# Hypothetical: Better for an homeless dog to have no home or be euthanized OR go to..



## VTGirlT

Hypothetical: *Better for an homeless dog to have no home or/and be euthanized OR go to a home that just barely has enough money to feed it,etc.?*

Because there is this huge debate at my work.. about if we should let people take an animal if they cant even afford the adoption fee.. Which i get it to some degree. But than again.. there are plenty of great people who care about their animals who can only give them the minimum vet care, low quality food, etc... and than at least that homeless animal has a home.. a family? 
The only thing is, what if there is a better home out there for those homeless animals? But who is to say that the better home will ever come, and that they will go to that shelter and pick out that animal? There is no guarantee.. And what about at those shelters where they euthanize dogs by the dozen? Better to have a home like that than to be euthanized? Right? Depends on the dog?

What do you guys all think?

I need more thoughts and opinions before i can come to some sort of conclusion! 

Thanks!


----------



## Gretchen

Probably depends on the homeless populations each person here has in their area. We have a huge homeless population. Some mentally ill were getting bussed here from Nevada with 3 days worth of meds and that is it. We have illegal alien homeless, druggie homeless, alcoholic homeless and schizophrenic type homeless and lazy young people homeless. Most of the families and non druggies do get support. In general I'd say a dog would be better off in the animal shelter than with the homeless in my area. Many do have dogs, and I just wish I could steal the dogs and give them a better life.

I'd say if someone were very poor, and had little money, but was sober and had a home, even a one room place, they could have a dog here. The SPCA offers dog food for low income persons like some seniors for example.


----------



## VTGirlT

Gretchen said:


> Probably depends on the homeless populations each person here has in their area. We have a huge homeless population. Some mentally ill were getting bussed here from Nevada with 3 days worth of meds and that is it. We have illegal alien homeless, druggie homeless, alcoholic homeless and schizophrenic type homeless and lazy young people homeless. Most of the families and non druggies do get support. In general I'd say a dog would be better off in the animal shelter than with the homeless in my area. Many do have dogs, and I just wish I could steal the dogs and give them a better life.
> 
> *I'd say if someone were very poor, and had little money, but was sober and had a home, even a one room place, they could have a dog here. The SPCA offers dog food for low income persons like some seniors for example.*


Oh yes i agree.. I would not want a dog to go in a home with mentally unstable people (to the point of not being able to take care of something) or people with drug addictions to the point of selfishness. 

But i agree, and some food shelves also have dog food/cat food to give away too.


----------



## Magwart

Ugh...this question posed in a way that shows how much variation there is across the country...minimal vet care and low quality food. That's better than a lot of the adopters who come to shelters in some places! 

There are many, many situations a dog could be in that are worse than humane euthanasia. I say that as someone who has been volunteering inside a high-kill shelter where euthanasia happens a lot -- and as someone who has seen the worst that humans can do to dogs. We have one now who was chained up and deliberately starved. She was nearly dead when we got her -- a home like that is worse than death. If you've never seen what true starvation does to an animal, it's ghastly and painful.

Let's frame this the way it is down South---this is a real question that comes up constantly in our public shelter where some advocate for "open" adoptions for free to anyone who wants a dog (something being preached by an out-of-state group that's come in to "advise" the public shelter here on how to "improve"). Here are the things we have actually seen in applications:
-adopt to someone who will keep a GSD year-round, 24-7 outside, on a heavy chain as a "guard dog" (a miserable life for a people-loving GSD--and the adopter who wanted to do this wanted a dog who had previously been a HOUSE DOG)
-adopt to someone suspected of being involved in dog fighting (the fear being they wanted to adopt a bait dog)
-adopt to someone whose method of training on the application is "beat the dog with a shoe" (that's a quote from an application!)
-adopt to someone whose prior animals never saw a vet, even for routine care, knowing the adopted dog will not be kept on HW preventative (in the Gulf South means the dog will get heartworm disease and likely die from it in a few years (a very painful death))
-adopt to someone who has previously given up dogs to a high-kill shelter for reasons of convenience
-adopt to someone known to be a "dog flipper" on Craigslist (for profit) who targets purebred shelter dogs

My list could go on and on. My answer is NO.

In my high-kill local shelter, just FIVE shelter volunteers got the GSDs to "no kill" status by using a rescue-model application, doing home checks, and vet reference checks from within the shelter. Our average time to adoption for shelter GSDs is 12 days. I'm in the Deep South, where shelter kill rates are very high. Don't think it's because we don't have many GSDs in shelters either -- our volunteers saved more then 60 of them this year, in this one shelter! 

I have no opinion on other breeds and mutts -- they are harder (esp. pit bulls, who are overproduced in huge numbers). For this GSDs, I know it is possible to get to "no kill" for the adoptable ones (non-aggressive temperament, treatable health issues) while still doing reasonable screening. It takes hard work and foster homes. This shelter had an 80% kill rate just three years ago! 

I thus don't accept the premise of the hypothetical -- at least for this breed.


----------



## volcano

dogs dont recognize money. A homeless person is often a better owner than a millionaire. Probably one of the worst case scenarios is a shelter who keeps dogs in cages instead of rehoming them.


----------



## martemchik

I know there is a very strong feeling of "every dog deserves a chance or a second chance or a third chance." I don't know how many times I've read threads about a dog that's bitten someone more than once and there are still people defending this dog and saying its the owners fault and that in the right hands the dog would be fine, just would take some time to rehab.

Well knowing how crowded shelters are, and how rescues generally function...those types of places can't handle problem dogs. Why spend $10000 (counting someone's salary/time and also real resources) trying to rehab a single problem dog, taking up the space for possibly dozens of normal dogs that would move in and out of the shelter within days? I get it, every life is important, but at some level, isn't saving 10 dogs better than saving one?

Anyways...I don't know how I feel about a family that can barely afford minimal care getting a dog. To a family/person that has to worry about every dollar they spend, is $20 a month on food, and possibly a $100 vet visit a year really a good decision? Couldn't that $340 go somewhere else to maybe help that person get a better job or get into a better situation where that dog is more affordable and smarter to own? And this is nothing against those living paycheck to paycheck and investing all their discretionary income into their dogs...I get it, people do it, but I just don't know how "smart" it is to do that. I guess if you're spending your last $20 on dog food, I would wonder what happens if that $20 isn't there one month? Who is going to get to eat then? The last thing I would expect is someone to not buy food for themselves just to feed their dog...


----------



## Baillif

martemchik said:


> I know there is a very strong feeling of "every dog deserves a chance or a second chance or a third chance." I don't know how many times I've read threads about a dog that's bitten someone more than once and there are still people defending this dog and saying its the owners fault and that in the right hands the dog would be fine, just would take some time to rehab.
> 
> Well knowing how crowded shelters are, and how rescues generally function...those types of places can't handle problem dogs. Why spend $10000 (counting someone's salary/time and also real resources) trying to rehab a single problem dog, taking up the space for possibly dozens of normal dogs that would move in and out of the shelter within days? I get it, every life is important, but at some level, isn't saving 10 dogs better than saving one?


To basically paraphrase something Jean Donaldson wrote... Dogs that are like this have usually been failed by their owners several times. 

Usually the first time by not teaching the dog bite inhibition when it was a pup or stopping that process by taking the pup away from his siblings and mother at too young an age. 

The second time is when they fail to socialize the dog to stressors they find uncomfortable. 

The third time is when they fail to inoculate against behaviors like this through management, things like item trades, or food bowl games to minimize or stop what are essentially normal dog behaviors. 

And the fourth is when they finally put the dog in that situation where after all of this it feels the need to bite to protect itself. 

On top of all that they dump the dog off on the system which is already massively overburdened and is essentially in triage mode. They basically **** dogs like this to execution. It isn't euthanasia at that point. The dog isn't getting a merciful death to avoid painful life, it is being killed because of unacceptable crimes against humans, and given all the times the humans failed this dog it isn't fair at all.

So yeah the reality of the situation is yeah it is easier to save those 10 than to put effort into that 1, but I can definitely see why some people would put energy into that 1.


----------



## Shade

I really don't think there's a perfect answer. Some dogs are better off euthanized; my family dealt with one that was put down due to mental issues at only 3 years old. It hurt our hearts deeply but she was better off away from her inner demons. We gave her everything: training, food, shelter, and love and it wasn't enough to help her so no I don't think it's enough in some cases to have all the worldly things available to them. 

I do see both sides. There are many reasons to euthanize and none of them are pleasant, but I don't see it as a cruel thing, sad yes in most cases, but not cruel. If the dog is suffering then there's a time you just have to steel your heart as best you can and do it, no matter how badly it hurts you. If the dog is happy and decently cared for then why fix a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## Freestep

I deal with a lot of pet owners, and I'll tell you this much: some of those pets would be better off with a cash-strapped owner who truly cares for them, than they are in the well-off home they are ignored in--not to mention pets in shelters!

I was once homeless, no money. All I had was my dog. Many people would probably say I shouldn't have a dog I couldn't afford. But I took care of that dog, she ate before I did, went everywhere I went, played Frisbee every day, and we kept each other warm at night. She was my best friend, sometimes my only friend. I made a lot of mistakes with her as she was my first dog, but she was resilient and forgiving and loyal. 

Eventually I got back on my feet, got a job, bought a house, and that dog lived out her golden years in the lap of luxury. She lived to be 16 years old.

Money isn't what makes a good pet owner. As long as the owner cares for the pet, takes responsibility, and gets its needs met, many dogs will be a heck of a lot happier living with a poor person that spends time with them, than they are languishing in a shelter, or thrown in the backyard of a nice big house and ignored. 

Veterinary care is expensive, but there are low-cost vaccine clinics, spay and neuter. There is Care Credit for emergencies. In this country, pets do have a safety net. I'm not saying that poor people who can barely feed themselves should be getting a bunch of animals, but most of the homeless around here have dogs, and they all look pretty healthy, good weight, etc. Possibly in need of grooming, but when you have a hammer all you see are nails.

The problem is weeding out the bad owners whether rich or poor. There are just as many bad rich owners as there are bad poor owners, so adoptions should be granted on something other than income, IMO.


----------



## Baillif

Well said


----------



## alexg

Freestep said:


> I deal with a lot of pet owners, and I'll tell you this much: some of those pets would be better off with a cash-strapped owner who truly cares for them, than they are in the well-off home they are ignored in--not to mention pets in shelters!
> 
> I was once homeless, no money. All I had was my dog. Many people would probably say I shouldn't have a dog I couldn't afford. But I took care of that dog, she ate before I did, went everywhere I went, played Frisbee every day, and we kept each other warm at night. She was my best friend, sometimes my only friend. I made a lot of mistakes with her as she was my first dog, but she was resilient and forgiving and loyal.
> 
> Eventually I got back on my feet, got a job, bought a house, and that dog lived out her golden years in the lap of luxury. She lived to be 16 years old.
> 
> Money isn't what makes a good pet owner. As long as the owner cares for the pet, takes responsibility, and gets its needs met, many dogs will be a heck of a lot happier living with a poor person that spends time with them, than they are languishing in a shelter, or thrown in the backyard of a nice big house and ignored.
> 
> Veterinary care is expensive, but there are low-cost vaccine clinics, spay and neuter. There is Care Credit for emergencies. In this country, pets do have a safety net. I'm not saying that poor people who can barely feed themselves should be getting a bunch of animals, but most of the homeless around here have dogs, and they all look pretty healthy, good weight, etc. Possibly in need of grooming, but when you have a hammer all you see are nails.
> 
> The problem is weeding out the bad owners whether rich or poor. There are just as many bad rich owners as there are bad poor owners, so adoptions should be granted on something other than income, IMO.


+100! 

Not much to add to this post. Thank you.


----------



## SummerGSDLover

volcano said:


> dogs dont recognize money. A homeless person is often a better owner than a millionaire. Probably one of the worst case scenarios is a shelter who keeps dogs in cages instead of rehoming them.


There's a homeless man who sits on the street corner here with his mixed dog. He has a sign that says "Will work for dog food." He always has the dog sitting next to him on a rope under the comforter he uses for his shelter/coat. I bought him a small bag of dog food. Although he's homeless and the dog probably doesn't get vet care, the dog looks happy and well fed. I think he's a better owner than the yahoo down the block from me who keeps his pitbull on a chain outside year round on a chain with nothing more than a piece of plywood for shelter and some handfuls of food thrown on the ground.

*-*Summer*-*


----------



## stmcfred

I think if they can't afford the adoption fee but could provide it a nice loving home with food and shelter and some vet care then they should be required to volunteer at the shelter to earn the dog. 
That way the shelter has additional volunteers and it's not just handing a dog over for free. Or even, XX hours equals so much $ towards the adoption fee. If you have to work for something you value it more than if it were just given to you.


A good pet owner isn't based on how much money a person has but how they treat their pets.


----------



## VTGirlT

Freestep said:


> I deal with a lot of pet owners, and I'll tell you this much: some of those pets would be better off with a cash-strapped owner who truly cares for them, than they are in the well-off home they are ignored in--not to mention pets in shelters!
> 
> I was once homeless, no money. All I had was my dog. Many people would probably say I shouldn't have a dog I couldn't afford. But I took care of that dog, she ate before I did, went everywhere I went, played Frisbee every day, and we kept each other warm at night. She was my best friend, sometimes my only friend. I made a lot of mistakes with her as she was my first dog, but she was resilient and forgiving and loyal.
> 
> Eventually I got back on my feet, got a job, bought a house, and that dog lived out her golden years in the lap of luxury. She lived to be 16 years old.
> 
> Money isn't what makes a good pet owner. As long as the owner cares for the pet, takes responsibility, and gets its needs met, many dogs will be a heck of a lot happier living with a poor person that spends time with them, than they are languishing in a shelter, or thrown in the backyard of a nice big house and ignored.
> 
> Veterinary care is expensive, but there are low-cost vaccine clinics, spay and neuter. There is Care Credit for emergencies. In this country, pets do have a safety net. I'm not saying that poor people who can barely feed themselves should be getting a bunch of animals, but most of the homeless around here have dogs, and they all look pretty healthy, good weight, etc. Possibly in need of grooming, but when you have a hammer all you see are nails.
> 
> *The problem is weeding out the bad owners whether rich or poor. * There are just as many bad rich owners as there are bad poor owners, so adoptions should be granted on something other than income, IMO.


Freestep your post really stood out to me, because you have actually been there. Thanks for sharing about your previous situation. You sound the like the prime person i was thinking of in my head when i thought i would let a dog go to a homeless person or poor person. 
I agree with it, there ARE plenty of good and bad owners, rich or poor. In fact our most recent abuse case happened with a homeless man- and we are still in court with it.. 
I know for our shelter, we don't do vet checks, we don't call landlords, we just look at what they put on their application and ask a few essential questions- that usually go in one ear and out the other i find.. And we are reading what they wanted us to see. 

Magwart, when i first posted the question i guess i was thinking about adopters that come through my shelter, and i live in VT, USA. But it defiantly changes a lot when it becomes a world wide debate. And down south in US, is in itself, a whole different story than where i live. 

Thanks for your replies everyone, of course it just opens up more debate for me, which is good! And i agree with what Shade, said there is no perfect answer.


----------



## middleofnowhere

I was pretty hesitant when I got my first dog directly from the pound/shelter. I was out of work. I was renting. (an unlovely house in dire need of maintenance but in a fairly good neighborhood.) I had fenced the yard myself. My previous dogs had just died and the vet expenses had been pretty high. I drove a very beat up VW. I knew you had to fill out an application & I wondered what they would think. 
I did have the money for the adoption fee (it came with a free vet visit, discounted spay, etc.) I looked at several dogs in several shelters. This one I found when I was out of town for a job interview. Didn't get the job but I got the dog which was the better deal!
The pup lived to be 15, moved to two other states with me, went on many long walks and many road trips. She got vet care and food. And a lot more. 

Many of our walks took us past people who had owned their homes for years. Their dogs languished in their yards night after night.


----------



## Merciel

It's really regional.

In our area, a friendly, healthy, and reasonably well-behaved dog of any breed other than a pittie can find a good to great home. For pitties, unfortunately, there's just a massive oversupply and limited demand, so they are at risk of euthanasia even if they're totally nice dogs. But for just about any other breed, this dilemma does not really exist -- that's why we have the ability to bring up dogs from other regions and find them great homes here.

So we don't _need_ to settle for homes that are just barely acceptable, because the dogs will find good to great homes eventually.

But that is certainly a luxury that not everyone enjoys.

Honestly, if I lived in a region where I could not send my own foster dogs to the very best homes around, I think I'd burn out pretty darn fast. It _hurts_ to spend time, money, and emotional energy on a dog, and then watch it go to a home where that foundational training will be wasted and your careful nurturing of the dog's ability to bond will go neglected. I wouldn't be able to do it.


----------



## Annie Klacks

Difficult question. I and some friends have gone through tough times the last few years when things were really bad with the economy. I always made sure my dog was fed and I never even really thought about it. I know my friends feel the same way. Having said this, I realize there are others who would not do the same. Personally, I think it is better to give people a chance with the pup.


----------



## huntergreen

i would rather have a dog live with the bare minimum than pts.


----------



## llombardo

I have also been homeless with a dog and a cat and I was pregnant. They always came first. They had food, water, and lots of love. Got on my feet and they were always with me. I don't think money determines a good owner. I do think that every dog has a right to a home filled with love. No dog should be abused or used for dog fighting. I do think that every dog deserves a chance and I respect people that put everything into a "problem" dog, because it is not the dogs fault to begin with. I have two dogs that came from the same over crowded kill shelter. I feel blessed to have them and I am glad I got them. Both of my dogs had a good chance of being put to sleep and I cringe at that thought. Misty my oldest was brought back to the shelter 3 times within 8 months and to this day(8 yrs later) I have no clue why. She is smart, sometimes to smart for her own good. It did take her a long time to get potty trained, but we've got that down pat now. And Midnite was not doing well in the shelter. He was very anxious and that anxiety almost was the end of him. Again not his fault, he is a working line GSD that was locked in a cage 24/7 for a couple months. He also needed some work and I am glad I put the time in with him. I would do it a million times, if it meant saving a dogs life.


----------



## misslesleedavis1

SummerGSDLover said:


> There's a homeless man who sits on the street corner here with his mixed dog. He has a sign that says "Will work for dog food." He always has the dog sitting next to him on a rope under the comforter he uses for his shelter/coat. I bought him a small bag of dog food. Although he's homeless and the dog probably doesn't get vet care, the dog looks happy and well fed. I think he's a better owner than the yahoo down the block from me who keeps his pitbull on a chain outside year round on a chain with nothing more than a piece of plywood for shelter and some handfuls of food thrown on the ground.
> 
> *-*Summer*-*


I love that, i always donate pet food, along with good quality winter jackets, mittens and hats. Its so important to help out were you can, even if its a simple can of dog food or a soup of some sort


----------



## Sunflowers

Depends on the person and the dog, so I can't even begin to answer this question.


----------



## design.mhuff

This is a loaded question.

I have a very strong veiw-point. 

1. I believe completely in euthanasia of shelter dogs no matter how smart/obedient/young/old/healthy/sick they are. I'm sorry, it is no life for ANY animal to live it's days out in a kennel. It's sad and horrible and I hate it, but I'd rather see a dog go peacefully to sleep then live behind bars.

2. I do not agree with rehabilitating aggressive/troubled animals. I think some are misunderstood and if they can be helped then great, but dogs who have shown a history of aggression/mental deficiencies should not be re-adopted and should not be using the resources that could be used to find homes and rehabilitate functional animals. Plus, again, no animal should have to live it's life behind bars because it can't be adopted and I think euthanasia is the best option. Again, horrible and sad, but it's just what I feel.
-Also, this has nothing to do with my feelings on the HUMAN world, I am only talking dogs here.

3. It is incredibly hard to adopt a puppy from adoption organizations for us working class people! I am sorry but I work a lot of hours and yes my dog spends a lot of time in a crate, but this does not make me an unsuitable home for a dog! No I don't have a fenced in yard, yes my life is busy and sometimes my dog doesn't go for a walk or get fed a five star meal. No i can't afford vets bills sometimes, but goddammit my dog is loved and well taken care of and very happy. So many dogs are being killed or left to rot in cages because these rescue organizations just can't bear to let a dog go to a working class home. No everyone works 5 min from hoe with an hour lunch-break. No everyone can afford a pet sitter or have access to one, but I am a good home and I should not have to go through a process similar to adopting a child as I should a dog...my dog is my child and I love him to pieces, but he is a dog!

4. There are unsuitable homes for dogs and yes some people should not be allowed to have an animal and any animal they have would have a better life in a shelter, but we do not live in a perfect world.

Anyway I come from a family of farmers and just grew up with this notion that an animal has a job and purpose and if it cannot function with a purpose it shouldn't be at all. Now, I have always pampered and loved my pets and gave them everything I could and they have all lived great lives, but I do not cry for every animal euthanized in a shelter, because these animals are just sitting there with no real useful purpose and that's what makes me sad. I'm not cold, but I want dogs to be somewhere where they have purpose.


----------



## Jo_in_TX

I think it also depends on the dog's size. A poor family could very well afford to feed a ten pound dog, but couldn't feed an 80 pound dog. Also, the poor tend to move more frequently, and smaller dogs are generally better accepted into apartment complexes.

Sometimes, a dog is the best thing that ever happens to a poor kid. I would hate to deprive him of that. Besides, will the dog know he's poor?

As far as vet care? Is it better to euthanize a dog at age one than to have him die at seven because his family couldn't afford expensive vet care? 

A couple of decades ago, it was unheard of that the middle class would spend a couple of thousand dollars on vet care. Surely, some of those folks must have loved their dogs? Or were they all neglectful?


----------



## TAR HEEL MOM

This subject is a constant conundrum for those of us who work in shelters. I am perhaps a little more lenient than some others that I work with as far as adoptions. I think "almost" any home is better than being locked in a kennel. My personal exceptions to that are homes where a dog is left outside ALL the time regardless of weather conditions and homes where a dog is chained all the time. In those situations I would rather see one humanely PTS. 

I also feel pretty strongly about attempted rehab. When a dog comes in to me fear aggressive I can usually tell within a short time if I am going to be able to get it to come around to being adoptable. If a dog is dangerous to have in the kennels or for the workers to handle, I will usually help him to cross over. We just had this situation with one of the prettiest boxer mixes I have ever seen. She was a year old female, gray to fawn color with these awesome tall ears and a black muzzle. One of the prettiest girls I have ever seen and absolutely terrified to the point of biting and having to be moved with a rabies pole. Every time we had to move her to clean her kennel we were just scaring her more and making her life more miserable. She was the worst case I had seen in my three years at the shelter. As much as it saddened me to do it, I put her to sleep. I am certain she is much better off than she would ever have been.

Another bias we run into in my shelter is the people who do not want to adopt to anyone who uses a dog to hunt. Seriously? We always have an over abundance of hounds..Blue Tick, Red Tick Black and Tan, 
Redbone, Treeing Walkers...you name it. These guys were born and raised to hunt before they somehow ended up in our shelter, yet we have volunteers and workers who act like it is the worst thing in the world when someone wants to adopt one to use as a **** dog. They want to make all hounds be couch dogs. I have no problem with them hunting as long as they are not going to be chained to a dog house all the time that they aren't hunting.

And what about dogs kept in an outside lot? Say a 8x8 kennel of sorts? What do y'all think about that? What if it is covered and has a good insulated dog house? Yea or Nay? This one is more of a gray area for me. I think my determining factor is - are they going to get the dog out and play with it and love it everyday or is it going to be shut away in the yard with no interaction. 

It's such a hard thing sometimes. Maybe there are never any clear cut cases. I just try to handle each one as it comes. 

I do agree about the ridiculous fees and conditions of a lot of rescue orgs. I could adopt a child easier than a dog from some of these groups


----------



## Harley120R

Gretchen said:


> Probably depends on the homeless populations each person here has in their area. We have a huge homeless population. Some mentally ill were getting bussed here from Nevada with 3 days worth of meds and that is it. We have illegal alien homeless, druggie homeless, alcoholic homeless and schizophrenic type homeless and lazy young people homeless. Most of the families and non druggies do get support. In general I'd say a dog would be better off in the animal shelter than with the homeless in my area. Many do have dogs, and I just wish I could steal the dogs and give them a better life.
> 
> I'd say if someone were very poor, and had little money, but was sober and had a home, even a one room place, they could have a dog here. The SPCA offers dog food for low income persons like some seniors for example.


I might have missed something. I thought the question was, would a "dog" be better off "homeless" and face euthanasia, rather than live with a low income family that couldn't afford the adoption fee. Not, would a dog be better off living with a homeless person. 

I say any chance at life for a healthy being is the best bet. I saw many happy, homeless, ownerless dogs all over the world while motorcycle touring and none of them looked as if they wanted to volunteer to be euthanized.


----------



## Harley120R

Jo_in_TX said:


> I think it also depends on the dog's size. A poor family could very well afford to feed a ten pound dog, but couldn't feed an 80 pound dog. Also, the poor tend to move more frequently, and smaller dogs are generally better accepted into apartment complexes.
> 
> Sometimes, a dog is the best thing that ever happens to a poor kid. I would hate to deprive him of that. Besides, will the dog know he's poor?
> 
> As far as vet care? Is it better to euthanize a dog at age one than to have him die at seven because his family couldn't afford expensive vet care?
> 
> A couple of decades ago, it was unheard of that the middle class would spend a couple of thousand dollars on vet care. Surely, some of those folks must have loved their dogs? Or were they all neglectful?


I know a poverty stricken teen. He works sweeping floors. Floors in a meat market. He brings home 10 pounds of fresh meat scraps every night for his dogs. Really hard to judge what people are capable of or put our limitations on others. 

Me? I can barely get by and I won the lottery.


----------



## RaisingALitter

I live in an area that has two different places you can adopt animals from. I've worked at both of them. First there is our "city animal shelter" they are owned by a local vet whom has the contract with the city to take in all the stays that animal control picks up. While working there I had a situation come up that was sort of like this. The applicant could afford the fee. She was not exactly a well washed woman and had a horrible aroma. She definitely looked like someone that others would avoid and she had a physical disability. I worked at the front desk and handled all the applications, i had the authority to approve or deny adoptions. She had her eye on a young lab/husky mix who'd been in the shelter for quite a while. I forget the dog's name...anyway...there had been another lady in the shelter looking at dogs and liked that same mix but was also looking at another dog too. I went a head and checked references for the first adopter, i even called her vet to see if she'd provided good vet care in the past if her previous dogs had ever needed it. They told me that she had and that was enough to satisfy me. I let her adopt the dog. BOY did that make her day. I've seen her in town with that dog several years even after she adopted her....i'm getting off subject...I caught **** from some of our other staff about adopting that dog out to that lady "who looked poor and smelled bad". I stood my ground and expressed "i checked with her vet, she gets them care when they need it. she might not be your typical adopter but i feel like she will really love and cherish the dog." Other people thought i should have waited to see if the "rich" lady was going to adopt that dog or not. If i had waited and the "rich" lady passed the dog up, she would have missed out on a good home because i told someone else no and she'd been in the shelter for some time and i didn't want to risk her missing having a forever home. I know she went to a good home and is loved very much. 

the other place in town is a privately owned "humane society" and believe me they'd never adopt to someone like the lady that i adopted that dog too. They are very very picky about who they let take animals home...but i guess if you are privately owned but a bunch of snobby old rich ladies you can have that luxury...BUT not every shelter can risk keeping dogs for too long and risk them getting put down. 

It all depends on the situation. I know well off people that shouldn't own an animal and i know people with very little that are the best owners a dog could have...every situation is different.


----------



## doggiedad

yeah but you don't know how the person feels about
their dog and how the dog feels about it's owner. you
don't know the bound you could be pulling apart because
you don't like the situation. or do you care about the 
relationship between the dog and it's owner?



Gretchen said:


> Probably depends on the homeless populations each person here has in their area. We have a huge homeless population. Some mentally ill were getting bussed here from Nevada with 3 days worth of meds and that is it. We have illegal alien homeless, druggie homeless, alcoholic homeless and schizophrenic type homeless and lazy young people homeless. Most of the families and non druggies do get support.
> 
> >>>>> In general I'd say a dog would be better off in the animal shelter than with the homeless in my area. Many do have dogs, and I just wish I could steal the dogs and give them a better life. <<<<<
> 
> I'd say if someone were very poor, and had little money, but was sober and had a home, even a one room place, they could have a dog here. The SPCA offers dog food for low income persons like some seniors for example.


----------



## Nyx

I feel that any animal being set up for possible adoption should be screened for stability- call it what you want but it should be free of behavioral issues that the common/average adopter would be unable to treat.

They should be free of any physical ailments that are not easy or moderately able to be cured. 

If an animal is not primarily free of these distinguishing qualifications it should be humanely euthanized.

Exceptions? Of course. 
But then that specific animal should already have a permanent placement already established. A stable home waiting to takeover the care and welfare of such an 'afflicted' animal.

And all animals should be screened with potential adopter's for compatibility.

Yes we know that most animals are super excited to meet potential new families. But those who know animal's can 'see' the connection or the potential problems. 

As to potential homes. 

I honestly do not care how a person lives, or where. If they choose a pet and take care of that animal in the best way they are able, they are not purposely being neglectful or cruel and it is evident that their animal is happy. That is a good home.

I understand that every one has different levels of expectation in care. From health, diet, training, etc. And many of us need to learn to leave each to their own. It can be very hard. 

Potential adopters should be screened with their potential pets before they take the animal home. They should be screened, unannounced, throughout the following six months to a year. One to make certain that the animal is well cared for and secondly that any contractual conditions are met (spay/neuter) or other.

I understand that many people will feel/state that following through with home visits is a huge undertaking and that shelters/etc do not have the man power or resources to do these.

I feel that if procedures, resources and placement avenue's to save animals that should have been immediately put to rest(see above mentioned qualification) are used in placing and following through with contractual conditions more animals can be placed, saved and find better families.


----------



## Wanderer

First world problem.

Think of the life of most shepherds during the time of the development of the GSD. Outdoors all the time, often sleeping outdoors but sometimes in a small shack. They didn't buy bags of high end dog-food. Think of the GSDs who went to war in WWI and WW2, living in tents and fox-holes again not being given top brand dog food.

Dog is better in a home that can only afford regular dog food, and if an expensive medical problem occurs will euthanize the dog THEN rather than euthanize the dog NOW because if he maybe gets sick sometime in the future he won't get treatment. That's just backwards.

Regarding shelters having some sort of fee for adoption. The devil is in the details. You don't want a cruel person picking up a dog or cat every few weeks because they are doing sick stuff, or using the adopted animals to train a fighting dog. OTOH, people who really want to do that will pay $200 per adoption, so you really are only stopping the most low-level abusers.

What should happen IMHO is you don't pay an adoption fee just to prove you are financially stable enough to take a pet. Instead these places should ask for pre-payment of standard medical services, as in you pay $200 to adopt the animal and in return you get a voucher good for 1 free pet checkup at the local vet. I approve those shelters where the adoption fee basically offsets the cost of neutering and shots, which are given by the shelter.


----------



## hannahc_11

*my opinion*

Im sure its been said a few times but it depends on where you are. Here for example there is a very big stray dog problem and Ive come to learn that it is better to humanely euthanize some of the dogs than let them continue to be stray. The more stray dogs there are, the more stray dogs they keep making and it seems like it will never be under control. We have one shelter here on Guam and they have to put down dogs all the time because of space issues. There are simply too many dogs, they get in dogs and puppies everyday.


----------



## LaRen616

martemchik said:


> I know there is a very strong feeling of "every dog deserves a chance or a second chance or a third chance." I don't know how many times I've read threads about a dog that's bitten someone more than once and there are still people defending this dog and saying its the owners fault and that in the right hands the dog would be fine, just would take some time to rehab.
> 
> Well knowing how crowded shelters are, and how rescues generally function...those types of places can't handle problem dogs. Why spend $10000 (counting someone's salary/time and also real resources) trying to rehab a single problem dog, taking up the space for possibly dozens of normal dogs that would move in and out of the shelter within days? I get it, every life is important, but at some level, isn't saving 10 dogs better than saving one?
> 
> Anyways...I don't know how I feel about a family that can barely afford minimal care getting a dog. To a family/person that has to worry about every dollar they spend, is $20 a month on food, and possibly a $100 vet visit a year really a good decision? Couldn't that $340 go somewhere else to maybe help that person get a better job or get into a better situation where that dog is more affordable and smarter to own? And this is nothing against those living paycheck to paycheck and investing all their discretionary income into their dogs...I get it, people do it, but I just don't know how "smart" it is to do that. I guess if you're spending your last $20 on dog food, I would wonder what happens if that $20 isn't there one month? Who is going to get to eat then? The last thing I would expect is someone to not buy food for themselves just to feed their dog...


:thumbup: I could not agree more with this post, this is exactly how I feel.


----------



## volcano

I applied for a dog from paws chicago, I never heard back. I see "rescues shows" on tv and they are way too hoarder to me. They prefer to not let the dogs go to homes.
So excuse me if im biased but im not a fan of so called rescues because all the local ones who werent hoarding wanted hundreds of dollars per dog and that smacks of puppymill. The only negative on my resume were apt living. But got no response back from the local chicago "rescues" It took me years to get my dog after that. I just watched Cesar Milan and wished i had a dog. Im glad it all worked out and I got a great first dog like Apache and everything has fallen in place.


----------



## Dionne2u

Good hypothetical question!
A little thought...

When i was a child we were poor. We lived off food stamps and lived in a rundown home. I was 5 and had my first dog, a stray that came to our house. I loved that dog and she was my happiness and best friend, truly some of the only joy and love i knew. How can one deny another that joy and love for both just because of their income? 

We didn't have much but we managed to afford dog food though no vet, in fact i don't think having a pet and going to the vet was popular until in the last 30/40 years. Nobody i knew took their dogs to the vet unless they had something extensive wrong with them. Dogs have been companions for 100's of years and vets not so long, yet somehow i believe their have been some truly happy dogs and just thankful for the companionship and love. I think saying a dog can only live (be adopted & not killed) if an owner can take him to a vet is like saying if you can't afford health insurance you need to be put down
Just fyi: My Renee (first dog) was a happy healthy dog until she passed at age 13yrs. And never saw a vet and i live in south texas, in fact most my dogs growing up lived tumor & cancer free with no illness and died of old age. 

I don't think money is the issue for the dog. A dog doesn't care, it just wants love. As for money and abuse; I've seen the wealthy abuse a dog just as easy as a homeless can. 

In the end a fee does not make a good owner, however i do understand that things need to be paid for but keeping an animal locked up or killing one for the lack of fee is horrible.

That's just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Dionne2u

volcano said:


> I applied for a dog from paws chicago, I never heard back. I see "rescues shows" on tv and they are way too hoarder to me. They prefer to not let the dogs go to homes.
> So excuse me if im biased but im not a fan of so called rescues because all the local ones who werent hoarding wanted hundreds of dollars per dog and that smacks of puppymill. The only negative on my resume were apt living. But got no response back from the local chicago "rescues" It took me years to get my dog after that. I just watched Cesar Milan and wished i had a dog. Im glad it all worked out and I got a great first dog like Apache and everything has fallen in place.


Happy for you and Apache! I too have heard of many people who are GREAT pet people and couldn't adopt from different shelters around here that claim to have an abundance. Sad how they hurt the animals.


----------



## Magwart

This thread hasn't been posted in for almost 5 years. Talk about a blast from the past! There are a few people who posted here that haven't been around in years -- and this reminded me that I miss their posts.


----------



## tim_s_adams

Magwart said:


> This thread hasn't been posted in for almost 5 years. Talk about a blast from the past! There are a few people who posted here that haven't been around in years -- and this reminded me that I miss their posts.


I'm curious, has your view changed over time, or do you feel the same as you did back in 2013? I know how hard it is to see animals euthanized, but I also know and have seen abuse situations as well...both can harden your heart in ways that many people can't even imagine!


----------

