| |
|
FLEXPETZ is an eyebrow-raiser.
Essentially, it's like a car-sharing service or a tool-sharing service or a time-share on a condo -- except in this case, the thing being passed around for the sake of group enjoyment and convenience is a living animal. A pet. The "Flex" in "FlexPetz" is for "flexibility," in that this is a pet that meets your schedule! Do away with all the hassle and inconvenience of actually raising and nurturing your pet as a responsible owner -- now you can just grab a dog and shake a paw for a couple of hours a day with no fuss, no muss, and none of those annoying veterinary visits!
Note sarcasm above. So: initial reaction horrified and a bit pissed. Immediately, I'm reminded of the great Joe Frank and his mini-series (part of the macro-series In The Dark, IIRC) called "Rent-A-Family," which creeps me out (and defies description in a short post)) for added "ugh" factor when confronted with FlexPetz.
Because pets are commitments. They're not toys to be borrowed. They're not optional accessories for when you have a couple of hours and want something to cuddle. They're living, growing, intelligent creatures with personalities and attachments and bonds. And they deserve better than to be taken off a shelf and passed around and put back into storage again.
Then I think about my folks -- who love dogs, and always had one, but now that they're retired are letting themselves take the vacations they planned and saved for their whole lives, and couldn't in good conscience keep a dog when they intend to be gone from home for months out of every year.
And that companion animals are a staple in some retirement homes and seniors' residences, used as a point of love and stability in multiple lives. If a dog can provide these benefits to the disabled or people with reduced mobility or the inability to care for an animal full-time, shouldn't we also allow people that love animals to have those same benefits (especially if they're mature enough to realize that they don't have the ability to care for an animal full-time)?
So I can sort of see how this service might actually be a good thing, if people really love animals and can't for various reasons manage to keep one full-time.
Then again, shouldn't those people just volunteer at a shelter or something?
And what happens when Fuzzles McHugglebutt gets old, or cranky, or incontinent? There's a pact with pets, like with people -- you get 'em young and cute, you train 'em, and you live with the pet you trained no matter what happens to that animal. And when a pet needs to be put down, it's no trivial thing (or shouldn't be) -- it's a measured, agonizing decision usually made after life has become unbearable for both the owner and the pet.
So rent-a-pet leaves me wondering what will happen when, as Dottie says in Raising Arizona, "these'un here are gettin' to big to cuddle."
I can see the appeal. I can see the utility. But on balance, FlexPetz creeps me out (not least because of the name, which conjures visions of a Welsh Corgi getting stretched until it snaps in the ham-fisted savage hands of a cruel overindulged eight-year-old). I'm a bit surprised that the SCPA isn't stepping in. |
|
|
