These are a series of pictures taken of pets in homes from different economic backgrounds.
http://news.google.ca/news/url?sr=1&ct2=...t=2&at=dt0
I am not sure that the rich pets do better or the poor pets do worse. It is not so clear in some cases.
What do you think?
Unfortunately the graphic load of that site is too much for my silly server at this time of day! So if I'm awake after midnight, I'll try again!
My feelings are that a young and healthy pet will do fine in a poor family, so long as the basics are in place (food, shelter, and love)
The only real problem comes when medical attention is needed, and for spay/neuter. Obviously poor families find these costs hard or even impossible, especially if there are children to also provide for. A pet from a poor family will not do as well when it comes to treatment options, and surgery costs/MRI scans/neurological tests....etc, can be completely out of the question.
So yes -poor pets don't mind one bit so long as they are fit and well. When they are sick or get pregnant, they are not so well-off.
You are right about the medical issues. It is better to have money if you are sick whether you are a people or a pet. As far as love and attention go, money is not a factor. Quality of food might be better in a richer home. Some of the pet pictures were from poorer countries. It was clear that some pets were better off. In some cases it was not so clear.
I hope you can load the file. It is fairly big, but it is worth looking at. There are pictures of pets from all around the world.
I did manage to see most of the pictures after all. There are some lovely animals from all circumstances!
I read somewhere, a while back now, about a poor fellow, who could not afford expensive food for his cat. The cat always ate store-bought cut-price canned food, and some of that cheap nasty dried stuff. Sometimes it got some table scraps, like bits of meat and fish. But he did love his cat.
....And the cat never needed the vet (except for innoculations, worming etc. And yes he had its yearly boosters done -no 'titer testing'!) It was never sick! And the cat lived to be twenty or something, and passed from old age!
I'm not saying that would generally happen on a poor diet. A healthy diet is always best. But that cat was okay being a 'poor' pet.
Maybe the man's love and devotion for his cat was enough to make up for a poor diet. He did the best he could and love made up for the rest.
They are an interesting set of pictures. I saw some fancy homes and some very poor ones. I saw some happy pets and some worried looking ones. The happy didn't always go with the rich and the worried didn't always go with the poor. You can be happy no matter what your circumstances. Some situations for the rabbits didn't look too good. I hope they were not being raised as food.
What matters to an animal, apart from love, stability and reliable routines, food at regular times etc....is the atmosphere in the home, and in their lives generally.
So yes, that could account for the poor old man's cat living a healthy life (lots of love and steadiness) And it could account for some of the animals from rich homes maybe looking a bit worried.
Also, some animals are able to sense what we don't notice, and sometimes hours or a day or so ahead of the actual occurrence!
Some of the animals did look worried. Where they were living would explain their anxiety. I some cases there must be things going on it the home. Of course some might be rescue animals and they sometimes stay anxious.
I think the real secret is a loving home. You can do without a lot if you feel loved and secure. Much of our health problems are caused by stress. I am sure that is true of animals as much as it is true for people.
Of course nothing can stop the serious illnesses like cancer and that has many causes.
The old man's cat must have been from healthy stock in the first place. Having a happy life just made it easier for him to live longer.
Firstly, what work are they doing in Mexico to be earning over $6000 a month!?
Those cormorants aren't pets. Fishermen use them for work. Plus it's China. Not exactly known for their great animal welfare.
Irrespective of how much a person earns, they make a choice as to how much or how little they're going to spend on an animal.
The people down the road from me aren't poor at all, yet their horse is literally a bag of bones.
I virtually am poor lol yet my horses are incredibly well looked after.
You make a good point. There is more to it than the wealth of the owner. There is no doubt that some places are rougher for animals. Chinese people with pets who love them still can't protect the animals from the lack of animal rights in the country. Even money can't make it safe for a pet in a war torn country. Some homeless or very poor people give most of what they have to their pets.
Still the pictures show us what pets live like in different areas. It is an interesting study.
Yes, I agree with Platy. It is the love which we put into a relationship with our pets which often normally determines how well they are looked after. A rich person can treat a pet very badly. There is plenty of animal ill-treatment in the USA, which is generally regarded as a "wealthy" country. Obviously, as a broad rule of thumb, being better off means one can afford vet treatment more easily, but a true pet lover would spend his/her last penny, or even go short on some meals, just to raise money for treatment.
Regarding the pictures, the dog in Indonesia looks well and happy - with an adult salary of $316 pm. The adorable dog from Nigeria ($72 pm only) also looks happy and well fed. The cat from Colombia ($163 pm) is clearly well loved and looks well fed and happy. To cap it all, the pig from Papua New Guinea ($50 pm) looks in great condition! By comparison, the poor dog from Mexico ($6342 pm) although apparently old and in failing health, looks seriously overfed (unless the obesity is caused by medical factors).
Of course, one can never judge by just a photo. But I think that it all comes down to how much the pet is loved by the caretaker, not wealth or the lack of it.