Anything is replaceable if you want to be technical about it. Your husband is replaceable. Your house is replaceable. Your kids are replaceable.
Nah, the gist of these type of threads is always the same. “Person X has more money than I do and they don’t give every extra cent to charity. The outrage.”
Sure, if you want to be technical about it. Well, houses are replaceable, more or less. But people and pets are not one-for-one placements for one another. However, it’s a helluva lot easier to get a new cat/dog than a new husband/child. And the pain of losing a husband/child (I can only imagine, not having lost either) has got to be about a million times worse than the pain of losing a pet.
Or “look how foolish other people are with their money, and I’m so much smarter than that.” I may think someone’s foolish to offer $15K, but I also realize there are a lot of people out there that consider $15K to be pocket change. I might offer $150, but the guy offering $15K might be making 100 times more than me, too.
While this may be true, her own post illustrated an important distinction. She said their pets were members of their household, but not members of their family.
For some people, the pet is most assuredly family. For many “adopting a pet” is not the same as “getting a dog”. The bond is more familial: the animal becomes a defacto family member and the potential loss is quite devastating. (For some single professionals who have no children, pets can be incredibly precious).
The fact that the man was willing to shell out such an extraordinary sum, shows that he was both desperate and lucky enough to have the means. If someone had kidnapped Lenny, I wouldn’t have those means, but I wouldn’t have hesitated to trade my car to get him back.
Really? Your car? That’s farther than I’d go, as much as I love my critters.
What the hell? If someone were holding your pet for ransom, and you could afford to pay it, you would give the money to a shelter instead? Why? To make some kind of point? That just seems really weird to me.
Would you give the money to a shelter if your pet had *not *been abducted? What do you think will happen to your pet of you don’t pay? Do you suppose his new family will treat him well? You know, the dognappers? Does it matter to you whether he lives well, or dies at the hands of strangers who only view him as a means to an end?
There are a few things in my life more important to me than material things and money, and my pets are one of those things. I’d pay $15,000 for one of my pets, no question, if I had that kind of money. I’d give my car, hell yes.
Some of the pet insurance plans that I looked at will chip in up to $2,000 in reward money for a lost pet.
Personally I’d go up to a couple of thousand. My fiance, who was raised in a house where pets are family, would sell his car and take out a second mortgage if it meant getting the cat back. Luckily our cat is an indoor cat so we’ll never have to worry about such things.
J
Let’s just say that pets don’t mean the same to me as to some other people. I don’t consider them to be my children. I don’t consider them to be family. They are companions. They are treated well, given a good place to live, medical care, walks, skritches, and a decent life. I enjoy them. They seem to enjoy being with me. But they are animals.
You obviously view pets differently. So be it. As for shelter vs. getting my Fluffy back - I see it as helping many critters vs. one. All of our pets have come from shelters or from people seeking to place pets they could no longer keep, except for the little mutt who was wandering in our neighborhood last year, obviously abandoned - she’s asleep under my desk right now. Personally, I’d never get a pet from a breeder - I’d rather rescue. But I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on that.
I harbor no animosity to those who view their pets differently (well, except for people who neglect their animals.) I merely expressed my opinion. No offense intended. Feel free to not live as I do.