Would you spend 5K to save your puppy's life?

[valis]

I'm not sure I would... Am I a heartless bastard? I'd rather save it to help out some person who needs it...

[Shell Beau]

1. No question. Absolutely! I love my babies.

[tk2kewl]

you are not heartless, I wouldnt spend it.

I think 1G would be an absolute cap for me.

[Mutley]

2. yes

My puppy is like my daughter.

I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do everything possible to save her.

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. If the 5 K would definitely save my puppy's life and ensure future health?

without a doubt. She's everything to me. If it was a temporary fix then quality of life would come into play. :hi: They're not disposable to me.

[valis]

5. Yeah, let's say it's a one thing surgery/treatment.

After that your puppy would live a normal life (I mean, there is bad luck, of course).

[cestpaspossible]

4. Depends

too many variables in this hypothetical.

[tavalon]

6. It would depend on the prognosis and age

I have spent a few grand before on one of my guys but he was young and the condition was wholly fixable.

I understand your point of view and it is quite valid. My emotional landscape wouldn't generally let me do that but that doesn't make one more right than the other. Just different.

[Beetwasher]

7. I Spent Almost 2k On Medical Bills

for my parakeet. She died anyway and I still don't regret it.

[valis]

8. OK, let me be more specific.

Your puppy is 3 month old. It has a condition that would lead to its death in 90% of cases. There is a complex treament that has a success rate of 75%. When it works your puppy is like new. It costs 5ks.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. 75%?

That's a lousy percentage.

No.

[radwriter0555]

46. I'd get a second opinion in that case.

Good luck.

[LiberallyInclined]

75. 3 months old? euthanize and try again.

nt

[flvegan]

87. I've put $50,000 of my money into my rescue animals over the past few

years. They don't even stay "mine" but rather go on to live happy lives in the homes and families of other people that I may or may not talk to in the future.

$5k into my puppy? Unless he/she would suffer, you betcha.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Well, since I've already spent about $3K on one of my dogs and

her medical upkeep is around $200 a month, I'd guess I'd have to say 'yes'. My girl was diagnosed with diabetes a year ago and with an atypical Cushings' in July. She had been hypothyroid since age 4. She developed cataracts on both eyes in Aug. and had surgery and lens implants done in Nov. Unfortunately, she had a complication in one eye following the surgery and had to have that eye removed in Feb.

She is a big part of my family and I still give as much as I can to others. I think taking care of the animals in our lives is just as important as compassion to other people.

[saracat]

10. I would. I think animals are as important as people. There is no

difference to me. There are people I wouldn't spend it on! In fact, I would be more likely to spend it on an animal than a person!

[ernstbass]

34. I'm with you Saracat

I hold my dogs in higher regard than most humans!!

[valis]

35. I find this offensive...

Let me clarify... Obviously I would not pay a penny to save Chimpy's life... However, saying that you'd save your puppy's life before you save that of another human being is disturbing...

[ernstbass]

36. No offense intended - it's the way I feel

[valis]

39. Do you expect people to help you when you are in need?

[ernstbass]

72. You framed this as pets vs. people

I do my share of helping humans - I'm a social worker and I volunteer for 3 agencies in addition to my full time job. I subsidize my niece's college education and I have taken my mentally ill brother into my home and I financially support him. It doesn't have to be pets or people. Furthermore, if money can be better spent on humans than animal surgery, where does this argument stop? We don't NEED to take vacations, have homes over a few hundred square feet, buy nice cars, wear jewelry, or buy computers. One could make an argument that these expenses could go to helping others. I am just as obligated to help my dogs as I am to help family/friends and the 2 are not mutually exclusive. But I stand my my statement that if pushed in a corner, I would help my dogs - that is my obligation as a responsible pet owner. And please don't treat your puppy like a robot cause it probably isn't one. In answer to your question I don't really expect help from others if I'm in need.

[Lorien]

43. Why?

There are millions of evil people out there. A dog can give unconditional love, where as many humans only give hate to the world (look at Rush Limbaugh's audience). My republican neighbor probably wishes I were dead. My cats adore me. I'd spend money on my cats over giving it to my neighbor because I simply value them more. Being human doesn't automatically make one precious.

[valis]

49. Hmmm, for what I know my puppy is a cute robot who wants food..

:) I agree with you in part, I would not want to help out Rush Limbaugh... Which is sad, in a way... But I'd help my friends and relatives before I help my dog...

[flvegan]

89. Why?

Let's take the same $5k. Now, it's between your dog's surgery and loaning your friend/relative $5k for a down payment on a new car that he/she wants. If you make the loan, puppy dies. If you don't, he/she has to deal with the ride he/she has.

What say you?

[valis]

95. I would not give 5Ks to anybody to buy a car...

I hate cars. I don't have one myself...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

64. Me too. They're innocent and depend on you.

[PollyH]

82. Dollars for Puppy

You bet I would. Actually, I have. We spent thousands on one of our Golden Retrievers and Jake was worth every penny. Our pets are part of our family and that means they receive the same attention and help as the humans. If I did not feel this way, I would not have my dogs and cats.

Also, you might consider starting a savings account for the furry ones. We did and I was able to take care of Savannah's (she is a cat found at a used car lot -- so in my world even an alley cat is worth the money) thyroid problem at a cost of $1,500.00 without blinking an eye. I don't recommend pet insurance as they can turn you down and who needs another insurance policy in their life.

I cannot help every animal in the world, but I can help the ones in my family and through them I feel I am symbolically helping all the others.

Well, it works for me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. No.

Not unless I were rich enough to afford it.

But in my current situation, no way would I pay 5 grand for a dog.

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

12. Not my puppy's life, no

(Because I don't have one.) Kitties, yes indeed. They are my little sweethearts.

[ET Awful]

13. If I had it to spend, you're damn right I would. n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

14. If I had a whole hell of a lot of money

and five grand was pocket change, sure.

But as it is, that's a moot question. Five grand isn't pocket change to me.

[valis]

16. Exactly. If it's pocket change it doesn't matter anyway.

I assume it isn't pocket change for most.

[Maru Kitteh]

114. Five grand isn't even in the realm of reality for me!

But I would owe it to save my girls or my fat tub of Buddy.

[Bonhomme Richard]

15. No way. It's just a dog. n/t

[saracat]

19. I hope someone doesn't think of you that way someday!

[valis]

27. You mean, a dog in dog's world saying "it's just a human"?

[Bonhomme Richard]

44. I consider myself a rational person and because of that...............

there would be no way I could justify that unless I were rich, which I am not.
That doesn't mean that I don't love my animals. I do but at the end of the day they are just animals and I'm not even sure that I would be doing them or me a favor by using "heroic means" to keep them alive.
I have been the one in my family that has taken the dogs to the vet to be put down and it is the hardest thing I have had to do. More difficult in fact than going to my own fathers funeral because my dog was putting his complete trust in me ( as he had always done) and I was the one putting him to sleep. I swore that I wouldn't do it again and that it was my wife's turn next time. Well, next time is coming very soon because our lab/pitbull mix is 15 years old now, is deaf and can barely walk. I'll even makes jokes like calling him Dead Dog Walking (which our vet didn't find very funny) but I know that I will be the one taking him for that last trip and I'm not looking forward to it.

Sorry for the ramble.

[ernstbass]

73. I'm sorry about your lab/pitbull

I too have had to put dogs down and I agree with you about "heroic measures" if it is an old animal.

[saracat]

17. I spent 3K on my cat. He died, but I didn't begrudge the money.

I felt no differently when my Dad passed. They both cost money and they were both family members. I consider an animal the same obligation as a child! If you aren't willing to shoulder that burden, you shouldn't have one!

[benny05]

86. I'm with you

We had to spend nearly $1300 on our cat who was 3 at the time. His life was worth saving. Even if he hadn't lived, I thought it was worth the money. As my spouse said at the time, it's money and we will get it again.

[stevedeshazer]

18. Well, I spent 2K

That was ten years ago. He's snoring at my feet right now. I can't imagine it any other way.

[DaJoiseyAlleyCat]

20. I spent over a grand getting my cat fixed up after he was run over....

[Skittles]

21. yes I would

and I would not like being second-guessed......I've had people make remarks on some of my vet bills, the same people who live in big-ass houses they can't afford, drive pricey cars when a simpler one would do, own 100 pairs of shoes.

[LynneSin]

81. I agree Skittles but,

I would never hold it against anyone if they choose not to spend the $5k to save the animal. I don't have a fancy lifestyle with expensive cars and overpriced homes but I also know that if one of my beloved pets needed $5k to live that I do not have the ability to afford that either unless I went into debt again to take care of them. And with bankruptcy laws the way they are these days, I would prefer not to go back into serious debt.

I would do anything and everything for my cats but I also have to keep reasonable with what I can and cannot afford. This comes to my own personal needs as well as my pets.

So no one should judge anyone on this decision - it isn't fair. Owning a pet is a responsibility and there are costs involved that we should be willing to incur with ownership. But if someone doesn't have thousands of dollars lying around because of unforeseen major issues, I would never hold judgment in the final decision

[Worst Username Ever]

22. There are far too many hungry kids out there for that.

5k feeds a lot of people for a night. Or more.

[valis]

26. I have to agree with that... People come first....

[Lorien]

40. So who did you give 5K to recently?

[valis]

51. Well, I wish it were only 5Ks... I gave over 30Ks last year for

my sister's surgery. She had a large acoustic neuroma and of course we wanted her to get the best brain surgeon we could...

[Worst Username Ever]

55. You have a lucky sister.

:hi:

[valis]

59. So, you see? i keep thinking... what if there is another problem like that

And I spent my money on taking care of my puppy?... I just cannot do it... We all freaked out when she was diagnosed with that problem... It'll never go away...

[saracat]

147. But they are not my family and my cats are.

Sorry about that but the fact that my family isn't human doesn't make them less important to me. Would you tell someone that they are spending too much money on their child 's surgery and that they could be spending that money on other hungry children? I think not.Well, these are MY children, and to me, they come first!

[communerd]

23. yes, if it were at all possible to scrape the cash together

I once spent the equivalent of about $2000 in a similar situation (and I was not particularly well off at the time). It was one of those times where I told everyone (and myself) that i needed to think about it, but deep down I knew all along what I would do and I've certainly never regretted it. But I wouldn't call you a heartless bastard for making a different choice.

[DaJoiseyAlleyCat]

25. I could of fed the cat to the hungry kids....brilliant Idea!

[wideopen]

28. I spent $3500

On my 2 year old lab/malamute after she got hit by a car. This was about 10 years ago when I was probably making about $10hr(maybe). She just died last year and looking back at all the pleasure that dog brought me I would have gladly paid 35k. So yes, I wouldn't think twice about it. My pets are part of the family and I don't put money above family.

[leftofthedial]

29. I wouldn't even spend $5K to save MY life

But then, i'm partly Scottish.

[TX-RAT]

30. I've got 1200.00 invested in a kitty knee

I suspect I'd pay 5000. To keep my puppy alive.

[ernstbass]

31. I've gone into debt for several dogs in the past

and I would do it again. I don't have children (other than my dogs) and I consider them family members. When I make a commitment I stick to it and providing healthcare is part of the deal when you get an animal.

[bicentennial_baby]

32. Oh fuck yes, I would!

I've dropped 1500 to save an 11 year old dog with a fatal infection, and another time 2000-2500 to try to save a dog that was nearly guaranteed to die, which he did soon after. My dogs are members of our family, and their lives are most definitely equal to my fellow humans, at least in my book.

[Texasgal]

33. Well.. you did say

that you would spend more than 40 bucks on a pair of jeans. What does that say about you?

[Bridget Burke]

37. I don't have that much to spend on my cats...

Although I'd spend quite a bit, I just don't have the extra $5,000. Besides, they're old guys & not really up to high-tech, high-risk treatment.

Although it won't help you at this point, pet insurance might be a good idea. My vet offers it--but it doesn't cover cosmetic surgery.

[Writer]

38. Get pet health insurance, for Pete's sake!

I just had surgery on my cat - about $1300 that I will not have to pay because I had pet health insurance. Both our dog and cat have it. It's cheap, as little as $10/month, and well worth it!

http://www.sheltercare.com/

Writer.

[skygazer]

41. A pet is a responsibility

If a person is not willing to take on the responsibility of having a pet, they shouldn't get one in the first place. Part of that responsibility is providing quality medical care.

Just as one would with another person, I would take into account all the factors that enter into the situation - age, prognosis, quality of life, etc. If those factors led me to feel that the procedure would indeed benefit my pet, prolong its life and provide it with a decent quality of life, then I would most certainly spend the money.

A pet is not something that you can morally just toss aside when it becomes too expensive, or too much of a hassle, or too annoying. Not in my opinion. Those who feel a pet is disposable should not have any. It is a living, breathing, sentient creature whom you have taken on responsibility for. People need to seriously think about that when they're gooing and gaaing in front of the pet store window.

[amazona]

47. so no poor person should have the comfort of a pet?

I'm sorry, this is grossly unfair.

I went 15 years without health insurance. $5K is not a reasonable expense for a pet's health care. I am sorry. For most people, for most of their lives, they don't have $5K to spend on their OWN health care. Spending that kind of money on a pet is not a sign of being responsible to me, quite the reverse. If you really do have that kind of money, fine, but to criticize those who don't (the majority of "real" people) is just not right.

The more people who pay these extortionate prices, the more the vets will jack up their prices.

Our society has gone mad and has no sense of proportion.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[skygazer]

52. I didn't say that

I've gone most of my adult life without insurance and it's no fun at all. When I've needed medical care, I've made payment arrangements, or borrowed money, or applied for assistance or all the other things desperate people do. I would do the same to care for a pet.

I don't have loads of money (far from it) but my pets have always been cared for. For several years, I worked part time at a vet's office in exchange for their care.

What my post was about was the idea of taking responsibility for the life you've taken on. Period. I'm not judging anyone nor am I saying that only the wealthy should have pets. I'm saying that they're not a disposable commodity and shouldn't be treated as one. If you want comfort without responsibility, get a stuffed animal.

[valis]

50. So, let me think... If I cannot afford health care I should throw myself

into non-existence because it is my responsibility to obtain health care for myself...

[skygazer]

54. Just where in my post did you find anything remotely close to that?

You asked a question, an opinion question. I gave you my opinion.

Let me ask you a question - if you had a child who needed a $5000 operation, would you find the money somehow or would you throw up your hands and say, "well, I don't have it. Sorry, kid, you're out of luck." Perhaps you don't equate an animal's life with a human's; however when you take on an animal, I feel (note-my opinion) that it's your responsibility to take care of it. Just as I would find some way to pay for my child's health needs, I would find a way to pay for my pet's.

And because people seem to feel that I'm some rich fuck who has no idea of what poverty is like, I will say that I've never made over 48,000 a year and many years, I've made a hell of a lot less.

edited to add - it's my opinion (there's that word again) that you don't really care to hear anyone's opinion on this unless it agrees with your own. Just about every person on her who has said they would spend that, you've jumped on. So why bother asking in the first place if you don't want to hear other points of view?

[valis]

61. Ok, sorry... You are right...

[amazona]

71. let me ask you this question (i hope respectfully)

if you had a child who needed a $5000 operation, would you find the money somehow

Where do you find the money somehow? As I said in my other post, there were times where I could not find a fraction of the money and, yes, I could have died. In one case, I almost did die from pneumonia and being turned away from emergency rooms, and finally a friend paid for my medicine but I still had to sleep on the floor in my friend's attic -- there was no money for actual hospitalization. This idea that $5K can always be found "somewhere" if you are really determined is just not true.

I understand the Original Poster's reluctance to spend the money because once you have been in a situation where a few hundred dollars would save your OWN life and you almost didn't get it...you're afraid to spend frivolously. If he had spent the $5K and then he didn't have quite enough to save his sister's life, can you imagine how he would have felt? Some of us have been in some crushing situations financially. It doesn't mean we're bad pet owners or that we should not have pets.

I am aware of several women involved in rescue who have pets that would have otherwise been euthanized as un-adoptable. They cannot pay $5K for one pet's surgery. That doesn't make them bad pet owners.

I respect your ability to get $5K "somehow" in an emergency but not everyone can do that. Especially very young people, who have no credit, or people who have had a lifetime of poverty and thus have no credit. Not everyone can get $5K in one place without committing a crime -- and often not even then!

If everyone could always find a way to pay for everything needed just through sheer determination, there would be no hungry, there would be no homeless, there would be no sick. But life is not that way for so many people. And even when you've crawled out of the hole, the fear is always there.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[skygazer]

77. I've been poor all my life

Believe me, I know what it's like to have nothing, no money, no food, no shelter. I've been homeless. I remember one winter I was outside in Vermont, cutting up an old bureau to burn in the woodstove (very dangerous because treated wood can explode when burned). I've never had any credit, barely do now - I'm 44 years old and got my very first credit card last year. I'm not, as I said before, some ditzy rich person with no concept of poverty. I know poverty up close and personal - I'm one step away from it at all times. I got paid today and now have $35 in my checking account for the week.

You do what you can, and what you must. The job I have now is the very first one I've ever had which provides health insurance. First one. All three of my kids, I paid for. How? I made payment arrangements, I worked several jobs, I borrowed from friends, etc. If I had a child who needed some kind of medical care, I would have to do that all over again.

I'm not saying that it's easy or even always possible to do that. It's not and in that case, I would not be able to spend that five grand, obviously. But if it was something that had good odds of saving my pet, and if I could do it, I would. And that was the question - would you. My feeling, and the idea I was trying to express in my original answer, is that it's a person's responsibility to take care of any creatures they take in. The OP simply asked if you would spend that money on a pet. I would, under the conditions I listed in my first post. I don't see why that's so controversial.

[Rabrrrrrr]

90. I'm glad I read all your posts instead of responding to the first one

Your first post made it sound like you felt that, once you have a pet, you MUST spend whatever money it takes to make them well. You didn't leave room for a conditional response at all.

Finally, though, through your other series of posts, you have come down to say "if you can afford it" and state that you are speaking conditionally.

Your first post was VERY heavy-handed, and, I might add, not a little insulting.

[skygazer]

121. I'm sorry you read it that way

Tone is something that is hard to convey sometimes on a message board. I never meant to imply that a person MUST spend that money no matter what - that's why I wrote that I would weigh all aspects of the situation and would choose to do it if I felt it would indeed save the animal and give it a good life. However, the way the OP worded it, it seemed to imply that one WOULD have the money and the question was whether you'd use it or not to save the pet. And I would.

I would not judge someone for not doing so because they just plain couldn't afford it. The only point I was trying to make, and that I obviously didn't make very well, was that I really feel that a pet is a responsibility, just as a child is, and that it disturbs me that people seem to feel they are more disposable than a human life.

I don't mean to be either heavy-handed or insulting - I was only trying to state my opinion logically rather than emotionally.

But I also stand by my opinion that this is rather a flamebait post to begin with. It's worded as a simple question but is then morphed into a choice between human and animal, which it doesn't have to be.

[saracat]

96. Then I think you shouldn't have pets! This isn't about money!

It is about committment. You must at least attempt to "try ' to help your animal, just as you would your child!
I really understand that some have a terrible time paying these vet bills. They are the same as doctor bills and pet insurnace is worse than people insurance. My DH has been without work for a while due to outsourcing and I have developed a condition that makes it difficult for me to work. Our cat just came down with an eye infection that had to be treated or he might risk his eye. It was minor as far as these costs go, but it was $150 that we don't have. We are doing without groceries to pay for his visit. And I am not going to a long anticipated Doctor's visit because we don't have the co-pay. But my boy will NOT lose his eye. Just as with childern, if you are not willing to put pets first, you shouldn't have them!

[valis]

98. Well, OK, that is your opinion. I have a different opinion.

In my opinion, I come first, over anybody, human or not human. After that come humans who are close relatives or close friends. After that, come humans who are not close relatives or close friends. After that come animals, on a cuteness scale.

[saracat]

108. Then you probably shouldn't have animals, or children for

that matter.But that is JMHO. We must agree to disagree!:)

[valis]

109. Yup, I don't have children or animals...

[auntAgonist]

143. I would certainly

hope that your 'me first' attitude would change should you EVER be blessed with a child.

[amazona]

118. you should not be putting the cat above your own health

Now you are worrying me. You are putting an unrealistic burden on the vet, because you could spend the $150 and the cat could still lose his eye. Yet you are giving up food and an important medical check-up at a time when your medical situation makes it difficult for you to work? If you end up becoming permanently or even temporarily disabled, you aren't doing yourself, your DH, or even your cat much good.

I don't agree that "if you are not willing to put pets first, you shouldn't have them!" There would be no sane people who had pets if that were the case.

I'm sure you've been on an airplane and heard the spiel about how you should secure your OWN oxygen mask before helping your children with their mask. This is not because the airlines hate children or feel it's "women and children last" in event of an air crash. It is because if we don't take care of our own health and safety FIRST, we become a nuisance to everyone and cause far more hazard than if we did the logical thing of taking care of ourselves first.

I've been there. I treated the eye infection myself at home, with a solution of boric acid and pure distilled water. The infection cleared up, the bird was fine, and she has the eye to this day. Cost, maybe $2. It wasn't a pleasant choice to make but I had no alternative, and the outcome was exactly the same as when, a couple years back, another bird had an eye infection and got the treatment from the vet costing $80. Both birds are fine. Both have their eyesight. I can't guarantee the home treatment will work every time, but neither can I guarantee that the vet treatment will work every time.

If I don't take care of myself FIRST, if I don't make sure I am getting proper food and medical care, just how long am I going to be in a position to provide a good home for my partner and my pets? Not very long, I don't think.

Please take care of yourself.

And as far as your post, "This isn't about the money," in a capitalist society, whether we like it or not, everything is about money. Unless you are wealthy, the amount of money you have to spend is limited. As you say yourself, the money spent on the cat's eye means you won't have money to see the doctor yourself.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[saracat]

128. I will go to the Doctor next month, and I just cut all the extra stuff

out of our grocery budget. It just means distributing my food differently.I am not dying! I am a little less comfortable. And my cat is getting better everyday! The joy that my husband and I feel looking into his clear gaze is worth every penny! And it is worth the temorary discomfort!
I am merely pointing out that we all sacrifice every day for those we love and our pets should be treated no different than any other member of the family.
You are probably going to go ballistic when I tell you I had to pull the plug on my Dad and put my cat to sleep in the same year ,and I felt I did both for the same reasons, neither would evet get better and their death was merely being prolonged. Ind I felt equally bad about both of them. They were both members of my family. I like to think they are together along with my other "lost" pets and family members.
And I stand by my statement that it isn't always about money.I would do anything (legally ) necessary to help my animal, just as I would a any family member. There are always options if you know how to look! It just takes effort and it is harder if you don't have the money. I know, I have been in both circumstances. But if you don't want to make the effort ,then you don't deserve the companionship of an animal.

[amazona]

133. whew OK glad to hear it

If it's just extra stuff in the grocery budget, that's a little different. On my income, there is not really any "extra stuff." So it sounds different from this end.

Get well soon. I think we're closer on these issues than we know.

And I'm glad to hear your cat is recovering nicely. If my experience with the birds is any measure, then eye infections clear up very quickly. May it be so for your cat as well.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[amazona]

42. good Lord no!

There were many years where I wouldn't have -- couldn't have -- spent $5K to save my own life. I twice went without treatment for pneumonia which could have progressed to, you know, death because the money wasn't there.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[valis]

48. And how do you feel seeing many people who would give 5Ks

to their puppy before they help you with your medical problems?

[skygazer]

56. That's completely unfair

You're provoking here. You didn't ask if people would pay that instead of helping out another person. You asked if they'd pay that to save their puppy. How do you know that those of us who would pay to save a dog wouldn't also help out a fellow human in need?

[valis]

63. I don't know that...

[MissB]

65. No kidding. But it is probably too late to go back and edit

the original post. :eyes:

[LynneSin]

83. Sky, they're not provoking you but they do have good points

If I had a child and I needed $5k that I didn't have in my account in order to save him/her, I could possibly go to family members and such to help raise the money to get the cost. It would be a struggle but I could find a source

But with a pet, it's a different story. My family knows how much I love and adore my 2 cats, but if one of my cats needed $5k in order to save them I'd be hard pressed to get anything from them.

I've never really owned pets before, so it's unfair for me to judge in either way. But I wouldn't necessarily judge someone simply because they weren't able to come up with the $5k to take care of a pet. I've worked with a cat adoption agency which does Vet reference checks and believe me, they would not withhold an adoption simply because a family couldn't afford expensive medical works for their pet. But they would if it was something reasonable and found out the owners opted to put their pet asleep instead.

I think we're all emotional with our pets and I know I am with my 2 furballs (which btw, are the first real pets I've ever owned!). Maybe this thread is making me think twice about getting pet insurance because truthfully, I don't want to have to make a decision between my pets and putting myself into deep debt again (been there once - do not want to go back there again).

[amazona]

62. I feel angry but it's the way it is

I think the majority of Americans would spend $$$ on a pet before they'd donate to a stranger in need. Pets are cute. Sick people aren't. It goes along with the studies showing that the sickly child is more likely to be abused than the healthy child. This is indeed what happened in my experience.

So much of society is about who is "deserving" and so much about who is "deserving" depends on how visually appealing you are.

So yeah it ticks me off. On the other hand, I have to agree that people have a right to make their own decisions about their money.

But I worry about people I see spending hundreds, even thousands, on pets. Then when they're in need for themselves, they don't have the money. I've got a friend going through this right now. She has spent many thousands over the years on problem animals -- rescues -- and now she is in trouble herself. It is scary. She hasn't seen a doctor for herself in a decade, and at her age this just isn't safe. And she just keeps falling further and further behind financially.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Texasgal]

66. Look Valis

It's none of your fucking business how I/anyone spends their money. If I want to spend 5k on my dog, so be it! It's nobody's business. If that kinda shit irritates you then don't own a pet and don't ask about how much medical bills are!

My OPINION is that animals are SUPERIOR to humans in every aspect! Including domestics.

Don't like it? Go start a flamewar somewhere else!!!!

[skygazer]

67. Well said

Blunt and to the point. Have one on me. :toast:

[valis]

70. Then why do you reply? If it's none of our business?...

Keep that confidential info to yourself and go somewhere else.

[skygazer]

80. I replied originally because you asked a question

I thought I replied thoughtfully and I was jumped on from every direction, leading me to believe that you don't want people's actual opinions if they differ from yours. At that point, what texasgal said seemed pretty accurate; however prior to that, I was attempting to have an actual dialog. Evidently, that is not possible with you as you seem to want to do nothing more than argue and ridicule those who do not agree with you.

Does that answer your question?

[valis]

103. Sorry I gave that impression...

[valis]

69. If you don't want to talk about it then don't reply, kinda simple, no?...

[saracat]

92. I am with you! Amen!

[radwriter0555]

45. I spent $4,000 just to save my dog's LEG last year. I am a lucky and

very fortunate woman to be able to afford such an extravagance, but of course I would.

[Dukkha]

53. Where can I get pet insurance?

As my older cat is showing respiratory issues which is probably inherent and will require routine treatment. I'd like to get both my cats on a plan to keep them healthy and give them routine checkups.

oh and to answer your question, If I had 5k I would, to save my pets and to piss of the "people first" animal haters!

[KFC]

58. '"people first" animal haters' ?

I happen to be a people first animal lover. You can spent money however you want, but there is no question that humans are superior to and worth more than (non-human) animals.

[saracat]

139. Funny I have never noticed that. My animals are kinder and much less

vicious than most people. They are innocent which is more than can be said for people!

[ernstbass]

78. My vet's office has info on several different insurance policies

I would guess you could find them online also

[gollygee]

57. Well I'll admit that I wouldn't

A person, yes absolutley. A pet, nope.

[MissB]

60. How I spend my money is my business, I suppose.

I wouldn't judge people for spending a few $k on their animals.

[enigmatic]

68. Yes

without a second thought, if the vet told me if it the animal would have a reasonably healthy life afterwords.

If I was doing it to stroke my own ego and prolong the animals suffering, no. They mean much, much more to me than that. They deserve to pass w/ dignity, too.

[LynneSin]

74. I'd spend $50 to get a second opinion.....

....to ensure that I'm not being gouged by the Vet.

But as for spending $5k on saving one of my pet - well, I'd have a really difficult time with that especially since I'm hoping to buy a house soon and I just don't have that kind of money to spend. I absolutely adore my cats, but it's difficult to think of spending that much when I know there are so many other cats I could help out with that kind of money. Plus, I have to be real honest, do you want to put yourself $5k in debt especially with the turn that this country has made towards debt responsibility (AKA bankerupcy laws). I suppose if I had that kind of money available to spend I would do it in a heartbeat. But I don't. I've never really owned pets before so I've never been in that position, but I think there comes a time that you have to look wisely at the money you're spending vs. the love that you have for that pet. I don't think anyone has the right to make judgement on you no matter what you decide

[Wcross]

76. It depends- 15 year old dog or a younger one?

My brother and his wife spent 1k on a 4 year old rabbit. It died anyways. Rabbits only live to be 5 years old so whats the point? It is the same thing with older dogs, every living creature dies. Spending 5k so the dog can live another couple of months is not worth it to me (or the dog).

[SOteric]

79. I would spend that and more on my little fuzzy knucklehead

I refuse to put a fiscal limit on unconditional love. I'm also not interested in judging you, though. Your choices are yours to make and I assume you've valid reasons for making them.

[Blue Diadem]

84. Already spent it and it was worth every cent.

It allowed him to return to a happy pain free life even though he was old. Best money we ever spent, he was like one of our children and gave us years of joy. $5,000 was the least we could do for him.

[Dastard Stepchild]

85. I spent 2K...

I'm pretty sure I would spend 5K. Nope... make that totally sure. When I adopted her it was with the committment that I would do whatever it took to keep her healthy and happy. Not sure where the funds would come from, but I'd figure that out.

[SW FL Dem]

88. If I had it or could get it. I would

My animals are my best friends, they are members of the family. My last dog developed a heart condition, the meds necessary to keep her comfortable were over $200 a month, but they made a huge difference in the quality and length of her life. She lived for an additional 3 years, we probably spent over 10K keeping her alive and it was worth every penny. When the quality of her life deteriorated, we let her go.

I don't judge those who would make a different decision. It is a deeply personal decision, please don't judge me for what I chose to do.

[Solly Mack]

91. in a heartbeat :)

[rainy]

93. I just spent 3K on my dog's operation on his leg. He had to

have a plate put in because he ripped out his ligaments.

[regnaD kciN]

94. I spent $5k to save my kitty's life...

...several years ago when liver problems and/or a bad reaction to anesthetic landed her in intensive care. She pulled out of it, but died two years later at age 19. Here is a picture of her.

[saracat]

97. She is absolutely beautiful!

Bless you for your commitment.

[valis]

99. nice kitty!

[valis]

100. I had a kitty. And it died (a car hit her). I think I'll get a small fish.

[Misunderestimator]

101. Pure sanctimonious flamebait...

Let's bring out all the other ways someone can spend $5,000 and then judge them for not spending it to save another human's life. I think we could have a very long list. I could have stayed in Florida instead of moving to California for a better quality of life and to be with my partner... I could have saved myself much more than $5,000 if I'd done that, and then I could have given it away. I suppose I should be ashamed of myself for spending money for such a thing? I could have helped a lot of other people instead of only helping myself.

You distribute your money any way you like, and I'll distribute mine as I see fit. If I choose to spend it on an operation for an animal I love, I won't have one ounce of guilt because of this little exercise of yours.

[valis]

102. ... and that is great.

[Misunderestimator]

104. By your reasoning, NO money should be spent to save animals' lives.

Not 5 dollars, not 100 dollars, not 1000 dollars. Any amount of money that goes to an animal's support is taking that money away from human beings, right?

[valis]

105. Good question... I'd go for food and prevention...

But that is partly why I don't have a pet, right now...

[Bzzzz]

106. Yes...

unequivocably....YES...and we've done so.

[mr_hat]

107. I did, and it didn't. Protein-losing enteropathy >

took Black Jack, our dog pound resuce.

Please God, don't let it happen to any others' puppies here.

[solinvictus]

110. I'd give a kidney for my pups..

I love them SOOOO much!!

[valis]

112. Well, they ARE cute!!!!!

[hyphenate]

111. If I had it, I would do it

To many of us, our four legged friends are life--our "kids." And we would do just about anything for our kids.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

113. If I had that kind of money laying around, then yeah.

But no way would I pay that much if it meant going into huge debt or something.

[valis]

115. So, weekenders, what think?

[uppityperson]

123. No. Simply no.

I personally would not spend this much on a pet, no matter how much I loved them. And yes, I have pets, and a child. I also do not have this much money to spend on a pet, or a car, or a human. However, if I had this money I still would not spend it on my pet. Everything lives and dies, sometimes sooner, sometimes later, and resources are limited. I would dontate it to Planned Parenthood, Doctors Without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, our local health clinic providing care for people without money or insurance, ACLU. No car, no pet, no new bathroom. Immunizations for children, housing, health care, ability to provide food, ability to have a decent quality life for humans. That is what I would do.

Other people do other things. I am not queen of the world yet and cannot and will not tell others what to do, believeing that freedom includes making choices that may hurt yourself and others. as well as valuing diversity. I may disagree with someone, but they have the right to be as they are, even conservatives. This conflicts with my other strong belief that no one has the right to hurt others, and spending this money on a pet means they won't spend it elsewhere on humans and will therefor cause harm.

I also believe humans are destroying the planet and will go extinct soon. Such is life and death. What we do between now and then is what matters. But we all will die.

[valis]

124. Nice post. I tend to agree with you.

[philosophie_en_rose]

116. It's not people versus pets.

If I had $5000 to spend on a pet's surgery, I would spend it. If I had $5000 to spend money on a person's surgery, I would spend it.

This is not a choice between pets and people. It's about my ability to act, when a situation arises.



On Edit: I'm not making a general statement on the value of humans or animals. The unfortunate fact is that I would have to let my pet go without treatment, if I did not have the funds or there was a greater need with, say, my mother.

However, there are some human beings that I would choose my pet over. George W. Bush, Ann Coulter, etc.

[amazona]

117. in the OP's case it is indeed people vs. pets

We all have limited resources. I think it's clear that if he had spent the $5K on the puppy he would not have had the $5K for when his sister was in need. This is why he worries about excessive expenditure on pets. I am the same way. For too many years I could not myself get health care. My pets received home care during that time, just as I did. I must be doing something right. They are still alive and doing well many years later, and I'm still alive and better than ever too. A lot of what we think of as "necessary" vet care was not even invented in the 80s and early 90s when I acquired my birds. I did not knowingly take on a responsibility to provide hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of vet care because such care simply didn't exist at that time. But I must be doing something right, since they are still going strong.

The best care is proper housing, proper food, proper supervision. A lot of illness and accident in cats, for instance, is preventable by training the cat to be an indoor pet. Years ago a friend had a huge vet bill because her cat was first in a fight and later in an auto accident -- neither event could have happened if she'd kept the cat indoors. But we all get older, pets and people too, and there are illnesses that can't be prevented by even the best of care. At that point, we have to make choices.

It is my first responsibility to have enough funds to be able to pay for my own care and not be a burden on other people around me. Expensive medical treatment for pets has to come second.

Once you have known what it is to be without -- and once you understand the reality is that MOST people in trouble are not going to get enough $$$ to cover the huge medical costs -- you can never again be carefree about spending hundreds (much less thousands) on pet care. It's wonderful that so many people can be so confident in their earning ability that they can freely spend thousands on their pets, and I don't begrudge them that. However, the reality of my life and that of many other people's lives is that we can't spend that kind of money without serious impact on our own health or the health of those we love.

The example of someone in this thread going without groceries -- without FOOD -- to buy surgery for a cat is an example of someone choosing to harm their own health to care for a pet. It is their choice but it is an unfair choice to ask me to make. I can't give up food without severe consequences. Some people can indeed fast safely. I am not one of them.

I do understand both sides of the debate but, as long as we have limits on our earning power and access to health care, some of us will have to make difficult choices.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[valis]

119. Thanks for the in-depth contribution.

[philosophie_en_rose]

126. But it's not a choice for me.

The original poster simply asked whether it makes him a horrible person not be able to spend $5000 on a pet. Of course it doesn't.

However, it is not, as the OP suggests, an insult to humans to care for a pet. If I really had to choose between starvation for me or for my pet, I would have to find a better home for my pet. Neither of us has to starve. It's not a choice that would be easy. (And I'm not saying that people that are poor or homeless should not have pets). It's just the choice that I would make. If you would make another choice, I don't judge you.

Do not get me started on the silly procedures that vets can suggest ($1000 to get my puppy's teeth cleaned and sealed? give me a break!). And you are 100% right about healthy lifestyles being key for a pet's well being. However, things happen and I would respond to an emergency with the best possible response for my pet's quality of life.

I am not a millionaire. More like a hundredaire. :) I care about people and assist others professionally and personally. I don't think that my caring for a pet or spending money on her healthcare is a measure of my support for human beings.

[valis]

131. Thanks!

[valis]

120. Yup, frankly I'd do NOTHING to save Chimpy's life.

Of course, if there is a big reward I might consider it... But it'd have to be big, 1M or more.

[philosophie_en_rose]

127. I'd do something...

I'd call 911. probably.

But I would not spend my own money for his healthcare or contribute to his well being in any way that I can help.

Hell, we already pay for that corporate welfare baby's health insurance.

[bratcatinok]

122. I would if spending the money didn't create an

undue hardship financially for my family. I would if it meant my puppy would have a better quality of life and the surgery was needed to give him that. If the surgery is being done only to prolong his life for a short while I'd have to think about it.

My little dog was hit by a car a couple of years ago and we spent 1500.00 in an attempt to save his back leg. The vet wasn't sure if the operation would be successful but he was willing to try. The other option was to amputate his back leg. We went with the operation and thankfully, it was successful. I spent 6 weeks nursing him back to health using a baby play pen. I had to make sure he didn't turn over onto the affected side so I monitored him 24/7. I changed puppy pads, hand fed him, hand watered him and washed numerous blankets. I'd do it all over again too.

Last year my fiance bought the little guy one of those smoked bones that are made for dogs to chew on. They're real bones but they've been treated for dogs to gnaw on. My little guy thought he'd died and gone to heaven when we gave it to him. He carried that thing around with him all day Sunday, taking time to grrrr at the cats and gnaw on the bone. Turns out that even though the bones are marketed for dogs, they can cause severe dehydration because of the smoke flavoring...so there went another 350.00 to rehydrate him.

[Nikia]

125. I would if I could

Definitely over helping a stranger. The reason is that when you have a pet, the pet only depends on you. The pet couldn't of had a job somewhere along the way or have anything to sell on his or her own behalf. He or she cannot appeal to anyone else on his or her own behalf. He or she cannot appeal to any government agency or charity. Sure you could solcit money from friends and relatives to help pay for the vet's bill, but the pet cannot do so on his or her behalf. No one will know about his or her dilemma, aside from the vet who sees many other animals every day, unless you bring it to their attention. Your pet is your dependent. No one would expect you to donate a large amount of money to save a single pet, who you don't know. It is for that reason that a person should should use the money to save their pet, if it is relatively young and would have good qulaity of life after the operation, over a person who they do not know.
While it would be nice to help every person in need, unless you are Bill Gates or something, it is unrealistic to be able to help them all. No one stranger is dependent upon you. You are no more responsible for that person than any other person with any cash or sellable assets is. Your pet is dependent upon you.
I am not saying that we shouldn't take responsibility to help strangers who are less well off than we are. I am just saying that those who dependent on you, both people and animals, should come first.

[saracat]

129. Thank you. Abosulutely beautiful post. You nailed it!

[valis]

130. I see your point and I disagree.

For me, a pet is a really cool toy. I want it to be happy because it is more fun when they are happy. But if it is damaged too badly by a disease or accident and it costs too much to repair then I'm getting a new one. My pet does not depend on me more than my ipod depends on me for its battery recharge or maintenance. I'm keeping my money to help out humans...

[Nikia]

135. I disagree with you about a pet being just a toy

They are living beings with feelings. Dogs became domesticated long ago and have become more so, by active breeding and evolution. Combining their wolf ancestory pack traits along with their adaptation to humans socially, they bond with their human family. It is not unusuaul that dogs will defend their human family against harm or will actively try to save their humans' life in a crisis. As long as you treat your dog well, he or she will think highly of you and value you. Shouldn't you at least think more highly of your dog than you would think of a mechanical toy?
I noticed that you said that you didn't have a dog. That is probably a good thing.

[valis]

136. Yup, too much work and I'm too busy...

I'm aware that dogs are not purely mechanical toys, since there are lots of electrical phenomean going on in their brains (and ours) :)
Seriously, the word "toy" may not be right. But in the end the only reason I'd get a dog is because I want company, because they're cute etc etc. I want them to be happy because when they are unhappy it's not much fun. I agree, perhaps if I HAD a dog, I'd see thing differently and I may start treating them as humans... Possible... Can I borrow one for a couple of weeks? :)

[Nikia]

137. I don't know about a couple of weeks

He is rather attatched to us. He is friendly though and generally likes whoever we like.

[valis]

159. Awwwww! That's sweet.

[fleabert]

132. I spent 1500.00 for one surgery two years ago...

and she has had at least that much in the last 7 yrs in checkups, fixing, and random events. I'd spend money on her the same as if she were human. I don't think you are heartless, just different from those that would. No judgement here. It can be a really tough decision, and the only people i would judge is those that make that decision flippantly, like- 'oh, just put it to sleep, who cares?' I don't get that attitude towards a pet, like they are disposable; why even have one?

I can imagine many people just couldn't afford it, and had to put their beloved pet to sleep, and were heartbroken. It happens, it's unfortunate, but it happens.

[valis]

134. When you give up? Dogs lifespan is very short compare to humans..

When do you give up trying to save your dog?

[saracat]

138. My vet told me a story about a beautiful young puppy that got

hit by a car and had a damaged leg. The pup needed an operation and would always have a bit of a limp, very minor, but it would walk. The owner asked the vet to put the pup to sleep because he wasn't worth the investment. The owner said the pup , who was a purebred ,was "defective and no longer perfect and he didn't "want " it. My vet was horrified and offered to do the operation for free ,if he could keep the pup. The owner refused and the vet had to euthanize the puppy. My vet has never forgotten that dog or thought of its owner with less than contempt. This is the kind of person who should never have an animal.

[valis]

141. Well, what that owner did was unethical. If the vet offered to keep

the dog why would the owner object? Does not make sense. I'd be glad to give up my sick puppy requiring a 5K operation to anyone who wants to pay for it.

[saracat]

146. I personally think the owner was sick. By law, the puppy was his property

and he wanted it destroyed. I think he didn't want his fiance to have a defective dog. he felt it would reflect badly on him to have less than perfection. He felt he had paid a lot for the dog initially and wasn't going to pay more to have a "defective " product. It would be cheaper to get a new "perfect" one! If the dog lived , even if it was given to the vet, she would find out. It was a small town with only one vet. What was interesting is, that by law the vet HAD to do what the owner wanted.Either way, that puppy was going to be toast. I think there is a special place in hell for people like that owner.

[amazona]

149. saracat do you really think the story was true?

I often hear colorful stories about how some evil person did this or that. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is exaggerated. If you weren't there, you really don't know. But does it seem logical to you that someone would say, no euthanise the puppy and charge me for it instead of fixing and adopting the puppy yourself and charging me no fee? Does that seem quite right? Your vet has a vested interest in playing up the ego of his patients by making them feel especially enlightened by comparison with the wicked masses of men who think only of themselves. I'm leery of people who are taking money from me for service and who try to feed my ego. Be cautious. It is good you have a kind heart but don't let someone exploit your kind heart for their own profit.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[saracat]

154. In this case I am aquainted with the people involved.

The boyfriend is a pig, and the fiance is a ditz. The story is true, but I agree some might make up such a thing. I knew the dog had been hit by the car before talking to the vet. The fiance thought she should do whatever the BF wanted.She didn't want to "upset" the BF!

[valis]

155. Wow, he does sound like a pig....

[flvegan]

140. When do you give up trying to save your child?

To some, their pets are like children to them.

What was your original intent/point with this post, anyway?

[valis]

142. That seems like a high standard to ask for a Lounge thread!!

I mean, 95% of the Lounge threads are of the "I'm typing in underpants" type. Why are you asking me in particular what the motivation was?
With regard to children. Well, your child shares about 50% of your genetic material with you. That's why you are willing to give your life to save him/her. Without that you would not be here because your genes would have not made it to the present day (i.e., your kids would have died and the genes with them).

[flvegan]

144. I asked you a specific question, with a specific reason for asking it.

You attempted to dodge it.

I'll ask again: When do you give up trying to save your child?

I'm asking you in particular as you are the OP. Regardless of this being a Lounge post, it's a serious topic as shown by the responses prior to mine.

In re, your statements about saving genetic material, uh, I mean one's child, the reason one tends to give one's life for their child is love, not because of genetic makeup.

[valis]

145. OK, but love is just the expression of your genes

You experience it, and for some people more than others, for the purpose of propagating your own genes. It's not that you are conscious of it, it's the way biology works. If you did not give a damn about your kids they would die off and with them your genes would die off. Bottom line, in the case of humans, only combinations of genes that produce humans who love their own kids will survive over many generations. By definition.
Ok, regarding how far I'd go for my child. I have no clue. I have no kids, I have no desire to have kids, and I don't like kids, at least other people's kids. But I would pay money to help a kid in need before I pay any money to help a puppy in need.

[Nikia]

148. What about people who adopt children?

Humans have been doing this for a long time. Sometimes female mammals of other species do this also.

[valis]

152. Not sure. But it's relatively rare, compared to people who have kids.

[fleabert]

150. Me? when her quality of life is projected to be worse after the effort...

time is immaterial, quality of life is not.

[amazona]

151. ok I'll take a stab at an answer

In my view, you give up trying to save your pet when trying to save your pet increases his suffering or the suffering of someone else close to you. Many of the thousand-dollar therapies end in the dog's suffering being prolonged past all decency. Some of the therapies buy the dog an extra 24-48 hours of life, at huge cost, both financially and in pain to the animal. I wouldn't want such therapies for myself, so I won't inflict them on a helpless animal.

Some people have a very unrealistic idea of how long some breeds of dog can actually live. Someone might spend thousands in an attempt to save a 4 year old Great Dane, thinking it a young dog, when behind the barn door I've heard it confessed that the life expectancy of this breed is indeed only 4 years. The publically admitted life expectancy of Great Dane is 8 years. I don't have a problem with people buying purebred breeds IF they educate themselves about the breed's honest-to-God health problems and life expectancy. Don't torture a dog because you can't accept that his time has come.

Here's a chart of dog life expectancies if you like:

http://www.thepetprofessor.com/secArticles/dog/Life_Expectancy_of_Dogs_breeds.asp

Cats and small breed dogs live longer than larger dogs but you can see that larger dogs simply do not live as long as we kid themselves that they do!

In my humble opinion I would not torture an older dog with excessive medical treatments, and I would be honest with myself about what "older" really means. This is one reason I have birds. All of my pets would be very old or dead now if they were dogs. Since they are parrots, they are merely middle-aged.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[valis]

153. Great link! Thanks.

[TroubleMan]

156. I ain't got $50.00, much less 5k, but I would if I could

I got a wife and two kids in a bush economy....that means being broke.


Hell, me and my wife pull in about 60k-70k a year, and are thrifty, but we're still broke.

I canceled my health insurance because it was too much. My kids are covered under the state, and I can tough it out.

If our pet needed that amount of money, I really couldn't do it right now. I'd have to knock up a bank or something, and I don't know if that's a good idea to do that just to save your pet.

[valis]

157. Darn. Where do you live? NYC? Boston?...

[TroubleMan]

158. West Palm Beach, FL

nt.

[valis]

160. So, late weekenders, what think?

:)