Ever thought of accessorising your
outfit with the right dog? Probably not. But this bizarre concept
might well prove a reality as American "behavioural therapist" Marlena Cervantes
has launched FLEXPETZ in the Uk. Flexpetz, is already established in
Los Angeles, San Diego and New York, and London, with plans for Glasgow later
this year.
FLEXPETZs introduction of this service intends it to appeal to people who
are too busy or who cannot afford the full-time commitment of looking after
a dog. Her scheme offers to supply dogs on a rental basis (dog lovers
'borrow' a pet once a week at a cost of £279 a month.) to people who
don't have the time or inclination to own one. "Through shared dog ownership,
members can spend from just a few hours to a number of days with each of
our dogs. FLEXPETZ dogs are available in varied breed sizes to ensure
compatability with our members' "lifestyles" says the FLEXPETZ website. Gucci,
an 18-month-old Pomeranian, has been the first canine recruit to Flexpetz's
London operation but more are expected to be available in the future.
A Flexpetz UK representative carries out checks on homes to ensure the dog
will be cared for. The company has a policy of only letting a dog be hired
out to a maximum of five clients.It claims these people become "extended
family members" with whom the dog is familiar. When not on hire the dogs
remain with a family, rather than in kennels.
Pippa Woolard, Flexpetz's UK representative, told the Times: "I like to get
to know them before they are accepted and would not allow a dog with anyone
who gave me cause for concern."
Ms Woollard, who lives in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, declined to say how Gucci
was acquired, but she made clear he was well cared for and lived with a family
that had other dogs on the outskirts of London. She has introduced him to
his new companions in orientation sessions in Hyde Park. None of the subscribers
was willing to speak to The Times.
She accepted that the hire charges in Britain were high – £99 for a
monthly subscription plus £45 for each of the four days. In the US
the same service is on offer for $279.95 (about £144) a month.
“It is just much more expensive in Britain to own a dog. We have to ensure
the correct veterinary treatments and checks are made and pet food is also
dear,” she said.
She would not disclose whether the dogs’ primary carers were paid but said
that all the dogs to rent were owned by Flexpetz.
Although animal welfare and care for the dogs appears to be a priority for
the service, Ms Woollard appeared unaware of the anxiety her service has created
among experts. Concerns have been raised that passing a dog from one home
to another could prove distressing to the animal, leaving it with no routine.
The RSPCA and the Dogs Trust have been trying to contact her to discuss the
details of the scheme, so far without success.
A Dogs Trust spokesman said: "We don’t agree with the principle of renting
or loaning out a pet because animals, especially dogs, have a certain bond
with their families. To rent it out would distress the pet.To remove it from
that environment by putting it out to rent is quite distressing and we would
actually say detrimental to the well-being of the dog."
Sarah Carlin, a spokeswoman for the Dogs Trust, said: “Who does this service
really benefit? Dogs need a stable routine and a constant owner to bond with
and whilst the various ‘owners’ may provide treats and affection, the charity
is concerned about the emotional impact on the dogs involved.”
The RSPCA has also registered its disquiet about the scheme. David
McDowell, a veterinary adviser at the RSPCA, said that he was “extremely concerned”
about the Flexpetz rent-a-pet service.
“There will almost certainly be an emotional impact for the dogs as they
are moved from owner to owner and from home to home. Most dogs need the security
of a proper routine with one owner and without this they could become stressed
and unhappy.”
Caroline Kisko, of the the Kennel Club said:
“The concept of renting out dogs as a ‘timeshare’ equivalent is detrimental
to the dog, leading to all kinds of confusion for the animal. It also raises
many questions about the kind of person who is making money at the dog’s expense,
what happens when the dog gets older and no one wants it, and what happens
in the situation where people who are renting the dog don’t want to give
it back?
“It is also of concern that different people will have different ideas about
house rules, leading to even further confusion for the dog when it is not
given any consistency with which rules to follow. There are already plenty
of opportunities in the UK for people who don’t feel they have enough time
to own a dog to be able to take part in dog related activities. These include
volunteering to walk dogs from a local rescue centre, or helping dog related
charities which run schemes to send their dogs ‘out’ for the weekend to socialise
while they are in training, such as Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. These
dogs need our support first - and there’s no charge to people for the privilege!”
Dr Bill Wilson, SNP MSP for the West of Scotland, asked for consideration
to be given to legislation to govern the operation of companies renting out
dogs. He has been speaking in the course of the Scottish Parliament’s
Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s evidence-taking session on the subject
of subordinate legislation relating to the Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young
Cats and Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations Act 2008.
Dr Wilson said that he was aware of a company that was renting out dogs
in London that was “proposing to open an office in Glasgow”. He asked
whether the draft bill, which explicitly dealt with the sale and re-sale
of dogs, might cover the renting of dogs too, or whether this was “a loophole”.
Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment,
answered that his understanding was that the legislation would not cover
the renting of dogs. Ian Strachan, Head of the Animal Welfare Branch
in the Scottish Government, confirmed Mr Lochhead’s opinion, saying that
the company in question was renting out adult dogs and that the act would
have no bearing on this. In fact, he said, “there were no regulations
that covered that particular activity”. He said that the general provisions
of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act would, however, apply to the
renting of dogs, in particular with regard to the “duty of care”.
Dr Wilson responded, “In that case can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to look
at legislation in regard to the renting of dogs.”
Richard Lochhead said that if that were the view of the committee they should
bring it to his attention.
Explaining his concerns later, Dr Wilson said that he thought there were
good grounds for considering legislation relating to the renting of dogs:
“Dogs are social animals. They form close bonds with individuals.
What would the consequences be for a dog that was constantly shunted from
pillar to post? In contrast to the commendable approach of the Pets
as Therapy organisation, where a person familiar to a dog accompanies it
to visit various people, a dog’s social bonds would be constantly disrupted.
It’s hard to see how this could not be considered cruel.
“Furthermore, companies that rent out dogs would presumably do so primarily
for profit. What would happen to elderly dogs, or those that required
possibly expensive veterinary treatment?”
Dr Wilson concluded by saying, “The time to consider these issues is now,
before renting dogs becomes commonplace. To abuse a metaphor, let’s
not be in the position of trying to close the kennel door after the rent-a-dog
phenomenon has bolted!”
Local authorities are also concerned that the business should be licensed.
Deborah Bradfield, an animal health inspector at the City of London Corporation,
which handles animal issues for London boroughs, believes that national guidance
must be developed.
“Our view is that it is not right for a dog to be palmed off to five people.
There is no reason for this business to exist except to make money. We also
believe the people who rent the dogs should be licensed because in reality
they are dog sitters and they are boarding a dog.”
She said that both functions required a licence under the Animal Boarding
Establishments Act 1963. Costs vary but £200 a year is not uncommon.
Ms Woollard said that she would check the legal requirements.
I seriously hope this scheme won’t ever get off the ground. It is irresponsible
of FlexPetz to force dogs to move between families who fancy becoming a ‘pet
owner’ for a weekend. Please take a moment to think about the poor animals
involved. Going back and forth between different homes and families will
be stressful and create unstable personalities, it’s bad enough that they’ve
already been thrown out of one home for being unwanted. The slogan ‘A dog
is for life’ isn’t just a catchy phrase to be tossed around – be responsible
and only take in a companion animal if you can care for him or her as a full-time
guardian. Anyone wishing to spend time with a dog should contact a
dogs’ home and help to walk dogs or foster dogs for a short period until
they are rehomed.
