On a recent evening, I was walking my dog when she suddenly cried loudly and began limping severely. Taking her home, I looked at her foot and could not find anything wrong, except that she was in pain. I then phoned three different so-called "animal care" facilities, and was told that I would have to take my pet to Latham, which from Broadalbin is an hour drive. That's not to mention I was advised by one facility that the cost of seeing my pet would be a "modest" $100, which, of course, is not going to be the full cost after any treatment.
Why can we not have a local facility for such emergencies, and at a reasonable cost? Wouldn't this, in fact, be a better example of "animal care," than the present system we are forced to deal with?
Really, does it actually cost $100 for a veterinarian to "look at" an animal and give his or her suggested treatment for any such case of "animal care?"
CHARLES L. BROWN