No Rent-a-Pet Here in the Commonwealth
As expected, you will not see pet rentals coming to Boston.
The Legislature has voted to make pet rentals illegal in Massachusetts.
The House voted 156-0 today to outlaw the practice. The Senate later followed suit with a voice vote.
Members argue that letting people house pets for short periods of time would amount to cruelty to animals, in part by confusing them about their owner. The Boston City Council passed its own ban after a pet rental company wanted to locate there.
The bill now moves to the desk of Gov. Deval Patrick. He has 10 days to decide whether to sign, veto or let the bill become law without action.
As I said a month ago, I fail to see how this can be deemed “cruelty to animals” based on confusing them about their owner, but shuttle children off to day care day in and day out, or shared custody situations between divorced parents is not cruel.
Once again, we seem to be caring more about the animals than people, and let’s face it, that’s pretty topsy-turvy. Sorry all you animal rights activisits, but people come first, not animals.
If what’s good enough for people isn’t good enough for animals, then where does it end?
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
TAGS: animal rights, Boston City Council, day care, FlexPetz.
Aaron Margolis is a life long resident of the Bay State, and works at an architectural firm north of Boston. Aaron has a Master of Architecture Degree from Boston Architectural College and is currently in the process of becoming of a Registered Architect.
Aaron;
I’m guessing that you don’t have children (and it is better than 50% you don’t have a dog).
First off, children are not “owned” as pets are.
Not that I’m a day care “advocate”, but what do you expect struggling families who don’t have relatives around to care for their young children to do?
Kids generally don’t go to different day care situations every day (or every few days). At daycare they play, learn and make friends. Day care centers are licensed (granted there are unlicensed day care places as well) and regulated, and parents get to meet with and be involved with the day care centers to make sure their children are in a good place.
Don’t even get me started about “shared custody”; something else you obviously know nothing about (stick to political commentary).
You are the one comparing people with animals on this one Aaron. Your logic is flawed.
Sure, there are many ways that the legislature could act to take better care of people, but that is no reason to bash legislation that cares for animals.
Yeah I don’t think anyone is comparing people to animals here or vice versa. We can care about both at the same time, they’re not mutually exclusive. Obviously we should and do care much more about people especially our children, but we can also take reasonable steps to protect our animals too, and these companies do take advantage of them.
No complains in our society about a horse owners renting horses.
No one complains about a pet store selling animals.
So if we live in a society where a profit can be made by selling or renting animals, why not dogs?
Are the dogs in a kennel confused about their owner? How about the animals at animal shelters? Is it cruel to keep them alive without one specific owner?
Let’s face it, what the law finds immoral is that someone profits by renting animals not that the animal is somehow harmed. The harming of the animal is a red-herring but in its wisdom. the Commonwealth will outlaw. Now, if we could only find a dog with standing that could file a lawsuit for equal protection under the law.