Friday, December 5, 2008

Pets in Relation to Money




In the past I have heard many stories about trips to the vet which were more expensive than the original pet. I know many will object to this, but that just doesn't seem logical. I can understand to a degree, based on the emotionally attachment to the animal, but spending more than three or four times the cost of the creature seems odd. In fact, there are times when it becomes more economical not even to feed pets. Thats right, to simply let it starve before buying a new one costs less money than the food, vaccinations, toys, recreational facilities, spas, wardrobe, etc. While this opinion may seem cruel, I admit I would sooner pay money to keep my current guitar instead of buying a new one.

3 comments:

Chaka said...

Ouch. I understand where you are coming from but animal lovers will not care for your point of view. I can see how some people might view gold fish and mice as "disposable" but be prepared for some angry comments from people who would gladly pay $350 to keep their parakeet alive.

Chantry said...

Pets are overrated to an extent. After killing three hermit crabs, losing two parakeets, and selling two mice for snake food, (not counting the collection of stray cats my brother drags in) I can say that pets are not worth the time and effort. You want cuddly and cute? Go get something stuffed and mount it on a wall.

carmen said...

Hey! Have you seen the new "Rockin dog resort" by the canyon?
The dogs just look like they are having so much fun walking around on the grass in the rain sniffing their own crap. Well, I have the same opinion.