Banned in Boston?

Critics of rent-a-dog operations were vocal Monday during a Boston city council hearing.

At issue was FlexPetz, a company with shops in New York City, Los Angeles and London. The company's Web site says it will open in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Paris and Boston in mid-2008.

Not if Boston city council members have their way.

Here's the story from the Boston Herald.

If you've been following this blog, you know how I feel about FlexPetz. If you don't, read these.

Interestingly, no one spoke against the ban, nor did anyone from the company come to the hearing, according to the Boston Herald article.

Boston may not allow dog-rental company

A Boston city council committee is apparently considering a ban on dog-rental operations like FlexPetz. The company wanted to open shop in Boston sometime this year.

Here's the story from the Boston Globe.

Here's how I feel about what one man in the Globe article calls a "four-footed escort service."

Are you for it or against it?

I've written about Flexpetz not once but twice.

As you will recall, Flexpetz is the company that acts as a pimp for the dogless. The owner of the monumentally bad idea rents dogs to people for a day or a weekend or whatever.

These poor animals — the dogs, not the humans — are taken by people who are given a minimal amount of training and pay a lot of money for the privilege of being allowed to think they are — for the moment — dog owners.

A New York Times puff piece on the company quoted a woman who said the dog she rents makes it easier for her (the woman) to meet people. Unfortunately, the article never bothered to talk to any dog behavior specialists who might have said how this money-making venture could be detrimental to the dog.

Well, now there is an online petition that wants the company to take the animals' well-being into consider.

We the undersigned feel that your business may have unintended consequences for both the animals and humans involved.

First, the pets may suffer unintentional emotional damage by not having a single stable environment to live in.

Second, this may adversely effect the humans involved if one of these animals can no longer take the pressure of this type of a life.

Finally, we feel that the use of animals for profit is unacceptable, especially when there is the possibility of emotional damage.

We will continue to feel this way until you issue a public statement declaring that you are taking the emotional well being of the animals into account and focus more on helping the animals than making money.

There is more at stake here than profit.

And yes, I realize the petition misspells the word "prostitutes," but we get the idea.

What to do this weekend? Rent a movie or a dog?

Shame on The New York Times.

They ran a total fluff piece on FlexPetz, the San Diego-based company that rents dogs. There was nothing in the article about how this might affect the living, breathing animals.

My take on this terrible idea is here, but I'll reiterate:

Yes, I know there are probably some people for whom this might be a good idea. But, there are too many negatives to think that this is good for anyone other than the person running the business.

For one thing, it costs over $1,800 for a year's commitment. Why not donate that money to your local dog shelter if you have that much disposable case. How about volunteering to walk dogs at the shelter?

And while some dogs might not mind having a different person on the other end of the leash every day, do you think the dog will be really happy sitting in a cage for five days after a weekend out?

A mandatory one-hour training session? Puh-leez.

What do you think is going to happen when the dog makes a mistake on the parquet floors? How is that one-hour training session going to help that poor animal when the renter loses his or her temper?

This is such a bad idea.

Is rent-a-pet a good idea?

An Associated Press story details a company that sells time shares for dogs, giving "the doggie experience" to people who can't — or won't — assume the responsibility of full-time dog ownership.

The company — FlexPetz — started in California, but will soon be bringing its operation to New York.

This is not for the people on a budget. There is a yearly fee of $99.95, a monthly fee of $49.95, plus a daily rental (sorry, I know the company's owner doesn't like that term) fee of either $39.95 or $24.95 per day for weekends or weekdays, respectively.

Plus sales tax.

Plus a one-time fee of $150 for a pre-dog-rental one-hour training session in which you are to learn everything you need to know about taking care of and training a dog.

I was initially amused by the concept, but the more I think about it, the more I am totally against it.

Sure, some dogs might not mind having a different person on the other end of the lease every day. Perhaps a few dogs won't mind being sent back to a kennel after spending a weekend frolicking in the park.

The lack of consistency could mean that the dog will get harder and harder to handle as time goes by.

Let's say you join the service and commit (irony alert) to renting a dog for the minimum amount of days per month, based on the higher weekend day rate.

Here's what you cough up:

$150 training fee
$99.95 yearly account maintenance
$49.95 per month for 12 months = $599.40
$39.95 per day x 24 days = $958.80
Total for the year = $1,808.15

Plus sales tax.

If you have that much disposable cash and really care about dogs, how about contributing to your local dog shelter? How about volunteering at the shelter to walk dogs?

Yes, I know there are probably some people for whom this might be a good idea. But, there are too many negatives to think that this is good for anyone other than the person running the business.

Any other opinions out there?