Thoughts on poor people owning dogs, even high maintenance dogs like Dobies

The old school attitude, as we might call it, to dog ownership was that just about anyone could have a dog, and expensive veterinary care wasn't expected. If a dog became horribly ill, it was considered just the dog's time to go. Pouring lots of money into veterinary care is a very recent phenomenon, at least outside the rungs of the upper class.

There are two broad types of poorer people, the responsible kind and the irresponsible kind, and let us remember that there are plenty of irresponsible well to do people, just as most homeless are employed yet still homeless. Families that, a generation or two ago, were solidly middle class, have now become working poor or just plain poor due to structural adjustments to the economy since the Thatcher and Reagan Revolution. Many poor people are good people who just don't have much money.

For people who can afford it, by all means, spend what you must in order to keep your beloved dog, who is a member of the family, in as good of health as possible. But for poorer people who are responsible enough to be dog parents, the old school approach would seem to work best.

Poor people, the ones who are responsible, should not be denied dogs just due to their lack of means. What a dog wants most is belonging within a pack, i.e. a family. And many poorer people can provide this, along with exercise, adequate food, and love.

More than a thousand dogs per day are still euthanized in the US alone in shelters, so adopting these dogs out to poorer people is better than euthanizing them, even if, say, a high medical-need breed like the Dobermann might only live, say, an average of five or six years with a poorer family, whereas, with an affluent family, a Dobermann might live ten to twelve years.

Five or six good years of life still beats so called "euthanasia," meaning "good death," which is just a euphemism for what usually just amounts to killing or destroying homeless dogs (and cats etc.).

So I think that getting these animals out of the shelters, and not being picky, but allowing them to be adopted by the first decent family to want them, even if that family has limited means, is the most humane approach to the dog overpopulation problem.

What is more, poor people often have sad lives, and dogs can be a ray of sunshine and love for anyone, rich or poor and everything in between. I would not adopt out a dog to a homeless person, but in the case of a homeless person who already has a loyal dog living with him on the streets, I certainly would not advocate for taking that dog away from him. The most humane solution, though one our society sadly fails to implement, would be to house both the homeless person and their dog -- together!

What do you think about poorer people adopting dogs? I think it is perfectly ethical if the poor people are decent people, most of whom are. The dog might not get the longest or greatest life possible, but it's still a life worth living provided that the people are good people.

Edited for typo