Should people who have lower income own a dog? Should people who rent own a dog? These are questions many dog owners have asked and the answers, or opinions, vary greatly. What follows are my own thoughts on dog ownership for people who have limited income.
First, I’m not ashamed to fall into a ‘low income’ bracket. Currently, I’m a student and a mother. My family survives on one income. Before that I worked hard, long-hours at a job that paid little but gave me a lot of professional satisfaction. I’m well-educated and come from a family of educators. Does that matter? No. But I share it to show that I do not fall into the stereotypes some people have of low income individuals.
The main concern that people express when they hear of a low income person, or family, adopting a dog is the cost. Dogs are expensive. Aren’t they? There is the cost of food, deworming, vaccinations, routine check-ups, toys, training, treats, accessories and then the seemingly inevitable emergency situation(s). How can people on a budget justify this expense? It’s a good question. But it’s also a question that any dog owner could ask. Money is money regardless of how much a person has. People spend (waste?) money on many things that their neighbours/family just can’t wrap their minds around. So maybe the question is if a dog offers something that makes it worthwhile. Any dog will lover will give a hearty ‘yes’ to that question.
A dog offers you companionship, love, friendship, entertainment and even protection (or the illusion of protection). They teach children responsibility and give them a true friend when everyone else seems to fail.
Ok, so maybe the expensive is worthwhile, but is it fair for the dog?
Fair to the dog? Ah, what if that ominous emergency situation arises and the owner isn’t able to find the funds. That is a good question. Many dog owners would mortgage their homes to get their dogs the medical care they needed. While others have a limit in their minds and will not pass it regardless of what kinds of what funds they have available. I think the better question here is the quality of home the dog is given.
Here are two examples.
Family A is on a limited income but they decide to adopt Rover from a kill shelter where he was going to meet certain death. Rover goes home with them and lives for many happy years as part of their family. All his basic needs are met but more importantly he’s surrounded by family that love him. Unfortunately, Rover is diagnosed with cancer before his time. It’s operable but the family just can’t pull the funds together. They decide to put Rover to sleep before he starts to suffer.
Should Family A have adopted Rover? It’s my personal opinion that Rover was a lucky dog. His life was spared and he lived his remaining years with a family that loved him. In the end they decided not to let him suffer. It would be ideal if they had been able to provide him the treatment he needed but I think the quality of his life is marginally more important that the length.
Family B has an average income and they adopt Spot because they feel a dog provides an element of protection. However, they believe that Spot is “just a dog.” Spot is not treated poorly and all his basic needs are met. But he is left largely alone in the yard as a watch dog and is only walked a few times a week. He is not an unhappy dog but he is lonely. Unfortunately, Spot is hit by a car when he escapes from the yard. The family has the money in their savings account to save spot but decide it would eat into their ski vacation so they have Spot put down.
Should Family B have adopted Spot? … I don’t know. But what I DO believe is that they did not provide a better home for Spot than Family A did for Rover despite the difference in income. What if Family B had paid for Spot’s surgery? Would that make a difference?
My point is that the quality of the home provided is not necessarily stipulated by the amount of money the owner makes. I would rather see dogs getting rescued from shelters, loved and cared for even if the families don’t have a canine emergency fun. As long as the love is there and the basic needs are met anyone should be able to have a dog.
Does that mean that all lower income people should go out and get a dog? No. Not at all. There are still many factors to consider. Especially if people rent.
The size of dog is an important one. Bigger dogs will eat more and if you rent it will be harder to find a rental unit. Even things like dewormer and flea repellent cost more for big dogs. It’s also harder to rent with breeds that have fallen into the ‘dangerous dog’ category. Licenses for certain breeds of dogs can be more expensive as well. Some breeds are more likely to need medical attention down the road. Long-haired breeds may require more grooming tools or even special trips to the groomer. And smaller breeds are not necessarily easier. They do eat less but some of them can be quite chatty which can annoy your neighbours if you are in an apartment. There is also the chance that you get a dog that is unhealthy, or has ongoing health problems. Potential dog owners should consider this option and think about how they would handle it.
Everyone should consider all the factors before getting a dog. And if you have read any of my personal blog entries on this site you’ll know I’ve learned the hard way that this includes planning for the unforeseeable future.
A final thought…. there are some things that people can do to prepare for having a dog. Setting aside $10 a month into a canine emergency fund could help you down the road. Investing in a medical plan for your dog might also be worthwhile but be wary of the different plans out there as some are quite expensive and may cost more in the long run.
This blog entry is simply meant to be food for thought. I’ve seen people judged for owning a dog when they couldn’t easily pay emergency vet bills. Yet their dogs had the kind of love that all dogs deserve.
-Shara JJ Cooper