All the news that’s not: People are spending money on pets
By Gina Spadafori
September 14, 2007
Another hand-wringing, ain’t-it-awful, the world-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket story from a major media outlet on the shocking — yes, shocking! — revelation that a great many people like their pets. And spend money on them, too.
These pieces always follow a formula. Here’s a do-it-yourself guide:
1) Use “Fluffy” and “Fido” in place of “cat” and “dog” to trivialize the animals and the people who own them.
2) Get a couple of quotes from a curmudgeonly dog-book author about how people are using pets to fill “holes in their lives.” Extra helpful: A reference to a current outrage — the Vick case will do — that “proves” people care more about animals in danger than children in danger.
3) Ask industry spokesman Bob Vetere, a smart, congenial fellow who alway gives good quote, about the silliest pet products he has seen.
4) Use lots of cute language like “howling mad,” etc., to further trivialize the issue and make pet-owners look nuts.
5) Find a handful of the most outrageous cases of spending you can, reference some expensive veterinary procedures and you’re done!
The most current version of this nonsense courtesy of the L.A. Times.
Of course, it’s the Paris Hilton and other bubble-headed dog-as-accessory sillies who attract attention, but they are no more representative of all pet-owners than Michael Vick is. Most of us don’t have pets to “fill holes in our lives,” but rather to bring us joy in their companionship, to share the wonder of communicating with a species different from our own, to revel in their beauty and to enjoy the challenges (as some of us do) in training and competing in partnership with our animals. My pets are my part of my family, but they’re not my children. And since I haven’t saved a dime for their college educations, that’s a very good thing!
We might drop a little money here and there for a bit of pet-retail silliness, but we do it not for our pets, but because it’s fun for us. The rest of the stuff we spend on? All practical: Food, litter, leashes and health care.
Every time I see a piece like this, I wonder where are the articles cluck-clucking over spending on expensive cars, flat-screen TVs, McMansions and $500 pool floats with insulated cup-holders? In the end, it’s all about buying more stuff than we really need, so why is spending only a “bad” thing when it’s linked to the assumed societal problem with “substitute children”?
I get hundreds of e-mails every week from people who also think of their pets as family, but not as children, subtitute or otherwise. We love our pets — yes, we do — but we know they’re animals. In fact, their non-human natures are among the things we value most about them. Pets don’t worry about the bills or the in-laws, and they enjoy the smell of a crisp fall evening. And they remind us to do the same. To relax, and enjoy just being alive.
In almost 30 years of writing about pets, I have yet to meet a single person with a dog named “Fido” or a cat named “Fluffy.”
But that certainly won’t stop the next silly “trend” piece from coming down the stupid track.
My favorite bit:
And dogs that have been spayed can be fitted with prostheses made by Neuticles, a company in Missouri.
Spayed. Neuticles. You’d think they’d assign the article to someone who, at the very least, didn’t flunk high school biology.
Comment by Lis — September 14, 2007 @ 10:32 am
I didn’t even notice that! Ha!
But I forgot that’s another piece of the formula: Must mention Neuticles.
Oh, those crazy pet people!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 14, 2007 @ 10:41 am
If we care more about the safety of our pets than others care about the safety of their children, just exactly who is not stepping up to the plate. Sounds like parents of human children need to care more rather than pet parents needing to care less.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — September 14, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Hey, I once did have a cat named Fluffy! She was named by my (then) 4-year-old daughter, who thought it was a wonderful name.
Comment by catbird — September 14, 2007 @ 11:23 am
i’m naming my next dog fido and i may just buy HIM a bikini, so there!
sheesh. the quote about people treating their dogs like children from Katz is actually kinda funny. dogs, like children, need to learn the rules of the house and good manners ta boot ;) they actually have many of the same needs, lol!~ i am a bit surprised he thought the Vick outcry was “disturbing”. the average person, dog owner or not, can’t even fathom doing what he did. seems to me it would be more disturbing if people didn’t get outraged . . .
Comment by straybaby — September 14, 2007 @ 11:40 am
All of Katz’s comments about people spending too much on their pets and pampering them too much, should be read while keeping firmly in mind that this is a man who bought a border collie, and then bought a farm and a flock of sheep—for the dog. And he’s worried about people who buy ten-dollar toys for their pets.
Comment by Lis — September 14, 2007 @ 11:44 am
I once trained at a training center where there was another handler who had two dogs - a Dalmatian named “Spot” and a Collie named “Lassie”. No lie.
It was all I could do to keep my composure whenever I was in an area where she was training . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 14, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I bought my dog one of those Furby’s when it came out. Remember? When they were so much in demand? I paid $75.00 for it!
One look at the “talking” Furby and my dog gave me a look that said, “Are you crazy or what?” and did an about face and walked out of the room.
Comment by Lynn — September 14, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
My uncle once had a python named Fluffy. Super funny.
Comment by Great Dane Addict — September 14, 2007 @ 7:17 pm