I read this entry of yours this (Friday) morning, and spent the next several hours pondering it. I agree with the gist of what you're saying, I feel sure. But I'm wondering about motivations, and what would get through to people.
Someone who can afford $500 for a puppy is not poor. They're sufficiently well off that they can indulge that impulse to buy the puppy. I'd guess they usually buy the puppy for a child, or possibly a partner. So the puppy then takes on the aura of a "chosen gift" and the buyer doesn't like being told that they chose poorly. I imagine the first step in getting through to such a person is to alleviate their defensiveness. They probably think that the breeder couldn't have legally sold a defective pup, and are shaken to find that they've been scammed.
But there's a larger issue here. People often come into the possession of pets by taking in strays. (I know this story, having lived it several times.) Many such folks are kind-hearted and willing to buy the pet food, provide a home, etc... But they don't have the means to afford much more. They don't want to take the strays to the pound, since they've heard stories about the pound killing dogs and cats in very little time. Nor do they have the spare time to volunteer at an animal shelter. These are people who work long, odd hours and come home late. They're not contributing to the problem of bad breeders, except perhaps by letting their pets out during the day while they're away. But they do account for an awful lot of pet owners who want to do the right thing, but also have to live within sharply limited means.
I *think* that the second group - basically poor but kind hearted people - would be more willing to provide preventive health care for their pets if only they (a) knew it was available, and (b) could afford it. People in the first group - basically well off but calous - seem more likely to just want to drop the pet off at the pound once the pet becomes inconvenient and little snookums has tired of it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2001-12-21 06:59 pm (UTC)Someone who can afford $500 for a puppy is not poor. They're sufficiently well off that they can indulge that impulse to buy the puppy. I'd guess they usually buy the puppy for a child, or possibly a partner. So the puppy then takes on the aura of a "chosen gift" and the buyer doesn't like being told that they chose poorly. I imagine the first step in getting through to such a person is to alleviate their defensiveness. They probably think that the breeder couldn't have legally sold a defective pup, and are shaken to find that they've been scammed.
But there's a larger issue here. People often come into the possession of pets by taking in strays. (I know this story, having lived it several times.) Many such folks are kind-hearted and willing to buy the pet food, provide a home, etc... But they don't have the means to afford much more. They don't want to take the strays to the pound, since they've heard stories about the pound killing dogs and cats in very little time. Nor do they have the spare time to volunteer at an animal shelter. These are people who work long, odd hours and come home late. They're not contributing to the problem of bad breeders, except perhaps by letting their pets out during the day while they're away. But they do account for an awful lot of pet owners who want to do the right thing, but also have to live within sharply limited means.
I *think* that the second group - basically poor but kind hearted people - would be more willing to provide preventive health care for their pets if only they (a) knew it was available, and (b) could afford it. People in the first group - basically well off but calous - seem more likely to just want to drop the pet off at the pound once the pet becomes inconvenient and little snookums has tired of it.
I don't know though. Is that what you see?