Bryan S. wrote:
[Rhonda )]
[Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:02:02 GMT]


Bryan S. wrote:

Pet ownership isn't a fundamental right.. it's a luxury and a
responsibility. If proper care cannot be provided, the animal shouldn't
have been obtained in the first place. (Sorry to be so blunt, but it's
absolutely true.) Suppose an expensive vet bill arose? Broken leg,
etc?

Bryan,

I've seen lots of people say this, but cats live (hopefully) 20 years or
so. People's circumstances change from time to time. If finances change,
should the animals be given away immediately?

Very few people can predict their circumstances for the next 20 years so
by the reasoning below, maybe no one should rescue an animal.

Rhonda

My point remains about Frontline... it's just plain not that expensive.
If you can afford to eat more than Ramen Noodles, you can afford
Frontline... it's just a matter of prioritizing. Our pets have always
been part of the family, regarded almost as children... and as such
they've always been included in any financial prioritizing.

Brian,

I thought what you were saying is that if you did not use the particular
kinds of flea spray that you recommend, but instead chose a less
expensive one -- then that is not "proper" care of your cat and you
should not have a cat in the first place.

You said if they cannot get the flea spray, how could they treat a
broken leg?

I have to think that this poster would find a way. In my opinion, if
they chose a cheaper flea spray -- so be it, that's part of
prioritizing. At least they're getting a flea spray. If the cat has
worse medical problems, I think that cat will be in the vet's office and
that will be the time to move things up to the top of the priority list.

Rhonda