Bill to prevent chimps as pets passes House

Keeping a chimp as a pet isn't the best idea. Now Congress is trying to do something about it.

In light of the recent attack of a Connecticut woman by her friend's 200-pound pet chimpanzee, the U.S. House of Representatives moved Tuesday to ban transporting monkeys and apes across state lines for the purpose of selling them as pets.

Bill sponsor Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said, even though similar legislation passed the House last year, the latest attack brought "renewed urgency" for the law.

Here's the complete story from the Hartford (Conn.) Courant.

The importation of primates for the pet trade has been outlawed since 1975, but Blumenauer said 30 states, including Connecticut, allow the keeping of the animals as pets and it is easy to purchase a primate from exotic animal dealers or over the Internet.

He said there have been at least 100 reports of attacks over the past decade, 29 involving children.

Here's the bill as passed by the House.

Comment on Greatest American Dog

I got a comment from "anonymous" yesterday about Thursday's episode of Greatest American Dog.

Here it is:

I love your recaps of the episodes, they are a hell of a lot funnier than the episodes themselves.

I have to say this time that I was more upset than amused at the goings on in the show though. I don't care how ell trained the Elephant was , those things have a tendency to snap in captivity, not to mention that considering multiple dogs nipped at the puppies last episodes you'd think the producer wouldn't want to risk them nipping at something 100 times the dogs size.

I was shocked that it was Galaxy who got hurt and not Presley considering how much he was flailing during the zipline.

Despite thinking Galaxy is perhaps the best trained dog still left there I hope she goes home next week. There is no reason for her to have to suffer just for the sake of a game show.

I replied that I wondered if I was over-reacting to the show, but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't shake the feeling that these TV producers, self-proclaimed dog advocates and even the dog owners are merely exploiting these trusting, loving, follow-you-anywhere pooches.

I say, shame on them. And where are the animal rights people in all this?

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?