Pet Rentals

[asterroc]

Ever heard of rental pets? I hadn't either until Dolittler pointed it out. Apparently they're targeting my lovely state next.

I am writing to you today regarding the House act “An Act Prohibiting the Renting of Pets” (H.D. 4864). My name is ***, and I am **occupation** in **location**, and I live and vote in **location**.

Pets are an important addition to our quality of life, and many of us view them as family members. Even Presidential candidates talk about their pets as they promote their candidacy for office. However, as humans it is our job to be stewards for them, as they cannot speak for themselves. Hence I am writing to you today about the disturbing new practice of "rental pets" by companies such as the FlexPets (http://www.flexpetz.com/) and their attempt to make inroads into our state.

Services such as pet-sitting while on vacation and dog-walking during the day while we are at work are important. These services allow the animals customary caretaker to provide care to our animals while we are out of town or unable to do so, while still allowing our animals to live in a stable loving home. A rental pet company on the other hand, treats animals as disposable toys, to be put away (or put down!) when the owner does not have the time or energy for the animal.

Besides such a service shifting the public viewpoint of animals from creatures in our care to commodities, the individuals animals in question do not have stable loving homes, and instead are constantly shipped from one home to another. Imagine if we started renting out human children the same way! Ultimately, a culture that believes in the disposability of pets is one destined to suffer strain on its public and private resources through increased pet abandonment.

I urge you to evaluate “An Act Prohibiting the Renting of Pets” (H.D. 4864) proposed by Massachusetts State Representative Paul Frost, and similar legislature in the Senate, with these cautions in mind. Please ask Rep. Angelo Scaccia and the Senate as well to move “An Act Prohibiting the Renting of Pets” (H.D. 4864) without delay into the appropriate committee. Passing such an act would send a message not only to companies who would exploit our pets in novel ways, it would also serve as a model for our entire country as to how responsible stewardship for pets is best achieved—by rejecting practices which would undermine their stable role in society.

Thank you for your time, and please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have.

Send the email to your state Reps, and also the following people:
Rep.AngeloScaccia@Hou.State.MA.US
Rep.PaulFrost@Hou.State.MA.US
Rep.JohnFresolo@Hou.State.MA.US

And one more link
http://www.dogboston.com/blog/general/looking-for-action-on-anti-pet-rental-bill/

Comments

[weirdlilfaechld.livejournal.com]

I can actually see a good side to this. I have never been able to have horses so every weekend until she moved I went to a friends house to care for her horses. She got a break from it, and I got to handle horses. After I went bird crazy when Maria was my only bird I would go to a friend of my dad's aviary, handle his birds for a while, find one that liked me, and take him or her home for about two weeks to a month and I kept doing this until I had enough experience with all ages, personalities, and species of birds that I felt comfortable enough fostering, and it paid off. By the time I would get a foster bird I had already gone through the learning period. This person owned a chain of plant stores and other then his beloved sun conure these birds were cared for by employees, not him. Yes, they bonded to the employee caring for them and a bit to me and would be a bit confused about the change but their owner described it as a wonderful way for me to get experience and for his birds to be socialized.

I don't see how this it too different. Already healthy, healthy checked animals that give people who would otherwise not be able to have their lives enriched by them the experience of having a dog. In fact, I think what I did was much worse because dogs are likely to love the rental person, love the person at home, be a little confused but learn to love it quickly. It also provides a mandatory training course on dog handling, and with how many times they mention the vet bills that Jackpot needed I don't think people are going to forget that dogs are expensive. I'm sure those bills will be brought up repeatedly at the training courses as well. It seems more like people that wanted to be a rescue and decided to try making money instead. It has the possibility to give strength to the mindset of people who already think pets are disposable but I think pet lovers are either going to despise them or love them for giving them an opportunity they wanted but couldn't have responsibly. Would it be better for people who can't give their pets care regularly every single day like most of the costumers it talks of to have a pet of their own and no guarantee he or she will get the care needed? Dogs are surprisingly hardy when it comes to changing homes that doesn't seem like the company to choose dogs that will panic about it. If they have any knowledge of dogs at all, which it seems they do, they chose dogs that will likely find their rental period nothing more then a playdate with a new person.

Not related at all, I just realized that the author of the dolittler blog is the same one who writes a very witty, satirical informative article for Veterinary Practice News when her blog was mentioned in the article. This is despite the fact that both use the same picture.