> Yeah, well if someone can't swing $200 they probably shouldn't own a pet.
I'm not sure poor people not adopting pets would meaningfully change the rate at which pets are born. It just results in fewer pets being adopted.
Particularly true if shelters fix pets before putting them up for adoption.
Most animals that have been bred as pets over 1000s of years are no longer permitted to live without a human caretaker.
If they can't swing $200 for a life-saving procedure for a pet, I'd still advise them to adopt a pet to provide it a home for the window of time when the animal could happily live without any vet services.
A no-cost (or low-cost) adoption is often a life-saving procedure for an owner-less pet.
I grew up poor, by US standards at least, and everyone around me either adopted their pets from shelters or found them as strays on the street. All my pets have been either strays or from a shelter.
The only exception I can think of from my childhood were fish, I think those almost always came from a pet store, but fish tanks were very uncommon.
Even my Axolotl was a rescue, it was given to me in a Tupperware container full of pond water after its previous owner was unable to take care of it.
If you have anything that would suggest it’s common for people who can’t afford $200 in vet services to buy their pets from breeders, I’m open to learning.
I'm not sure poor people not adopting pets would meaningfully change the rate at which pets are born. It just results in fewer pets being adopted.
Particularly true if shelters fix pets before putting them up for adoption.
Most animals that have been bred as pets over 1000s of years are no longer permitted to live without a human caretaker.
If they can't swing $200 for a life-saving procedure for a pet, I'd still advise them to adopt a pet to provide it a home for the window of time when the animal could happily live without any vet services.
A no-cost (or low-cost) adoption is often a life-saving procedure for an owner-less pet.