Dee Dee Warren
August 4th 2007, 05:10 PM
(STR allows reposting of their content in full)
A California company called FlexPetz rents dogs out part-time:
From the state that popularized purse puppies, drive-through dog washes and gourmet dog food delivery comes the latest in canine convenience -- a company that contracts out dogs by the day to urbanites without the time or space to care for a pet full time....
Since signing up, Gonzalez said she has tried out several dogs but fell in love with a black Lab named Jackpot. They spend an average of one day each weekend together. He sleeps at her apartment and she takes him on hikes, to the beach and to parks....
"It's funny," [one of Jackpot's other part-time companions] said. "He is so friendly and immediately playful with us, people are surprised he is a rental dog."
We can rent from FlexPetz for hours or days, and their website assures us that their "dogs are available in varied breed sizes to ensure compatibility with our member's individual lifestyles and unique circumstances."
I understand that sometimes circumstances prevent people from owning pets, and that these people might still want to spend time with animals, but something about this seems wrong to me. It's hard not to see this as a symptom of a culture that wants benefits without cost--that seeks to find the perfect accessories that will integrate easily into (and out of) life, providing easy pleasure.
But, metaphorically, is the experience of renting a dog the same as that of owning him day in and day out, through thick and thin and inconvenience? When we give up the cost and sacrifice involved in a relationship (with animals or people) or in any of our pursuits, are the pleasures of the rewards nearly as sweet? Are we, by avoiding and minimizing costs to preserve our comfort, robbing ourselves of a deeper satisfaction and settling for something second-rate? Is the trade-off worth it?
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/rental-dogs-now.html
http://www.flexpetz.com/
A California company called FlexPetz rents dogs out part-time:
From the state that popularized purse puppies, drive-through dog washes and gourmet dog food delivery comes the latest in canine convenience -- a company that contracts out dogs by the day to urbanites without the time or space to care for a pet full time....
Since signing up, Gonzalez said she has tried out several dogs but fell in love with a black Lab named Jackpot. They spend an average of one day each weekend together. He sleeps at her apartment and she takes him on hikes, to the beach and to parks....
"It's funny," [one of Jackpot's other part-time companions] said. "He is so friendly and immediately playful with us, people are surprised he is a rental dog."
We can rent from FlexPetz for hours or days, and their website assures us that their "dogs are available in varied breed sizes to ensure compatibility with our member's individual lifestyles and unique circumstances."
I understand that sometimes circumstances prevent people from owning pets, and that these people might still want to spend time with animals, but something about this seems wrong to me. It's hard not to see this as a symptom of a culture that wants benefits without cost--that seeks to find the perfect accessories that will integrate easily into (and out of) life, providing easy pleasure.
But, metaphorically, is the experience of renting a dog the same as that of owning him day in and day out, through thick and thin and inconvenience? When we give up the cost and sacrifice involved in a relationship (with animals or people) or in any of our pursuits, are the pleasures of the rewards nearly as sweet? Are we, by avoiding and minimizing costs to preserve our comfort, robbing ourselves of a deeper satisfaction and settling for something second-rate? Is the trade-off worth it?
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/rental-dogs-now.html
http://www.flexpetz.com/