Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
An Affront to the Dignity of Labradoodles
Apparently, you can rent a fluffy, happy dog in San Diego--provided you are willing to cough up a $299 startup fee, $49.99 a month, and a PETA-approved promise to treat the animal well while it's in your care. The service doesn't seem to be available in Boston yet, but forward thinking Massachusetts legislators, led by Rep. Paul Frost, have already drawn up a bill banning the practice:
[Rep. Paul K. Frost] said he is a dog lover and owner of a chocolate Labrador retriever named Reeses and a golden retriever named Snickers.
“I know what kind of bond there is with a dog. You don’t rent out members of your family,” he said.
But you do buy family members as children and neuter them! (If you're responsible.)
“I normally side with the free market, which dictates what is successful, but this is breaking new ground. Concerns are valid. The legislation deserves a public hearing. Let’s give the company a chance to show the benefits of this business, and let’s give a voice to those who have concerns.”
Oh, now I see. Attempting to ban a business is just giving a company the chance to demonstrate its utility. Plus:
Ray McSoley, owner of Animal Behavior Associates in Westwood, said, “I have no problem with ambassador dogs at hotels, but renting a dog is a four-legged escort service. It devalues all parties."
I'm pretty sure I don't want to follow that train of thought too far, but the rest of the article is here.
Via Kip Esquire.
Tym|3.10.08 @ 1:46PM|#
So long as the renter and rentee are happy with the terms, and the dog is well cared for it is none of the governments business.
Bingo|3.10.08 @ 1:56PM|#
renting a dog is a four-legged escort service. It devalues all parties.
Yeah, devaluing an animal that sniffs other animals butts, rolls in
shit, and licks its own genetalia. Given those characteristics,
maybe Rep. Frost's fears are justified. It's a slippery slope
toward a Rent-a-Pol service.
Episiarch|3.10.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Some people take their pets WAY too seriously. I understand that
you may come to love your dog and feel that it is part of your
family but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a
fucking dog.
All the animal-humpers please proceed to jump all over me for
that.
Fluffy|3.10.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Speaking of escort services, rumor has it that minutes from now
that unspeakable cocksucker Elliot Spitzer is about to announce
that he has been caught up in a high-priced hooker sting.
BURN SPITZER BURN!
|3.10.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I normally side with the free market...
I have yet to find a politician that ACTUALLY believes in the free
market.
If they're not trying to over-regulate the businesses, then they're
trying to give them corporate handouts or protection against
genuine market forces that would otherwise shut them down.
Episiarch|3.10.08 @ 2:14PM|#
that unspeakable cocksucker Elliot Spitzer is about to
announce that he has been caught up in a high-priced hooker
sting
Are you fucking serious or just yanking my chain?
This would be like Christmas and my birthday all rolled into
one.
|3.10.08 @ 2:15PM|#
I have an idea that would fit a niche market! How about "Rent a
Familiar" - you know, psychic cats, birds, dogs, etc, that enhance
your psychic powers. A Wiccan priestess could certify that the
animal is, indeed, psychic.
Stay away from the voodoo/santeria practicioners, however, as they
tend to sacrifice the animal. Your replacement costs would
skyrocket.
Robert|3.10.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Ray McSoley, owner of Animal Behavior Associates in Westwood, said, "...They take the most adoptable dogs out of a shelter, suck all the positive energy out of them for two years, then put them up for adoption...."
What kind of animal behavior do they associate with at that guy's
establishment? In what sense can one suck the positive energy out
of a pet? When you have a good time with a pet, if anything you
put energy into the pet. If you've treated the pet
well, if anything you add value to the experience for the next
renter of that pet.
|3.10.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Mr. Frost said he is a dog lover and owner of a chocolate
Labrador retriever named Reeses and a golden retriever named
Snickers.
"I know what kind of bond there is with a dog. You don't rent out
members of your family," he said.
You don't own members of your family, either. Doesn't Mr. Frost's
ownership of the dogs imply they are property and therefore able to
be rented?
Abdul|3.10.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Whether it's the free market that determines it or this politician, exactly what is the utility of renting an ordinary dog? I can't think of a single reason to pay someone else so I can walk their dog.
msm, inc|3.10.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Dateline NY, 2012
Key contributor to President Obama's Re-Election Committee to
announce that he's "involved" in "rental" ring specializing in
Irish Setters
Tym|3.10.08 @ 2:36PM|#
What if I want to eat the dog, Tym? Is it the government's
business then?
Provided it is humanely killed, no.
|3.10.08 @ 2:58PM|#
When you have a good time with a pet, if anything you put
energy into the pet. If you've treated the pet well, if anything
you add value to the experience for the next renter of that
pet.
No, it doesn't work like that. You're confusing real live animals
with tamagochi or batteries ("put energy into the pet",
WTF?).
Real animals can recognize other creatures (human and animals) and
bond with them. Both cats and dogs are social animals in the wild,
and constantly leaving and rejoining social networks would be
stressful to the animal.
Happy to reconsider the validity of your post if you can point to
any sort of study supporting your position.
|3.10.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Some people take their pets WAY too seriously. I understand
that you may come to love your dog and feel that it is part of your
family but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a fucking
dog.
All the animal-humpers please proceed to jump all over me for
that.
You can call me an animal humper if you want Ep, but if it came
down to you or my dog, you wouldnt stand a chance. Its just fucking
Episiarch. See that works with anything.
|3.10.08 @ 3:08PM|#
You don't own members of your family, either. Doesn't Mr.
Frost's ownership of the dogs imply they are property and therefore
able to be rented?
Well, children are indeed effectively "owned" by their parents
until they reach majority. The state does place limits on their
treatment.
Some parents do indeed "rent" their children out as actors,
etc.
Sorry, libertarians (and particularly Libertarians(tm)), but animal
rights are here to stay. Not the ridiculous PeTA-fantasy versions
that you like to ridicule, but a small limited set of rights that
recognize the unique place of companion animals in our society.
|3.10.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Yeah, devaluing an animal that sniffs other animals butts,
rolls in shit, and licks its own genetalia.
So, you're saying you wouldn't lick your own genitalia (sp!) even
if you could?
And there are good evolutionary reasons for the other behaviors.
Applying human moral judgement here is definitely pre-scientific
thinking.
|3.10.08 @ 3:22PM|#
We had a great black lab for years. The kids loved her. She was
maybe the smartest dog I ever met. She lived inside and outside. We
fed her well, got her shots and checkups and took real good care of
her. We loved her.
One morning, I went out into the yard and there she lay, dead. I
loaded her up, took her to the vet and asked about disposal. He
said they had a couple big freezers they kept the dogs and cats in
till they were full and then they would take em to the landfill for
"interment." I asked how much. He said no charge. Kids came home
and I explained that she died and the vet was going to give her a
burial as we couldn't bury her in town. They cried and said
ok.
We loved that dog but she was after all just a dog.
I don't reckon I ever would have rented her out. well, maybe for a
lotsa money.
|3.10.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Sorry, libertarians (and particularly Libertarians(tm)), but
animal rights are here to stay
Well before you lump all us libertarians together. Specificaly its
the subset of libertarians who see the world in terms of "COUCH"
and "PERSON", and nothing in between. That is property ("COUCH")
and property owner ("PERSON"). It doesnt go any farther than that,
since a pet is most definetely not a PERSON then they much be a
COUCH, its all very logical and well thought out.
|3.10.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Yeah, devaluing an animal that sniffs other animals butts,
rolls in shit, and licks its own genetalia.
I think you're looking for the Eliot Spitzer thread.
Episiarch|3.10.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Ha ha, it's always hilarious to watch the complete freak out by
the animal humpers.
If you value a dog over a human life you have serious problems.
|3.10.08 @ 3:37PM|#
I suppose it isn't a stretch to compare it to stables that charge you to ride their horses.
|3.10.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Seriously, if you care about animal welfare, is this really the top concern on your list? No, this is just another politician trying to "do something". Heaven forbid you pull taxpayer money from golf courses to fund animal cruelty investigations.
|3.10.08 @ 3:39PM|#
"Some people take their pets WAY too seriously. I understand
that you may come to love your dog and feel that it is part of your
family but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a fucking
dog."
As the father of a 5 month old baby I couldn't agree more. I can't
tell you how many pet owners feel compelled to tell me about their
dog and how they probably love their dog more than I love my
daughter.
some guy|3.10.08 @ 3:45PM|#
People like dogs 'cause they have eyebrows.
Cats don't have eyebrows, making them appear aloof.
The animal "rights" movement is all about humans' incessant,
irrational need
to anthropomorphize lower life forms.
Another Phil|3.10.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Ha ha, it's always hilarious to watch the complete freak out
by the animal humpers.
If you value a dog over a human life you have serious
problems.
Well, I don't love my cats more than my mother, but I love them
more than a human stranger. Different people value different
things. What a crazy idea.
|3.10.08 @ 3:55PM|#
"I suppose it isn't a stretch to compare it to stables that
charge you to ride their horses."
Brotherben, as RC pointed out to another poster, this is NOT the
Eliot Spritzer thread.
T|3.10.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Ha ha, it's always hilarious to watch the complete freak out
by the animal humpers.
If you value a dog over a human life you have serious
problems.
Depends on the dog and the human, now doesn't it? I figure my dog
is more valuable to me than a lot of people are. Yeah, I'll put him
in the back of the line when it comes to emergency triage, but he
still gets defended like the people in the house.
BakedPenguin|3.10.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Hey Episiarch - describe your fictional namesake, would
you?
re: Eliot Spitzer - too awesome for words. That he was caught
committing a consensual crime via a federal wiretap only makes the
poetry in the justice that much more beautiful. Good riddance, you
worthless shitbag...
T|3.10.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Also, as a side note, I don't think renting dogs is a great
idea. Dogs get attached to what they perceive to be their pack.
Separating a dog from the pack leads to some issues on the part of
the dog. Repeatedly doing it, as in a rental situation, is almost
sure to lead to a neurotic dog. The problem with that is the
behavior that's going to result leads to the dog being less
desirable as a rental, so the dog'll get bounced even quicker,
making the problems more acute.
But hey, if you think it's a business model, have at.
|3.10.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Seriously, other than the term "rent", what is the difference
here other than having to own a much more expensive animal?
People buy dogs, sell dogs, give dogs away, use dogs as hunting
devices, farm labor, etc...what is wrong with renting them. I think
its the idea that it is short term (no intention to keep an animal
for the term of its life), but atleast with this arrangement, the
dog will in theory live a full life (not put to sleep by a vet
after it is given to the pound). The dog may suffer stress adapting
to new people, but atleast there is reason to keep it alive and
probably reason to breed adaptability into the animal for the sake
of the business.
Animal lovers here are responding to the word "rent", but need to
consider the practical upsides to this arrangement. I might like
the companionship of a dog and give it a wonderful home for the
time I am here in this city, but if I move to a manhatten high rise
that doesn't allow pets, atleast I know my companion has a definite
future attending to someone else...and if I really really like the
dog, I might be able to arrange something, but atleast he's not
going to a shelter.
Mr. Frost is a reactionary douchebag who is reacting to the word
used, not the practical intentions of the business.
|3.10.08 @ 4:12PM|#
T,
Certain breeds are very adaptable, much like cats, they can pretty
much fend for themselves and adjust easily to different
circumstances.
Episiarch|3.10.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Hey Episiarch - describe your fictional namesake, would
you?
Are you making a "shaggy quadruped" joke or are you too lazy to
click on my name?
Rhywun|3.10.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Episiarch always turns into a troll on animal threads; it's just
his nature.
That said, yes, of course humans are more important than pets, but
as Tonio stated, pets develop bonds with their owners. "Renting"
them out is just plain wrong. I own two cats that were farmed out
to a dozen different foster homes before I took them in. They are
barely sociable as a result.
Rhywun|3.10.08 @ 4:19PM|#
reason to breed adaptability into the animal for the sake of
the business
And what choice does the dog have? Also, people who aren't willing
to put in the effort that it takes to actually raise a pet probably
shouldn't be "renting" them.
Episiarch|3.10.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Episiarch always turns into a troll on animal threads; it's
just his nature.
Hey! I'm so giddy from Spitzer's downfall that I don't know what
I'm doing. WHHEEEEE
T|3.10.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Certain breeds are very adaptable, much like cats, they can
pretty much fend for themselves and adjust easily to different
circumstances.
Sorry, LIT, I've been doing rescue work for too long to buy that.
Some individual dogs seem to do okay, and some breeds are better
than others, but the effect is common to all dogs. It's a question
of degree, that's all. The dog is going to freak out a little after
pack separation. We've hardwired the little fuzzy bastards to be
that way because it was useful to us.
Rhywun|3.10.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Are you sure they weren't just "cats"?
Properly socialized cats bond with humans. Unsocialized cats are
good for chasing out pests and not much else.
BakedPenguin|3.10.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Are you making a "shaggy quadruped" joke or are you too lazy to click on my name?
Both, actually...
|3.10.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Some guy called Santorum is on the phone about the "four-legged escort service..."
|3.10.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Rhywun,
If that's what ends up happening anyway, whats the difference,
other than the dog has a place to go if he's "rented" vs. the dog
who is "owned". You might consider this bad behavior to promote,
but in general, aside from some seperation anxiety from a few pets
that have really short term owners (how many people will plop down
$300 for less than 6 months renting anyway), this will atleast
reduce the effect of irresponsible people if they have this option,
probably leading to an overall net gain in general animal health.
The problem is that we've hardwired ourselves into thinking that
either A) animals are things like TV's, cars, other sources of
utility/entertainment or that B) animals are people and have the
same rights as a child. Animals are neither, they deserve more
consideration than a lamp, but less so than a child. Renting may
strike people as repulsive, but its just admitting a certain
element of practicality that most people would otherwise not like
to admit.
Rhywun|3.10.08 @ 4:52PM|#
how many people will plop down $300 for less than 6 months
renting anyway
The time doesn't matter, and in fact the damage could be greater
after longer periods of bonding. Animals are less
resilient than kids in these situations, because they won't know
what the fuck is going on at any age. But again I have
difficulty believing that anyone who only wants a temporary dog is
interested in bonding at all anyway.
Fluffy|3.10.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Sorry, Tonio, but you actually ARE a cartoon character of an
animal rights freak if you think you can make the jump from
"Animals shouldn't be tortured for fun" to "It's cruel to your dog
to let someone else watch him for an afternoon," without any of us
noticing.
What kind of absolutely absurd right is that?
This is like giving the dog a "right" to not have a dog sitter.
Hey, the dog will become neurotic if someone else watches it,
right?
If you can allow other people to watch your dog or play with your
dog for free, by what cockamamie nonsensical pinko ratiocination
does it become a violation of the animal's "rights" if I get $49.99
from someone to play with my dog instead?
I guess it's symptomatic of the way progressives in this country
suck moose cock, but once again a set of circumstances that would
be perfectly acceptable if done for free someone becomes a
lamentable and actionable evil if someone pays $49.99 for it. On
what basis? None at all, just progressive cocksuckery that
distrusts and hates all human [and animal] interactions with a
dollar component.
And what kind of demand can there possibly be for a rental dog? How
many people will I possibly be "lending" my dog to? Say I rent my
dog to 20 people in a year. I doubt any dog would be rented that
many times, but let's say it was. That's 20 different people the
dog will possibly interact with and play with.
In other words, that's less "strange" people than your average 1st
grade student is expected to interact with during the school
year.
So you want to tell me it's cruelty and a violation of "animal
rights" for a dog to play with 20 people in a year, but it's not
cruel and not a violation of rights to send a child to school to
play with or interact with 20 other students, teachers, nurses,
etc. in a year?
Come on, give me a break.
People are beating stray cats to death on sight in China because of
government scare propaganda about disease, and you want to tell me
a dog is being mistreated if it has to get played with by too
many people in Boston? Come on.
T|3.10.08 @ 5:10PM|#
The problem is that we've hardwired ourselves into thinking
that either A) animals are things like TV's, cars, other sources of
utility/entertainment or that B) animals are people and have the
same rights as a child. Animals are neither, they deserve more
consideration than a lamp, but less so than a child.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? We don't have a well-defined
class that translates to >lamp &
T|3.10.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Well, pee. That failed. Anyhow, I think it's a bad idea from an animal welfare perspective. Better than being killed at the PETA shelter, but still sub-optimal. I don't think a law is necessary, though. I think market forces are gonna stomp that sucker flat because the pound will give me a dog for way less than $300 + $50 a month.
|3.10.08 @ 5:22PM|#
T,
I don't think we can think alot of people that "rent" pets, but my
libertarian side first says "why should there be a law against
this" followed by "did anyone actually see if there's a practical
upside". Just because something sounds bad in theory doesn't mean
it is bad in practice. Anything that gives irresponsible people
options that mitigate their irresponsiblity without coercion is
atleast partially OK in my book.
Rhywun|3.10.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Fluffy, please stop foaming at the mouth for a second and listen to reason. No respectable agency would practice this. The first thing they want is assurance you will provide a stable home. If you can't refrain from willfully conflating letting someone else babysit your dog for a day, and giving it away, there is no point in having this discussion any longer.
|3.10.08 @ 5:39PM|#
If we can find a profitable use for the dogs it may relult in less post-partum abortions?
|3.10.08 @ 5:40PM|#
If you value a dog over a human life you have serious
problems
Gone into troll mode eh? I dont value a dog over
a human life. I value my dog's
life over your life, and all the the millions of strangers' lives
out there that have no impact on my life.
It comes down to cost-benefit, I love my dog, and I would be very
hurt if he was gone, on the other hand you would just be one less
person posting on H&R.
Also maybe you can tell me where I did this complete freak out?
|3.10.08 @ 5:58PM|#
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6157/
Remember Socks? That white bitch gave Socks away.
|3.10.08 @ 6:54PM|#
what retards... people that rent their dogs should be given the death penalty instead.
Paul|3.10.08 @ 7:05PM|#
"I know what kind of bond there is with a dog. You don't
rent out members of your family," he said.
My kids are members of my family. My dog? It's a dog. Meaning, I
don't put him in little sweaters, and if he gets seriously ill,
it's the big sleep. There won't be any $8,000 experimental
surgeries and treatments. That's for people who don't have kids,
and got confused as to what role their dogs played in their
lives.
It's a dog.
|3.11.08 @ 1:01AM|#
Frankly, I see this frivolous waste of money as evidence of our economic decline. Stock market traders would call it "topping action".
Robert|3.11.08 @ 2:55AM|#
Happy to reconsider the validity of your post if you can point to any sort of study supporting your position.
Anybody who's gotten a dog that was already housebroken. Or a cat
that'd already been around dogs. Or a bird that had a considerable
vocabulary. Or any pet that'd spent a lot of time in
vehicles.
Maybe they should just call them "experienced" pets.
|3.11.08 @ 7:08AM|#
"...but renting a dog is a four-legged escort service. It
devalues all parties."
But I like being devalued - thats the point!!! May I have
another?
Fluffy|3.11.08 @ 8:45AM|#
Nope, sorry, Rhywun.
Consider a dog at a shelter. That dog will be cared for by a
revolving group of volunteers. If it's a no-kill shelter that has
space issues, it may be fostered out for weeks and months at a time
to a variety of temporary foster homes. If it has socialization
problems, it may also be temporarily housed with a specialist
volunteer who re-socializes dogs.
A dog that goes through this process will pass through as many
hands as a dog who is "rented".
But renting a dog is cruelty, and working with a shelter is animal
heroism.
That just doesn't wash, sorry.
|3.12.08 @ 7:37AM|#
"...but renting a dog is a four-legged escort service. It
devalues all parties."
Has anybody checked to be sure Spitzer (client 9, or maybe him
client K-9 in this case) is not involved?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245