AIBU to be annoyed with people who can't afford to look after their pets

[Allelbowsandtoes]

Just saw a post on Facebook, someone trying to fundraise for surgery for her 7 month old puppy that has hip dysplasia. Lots of people were commenting about how vets charge way too much and it's all a "money making racket". I pointed out that veterinary surgeons are highly skilled and train for years, and we only think its expensive because we have the NHS and mostly don't pay our own healthcare costs.

Maybe I ABU because its a shame if people can't afford pets, because they bring joy to our lives.

I get what you are saying. I am a massive animal lover - very much interested in the physical and emotional well-being of my pets - but some people over-feed, under-exercise, over-indulge and dress up their pets in the name of “kindness” when it’s no such thing.

I can’t stand this form of anthropomorphism as it’s all about the owner and not the animal itself. One of my adopted dogs arrived with a bandana and a cute “hair cut” but it’s previous owners had basically fed him crap all of his life and neglected to walk him, socialise him, or get him the basic injections he should have had as a puppy.

A dog which “earns” its grub, is not allowed to rule the household, and lives with kind but reasonably firm boundaries to my mind anyway, is happy. And it’s appearance is not more important than it’s access to muddy trails, puddles, thick undergrowth in which to sniff out things of interest.

Also,I get that animals are life enhancing and can be comforting in the “here and now” but some people use animals to avoid life and avoid interacting with other humans, which I don’t think generally speaking is balanced or healthy, and sorry, but having lived abroad for a while, I do think there’s something wrong in our society in uk where people are prepared to pay thousands of pounds to have their dog operated on, and yet they are not prepared to pay even five quid towards the cost of a gp appointment or an ER visit, or on looking after their own health.

And yes, sorry, I would say that a pet is a blessing not a “right” and if you can’t afford to feed it reasonably well and you can’t afford to be at home to look after it or have it taken out for walks in your absence, and can’t afford basic vet care and insurance then no, you shouldn’t be taking on the care of an animal because it’s ALL about their welfare not yours.

If you intentionally give up driving a car or going on holiday in order to be able to
afford a dog or cat, then that’s fair enough, but if you can’t afford electricity or to feed and clothe your children, then no, sorry, I don’t think a pet should be a first priority.

And in the situation the op is referring to, maybe not, but I hazard a guess that the 7 month old puppy with hip dysplasia came from a puppy farm and not a reputable breeder.

I think vets have become a racket. Since insurance came to be a must the prices have skyrocketed because they can charge insurance companies anything. I do agree that situations change and you’ll see the I bet you think people who can’t afford children shouldn’t have them get trotted out. But if I’m honest I do think people should think ahead a bit more and stop being victims of their own doing all the bloody time.

Having insurance and knowing it’s worth the paper it’s written on is two different things, you only find out when the bill comes in. Over the years speaking to so many dog owners whilst walking the dog there are so many stories of vet bills not covered by insurance. My dog who we’ve had for 11 years was days away from being PTS in the kennels that I now volunteer in and yes some owners may not be able to pay for comprehensive insurance and there is a risk but many of these same people provide love and time. Many of the dogs saved, as there are limited spaces are undesirable breeds or unknown breeds are more often than not are saved by the elderly and the less well off, whilst those with the money spending thousands to encourage more breeding. At the kennel we of course would prefer insurance but the reality these dogs have been saved once

The thing is the money itself will be sat there to spend with no restrictions, where someone else, namely the insurance company, gets to decide if the vet will get paid by them. It's always a risk though if you've not had enough time to save a decent amount, but then if you have to find the cash to pay the vet anyway because the insurance company dick around so much then it's pretty much the same situation. There are still limitations on if it will be, or the amount to be paid when insured, and not always set by the owner by the policy they choose.

As I said in a pp, one of my dogs legs is completely exempt because about 5 years ago she ripped a dew claw, it didn't need stitches or surgery, and as the cost was only a few quid above the excess anyway, I didn't claim. I had to declare it though because it's in the terms of the policy. Vet has obviously come across this before because they put in their 'report' that there was a) no further need for treatment and b) it was a minor injury that would cause no further problems.
The insurance still exempt that leg, in an otherwise fit and healthy dog, for any reason, no other insurer will cover that leg because of the exemption from this insurer, and in fact no other insurer will cover her at all because she's now too old. It was a good, lifetime comprehensive policy that wasn't cheap when I took it out and they've gradually added more and more clauses and exemptions as she gets older, while the premium increases.
Some of the exemptions and conditions are fair enough, especially as an animal gets older, but after my own experiences and that of people I know, many times it's just an excuse to not pay out or to reduce cover while charging the same or more.

You end up paying a fortune and you're covered in actuality for very little when it comes down to it, even though you've initially taken out the right cover and you don't have a choice because they refuse the cover. Ultimately now, if my dog injured her right foreleg, no cover at all, injure one of the other 3 and she's covered. Despite the vet and the past 5 years showing that the injury caused no further problems at all.

Personally in a dog the age she is now, any serious injury to any leg and I would PTS because quality of life through recovery would likely be very poor anyway and would probably be in her best welfare interests.

I believe it's the pet insurance industry that has caused the massive rise in costs, (same as the US healthcare system where on an itemised bill a cotton ball was something ridiculous like $2 when you can buy a pack of 50 retail for that price).

We didn't insure DDog when we got him 15 years ago as the vet said that he heard a heart murmur that was never heard again. So we put £5k into an account.

He had a lump a few years later which the vet was pretty sure was a cyst. She asked if we had insurance because she would have sent him for a scan.

She gave me a couple of numbers to call from the waiting room to get a price - which she thought would be about £1500 but were £3-5k or £4-7k for one scan! Even the vet was shocked. I'd paid under £200 for a similar private scan myself a few weeks prior.

Insurance has made the whole thing bonkers IMO.

I actually have a very black and white view on this. You should not take on a life without an untouchable fund in the bank to support it. The cost of a cat over a lifetime is around £10k. Why should a life suffer because of your mistakes?

Mortgages and things are different. Virtually everyone has to go into debt to pay for a house... but for pets (etc), you shouldn't be having one unless you can guarantee their wellbeing.

Unpopular opinion :)

As an adult human with Hip Dysplasia/ surgery treated I can't imagine this is true. it's affected my life sure but it's still been a happy one even with ongoing twinges and tweaks. Dogs are so resilient I imagine they'd cope better than humans do anyway 😂

If being a vet is so lucrative, I would think a lot more people would be looking to train to be vets. Maybe some of the people would would have been doctors will switch to veterinarian because of the big money to be made in that sector.

I don't think that it's the vets making the money. Our vet costs were always reasonable. It was cost of services that are not in-house, like the scan I mentioned, that are exorbitant.

While I absolutely agree people should work out costs and of course take out insurance, I do think the OP hasn’t quite experienced how difficult insurance can be for pre existing conditions and those instances that exceed insurance premiums.

It cost us 3000 this year for one of our rescues because the insurer found a loophole in their preconditions. Luckily we could afford this but I can quite see how given rising costs lots of people might struggle.

Similarly if the lady crowd funding took a rehomed dog straight to the vets (which is a sensible thing to do) then any insurance she had put in place would likely not have kicked in as it’s common not to be able to claim in the first two weeks - it would then likely be listed as a pre-existing condition and be excluded.

I grew up on a farm and we always had dogs and cats. The dogs were working dogs mainly.

I don't remember a lot of vet visits but farmers are very adept at treating minor injuries and will have stocks of things like pencillin at home.

Also farmers tend to be practical and older sick animals would be humanely put to sleep. We had a much loved older dog who developed back problems and double incontinence, my parents lost no time in putting him to sleep.

I see both sides of this argument.

Pets aren't a right or a necessity and nobody should knowingly take on an animal when they can't afford it.

But insurance doesn't cover everything - dental is often something people get caught out with as many policies don't cover basic dental care or removal.

And it's not always as straightforward as saying "don't have a pet you can't afford" - circumstances change and prices rise.

So do pigs, sheep and cows. I assume you're a vegetarian?

Lots of people are ignorant to the potential cost of animals before they get them, especially cats etc which you can often get for free. It's different if your financial situation drastically changes through no fault of your own, but people who knowingly do so are selfish.

I have a pet here who is uninsurable. He's had so much wrong with him that no insurer in their right mind would take him on. I've had lots of pets like that, and for those I do have savings to cover vet bills. None of them have gone without for lack of funds.

It's when our pets get older that insurance becomes difficult. They obviously get more things going wrong, so the cost of the policy goes up, and the cover decreases.

They have elevated rates of suicide but not the highest, or not in the UK at least. That would be people (usually men) in low skilled labouring and construction roles.

PP said ONE of the highest, which is true according to ONS.

You don't know the dog isn't insured though. Could be underinsured. Either way I'm sure she regrets it now, and isn't it better to show compassion rather than hatred?

@Libraryloiterer i said ONE of the highest. And just myself personally I know 7 people who have committed suicide. Not all men. But all of them Veterinary professionals.

DONT GET A PET IF YOU HAVE NO MONEY FOR A RAINY DAY OR A FINANCIAL BACK UP THEN.

Of course you're right, although I'm not sure I've been hateful- just annoyed.
I've read through a lot of these comments and I hadn't realised that some veterinary practices charge so outrageously or suggest things that aren't needed, I've always found vets to be helpful and trying to keep costs down where they can - probably naive of me to think that this is always the case.
I also agree with whichever PP it was who said that pets shouldn't be a luxury, only affordable for the middle and upper classes.
From reading everyone's replies and thinking on it more I guess what annoys me most is when people buy these poor overbred animals which go on to develop health issues which a normal mongrel dog wouldn't, and then cant afford the treatment.

Also I've learned a lot through this about how crap the pet insurance industry can be....which is shit! I'd always had them pay out without any issue which maybe skewed my view of things

But …that’s great in theory ,but in practice,the vets refused to put my dog down
he had Alabama rot and cushings …because of the cushings the vets couldn’t treat the Alabama rot as he needed steroids ..
I had a long meeting with the vets saying he needed to be put down ..they refused and wanted to send him to a specialist vet half way across the country,on his own …at this point they had him in the vets in a tiny cage trying different things ,they had had him in over a week already ..
they wouldn’t give him back for me to take to another vets nor would they put him down .
by the time they finally agreed to PTS ,he was half dead anyway
the cost was close to £6,000 just after 2 weeks of vet intervention
thank god I had Tesco insurance who paid out without a quibble .
so ….thinking your going to have your animal PTS when u decide,…if u get a vets practice like we did ,it may not happen..had I of not had pet insurance,I’d still be paying that bill of now

That's appalling and to be honest I'd have seriously considered reporting that to the RCVS.

With the older dog no longer with me I mentioned upthread, I felt I was talked into the surgery she had, because I did consider PTS, tried antibiotics and pain relief and cleaning but it didn't work and then the options were surgery or PTS.
The dog was 16, had CCD (dementia) and was starting to fail and I regret the surgery because she just never recovered, was PTS a month later and suffered for that month. My instinct was to PTS, but the vet was very positive about the surgery and recovery, I'm careful to say I wasn't pushed and the decision was mine, and while they didn't refuse to PTS, they were reluctant without trying surgery.

I didn't get the impression though that it was to make money, more that they truly believed they could save the dog and fix the problem - but failed to consider that maybe that wasn't in the dogs best interests as recovery was the issue due to her decline anyway, age and the CCD.

I'm really sorry that happened to you and your dog, I'd have been beside myself.

I've recently faced a very similar situation with a different animal and I chose to PTS before it got to the point where quality of life was severely compromised, it was heartbreaking but the right decision because it was only going one way. I could have been thinking I'd 'saved' him, I'd given him 6 more months, or another summer but ultimately what for? For him to decline further, suffer more and the end result to be the same anyway, and possibly in traumatic circumstances in an absolute emergency.

I'm sorry for your loss 💐

Fair point