An Affront to the Dignity of Labradoodles
Kerry Howley | March 10, 2008, 1:30pm
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.
Fluffy | March 10, 2008, 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.
