OPINION Poll - What are your thoughts?

[Lynne Fowler-Oodles of Doodles]

This is an interesting topic.

Does everyone deserve a dog of their very own, or only those that can afford one (in money/time/devotion)?

This is an interesting and difficult question. In fact, the Irreverent Vet recently discussed this very topic. It came up because of the octuplet mom with 14 kids who was receiving public assistance. It made a lot of people step back and ask, "Does everyone deserve kids or only those that can afford them?"

Logically, the question extends to pets. Does everyone deserve a pet or only those that can afford to care for them them?

What do you think? I'm very interested to find out what you all think about this issue.

Pets have needs that need to be taken care of - grooming, nutritional needs (good food), preventative health care, and emergency or ongoing health care if there are medical problems. Those all cost money. Should we really own a pet if we are unable to fulfill those needs?

The Irreverent Vet addresses this issue head-on and his opinion is one that I believe most vets share.

After we discuss it I will post their POLL outcome: Does Everyone "Deserve" a Pet? What do you think?

Leave your answer here and your comments below.

[HANNAH 8/2/07 & HONEY 7/2/08]

I really would like to know where and who gets these kind of checks. People on Welfare or Public Assistance can not claim pets to collect more money on their checks and if they are and you know they are, report them. In fact you can't even use food stamps to purchase food for pets! Welfare reform, you can have one kid and apply for Welfare, you have more, your check does not increase, and the only check increase you get is the standard across the board Cost of Living expense. Also to be on Welfare, you now have to get a job or they kick you off of Welfare, even if it's part time. Just had a friend in dire need of disability, she went to Welfare for help, they made her work till her disability just went through and this has been going on for 4 to 5 years now, if not for family she would of been on the street's. Welfare is a Federal Assistance program so all things apply State to State. Call your local Welfare offices and check this stuff out...should be interesting in seeing if all do things the same way.

[Lorraine Bromley]

I live in Canada and I am on a Federal Disability. My son is on a Provincial Disability. There are differences. I have no knowledge of the US

[HANNAH 8/2/07 & HONEY 7/2/08]

The truth is many doctors, vets and others who could volunteer don't, or should we say their volunteer work has a price tag attached to it. Many charge for their services. I say this because I have seen it first hand. Many have hidden charges like when you donate to Unicef or Cancer foundations, their employees all draw a fee, (work salary) for services they say are free or they are suppose to be donating their time while drawing this salary. Our SPCA has a reduced fee, $76.00 and a Vet who will take this voucher to spay your pet. When you call there...they ask you right out how old the dog is, how much does the dog weigh, if your dog is say 80 to 100lbs, guess what...your charged an addtional fee of $30.00 or more...and disposal fee of $6.00. Till your done your reduced fee may have saved you 15.00 which you can put in your gas tank to get your dog back and forth for the spaying. Not saying there are not some Vets who may volunteer, but most are out for the almighty dollar in the real world, and there is never anything in this world for free, not even a free dog, they come attached with health issues ..all dogs do at one time in their life or another! So yeah if everyone would give back a piece of themselves this world would be a much better place...but that will never happen!

[LuvMyAbby&Kaela]

I dont think money has as much to do with it as having the ability to provide proper care for the pet. There are many poor people who do a darn good job raising kids. Many "old country" people who were dirt poor learned to provide shelter and wholesome meals for their children by being frugal and resourceful. That combined with lots of love, and good morals, values and ethics can and has been the recipe for many well-rounded successful happy people. And of course many wealthy people have raised horrid corrupt monsters.

I am an intelligent person and given unfortunate circumstances I am sure I could have raised good kids and taken adequate care of pets without the income we were fortunate enough to have had.

Now should people be lazy free-loaders and rely on the taxpayers dollars to provide for their pets, and kids? Absoluyely not! I think people can have unfortunate circumstances or events in their lives when they are down on their luck and have to rely on plucking from the collective pot - but this should be only temporary and not a means to an end.

[Linda,Yankee & Finn]

Aye aye!!!!!

[Jacquie Yorke (DRC)]

Only those that can provide an exceptional home deserve to have a pet......

[Tamara & Giada]

Just as you said .............."Pets have needs that need to be taken care of - grooming, nutritional needs (good food), preventative health care, and emergency or ongoing health care if there are medical problems. Those all cost money." So, if you can't live up to these obligations, then you have no right to have a pet!! I'd like to add .............if you don't have the time to devote to the much needed attention that animals need, you also shouldn't have one! either!

[Jeannine]

Totally agree.
Having a pet is not for me a right but a privilege and it's always cost you something to have and to keep a privilege.

[Sessa]

Adina--since you said you like to "play" with words....I will confess, so do I.

So then,
if we look at the latin root of the word "deserve,"
it would actually translate to something more along the lines of....
(don't hold your breathe now, LOL!)
...
...
"To Serve"
or
better yet,
"To Devote ONESELF to"

so then,
with this context in mind,
we can re-look at that poll question (and drop the money bit part) a bit differently.
It might turn out something more like this...

Is "everyone" willing "to serve" a very dog of their own.
Is "everyone" willing "to devote themselves" to a very dog of their own.

I say drop the money bit part with this understanding of the question b/c frankly,
1-I have yet to meet any dog that will take cash (other than to chew on it)...LOL...
and 2-In all seriousness, its about who is willing to devote themselves to someone other than themselves, LOL...its about an understanding of selfishness vs. unselfishness.

[Debbie, Brianna and Duncan]

Oooh that was a great post Sessa. Please add into the question -a requirement of the term. Some can do devotion very well!.......for a day, or a year or very, very well but only until $#%# happens. Willing to give Selfless devotion with a forever time commitment!! ask away.

[Adina P]

Every now and then though...there is a case where it is BETTER for a person to rehome. A close friend of mine recently rehomed her dane (she still has another dog) with a friend of her husband's. This dog was the picture of separation anxiety and was just more than they could deal with (I'm not meaning 'deal with' as in they were irritated with him, but they saw that he was truly not happy the way things were and never secure).

He was glued to my friend's hip. They still see him from time to time and just a week ago they visited him in his new home and he barely paid attention to them...or to their other dog. He is HAPPY AS A CLAM and in love with his new owner. As much as I was initially upset about the rehoming...the fact is...it worked out for the BEST for this dog.

So to be the devil's advocate...(ducking)...while I agree that the vast majority of the time people need to be prepared to care for the dog for his/her life...there are exceptions.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I wonder what the difference was between the two homes. What would have made such severe separation anxiety dissipate so quickly? What would have made the the dog so much happier and more secure so quickly, at a time when he should logically have been less secure? Clearly, the dog is perfectly capable of being happy & secure, so what was the problem in the first home?
Because the problem was obviously with the home/people, and not with the dog. As usual.