Why do families who are poor, have pets

Given there are virtually no restrictions on pet ownership where would you start? Mandatory PTS and deduct from benefits to pay for it if you claim benefits or your income dips below a certain level?

Or mandatory rehoming? Good luck with that when it’s almost impossible to find a place for stray or neglected pets as it is!

I think the ‘supply’ of pets needs to be tackled. People breed their pets to make a few quid and don’t give a fuck where they end up - being tortured to death on social media maybe.

Worse would be people who get a pet who dont actually have the time to look after it, who dont take dogs for walks etc. That's the bigger problem.

While I agree that pets are a privilege I really loathe these faux naive threads about “poor people” and how On earth can they be so stupid / feckless. It’s so sneery. It’s the aspect of mn I hate the most tbh.

@hostleg you realise that “poor people” (I can feel your nose wrinkle from here” are not one homogeneous “great unwashed” and all have different stories, reasons, opinions right?

Unless they impinge on my boundaries, they can do what they like. If they want me to help/lend money/walk the dog, then a categorical 'No' is the order of the day. Their dogs, their responsibility. Their choice.

There was a post on a local FB site last week with someone asking where they could get a kitten “for free or cheap, with their vaccinations already done.

The comments under the post are interesting. Split between people handing the poster their arse on a plate; and people encouraging them and defending them to a hilt.

True. In Britain where most chocolatey foods contain no real chocolate it is quite funny when people trust their vet to pump their dog’s stomach when it’s eaten a few chocolate hobnobs or some of the famous Roses. Lots of money for vet… stress for dog and moral nitpicking from mumsnet. All for nothing. Thus the world goes round.

I'm not sure people really understand how much it can cost, I was saying to someone the other day who was talking about getting a dog. in 6 months we have had £260 of vets fees and that's on top of 40pm for insurance, 20pm for pet plan, around 70pm on food and treats and he is only a little dog!

This post right here sums it up.

You say that in jest. But if you are poor and don't have a pet, would you not then be less poor? The money that can be saved by not having a pet is enough to make some difference in the lives of people who can't really afford a pet, but have one anyway.

Jesus wept. That’s appalling.

my dog is a properly trained and accredited assistance dog.

does that mean he’s a pet not?

I disagree with that but having a pet while on benefits (unless the pet was already there before the claiming) is very foolish.

To be honest OP vets' fees now are the highest I have ever known them to be.
Insurance is not a negligible expense either.

It's not so much the money that would concern me, because people usually manage. It is neglect that I would find a big worry with pet owners. And not taking an active role in raising, training and looking after that pet on a regular basis, every day and long term.

Pets are amazing but they are absolutely more expensive to keep than ever.

A while back, there was a thread where OP said that people on benefits should have their payments reduced if they have a pet, and have them reinstated once the animal is euthanised.
Some sick people on here that really do believe the guff they come out with.

Yes. But not expensive pets. I mean you can, but it’s a very foolish decision.

Aren’t you allowed to have love or relationships or a spiritual side if you’re poor?

Or just not get a bulldog puppy.

Maybe just write a list of what poor people should be allowed or not allowed and be done with it.

Please tell me you're joking.

The people the OP refers to paid £900 in vet bills, so they are clearly taking the responsibility (even if they have to go into debt, or however they managed it).

why do people who are poor do or have anything that isn't 100% necessary for survival? If I was them I would simply live in a hole in the pavement until I wasn't poor any more

Because people want a puppy or a kitten and don't think much further than that.

So get people with random x dogs, but it's OK, cos it was only 200 quid. But there's no money for dog training etc. Or insurance.

Or they get a cat, but don't bother to pay to get it done. Cue endless FB posts about male cat going missing, or too many kittens being abandoned.

I don't think it's wealth; i think it's stupidity. But it's more visible, because it plays out all over sm.

Apart from the other reasons, sometimes pets are a good investment - if you're a single mum living in a dodgy area with just one easily kicked through door between you and drug addicts/criminals who live in your flat block wouldn't you feel a bit safer at night with a big barky dog?

I’m afraid that’s not been true for me. First of all when your pet suffers from an “excluded” condition, or needs to be seen too many times for the same problem. The small print allows insurers to wriggle out all too easily. Then, as your pet ages, premiums go up, while the list of exclusions grows.

Only hope (for those who qualify) would be PDSA or Blue Cross. But not everyone qualifies.

No, no it really doesn’t because all of those other things that people feel entitled to, whether they can afford them or not…well they’re inanimate objects (having children aside obviously) without feelings and rights of their own.
Pets on the other hand the right to be treated well and have their needs met. People who can’t meet the needs of pets (for whatever reason) shouldn’t be treating them as something they’re entitled to just so they don’t feel “miserable as fuck” living creatures aren’t toys or lifestyle props.

Agree. A swimming pool is excellent for the health and wellbeing, doesn’t mean we are all entitled to one of those.