Maybe we should get pets for our pets to keep the cost of owning our pets down.
Posted by: jim | May 03, 2012 at 04:20 PM
@Arimack
I doubt it's the fact that the owners live longer strictly because they have a pet. My guess is most pet owners are probably better off financially, which usually means they take better care of their health and have access to better health care. While I don't doubt that owning a pet can make one happier and less stressed, it's most likely minor factor in one's longevity.
Posted by: Noah | May 03, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Noah, there isn't a huge difference between pet ownership and income levels once you get into the middle class level.
For dogs : Under $20k income is about 30% and then from $20k on up it varies from 37-42%.
Cats is less varied, about 30% for under $20k and then 33-35% for higher incomes.
Posted by: jim | May 03, 2012 at 05:02 PM
Jim, you are probably correct about the income not being a factor, but when someone makes a blanket statement like "pet owners live longer", that is simply not correct. Owning a pet will not make you live longer, nor is it a guarantee that your life will be less stressful. It's one of hundreds of things that CAN help prolong your life and make it more enjoyable, but it isn't a guarantee.
Posted by: Noah | May 03, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Noah, I'm sure Airmack meant that the studies show that pet owners live longer 'on average'. I'm sure Airmack isn't meaning to say that owning a pet will guarantee you longer life. I also don't know if the pet studies demonstrate any causation or just show a correlation. I think it can be taken as assumed that we're talking about average life spans cause thats all one can measure and so its not an absolute or guaranteed figure.
Posted by: jim | May 03, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Classic correlation vs causation discussion.
I recently got a "toy" dog. A purebred Pug from a registered AKC breeder. While there have been normal expenses, they haven't been outrageous. Pet insurance and pet health inaurance are good ways to manage risk here. In the end you will want to have the extra money in case.
Posted by: Easychange | May 03, 2012 at 06:41 PM