National Homeless Animals Day is August 20, and nearly 80 million American households owning a pet today — an all-time high — WalletHub took an in-depth look at 2016’s Most Pet Friendly Cities.
In order to identify the cities where our furry and slimy friends can enjoy the best quality of life without breaking our wallets, WalletHub’s number crunchers compared the creature-friendliness of the 100 largest cities based on 19 key metrics. Our data set ranges from the minimum pet-care provider rate per visit to the number of pet businesses per capita.
Most Pet-Friendly Cities | Least Pet-Friendly Cities | ||||
1 | Orlando, FL | 91 | Jersey City, NJ | ||
2 | Birmingham, AL | 92 | Chicago, IL | ||
3 | Tampa, FL | 93 | Los Angeles, CA | ||
4 | Lexington, KY | 94 | Anaheim, CA | ||
5 | Scottsdale, AZ | 95 | Newark, NJ | ||
6 | Reno, NV | 96 | Philadelphia, PA | ||
7 | Colorado Springs, CO | 97 | Detroit, MI | ||
8 | Cincinnati, OH | 98 | Boston, MA | ||
9 | Las Vegas, NV | 99 | Santa Ana, CA | ||
10 | St. Louis, MO | 100 | New York, NY |
Best vs. Worst
- Stockton, Calif., has the lowest veterinary care costs, $32.92 per visit, which is 2.6 times lower than in New York, the city with the highest, $86.46 per visit.
- Orlando, Fla., has the highest number of veterinarians per 100,000 residents, 65.6, which is 93.7 times higher than in Newark, N.J., the city with the lowest, 0.7.
- St. Paul, Minn., has the lowest dog insurance premium, $21.63 per month, which is 2.5 times lower than in New York, the city with the highest, $53.34 per month.
- Orlando, Fla., has the highest number of pet businesses per 100,000 residents, 172.25, which is 20 times higher than in Newark, N.J., the city with the lowest, 8.61.
- Scottsdale, Ariz., has the highest number of animal shelters per 100,000 residents, 6.26, which is 21.6 times higher than in Detroit, the city with the lowest, 0.29.
- New Orleans has the highest number of pet-friendly restaurants per 100,000 residents, 21.44, which is 93.2 times higher than in Omaha, Neb., the city with the lowest, 0.23.
Disclaimer
The information contained in South Florida Reporter is for general information purposes only.
The South Florida Reporter assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of the Service.
In no event shall the South Florida Reporter be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service. The Company reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents of the Service at any time without prior notice.
The Company does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components