Not every one thinks about things as carefully as some of the more understanding
people

sure the chances may be slim: possible
the chances may be High: possible
the dogs may be neglected: Possible
the dogs may run into the risk of injury or disease: Possible
the dogs risk sexual abuse: possible

please concidder the first part of my post too not just the last

the measures of this being prevented by the company they are being
placed by I'd say would have conciddered most things and do their best
to prevent any more stress upon the animal than what would have already
been experienced by the animal

not only that the animal would have required adjustment to being shifted from home to home detatching the desire to be with one person in particular

it seems like a logical and reasonably conciderate gesture to place these animals
in homes and get them off death row


as I said if your really against this kind of thing and really think it a bad idea why don't you look deeper in to it and find out more about it

email them...I'm sure they will be more than happy to explain things
PS

sorry FIFF but if you look at some of the facilities these shelters have
I think I'd rather see them out of there ...
not only that the shelters can only keep so many then some one has to go..
hence cold steel pin that carrys their last breath in a syringe...

any way look at things this way if they are in a shelter
why can't they be sent out into a home why not let them go to a family
where they can romp and play with the children and catch balls
and frizbee's ect .. or you rather them be locked in a pen with a concrete floor
with only a 5 minute run in maybe a 30 Sq meter grass pen
shelters arn't every thing and most are self funded by the people who run them
not all shelters have the luxery of government funding I have seen a couple of shelters shut down because they didn't have enough funding to continue
what happens then .... have a think about it ...

This post has been edited by WolfLust on Jun 14 2007, 08:50 AM

I've got not problem with them saving death row dogs that are on the verge of being put down to free up a holding cage - but most shelters hold the good candidates for adoption for at least a few days first.

A more precise wording for my question would be "Are they saving the dogs that missed out on being adopted by a permanent home, or are they cherrypicking the new arrivals and denying them a chance of a permanent home?"

I've seen enough shelters to know that no dog deserves to be in one, but are these dogs given a chance at the best outcome before they get an emotional rollercoaster with an uncertain fate at the end? As I said in my first post, I think the ideal dogs for this would also be the best candidates for adoption in the first place.

I take umbrage at your assertions! :angry: You automatically imply that anyone who's a zoo, who'd rent one of their dogs is going to sexually abuse it. Ergo, all zoos are to be counted as animal abusers?! <_< While I accept that zoophilia has a sexual connotation to it, being a zoophile does NOT necessarily mean you are sexually active with animals.during the last few years of my last girl's life she lost the urge and I never pestered her for sex. It was enough that I loved her and could hold and stroke her and make her feel good in other ways. Zoophiles, by their very nature, are people who I imagine become very easily "animal starved", and I mean this not just in a sexual sense but in an emotional one as well. So watch what you say when you imply that any zoophile who might indulge in that kind of rental service, is going to automatically sexually abuse the animal. Sexual abuse is NOT what zoophiles are about.

And I still think your putting too much emphasis on the sexual abuse aspect...is it possible...yes of course, anything is possible, is it likely...no it's not, for all the reasons I listed before and a few others I won't go into.

If they are having success with the first location then I would think that the animals haven't been mistreated or have come into any harm. I guess that the shelter is taking good care of the animals. ^_^ :D

FLEXPETS? I don't know but it sounds very strange to me.... :huh:

It's hard to say if this is bad for the dogs without knowing the specifics of how they operate. With the prices as high as they are, maybe the only people who use the "service" are nursing homes etc. Like those therapy dogs that visit hospitals to cheer up the patients.

I don't agree with this company, that's just not right to me, tossing the animals around. They don't likely get enough time to form a real bond with anyone, that can be harmful, and even moreso if they do get time to bond with people and then lose them...all the time.

I also didn't know that such a company does exist.... I'm pretty sure that there aren't a lot of these "business-[SPAM]". :ph34r:

These are all possible with people who buy dogs to own them.

Im not saying this company is great, but if they have enough money to expand to different states, Im sure their shelters cant be that bad.

Well, actually... there's one good aspect to this (above and beyond the "at least they're not being euthanized" aspect).

I've several times considered getting a breed of dog as a pet, but been unsure whether or not that dog could cohabitate with me well enough. This service would let me "try out" a breed before making a long-term commitment that could potentially be disastrous for both me and the dog involved. It's kind of like dating before marriage -- not always such a bad idea!

Also, to all those who say *gasp* -- profiting from animals? How horrid! They treat animals like objects! I say: wake up. If you think animals aren't hot sale commodities, perhaps you haven't seen the prices breeders charge these days. It's way, way, way beyond just recouping costs. Whether we like it or not, animals ARE commoditized; they're bought and sold and have a price tag.

Being involved with money does not, in itself, harm animals. They don't care. They aren't even aware of the financial transaction. No; money is a fact of life, even in the pet industry. As animal lovers (in the platonic sense), our responsibility is to try to make sure that the animals aren't harmed in the process.

Indeed, I agree with your disagreement :)

We own a male dog, are both zoo curious, and have never involved ourselves with him in any sexual way. He just doesn't show interest, so we're not going to force anything.

Besides, he's a chihuahua :)

Anyway, assuming that just because people are sexually attracted to animals means they'll rape them, automatically implies that all heterosexual humans are rapists.

I'd say that the odds that these animals will be sexually abused are about the same as the odds that a dog from a breeder or shelter will be sexually abused. Not zero, but very, very slim (slimmer considering that shelters automatically spay/neuter). So if you're truly outraged and concerned about this slim chance, you should lobby to shut down shelters and breeders -- in fact, any organization that brings animals into contact with us awful, hateful, horny humans.

@ atomix:
I really understand your point of view. Why force an animal to do something, that it probably doesn't want. If there is no interest (from the animal) we should let them just be like they want.
And making business with such a thing, appears also pretty dirty to me...

Wondered what some of the newer members thought about this idea.

1st who would rent them, how much would u charge, would u have insurance on them ,would u bring them to him/her, or would they haft to pick them up, it would take to much work to make a profit if you make a profit, how could u gurantee the dogs wouldnt bite the renter or u for that fact, yes you might b saving them from the pound but at what cost so u save them from the 7 day rule but i would rather have them put down peacfully then runnin the risk of negelect abuse std's were would u keep all those dogs anyway, im not sayin you would do all these things but u dont know the ppl u r renting them 2 the world is full of nasty ppl.