Submitted by Ruby, Oct 29, 2007 16:22

There is NO comparison between shuttling a dog from human to human so other humans can profit and volunteering to spend time with a lonely child, who, as member of a family, relates to the same individuals every day, sleeps under the same roof every night, and is part of a social structure.

The more apt comparison would be between Big Brother/Sister and volunteers who spend time with lonely, abandoned dogs--which is what Flex Petz' dogs likely will become (or worse--killed) if they're not rented often enough, or grow old and ill, or bite because they're traumatized from being passed around like rental car. And you do understand how humans treat rental cars, don't you?

At the end of the day, Flex Petz is a business. No business can hold onto excess inventory and still turn a profit. And, as it seems to have escaped you, make no mistake: To Ms. Cervantes and her investors, dogs are commodities, inventory, not living, breathing beings with the same range of emotions as humans. No one who believes the latter could rent out an animal for profit...or pay to rent an animal for one's own amusement.

If Flex Petz succeeds, we all lose: the rental dogs and those who lose their humanity by renting them, dog who, in the future, will be more readily abandoned because of the mindset Flex Petz advances, that animals are disposable commodities. And, ultimately, society loses too. Aren't we already shallow enough?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.