Mothering Forum banner

Costs of small dogs v. big dogs

646 views 6 replies 5 participants last post by  rhubarbarin 
#1 ·
We adopted Chrissy, a small Shepard/Basset mix (38 lbs) from a rescue on Saturday. She is a love, and is settling in beautifully. She had a sister at the rescue that dh and I can't stop thinking about. They are both about a year old, so should be pretty much done growing. They were rescued from a high-kill shelter a few months ago, and were in a foster home with several other dogs.

We have previously only had large dogs, most recently over 150 lbs.

Our only real concern with taking the sister also is the cost, primarily of the routine vet bills. We are in good financial shape, but as you all know, dogs are expensive to own.

My questions are these:

Are small dogs any cheaper to own v. big dogs? Are routine meds any less expensive? For those of you with multiple dogs, does your vet give you any discount at all for having more than one? (I doubt it, I know my pediatrician doesn't.
)

Also, the rescue suggested pet insurance, which we've never had. They included info on PetFirst in our packet. Their website is singularly uninformative. Does anybody have experience with pet insurance, and does it help with routine stuff?

Thanks!
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Yes, I get a breeder discount at the vet.

And I would say that smaller dogs are cheaper, at least to feed than big dogs. I like smaller dogs for many reasons, not the least of which is that I can keep more of them!
 
#3 ·
Meds can be cheaper, since dosage depends on weight. Food, of course, will be less. But routine visits will cost the same.

My concern would be more about having sisters in the same house. I assume they have been together their whole lives? Unless the previous owner was VERY diligent about training them separately, keeping them separated most of the time, and bonding with each one, they will likely be very attached to each other. This makes it a lot harder to get them to bond with you.
 
#4 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by nd_deadhead View Post
My concern would be more about having sisters in the same house. I assume they have been together their whole lives? Unless the previous owner was VERY diligent about training them separately, keeping them separated most of the time, and bonding with each one, they will likely be very attached to each other. This makes it a lot harder to get them to bond with you.
Are you saying that it would be harder to have the two dogs together? I was thinking it would be easier on the dogs to keep them together, although the one I have in my house seems to be doing OK, but it's only been a few days now. I understand what you are saying about getting them to focus on the owner rather than the sibling.

They were only picked up by the rescue from the high kill shelter a couple of months ago, and put onto a foster where the foster parents had a bunch of dogs, our dog and the sister included. He would have liked to see them placed together, but thought they'd do fine either way.

Before that, I don't know anything about how they were trained the first year of their lives, other than they were in good health and well fed when they hit the shelter.
 
#6 ·
I know that most responsible breeders will not place sibling puppies together. I'm not sure what the thinking would be with older dogs. I suspect that the dogs will be far more attached to each other than they will ever be to you, but if they bond enough to you that they will actually listen to you, that might be enough.

Here's an article about raising sibling puppies:

http://carpek9.com/siblings.htm
 
#7 ·
My 80 lb dog costs 3 times as much to feed as my 20 lb dog. I feed raw.

Vet costs are the same. The only exception is heartworm meds - more expensive for my big dog.

I've always had multiple pets, including several sibling groups raised from puppies/kittens, and have never noticed that the animal's bond with each other impacted their bond with me.

Quote:
Dogs, like people, are designed to "leave the nest" at some point, and for domestic dogs, the best time to do so is between 7 weeks and 9 weeks. They are fully weaned by this time, and are ready to join a new pack: yours.
I really disagree with most of what the website you posted claims, deadhead.. esp. this. I think it's widely accepted that 7 weeks is too early to be seperated from their family. Reputable breeders tend to insist on 12 weeks minimum.

Dogs are still basically wolves. Wolves stay with their parent pack at least until physical maturity (1 year), and often for life. Being rehomed in babyhood, often to a home with no other canines (therefore no one who communicates in a way you understand) is definately a traumatic event.

I do agree that raising two puppies of the same age is not advisable. However the dogs the OP is talking about are over a year old and are accustomed to being part (together) of a human household.. doesn't seem like there would be any problem there.
I've always had multiple dogs and they do provide companionship for each other. Of course that's never a subsititute for attention from me and other activities (the dogs and I walk together every day and go to the dog park often). And I always come first with them - they get along wonderfully, never even fight over food, but they compete for my attention.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top