If you haven't got anywhere for the animal to chill out outside, then I'd say you're fine for now.

However - what about a big fish tank? I have fond memories of going out on weekends to get another plastic fake kelp thing, or a little castle, or some parts for the filter. It was a good, low-maintenance way to learn about life, and it might be even better if you don't live near the sea or a lake or river. It's a good compromise for a flat, too, because it's scalable to what space you have to work with. AskMe has a bunch of related threads.

When you (their parents) are old, incontinent, and toothless — basically drooling husks pathetically grateful for the tiniest bit of stroking — then your kids'll know what owning a pet is like.*
*Assuming they haven't farmed you out to a retirement home long before.



In a word, no.

No. mdonley's suggestion has merit. I loved having hermit crabs and hamsters. And I think they were much less hassle than a dog. I loved having a dog later on as well.

My parents got a dog from the pound when I was five. The first thing it did was knock over the garbage cans, which my dad was hoping it would stop our neighbor's dogs from doing.

The second thing it did was bite me.

They took the dog back to the pound, and to be honest I've never been sorry that I grew up without a dog.

(I had hamsters and fish, though there was a fair amount of work involved with those, most of which my mom had to do when I was too young to really do it myself. I have to say, I think it's fair to say no to pets until your kids are old enough to handle the responsibility, or unless you want to handle it yourself.)

Post Script: I've always resented my mom for being allergic to cats. I love cats.

So long as care of an animal seems like work, it is livestock, and generally carries a number, not a name. The acts of naming an animal, and developing an anthropomorphized relationship with it is what makes it a pet, and that very same heightened empathy generally moves the effort of taking care of it from a chore to at least a duty, if not a ritual. If you view taking a dog for a walk as an unwelcome chore that must be done everyday, it's better you don't have a dog. If all a cat means to your family is a litter box and extra vacuuming, you're all better off without a cat.

On the other hand, having a dog is having a walking buddy that will be forever interested in the world, and happy to let you pick the path, be it the same or different one, whenever you choose. Having a dog that wags every part of himself, and leaps into the air his own height, just because you came home again, is a pretty good way to get home from work.

That's the overriding contribution a family pet makes to the early education of children: that genuine empathy is necessary for successful relationships. It would seem that such a lesson could be made by having siblings and parents, and other family, and friends and playmates, and so it is, but there is some kind of daily reinforcement of that idea that is uniquely provided by a family pet, in my experience. A family that has a pet doesn't see caring for it as burdensome, any more than they see having a child as a daily burden, although sacrifice may be part of the bargain at times, in both cases. That's not to imply that pets be treated or thought of as additional children, but it's true that they often are.

Pets, like music lessons, are optional enrichment in a childhood, I think. If you can afford them, both pets and music lessons expand a child's horizons, and encourage other kinds of growth. I wouldn't say you're depriving your child if you don't have a pet, or provide music lessons, but rather that, if you can, you are offering enrichment.

We do have hermit crabs and hamsters, btw.

...and, indeed, I'm teaching them both music (I'm a lifelong music teacher).

I don't think you are cruel at all.

And even if I did (which I don't) the fact that your wife doesn't want one or need the hassle trumps any opinion any of us could have on the subject. Right?

I agree with everyone's comments here. Our girls want pets, and we DO have a big yard. But, at almost 6, and 3, they are too young to really take it on. I don't want to pick up the dog bombs in the yard, and neither does mrs richat. So, we wait. Maybe it'll happen, both mrs richat and I had dogs as kids, and loved them. I had cats too. My mom has dogs right now. I think it's a great experience to know animals, if for no other reason than to teach kids that dogs aren't scary, etc.

BUT, if it's not good for the whole family, it's not the right choice, and by the sounds of it, it's not good for all of you right now. Time passes, things change. In the meantime, I can tell you from experience that our girls LOVE our 30 gallon aquarium. It gives them the sense of pet ownership, while at the same time providing a pet experience that is a little more transient, in that I have had to explain that fish sometimes just, well, die. We move on. And so it goes. And, it's REALLY relaxing for grown ups, on occasion to mellow out and watch the fish do their thang. And, once in a while, we go down to the local fish store and add some new fish to the tank.

And, way to go with the music lessons. I WISH I could have traded my cats for music lessons, in retrospect!

My childhood dog was my best friend for 17 years. From 1993-2006 I didn't have any pets though. I was working too much and I couldn't handle losing another animal. By the time I finally got my dog last year, I had totally forgotten what it was like. I don't have a yard either so I got a small indoor breed that's good for apartment living.

The first 3 months were hard... I kept thinking "Why did I do this again?" I was focused on the technical aspects of HAVING the dog... taking them out and feeding them and training them and all that. Yeah, it's work. And money was definitely a concern, my dog has had some health issues and hasn't been the cheapest of pets. But now that her care has become routine I remember exactly why my dog was one of the best parts of my childhood. I think having a dog as a kid made me a better and happier person, because unconditional love is something everyone - not just kids - can use. Nobody on this earth will ever love you more than a good dog.

I wouldn't say that you're depriving your kids or that you're cruel -- they may not even be they type of kids who would bond with a dog. Everybody is different and some people just don't like dogs by nature. I will say that I'm not sure how you can assess when your kids are capable of dealing with a pet's mortality or care without them ever having one or having gone through the experience though. That's like saying that you aren't going to get married until you know you can handle all aspects of marriage and the possibility of divorce.

Still, fish are good. Hermit crabs and hamsters are good too. They're MUCH better than not having any animals at all. My dad used to call those "disposable pets" because they're easier to deal with and less commitment. They can die and you can easily replace them. There isn't the same bond and two-sided relationship that people can experience with a dog. Which is both good & bad.

You know what you need? Nintendogs.

I agree with paulsc and miss lynnster.

If you're up for the small animal route, I'd like to put a plug in for rats, who are very smart and also get excited when you come home.(But get a female, because the males get to smellin'.) I had thought I hated rats- we had those big frightening barn rats when I was little- but the little black and white one I got for science class turned out to be a really great pet for the 2 years she lived. She rode around on my bike with me and was company for all sorts of things. Not always popular with store owners, but what pet is?

One of our four cats was my best friend for decades. We also had a dog who we felt guilty for never liking.

In my uneducated, non-parent opinion, age 7 or 8 is old enough to take care of pets, though it will take some riding herd on them.

That said, our dog was an enormous untrained German Shepherd, and although we managed it, he was way too much for an 8 year old to handle and have it be anything but a horrible chore.

People often think us cruel because we don't have pets (i.e. our kids aren't allowed a dog or cat).

Your roof. Your rules.

End of story.

I was actually just thinking about the phenomenon of pets "belonging" to kids last night. That whole idea seems bizarre to me -- pets have always been part of my families, not chores to be assigned. The pets might have their favorite family members, who might or might not be the ones feeding them or picking up after them (in the same way a 3-year-old human might), but they were mostly just slightly furrier, only slightly less autonomous members of the family.

I did inherit my mother's tendency to look askance on people who didn't grow up with animals; I think having long-term exposure to meeting another creature's needs (even just for affection) and having to interpret body languages rather than words to figure out what those needs are is important and valuable. And I find adults who get that frozen "What do I do now???" deer-in-headlights look any time there's an animal around to be a bit weird (of course, I sometimes get that look when presented with babies, so I probably shouldn't talk).

But if your entire family's not willing to take on a furry family member, then I think you can get some of that benefit by just encouraging bonding with animals elsewhere -- horseback riding trips (or, even better, lessons), going to the zoo or aquarium often, hiking in the woods and trying to be silent enough not to frighten away the deer. I guess I'm saying that some aspect of "animal skills" should be a necessary component of one's upbringing, and while pets are an easy (in some senses) way to accomplish that, there are other routes.

(Oh, and also? No one is "really truly ready" to deal with mortality, even of "just" a pet. Death sucks. I think it'd probably be better, actually, to work the whole life cycle idea into children's heads as early in their lives as possible, so that it does become a natural cycle rather than a cruel unexpected nasty thing.)

We used to keep fish, and I really like aquaria. I'd like a salt tank, but again with the expense.

Maybe for my birthday.

Unlike a new Barbie, or a dollhouse, or any other shiny toy the majority of children outgrow, dogs and cats are just as enjoyable to grownups are they are to children. Maybe even more so.

My point being that if you don't get your child a dollhouse, she could be bitter about it for years, even past the point when she would want one. But your child could get a dog as an adult.

Oh yeah, here's another suggestion for you. When I take my dog to the dog park, quite often there will be parents with their children there. Maybe they live in a place they can't have dogs or whatever but they want their kids to spend time with dogs so they bring them to the dog park. The kids don't get as much attention from the dogs as they would if they owned one (the dogs are often busy playing with other dogs or are sometimes wondering why this strange child is following them around) but sometimes a dog and a kid will bond and play and it's fun to watch.

So if you have a dog park nearby, you can always taking your kids there for fun. Then they can get exposed to dogs without you having to feed & walk one.

If there's no responsible adult who wants to take care of the pet, the question of whether you're depriving the kid doesn't matter. Someone has to feed and clean up after the pet every day.

This is a good thing for kids to learn how to do but it requires parental supervision. If you aren't willing to give that, the pet suffers. That isn't fair to the pet and it ends up affecting all of you when you have an ill-behaved or sick pet.

Wait, you're giving both the hermit crabs and the hamsters music lessons?

You're not depriving your children. The hamster-crab jamborees will be amazing! And educational!

(I give the hamster music lessons, Python-style - with a rubber mallot)