stanton
Posted : 5/21/2008 7:21:33 PM
You know, thing of it is, one can turn an animal into the shelter, and/or rehome that animal....who's to say, for SURE, that it would ALWAYS be in a better environment?
Who's to say that it wouldn't get put to sleep due to animal shelters being overcrowded and not enough adoptions taking place, OR if it DID get adopted out, who's to say the rest of it's entire life would be beneficial.
I have seen so many people rehome/turn in their animals only to find it living in a back yard on a chain with no shelter, no attention, etc or animals that find themselves in abusive homes, even IF the current owner were making enough money to financially provide a wonderful environment...is that really any better for the animal, in the long run??
I am surrounded in an area of where people are starting to hurt financially, but obviously can't be too bad off as they are still buying cars, etc...however MANY of these are pet owners that allow their dogs to live outside literally, in an area where Mountain lions, bears, coyotes run high. I've seen many owners, not just where I live, that do not provide preventative heartworm treatments, good food, etc. and lots of these animals throughout Colorado, due to their owners discretion, do not get medical care when they need it...yet, they ARE financially stable with their huge houses, new trucks, boats, etc.
So....do you REALLY believe your animal is going to be lucky enough to actually go to an incredible owner that COULD for sure do better then you...or is it just a temporary situation that YOU feel is best...but again, how do you know that new owner will not end up in your situation within a matter of time too?
I have 2 out of 3 dogs that would literally die if they were to be given to someone else, cause another owner would not likely have the *understanding* of why one of them freaks out, and BITES when you first wake him up, or try to get him off your lap. He would immediately be put to sleep upon entering a kennel, no question about it.
I knew years ago, as a young adult in my early 20's where society was headed and I'm only 33 now, I opted NOT to have children because I had a dog then, and I still do now, and I knew if things got bad enough, I couldn't afford both. I would LOVE to have children, I didn't chose to not have them solely because of the dogs however, I chose to not have them because I didn't want to put them in a financially unstable environment which is where our country is FASTLY heading.
My sister has 2 boys that she can hardly feed and house, even WITH her and her husband working full time, bringing in what would be considered low blue-collar pay by the cost of living standards in Colorado now-days and they both have Associates Degrees in their line of work. They do not have excess luxury's and do not live highly, but they do have one tiny dog and one cat who'm they dote on taking as good of care of them as possible, without the greatest of food, etc but when they get in dire need of medical attention it's VERY difficult, but my sister's gotten good at taking out advancements from her direct deposit to pay for emergency's when needed.
But still, that's an example of making sure you can financially provide for both pets and children, before getting/having one or the other after already having one or the other....i'm not trying to affend anyone, it's just the way I feel for myself.