Just got him from a friend. What the he'll is this guy
a cat. they're super popular, it's pretty weird you don't know.
>>2104753
This
It looks Siamese but it could be just a tabby.
>>2104822
Pointed tabby is a naturally occurring color and pattern, not necessarily a Siamese.
It does look like it has some fucked up eyes. I'd suggest a vet check, if nothing more than to get her vitals and info on record
Literally more than a 95% chance that it's a domestic shorthair because more than 95% of all cats are domestic shorthairs. The fact that it doesn't have a pedigree makes that chance even higher.
I gotta admit, that's not a flattering picture
The cat does have a sort of unhealthy aspect. I think u should take him to a vet. The problem, as u may know, is that vets are obscenely expensive. How do others feel about vets and money?
>>2104878
You shouldn't have an animal if you can't afford regular vet care
>>2104908
this.
before anyone is allowed to get a pet they should have to prove they have household income above $75k/year, a credit score of at least 650 and own at least $80k in equity in their home.
>>2104913
I don't know if you need all that, but you do need to be able to afford adequate and complete care which includes regular vet care.
>>2104913
>75k
Wut.
You literally just need like 5k set aside for vet emergencies and enough to pay for routine checkups and shots.
That also only applies to Dogs/cats.
>>2104946
That's why I just let all animals die. Sure, I could take in a hungry stray and give it some shelter and love for its time on Earth, but no. It's better to let it starve to death, get shot by a hunter or run over.
>>2104947
What are you on about m8. If you want a pet, you need to be able to afford basic care. Which includes vet bills. If you can't, let it be adopted or cared for by someone else who can. And yes, not all animals will be able to get good homes and need to be out down because of their sheer numbers alone, but this is better than being inadequately cared for on the streets as you said.
>>2104954
>death is better than modest care
You are the reason people hate animal fags.
>let it be adopted
Yes, some mangy stray cat or dog is going to be adopted. What's the weather like there on Lollipop Lane?
>>2104958
Basic vet care is modest care. Without access to regular veterinary care it's inadequate care and legally neglect, which leads to more suffering than good. You're basically proposing to let an animal suffer until it dies and that is worse than euthanasia. Animals need vet care. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have that animal and relinquish it to a shelter so that it can find a proper home or where it will at LEAST get vet care before it's put down.
>>2104932
>>2104946
slippery slope.
if that's a requirement for pet care then why can't I make even more expensive requirements of you?
you need enough money on hand to pay for chemo and radiation therapy if your pet gets cancer. Or a liver transplant if they drink too much.
some of the emergencies your pet might suffer will cost more than you plebs will make in 10 years mowing your daddy's lawn.
>>2104970
More like slippery slope fallacy. No vet, no pet buddy.
>>2104737
looks like hes on crack, anon
find him a reputable rehabilitation program
>>2104972
it's only a fallacy if the slippery slope doesn't actually exist.
luckily you and I don't get to decide who can have a pet.
well not in the US anyways.
If we did you can be damn sure I wouldn't let you.
>>2104954
>>2104958
Eat shit, poorfag. I work at a shelter and we're the ones who have to clean up the mess when you assholes surrender animals with their eyes or teeth or limbs rotting off because you couldn't afford to treat common infections.
Which is better, for a cat to pass quickly and relatively painlessly or to die three years later in excruciating, drawn-out agony because you fed it cheapass gas station Meow Mix and couldn't afford surgery when it blocked? B-BUT AT LEAST HE WAS LOVED doesn't make a goddamn difference when he's screaming his life out because his bladder just ruptured.
>>2104976
not to be a dick, but I think in your rage and madness you might have tagged the wrong anon there.
>>2104975
>luckily you and I don't get to decide who can have a pet.
>well not in the US anyways.
I don't have to decide, it's already the law.
http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/animal-neglect-facts/
>Most states’ criminal animal cruelty statutes define a minimum standard of care which requires that an animal caretaker provide water, food, shelter and veterinary care
>and veterinary care
No veterinary care is legally animal cruelty. If you cannot afford proper food, water, shelter, or vet care, you cannot and should not have a pet.
>>2104994
I was only able to find one case where this was required in the US.
how many do you know of? because I'm guessing if there was more than one this article might mention it?
http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/August-2012/Duty-To-Treat-Animals-Depends-On-State-Laws/
also of course the person who lost that case was still allowed to keep her pets.
we don't take your pets away for one neglect conviction. Or even usually a bunch of them.
>>2105034
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/woman-charged-with-animal-abuse-after-dog-chews-off-own/article_b5ece1dc-06b5-11e6-ba94-cf051056b308.html
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/pasco-woman-who-couldnt-afford-vet-is-convicted-of-animal-cruelty/2117238
>>2105034
http://pix11.com/2016/03/01/nj-pet-store-owner-charged-with-267-counts-of-animal-cruelty-njspca/
>>2105064
>>2105067
ok, thanks.
so we've determined that it has happened 4 times in a country of 320,000,000 people.
I didn't read your links, but would you say any of those people was legally prevented from ever owning animals again SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF VET CARE?
More importantly, DO YOU BELIEVE THE US PREVENTS PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO VETS FROM OWNING ANIMALS?
I'm just asking because if you think that's true you're woefully ignorant about how things work here.
Also it drives home my point, you don't get to decide who keeps pets here.
>>2104737
A cat
>>2105381
Wut. Those are just a few examples of very recent cases that got publicized. It's definitely a real and prevalent thing. A hugely common reason for law enforcement to take away animals is when owners neglect things like serious skin conditions and such.
>any of those people was legally prevented from ever owning animals again SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF VET CARE?
>DO YOU BELIEVE THE US PREVENTS PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO VETS FROM OWNING ANIMALS?
If you actually read the links, you'd have that answered.
From the Brown case
>Circuit Judge William Webb also added a special restriction, telling Brown: “I don’t want you to own any animals. Not even a goldfish.”
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/disabled_woman_who_couldnt_afford_vet_for_dog_gets_6_months_house_arrest_ca/
You're the ignorant one. We personally don't get to decide, but the law does. People can, have, will, and SHOULD not be allowed to own animals if they can't provide basic vet care.
>>2105416
>People can, have, will, and SHOULD not be allowed to own animals if they can't provide basic vet care.
about 4 people
out of hundreds of millions.
which should be clear to you by talking to pet owners. Why do you think we get so many people that can't afford vets here?
if we were taking poor people's pets away that would never happen, right?
wake up.
>>2105418
Maybe for the initial acquirement of a pet you legally don't need access to vet care, but even that's not completely true, as to own dogs and cats in the US you are legally obligated to have them vaccinated for rabies by a vet.
But it's definitely illegal if you're proven to not be able to provide basic vet care for your pet after you've taken ownership of them. Morally, you should not even own a pet of you cannot afford basic vet care.
>>2105422
>But it's definitely illegal if you're proven to not be able to provide basic vet care for your pet
depends on jurisdiction.
the law is almost impossible to enforce though, so it doesn't really matter. It's like the laws prohibiting anal sex.
they didn't actually stop anyone from having anal sex.
and again, it doesn't matter what you think SHOULD happen. You don't get to decide who's allowed to have pets here.
>>2105433
>depends on jurisdiction.
>the law is almost impossible to enforce though, so it doesn't really matter. It's like the laws prohibiting anal sex.
So basically like any animal welfare/abuse laws in general. I guess you're as dismissive of those too.
>and again, it doesn't matter what you think SHOULD happen. You don't get to decide who's allowed to have pets here.
And again, the law reflects those moral principles because the vast majority of people share them and it was enacted into law via the democratic process. And again, you shouldn't own a pet if you don't have access to vet care. Just like you shouldn't own a pet if you can't give it water, or food, or proper shelter. Just like you shouldn't abuse or neglect an animal in any other way.
>>2105441
>So basically like any animal welfare/abuse laws in general
with the large difference that the laws you're discussing aren't found in most of the US.
>the law reflects those moral principles because the vast majority of people share them
kek
if you think a majority decides the law in the US you're really ignorant.
we don't get to vote on laws, buddy.
>>2105447
>with the large difference that the laws you're discussing aren't found in most of the US.
Yes they are.
>we don't get to vote on laws, buddy.
Not directly but it is through the democratic process.
>>2105450
>Yes they are.
doubt it.
>it is through the democratic process
sort of.
If a politician passes bad laws they might not get re-elected.
but if a politician passes bad laws that nobody enforces, nobody will notice.
>>2105452
>doubt it
Doesn't change that it is.
Honestly why are you so against people being morally and legally obligated to provide vet care if they decide to own an animal? Are you someone who wants pets but can't afford or isn't willing to go to the vet?
>>2105462
>Doesn't change that it is.
nothing you or I have posted indicates it is.
>Honestly why are you so against people being morally and legally obligated to provide vet care if they decide to own an animal?
I haven't once said I'm for or against it.
I said you and I don't get to decide who has pets, and if it were up to me you wouldn't be allowed because you're too poor to properly care for them.
>>2105463
Ah so it's either you are or you're just being pedantic. Alright, well you do you. Just don't get pets until you can give them proper care which includes access to a vet.
>>2105473
I'm a multimillionaire, I can give them pretty much anything I want.
it's your finances that worry me.
>>2105475
I just love it when someone claims to be a millionaire on anonymous image boards.
>>2105478
doesn't matter if I am or not, I absolutely believe you shouldn't own pets if you have less than $100k in net worth.
I also think you shouldn't be allowed to drive or reproduce. Or vote. Or speak.
