Shelters providing veterinary services

[sheltervet]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

For those of you going into small animal private practice, how do you feel about animal shelters providing services prior to adoption (e.g. sterilization surgery, vaccinating, fecals, deworming, microchipping, FeLV/FIV tests, heartworm testing) that are typically done at a private clinic? Do you think this takes too much business away from private clinics? Just curious!

 

[ShelterGirl]

Ok, so I'm biased, but it seems to me that the low-cost (shelter or otherwise) clinic method is the only means by which some people in my community can afford basic medical care for their animals, i.e. vaccines, deworming, and spay/neuter. Rates are typically half of what private vet offices charge.

Many (not all, but many) of them, right or wrong, do not take their animals to a veterinarian for anything else, and if they had to pay regular private practice rates, would just leave their pets unaltered and unvaccinated. Overall, I don't think it is taking that large of a chunk of business away, and I'd rather that the animals receive some medical care vs. none.

 

[BostonLvr]

Ok, so I'm biased, but it seems to me that the low-cost (shelter or otherwise) clinic method is the only means by which some people in my community can afford basic medical care for their animals, i.e. vaccines, deworming, and spay/neuter. Rates are typically half of what private vet offices charge.

Many (not all, but many) of them, right or wrong, do not take their animals to a veterinarian for anything else, and if they had to pay regular private practice rates, would just leave their pets unaltered and unvaccinated. Overall, I don't think it is taking that large of a chunk of business away, and I'd rather that the animals receive some medical care vs. none.

Agreed!

 

[VelcroSky]

I think that it may get some people over the initial costs hump and make them more likely to adopt which is a good thing if you ask me. You might say then that these animals will be put in homes where they won't receive the best medical care but I'd argue that it still beats spending the rest of their lives in a shelter or put down.

 

[ferral]

I also agree with shelter girl.

I don't think you can say that shelter hospitals take significant business away from private hospitals.
Shelter hospitals serve a client of completely different socio-economic status and often their patients are homeless or would otherwise not be treated due to the financial situation of their owners. Saying that they may take business away from private hospitals is a bit like saying that a human county hospital or a free clinic where people aren't refused service based on their ability to pay is taking away business from a private M.D.'s office. People who have health insurance or who can affoard the private M.D.s office usually won't go to the free clinic to save a buck. And if many of these owners would otherwise not be able to afford veterinary care for their pets at a private hospital, how could the shelter be taking away their business?

Also, often shelter animals are not adoptable in the condition in which they were found. It's very common that they have health problems which need to be addressed before they go up for adoption. Shelter hospitals provide the means for doing this *without* a paying owner

 

[NSilverwolf]

Since I work as well in a shelter attached clinic, I think it doesn't really affect the other big hospital in the city. They I can guarantee get plenty of clients (and get most of our emergency care stuff since we are not a full service hospital).

There is that issue of owners understanding the value of the services typically provided with an adoption. Especially with people looking for free/cheap pets. The shelter provides all these very necessary services but often owners look at it like a good deal (like a $1 sale as a future adopter once compared it🙄).

You can generally blow off the people who scoff about paying an adoption fee (because if they want a pet...they'll find a way to get it for "free" and don't really care about the importance of spay/neuter/shots etc). But I wonder if there's a way for those people who pay the fee because it's
"cheaper" than anywhere else to understand...it's more than a good deal; it's necessary for the animal to live a healthy life. Have yet to find the perfect way to explain it so they understand every time.

 

[akitavet]

Anything that prevents accidental (or on purpose irresponsible) litters is a great thing. Spay/Neuter everything but the very best in breeding stock and those dogs better not be in shelters or some breeder has some explaining to do!

Im not wild about some of the reasoning listed in this thread though. I want the initial cost of owning a pet to be fairly high. I feel like too many people get these super low cost or free pets and they cant afford to care for them. Its so frustrating in the regular clinics when these people dont have a dime to care for the pets they have and here they come in with that new christmas puppy or whatever. We had one the other day who couldnt afford to pay for the allergy meds her dog needed. Okay so fine, the doctor bent over backwards to give her meds at cost and help her dog to be cared for. Okay well then she decides that its a good idea to get a "free" puppy from a shelter of some kind. (it really sounds like the shelter was a piece of **** organization) This puppy was FULL of coccidia so she had to get that taken care of, and at about 9 months, the puppy ate a decorative rock about 3" x 1.5" and of course got obstructed. The owner somehow scraped together the room on a credit card to pay for the surgery, but her first dog hasnt gotten any meds at least from us, and neither dog is getting any heartworm or flea/tick prevention at all. She says she cant afford it. If the cost of that puppy had been high, she would have NEVER gotten her and her first dog might have actually been properly cared for, albiet with the Dr's charity.

 

[vegternarian]

I don't understand why people get animals if they don't care enough about them to provide them with basic medical care. I'm sure much of this group is just ignorant about the costs of keeping an animal and the care that it needs. For example, the lady who came into the clinic two days ago and asked if heart worm preventative was necessary (yeah, if you don't want your dog to get heartworm). The I think the other portion of the group knows the cost of keeping an animal but is irresponsible or doesn't care about the consequences. So, as potential veterinarians we should fight to inform the public about the ramifications and costs of animal care, which should address the issues of group A (irresponsible from ignorance). The sad fact is that even if we inform as many people as we can there is still group B (irresponsible from nature) which will continue buying christmas puppies and easter rabbits and chicks and then expecting humane organizations and veterinarians to pick up the slack.

When it comes down to it, why do people own animals when they don't care about them? Is it keeping up with the Jones's, or indulging the children? Such a dilemma.

 

[ShelterGirl]

Unfortunately there are many, many, many people in the world who either believe that owning an animal is a right (not a privilege), or they naively think that all you need to do is buy food.