If you're collecting for a charity, you should stand outside Walmart, not Bloomingdales.
Don
PUBLIC OPINION > $60K Is Too Much for Custody of a Pet
SodaHead Living
2012/05/17 16:00:00
Some people really, really love their pets. They treat them like a member of the family, take them on vacations, spend money on medication, and knit them sweaters. But Craig Dershowitz is playing in a completely different dog park. The 36-year-old art gallery worker spent $60,000 out-of-pocket trying to get his puggle back from an ex-girlfriend. Unfortunately for him, it wasn't enough, and now he's asking the public for support. (His ex says the dog's just fine, and claims he's using the battle for publicity.) We wanted to know how many people would be willing to go to those lengths to get their beloved pet back.
As much as we might love our pets, there are limits. And most people would set that limit well below $60,000. It's not like the dog is dying, either. If that were the case, there might be more sympathy. But the dog seems to be in good hands. There's a reason his $60,000 hasn't regained custody. The Top Opinion put it in perspective: "I'm struggling mightily to raise $42,000 to bring to public awareness a painless cancer treatment ... Of course, he has raised more money so far than I have. Human beings sure are funny."
As much as we might love our pets, there are limits. And most people would set that limit well below $60,000. It's not like the dog is dying, either. If that were the case, there might be more sympathy. But the dog seems to be in good hands. There's a reason his $60,000 hasn't regained custody. The Top Opinion put it in perspective: "I'm struggling mightily to raise $42,000 to bring to public awareness a painless cancer treatment ... Of course, he has raised more money so far than I have. Human beings sure are funny."
Only If It's Out of Reach
We noticed an interesting phenomenon when we checked out the income breakdown: The voters who were most likely to be able to afford $60,000 in legal fees were least likely to say they'd actually do it. And the pattern carried through every bracket -- the less someone makes, the more likely they are to say they'd spend that much. So, realistically, even fewer people would go to those lengths. It's only appealing if it's unrealistic.
Marriage Puts a Damper on It
You know what they say... Divorce is cheaper than marriage. Given the income demographic, obviously age has something to do with the breakdown. But it was more interesting to see how relationship status affected responses. Singles were most likely to spend the money -- they have fewer financial obligations and more need for a pet. Married respondents? Not a friggin' chance.
Women Would Be More Willing
Once again, the female vote came out a little more sympathetic and nurturing. Women were about 8% more likely to spend that much money for custody of a pet. Although, based on comments, it could also just be that women are glad to see a guy spending money on something besides video games and car parts.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about pet custody. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
CREW grand 2012/05/17 21:10:52
+5The wealthier people are, the stingier they become.
If you're collecting for a charity, you should stand outside Walmart, not Bloomingdales.
Don
I know it's ridiculous but he is my baby. Why doesn't he just try & get visitation rights.
If you're collecting for a charity, you should stand outside Walmart, not Bloomingdales.
Don
Must be funny
In the rich dog's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich dog's world
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's also easier and said than done. Not many people have an unlimited source of money.
I know my other half would do the same.