Here's the catch-22 in this situation. No matter how many tests you take, no matter how much money you pay, you will NEVER be a good pet owner. The only way to be a good pet owner is through experience. And yes, that experience may involve a few mistakes, may inconvenience yourselves or others. So, you can't take a test to determine if you're a good pet owner and pass it unless you've owned the pet, no matter how many classes you've taken. And if this rule comes into play, then you won't be able to have a pet without taking the test. It's a catch-22<br /> <br /> Because I am a firm believe in the fact that not a single person on this planet was just born knowing how to be the perfect owner. I remember the first time I let my first pet (a budgie) out of his cage- well, I had remembered to draw the curtains and cover the mirrors, but as a result, I left the room pitch black. Let's just say Sky didn't enjoy that a bit.<br /> <br /> The fact of the matter is, everyone is, or has been, a bad owner at one point or another. A test isn't going to change any of that at all.<br /> <br /> Hope I didn't revive a dead post ^^

I disagree with this for a few reasons. One being (as said before) things are already expensive. A lot people who don't make the most money can afford to properly care for their pets. It varies from person to person, where your priorities lie, and how you view your animals. <br /> <br /> I must say that my pets don't have the best care at the moment. Do I agree with it? Nope. But I now have a job and will be able to pay for vet care, proper food, housing, etc. I make at most $40 a week right now. Does that mean I should have to pay a fee to own my cat and guinea pig? Nope. I can get my pets all they need with that money not to mention a bit more will be coming in soon.<br /> <br /> I would not pay an $100 per year fee for pets. I simply wouldn't own pets, and think a lot of people would rather not own a pet than pay an extra $100 per month that they could spend on something else.<br /> <br /> I do agree there are a lot of people who really don't know how (or want to learn how) to care for their animals. It isn't fair to the animal. I also agree that people should be able to afford an animal before thinking of getting an animal (which is a HUGE responsibility)... Eh, I am all jumbled up in my writing and this didn't come out the way I wanted it to. Ah well. There is my bit.

Gingertail, your vet refused to euthanize in a situation like that.... I personally would find a new vet.<br /> <br /> GDV is NOT a nice way to die...

I honestly don't see how a test will fix anything. For example. We have a test we all must take to get a drivers license and yet we still see plenty of, for lack of a better word, stupid drivers.

I disagree with this because we can barely scrape enough together as it is, yet our pets always come before us. A few years back, our lovely shelter suprise mix Sampson's stomach flipped, he was already dying of cancer so the vet said we could do a 10000$ surgery, or take him home to die, but they refused to euthaize him. My mom, without even thinking handed over her credit card and paid for the surgery, and we were blessed to spend 3 more months with one of the most loving dogs we have ever owned. But we suffered finacially from that. Had we to pay for testing and to keep our animals we have, my mom may not have paid for the surgery. Nor would we probably have any pets, and honestly I don't think I could live without my Dane Lucy, She has helped me through many hard times.

Hmmm interesting, my first thought was similar to Inno's as things are expensive and these days many are being left at shelters as is, although understood the discussion being if you take and pass the test you can own as many of that species types as you can care for and want. How about if it further went, you have to pay to take the test but if passed your money is returned, if you dont pass then you cant keep them or own them, but that can also backfire as many dont want the bother of a class or test. <br /> <br /> I have never owned a dog and feel I have studied and learned far more on the care and needs of one then most that own them. Its also always ticked me off, how many people own dogs to leave them tied up in yards 24/7 with minimal care or food. Then those like me whom would do ANYTHING to have a dog, know how to care for them but are dictated as to whether they can or not by apt owners. I dont think theres any real answer.

Taking a test and paying a fee may take the number of unresponsible pet owners sown a little bit,but what about all of the people who dont care about laws? They would most likely own a pet anyway even if it was illegal. Think about it, there is already illegal dog fight s and such, so those people would most likely just keep getting animals.

True, but it may help cut back on the numbers of uneducated, irresponsible 'owners'. What you said can be said for just about anything: Just because it's illegal to murder someone doesn't mean people won't do it, for example.

Taking a test and paying a fee won't guarentee anything, just because someone takes a test and they know how to care for them doesn't mean they will, like puppy mills, they can take a test all they want saying they know how to feed them etc and most probably do, but they just want the money

Don't get me wrong, I grew up lower class too, flitting between motel rooms and homeless shelters. Maybe the fee thing should be rethought, but I'm pretty firm on the written test portion. Maybe I'm just getting sick of people around me getting animal after animal and then watching that animal live off the bare minimum nutrition because "feeding them more uses too much dog food".