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

[q10.livejournal.com]

because maybe the alternative is a scenario in which they were put down already months or years ago?

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

However, supporting pet rentals is not the proper solution to pet overpopulation. That would be like saying it's a Good Thing to buy inbred dogs from puppy mills. It may (big conditional on the "may") help the couple individual dogs in the program, but it does not help the overall situation.

As for that conditional, it's possible these are dogs that were going to be put down. It's also possible these are dogs that would have found a full-time home instead of being shipped around to different renters. A dog that is well-trained and has a good temperament as they claim their dogs all do would make an excellent candidate for adoption rather than being put down.

The Dolittler post I linked also has some comments on the history of FlexPets. Apparently their origins were that they actually bred dogs just for this. It's also not entirely clear what happens to the dogs as they age - they say that they only have dogs age 2-3 years old. They imply many are adopted, which I would like to believe, but I don't know.

[q10.livejournal.com]

buying puppy-mill dogs directly competes with adoption and supports the creation of more puppy mill dogs. it is more likely that pet rental consumers are drawn at least in part from the ranks of those who would not be able to consider full-time dog ownership - they're putting resources into the system that would otherwise go unutilized.

even if these particular dogs would've found a full-time home instead, they're freeing up those homes for the next round of adoptable dogs.

further, it sounds like these dogs are well trained, of good character, and in good health in large part because of the money FlexPets puts into them.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

It's more the culture of casual pet ownership that is bothering me. I view it that this service is legitimizing the idea that pets can be obtained and then gotten rid of when you tire of them. Someone who subscribes to this service as their first encounter with a pet, or children of people who use it, may mistakenly think they can handle full-time pet ownership and then end up getting a dog that they abandon when they realize what it actually takes.

On the other hand, I'm thinking about comparing this to the Big Brothers/Sisters programs. People who want to work with kids but don't want to have one could sign up as a Big Sib. It seems somewhat similar to that concept. Except that if these people want to spend their time with dogs but not be owners, they could instead volunteer at a shelter, so instead having them rent a pet draws that resource away from shelters.

[q10.livejournal.com]

do you really believe that the state has the moral authority to prohibit things on the basis of their symbolizing a bad cultural trend? i find this a little terrifying.

[q10.livejournal.com]

for that matter, a lot of couples go through phases of staying overnight and of living together for a matter of a few months or a year before, starting to entangle their finances and getting rings and doing the other things that in our society tend to go with a lifetime relationship - yes, no one step guarantees that the next will work, but a lot of us still find that alternative better than jumping into maximal commitment totally blind.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Don't you think that people who rent a dog will actually be MORE aware of what it takes to own a pet than someone who's never cared for a pet at all?

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

I wonder what percentage of first-time pet owners actually did research about what it takes to own a pet prior to getting the pet? The image I had in my head was that a person getting a pet would do research and have a good idea what it takes to own a pet, while a "renter" would instead assume that his experience (having food for the dog handed to him and never having to take the pet to the vet) would be the norm. I could very well be mistaken about most new pet owners doing research though, sadly, so you could be correct.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

It is NOT the norm for people to do serious research about what it takes to take care of a pet. At least in my experience. This is exacerbated by commercial sale of pets, which imho is therefore much worse for promoting responsible pet ownership than renting. I imagine the Humane Society wouldn't have to put out as many "don't buy baby pets as presents" pamphlets otherwise.

A large percentage of pet owners also don't take their pets to the vet at all. At least renters'd have some experience having to feed, water, and walk the animals. More than what a lot of people experience. And while they might not know how to train the animals either, if they adopt the same pet they rented, it would theoretically not be as much of an issue - they'd be getting a pre-trained pet.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

They imply many are adopted, which I would like to believe, but I don't know.

They explicitly address this in the FAQ - dogs that age out without being adopted are taken care of for life at their site. Also, I'm not sure I agree with the "shipping" characterization - they operate on a local basis, dogs aren't being taken moved really serious distances from place to place, and they have a "home base" that they spend most of their time at.

Also lots of dogs that are excellent candidates for adoption, still get put down.

From what I can tell the people renting pets would not be good candidates for adopting pets themselves, so I don't think that the company is necessarily discouraging pet adoption. It may even encourage it, because people may become attached to a dog and end up adopting one, whereas they might otherwise not have known that they had room for a dog in their life full-time. And they're no longer breeding dogs for this purpose. So I'm not entirely sure how this practice will really hurt the situation overall. I'd be in support of a law prohibiting breeding dogs to be rented (or breeding dogs at all), or regulating the business so that it couldn't put dogs down afterward or something. But after looking at the site I just can't summon up that much moral outrage.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

But how is it good for the dog to be "living" with multiple families? You've had pets, you know they miss you when you're gone, and dogs bond more strongly to their humans than many other pet species.

And an admittedly ad hominem attack on FlexPets itself: the CEO of the parent company has been convicted of multiple counts of fraud. While I don't think that it's possible for pet rental to do right by most of the actual pets, I'm even more skeptical that *this* company will do it right.

Simon Brodie, CEO of parent company convicted of fraud in the UK.
His company also had the Allerca dander-free cats, and refused peer-review on whether they really were dander-free.

[q10.livejournal.com]

any law you get passed will have implications far beyond this one company, and will probably outlive it, so regulating a whole industry out of existence to deal with one or two bad cases seems kinda heavy-handed. (of course, leaving a whole industry unregulated because the biggest players this week happen to be well-behaved may not make so much sense either - the point, on both sides, is that any law you pass is going to be much bigger than FlexPetz itself, and needs to be viewed in a wider context.)

[sammka.livejournal.com]

From what I can tell, these dogs don't "live" with any family more than a few days at a time (and often only for a few hours). I've left pets with petsitters for much longer than that. Maybe they missed the petsitter, but I don't think it really scarred them for life. Therapy pets spend a lot of time with other people, too.

I agree, though, if the CEO of the company isn't ethical it does make it less likely that the company itself will treat animals ethically. But I don't necessarily see that as a condemnation of the entire industry.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

But while your pets were with the petsitter, they missed you. These dogs will miss the other dogs they usually spend their time with. Unless they don't actually spend the majority of their time with the other dogs running around like their FAQs imply, then they just won't have *anyone* they get to know enough to miss.