Apparently there has been some backlash against a company that is renting out pets to folks who are too busy or otherwise unable to have a pet of their own. While some have heralded FlexPetz as the zipcar for animal lovers, others are outraged, claiming that flipping pets from person to person can have traumatic outcomes.

I'm wondering how this is any different than, say, renting a horse to go horse-back riding for a few hours when I would not be able to own a horse. But then again, cats and dogs seem to bond more with their owners. Who knows, though? I've never owned a horse; I've only been an evil renter of them. What do you think of pet-renting: good, bad or ugly?

In other news, it seems scientists may have stumbled across a laziness gene. It looks like a good article, but I'm honestly too lazy to read it and too lazy to own a pet at the moment too. Hmmm...

(Image © FlexPetz)

Comments

[Kim Moreland]

Catherine, I don't seen any trouble with renting a pet. The pet would get the best of all worlds, someone who'd care for it, then it would go back to its owner.

But this reminds me of a very sad situation in Japan. Since family ties have become very weak, people sometimes rent a family to help with loneliness.

[RazzleDazzle]

Two things:

One when you rent a horse, it still sleeps in the same stall every night and is provided it's primary care and training by the same expert hands. Bouncing from place to place would probably be even harder on a horse.

Second, have you seen how slimy these flexpetz people are? If you have any doubt, check this out:
http://runningthepack.com/blog/?p=60