FlexPetz

This is by far the most horrifying concept I have seen in quite some time. As a single person with a 8-5 job, I have come to the conclusion that owning a dog (I desperatly would like to own one) is not fair to the pet or feasible at this time. I recently lost a 23 year old cat i inherited from my last girlfriend. That old cat disliked me at first but later came to welcome me and really became a part of my life. She would show her displeasure if I was away for an extended period and was always there to welcome me when I came home even when walking became a chore for her. In my opinion this service is selfish, allowing the humans the pleasure of a pet without allowing the pet the pleasure of having somone to relate to on a consistent basis. I would not be surprised if the anumakl rights people don't shut them down for cruelty, not all others may shgre my opinion on this matter but I do believe this is hugely unfair to the aniamals.

It just sounds creepy! My first thought was also whether the next step is "rent-a-baby". There are so many better ways to get quality time with a friendly animal -- don't add puppies to the list of disposable modern conveniences!

Besides the fact that it is creepy and not at all humane, how on earth do they expect to keep the animals trained? Even if you know the commands for a dog (sit, stay, come, etc.) they won't necessarily obey just anyone - they are social animals and will obey the person(s) they recoginze as 'pack leader'. And many, if not most, cats are extremely stressed out when introduced to unfamiliar people or places.

I can imagine that both things will cause many customer complaints "this dog is wild, how can you possibly allow people to rent it" and "the cat just hid under the sofa the whole time".

Awful idea. If you can't make the time commitment to a pet, but love animals, volunteer at your local humane society. If you want a hot new accessory on the end of a leash, go to hell.

This is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of. Pets are suppose to be companions. All i can say is WOW..........................

Typical knee-jerk reactions. I love the idea. Do any of you actually go to animal shelters? How do you think the pets end up there? Do you actually go walking? Ever see how many neglected pets are out there?

What in the world is wrong with letting a pet share their love with a wider circle of people than just with one owner?

This is actually not a new idea at all. I recall reading about "rent-a-pets" in the mid '80s. In Japan, they were popular with the elderly (you could also rent faux families). I have no idea if the concept still exists.

I think that what I find most interesting about this concept is that it speaks to the very nature of our society. Our shelters are overcrowded with animals... no one seems to want to take the time to invest in long-term care. The very concept of this business draws attention to one of the most disappointing pitfalls of our socity. Perhaps the shelters could learn a thing or two by renting out the pets back to the owners that didn't want them in the first place.

Pathetic!

Do any of you actually go to animal shelters?
I volunteer 10 hr/wk.
How do you think the pets end up there?
Owners can't afford to care for them, don't have enough time, or they are stray usually.
Do you actually go walking?
What?
Ever see how many neglected pets are out there?
Yes, there are boatloads.
Since they say most these dogs are "rescues," this is probably a better life for them, but certainly not as good as living in one place with one family permanently. Over these dogs 10+ year lives how many new people will they meet and be left by?

Since they say most these dogs are "rescues," this is probably a better life for them, but certainly not as good as living in one place with one family permanently.

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

I also don't think every permanent placement - especially of shelter animals - goes well. Just because an animal gets a permanent home doesn't mean it will get the attention and care it deserves.

Seems like these Flexpetz animals get great training, accomodations, and positive attention in abundance. Can't see how that's a negative thing.

I think this is a horrible idea. What next, Flexkidz? As others have suggested, if someone wants to spend time with a dog surely dogwalking or helping to care for a friend/neighbour's animal would be a better solution.

I think this is a horrible idea. What next, Flexkidz?

Oh no, much worse. People will start giving birth to children just to make them into pot roasts and sausages. This pay-to-play scheme with dogs is certainly going to lead to the apocalypse.

But seriously, what would be wrong with more flexible arrangements with children? People find it perfectly legitimate to pay other people to be with their kids (either at daycare or at school), yet somehow it would be wrong for people to pay to be with kids?

I think far too many treehugger types are a bit too bought into the whole individuals/nuclear family/possession mindset. In other cultures, there's a lot more flexibility when it comes to raising and interacting with children. Huxely's "Island" imagines "Mutual Adoption Clubs" where children don't have just one set of fixed parents. A lot of that book is loosely inspired by Bali.

The question people should be asking is whether the individual/nuclear family/possession paradigm actually leads to good results for all pets. Again, if you know anything about animal shelters and how many pets are euthanized every year in the US (about 8 million), then it would be very difficult to conclude that somehow that's working out well for dogs and cats.

Did it every occur to you that when people "rent" the pets that they'll shower them with love and attention? So what would be wrong with that? It's preferable that they get penned up in a cage somewhere, fed and cleaned up occasionally, walked once in a while? Because I see those kinds of pets every single day on my walks. I also hear countless dogs barking from within homes. Is it good for them to be locked up all alone for 8-10 hours every day?

It would be nice if we all opened our minds a bit instead of just leaping to predictable responses that make us feel like "good people". Sometimes there's greater possibilities out there for a greater good when you allow yourself to just imagine and accept things that may challenge conventions.

Four big paws down!

Talk to anyone of us that is involved in K9 obedience, or anyone of us that spends time at shelters or has pets at home and you'll get an earful as to why this will end up a nightmare for many dogs.

I understand the words of many of you that speak of how pets are ignored in backyards day and nite, about thousands of pets that plead with their eyes thru kennel gates at shelters, and the outrageous number of dogs that are "humanely" killed every year. You're right, it sucks, but, "pet sharing" is not the answer.

I'm all for "extended family" and I advocate publicy socializing animals, but, this shared pet concept flys in the face of what many of our well known advisors* tell us -- consistency is VERY important to pets.

* Patricia McConnell, Ian Dunbar, Jean Donaldson to name a few.

Just because you have a bed to sleep in everynite, even tho' you never know where it is going to be or who you're going to sleep with, does that mean you're not homeless?

just because you have a bed to sleep in everynite, even tho' you never know where it is going to be or who you're going to sleep with, does that mean you're not homeless?

Seems to me they'll spend most nights back at Flexpetz. And what you're describing applies to travelers as well as homeless people. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Every animal is different. I've taken care of people's pets for extended periods of time, had shelter animals of my own, and such, and each animal has had different means of adjustment.

Think of this another way. Why do those 8 million animals get euthanized every year? I'm guessing a major part of that is because the appeal for a lot of people is in the puppy or kitten stage, and when the animal grows up, it becomes less appealing, and whatever the circumstance, they feel they no longer want the pet. OK, so given this new option, how many of those people who had bought pets and then given them up might instead just share time occasionally with a service like this?

Seems to me that would have a very positive effect on the unwanted pet population, much the same way that people who join carsharing have a profound effect on reducing the number of vehicles out there.

bill, regardless of where the animal sleeps it seems like you missed my point -- CONSISTENCY.

Well behaved, calm & happy, solid temperment pets come from HOMES where they have a routine and where they get consistent training (just like with children, training is an on-going lifestyle) =in addition to= exercise and affection.

Again, let me say, I understand the value of socialization for both humans and dogs. And, I'm sure that the bulk of people that are willing to pay for this service are kind. But, kind intentions don't always translate appropriately.

Unless everyone of their clients has been trained on what these rent-a-dogs know (what "language" they speak) there are going to be problems. I work both with rescue dogs and purebreds. I teach people in obedience classes, and believe me, I see the confusion all the time! It leads to frustration which often results in anything from simple terse words that sometimes escalate to yelling or jerking of leashes and inapproprate "discipline".

In looking at their website I found that Flexpetz offers a convenience package .... "For each night that you plan to keep a FLEXPETZ dog, we will provide you with pre-packed food."

In the meantime, when the pets aren't lucky (?!) to spend a nite, I'd call them kenneled animals. Which moves me to the suggestion that these pets are marginally better off than racing dogs, hunting dogs and breeding stock that are all kept for particular purpose...... then what? Not all, but when many of those type of dogs lose their ability they're off to one sort or another of "glue factory".

Lest you think I am a bleeding heart that doesn't have a clue, I know, in a perfect world we wouldn't be posting these comments. Also, I realize we are each entitled to our own opinions, and I realize that in in your posts there is no way I can understand what has influeneced your "filters". Just know that the one thing I feel is of utmost importance is as I stated above: consistency.

Just know that the one thing I feel is of utmost importance is as I stated above: consistency.

Abused and neglected pets have a ton of consistency. It's not the end-all-be-all for pet well-being. And if these pets (which are rescue animals, btw) have a pattern of being at Flexpetz, then going out to homes (and I assume they will make multiple trips to the same homes), then that will become the pattern they become used to. Couple that with gobs of positive attention, training and structure from the Flexpetz people, and I can't see why this would be a problem. You're also neglecting the aspect I mentioned of this type of approach keeping people from buying pets in the first place, which if widespread, would have a major impact on reducing the cruelty of the massive unwanted pet situation in this country.

Don't you think that the people who run the company love animals? That they don't know all the things you know about them?

Why don't we all reserve judgment until the time comes to see if there's problems that emerge with this service? If you're really concerned with this, perhaps you should write a grant proposal and do a formal study of this.

Of course, animals are disposable.

Of course, animals are disposable.

Would you rather the people of FlexPetz not adopt the animals and let them get euthanized instead?

With 3-4 million shelter animals euthanized annually in the US, clearly people already think animals are disposable. Why would anyone be against a new way of approaching things that has the potential to cut back on the massive problem of unwanted and neglected animals in this country?

The only thing I can think of is misguided sentiment.

I have three beautiful Maltese and I am disgusted, shocked and appalled that any individual or organization all in the name of the almighty dollar can exploit man’s "best friend" in this manner. Dogs are not commodities. They are loving, affectionate beings which deserve a stable, loving and caring home. I would love to see how the owner of this organization would feel if his or her children were rented out to individuals or couples who do not have time for children but would like a "rent-a-kid" in order to satisfy their maternal or paternal desires. THE RENTING OF PETS SHOULD BE OUTLAWED.

I read an article about FlexPetz in September issue of Business 2.0 magazine. I barely got to the end of the article and I was writing a letter to the editor expressing my horror and disgust!

I have also alerted Peta and the Humane Society of Southern CA.

The owner of FlexPetz, Marlena Cervantes admits that these dogs are rented out to people who "are unable to take on the added responsibility of dog ownership". These are living creatures who deserve a home and someone to care for them through thier entire lives. Think about how people treat rental cars... ever pumped premium gas into a rental car? Given one a car wash?

What is cruel about giving an animal a home permanent or not? What is more humane? Caging a dog in a shelter or giving them undivided attention? And has everyone forgotten that millions of dogs are euthanized everyday because of overcrowding animal shelters? It's pretty obvious that FlexPetz does more good than it does harm.

I can't imagine anyone that would think this is a good idea. Do not use the excuse that these dogs come from shelters and its a better life. If the owner truly cared about animals she would know better. That sounds like politics and which is the lessor of the 2 evils.

This is a quick fix for some young girl ( saw her on GMA) to get rich. Get a real job lady. Dont use poor aninals to be your get rich fix.

This is nothing like animals visiting for 2 hours at a nursing home to make old folks feel good. Atleast after the 2 hour visit the pet is back home with his/her owner and it was the owner that took them for the visit. These pets at FlexPetz are passed around and there is no way they can have any consistancy in there daily pattern that all animals need.

This owner is already expanding in many cities and I feel she should be closed down fast. Where is PETA in all of this? When I heard about this , and I had no idea before GMA showed this, my first thought as was my 27 year old daughter...what the heck!!! ( and I am saying it in a much nicer way then we both did this morning) how is this lady allowed to run a business like this? How can she use animals to better her life with no mopre than her pocket book in her mind. She may even think its good for the animals but it isnt. It cant be.

How many times have all of us pet owners been told over the many years that consistancy in a animals life is very important. And we all know that a animal can get very confused when told by so many different people commands that may different in voice tone. This makes no sense an makes me just angery!!!

This is extremely sick. I just became aware of this through the Boston Globe this morning and plan to post on it.

This is extremely sick. I just became aware of this through the Boston Globe this morning and plan to post on it.

How absolutely disingenuous for FlexPetz to suggest it is "rescuing" shelter animals.

Reputable shelters hold potential adopters to high standards. Do you know of any that would hand over animals to become a commercial enterprise's rental property?

And if FlexPetz has managed to find those that aren't so reputable, it certainly is not taking the timid, old or "homely" dogs who won't command its hefty rental fee. Instead, this callous business is skimming the most adorable, appealing dogs from shelters--yep, the ones who stood the best chance for adoption--depriving them of a forever home. Is that what the FlexPetz spin-masters consider "rescue"?

DUH!!

And what happens to these dogs after FlexPetz is done conditioning them to distrust humans--because it is constantly breaking their bonds with a succession of renters? Will they be suitable pets after they're socialized to bond with their doggie day care pack, not a future owner?

Will FlexPetz "rescue"' them after their adoption fails and they end up back in a shelter, older and more confused, even less likely than before to find a home?

Yet another DUH!!

FlexPetz benefits no one but its owner and unevolved people who--despite all we know about dogs--continue to think of them as commodities, not living, breathing, sentient beings.

Rent cars, not dogs! FlexPetz bites.

i'm just glad that treehugger is able to get the next placement in SEO for the keyword "flexpetz". give this horrible idea of a business some bad PR.

here is my thought
...hmmm, i like babies but i don't have the time for them in the day and i don't like them waking me up at the middle of the night. maybe i'll find a group of people who feel the same way and get the babies from hollywood parents (ie. britney & k-fed) and "RENT" them out. then in the off hours, we'll have them in our offline stores with a primary caretaker. after they become 2-3 years old, we can find people who would like to adopt them. hmmmm.... FLEXINFANTZ sounds like a stellar idea...

The idea that this will help pets get adopted sounds good, but I don't buy it.

First of all: these pets, in order to be suitable for these daily rentals, have to be pretty well-trained and emotionally stable. That means that they are probably some of the most adoptable pets out there. It's not the cute ones who behave themselves who linger in the shelters, it's the animals that have been abused or have behavior problems and therefore need some work and training.

Second, if this company is making good money renting out the happy go lucky lab and the adorable poodle, what happens when someone wants to adopt that dog? Are they really that willing to give up a revenue source?

Finally, for their customers: don't you have friends who have dogs? I love my 1-year old lab mix pup (adopted from a rescue organization) but there are days that I'm busy and I know he'd love more attention. It's great to have friends who you know and trust who'll take him for a day when you can't - to come over and play with their dogs, to go for a walk, to spend a night when I have to go out of town, etc. If you can't have a dog but love dogs, tell your friends with dogs that you're there to take care of their pups when needed, and you'll have plenty of takers. No need to pay all this money to somebody for that.

I just became aware of FlexPetz through the Metro paper in Boston and was completely horrified.

So it is clear, I am a professional trainer who trains and handles therapy dogs. FlexPetz claims that some of their dogs are therapy dogs, yet not one registering agency would ever certify a dog without a PERMANENT handler, so FlexPetz is lying about this.

Besides the thirteen other active therapy dogs I have trained for others I have one myself who is aging and I am about to retire from the work. I also have a puppy that I handpicked as a "cream of the crop" adoption, a purebred Aussie that was 8.5 weeks at adoption time. The puppy is in training to replace the older dog in therapy work. Here is the key thing to remember, the dogs I train to bring into retirement homes where dogs are not permanently welcome are PERSONAL pets first and foremost, and working dogs secondly. They live always with the handler and go on excursions with the handler to visit and provide companionship to those unable to have pets of their own. The handler, in my case it is me, is always with the dog. Additionally, I know that when a therapy dog like my old dog is retired from working then she is able to lead the easy life chewing on rawhide while curled up on the sofa, not at the whim of some business that would view her as worn-out inventory.

The biggest question to be asked about this whole FlexPetz thing is whether dogs have rights at all. This reeks of slavery. As far as working dogs go, like therapy dogs, the dog gets major positive reinforcement channeled through the constant handler who they live with all the time. In this case the dog is not a slave but is doing a shared activity with the person they live with. FlexPetz seems more like slavery where the slave is shuttled to whomever ponys up the right price, and returns to be sent out to the next assignment. Plantation owners would rent out their African slaves to other plantations if a particular slave had a special skill like making wagon wheels or blacksmithing, so here some guy might need a "chick magnet" so he rents a dog that would appeal to Paris Hilton? How is this different?

My Aussie pup is an extremely desirable breed and the fact that a litter was in rescue was amazing. I got lucky that I got him to be a future therapy dog living in my "forever home", to use a common phrase. This is the type of dog that FlexPetz would be competing for since he is looks spectacular, has the right temperment to be among people and other dogs, and is smart enough to train well. Would it be right for a forever home like me to have to compete with a business like FlexPetz for a desirable purebred that appeared by chance in rescue?

Fact is, I mentioned slavery for a reason. This may bother people on both sides of this argument, but if we feel that dogs have rights as living beings then FlexPetz can only be viewed as a slaveowner and it would be better if they had no access to any dogs from shelters, and it would be better for the dogs to be dead than to be exploited as slaves by FlexPetz. I know that history shows that many African slaves would rather have died than remain enslaved, thus their uprisings and escape attempts. History shows that slavery in any form is wrong.

There's no ambiguty: Reducing a living, thinking, feeling being--indeed, "man's best friend"--to the status of a Zipcar is cruel. Flexpetz doesn't "rescue" shelter dogs as it claims. It denies the cutest, most sociable animals, the ones who can command hefty rental fees, the opportunity for adoption by people who will love and care them for life. What do you think happens to rental dogs who are no longer profitable and become unadoptable because they've grown old, developed chronic illness, sustained a costly critical injury or act out their confusion and stress by biting? Do the math.

Animal lovers lobbied to make pet pimping illegal in Massachusetts, abruptly closing the door on FlexPetz' plans to open in Boston. Do the same in your community.

Dogs can't advocate for themselves. Be their best friend by protecting them.