Do you like this story?
Vacationing with pets? The travel industry wants to help
By Pet Connection Staff
June 22, 2010
Hitting the road with pets this summer? The travel industry wants to make it a smooth trip. From Gina Spadafori in this week’s Pet Connection newspaper feature:
The number of people who travel with their dogs is growing, and so too are the options for pets on the road. From “ruffing it” at campgrounds to enjoying fabulous four-star hotels, the time has never been better to pack up your pet and go.
Still, traveling with a dog is no picnic sometimes. Finding lodgings can be difficult, luxurious inside dining is largely sacrificed in favor of eating takeout in the car or a park, and spending hours tripping through quaint shops becomes a thing of the past when a dog is waiting. Traveling with dogs offers some challenges, but nearly all are surmountable with common sense and creativity.
The travel industry wants to help, that’s for sure. Countless books cover traveling with dogs, and some travel agents have carved out a niche booking canine-centered vacations. People in the travel industry have learned that many people with dogs are exceptionally grateful for pleasant accommodations, and so return to the places that treat them well year after year. As a result, some entrepreneurs have gone to great lengths to attract dog lovers. You can even find canine camps, where people do nothing but share a slice of “dog heaven” with their pet for a week or more at a time.
Get the big pet travel picture here.
Dr. Becker and Mikkel Becker-Shannon have “The Buzz” on calico kittehs:
Calico and tortoiseshell (or tortie) refer to a pattern of markings, not to a breed. The link between them is red fur, which can run from a very pale tan to a bright, rich rust. The two marking patterns are genetically similar, but differ in the way they are expressed on the cat. On calico cats, the red, black and white colors are distinct patches; on tortoiseshells, the colors are swirled together. Almost all such cats are female, but males do turn up rarely. Male calicoes are unusual for more than their coloring: Although they appear male, they’re carrying not only a Y chromosome, but two X ones (one extra), which is what makes the calico patterning possible.
Want more? Read the entire Pet Connection for this week.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Ya, just don’t travel if you own a “pit bull”. You risk the dog because of the patchwork of breed specific legislation throughout North America, campgrounds won’t accept you, dog camps won’t take your dog (despite temperament, shape is all that counts).
Comment by Social Mange — June 22, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
And especially avoid Ontario, Canada.
Comment by Social Mange — June 22, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
Is Ontario the only place with BSL, Social Mange? Or is there another reason you wish everyone to avoid my home province?
Comment by K.B. — June 22, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
It’s the only place with a province-wide “seize the dog and kill it” pit bull ban. No other province or state has that. The city of Denver does, and I think you’ll find that people with pit bulls feel the same way about Denver.
Comment by Lis — June 22, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
Yes, and it sucks.
However, boycotting the province will do…. nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Oh, except maybe drive the last nail in the coffin of many a small business owner, when the tourists stay away, because after 9-11, and the insane US passport regs, and the economy, many of them are on their last dime. And of course, BSL is their fault, right? And none of them are pet owners who are fighting BSL, right?
Sure, they may have voted int he government, but the party didn’t run on a BSL platform.
Niagara Falls is my home town. I SEE what a decrease in tourism does to my family, my friends, my neighbours, my community. And to punish them for BSL is, well, BS.
But yeah, stay away, and I’ll continue to stay here and fight for the removal of BSL. Thanks for your “support”.
Comment by K.B. — June 23, 2010 @ 5:44 am
K.B., we’re talking about traveling with your pets. What, exactly, do you expect someone traveling with their pet pit bull to do about Ontario? Other than avoid it entirely?
Comment by Lis — June 23, 2010 @ 7:38 am
The comment, to ME, was about everyone avoiding Ontario.
And yeah, I’m a BIT sensitive to the issue, since I live here. My work place just laid of HALF it’s staff, mainly due to the incredibly sucky tourist season. So anything that has even a WHIFF of “Don’t go to Ontario cuz it has BSL” annoys the $(#& out of me.
Oh, and can anyone find ONE story of a pit bull being stopped at any Ontario border, seized and destroyed? I understand anyone’s reluctance to test the law, but I’ve yet to hear of any rampant animal control patrolling the borders. Then again, living here, I see un-muzzled, young pit bull-type dogs all the time.
IMO, and again, my opinion only comes from, you know, actually living here and being a dog owner, many, many, many jurisdictions are ignoring the law. So yeah, don’t be afraid to visit here. Bring your dogs. All of you. In fact, THAT’S what I’d like to see - a combined effort, by pit bull owners, to show the utter ridiculousness of this law - everyone, pick a day and come on down. Animal control isn’t going to do anything if there are hundreds of you, and it might actually make the news in a positive light - something pit bull owners should be actively seeking out.
Now, I’m going to put on my anti-BSL t-shirt (the one bought to help support the legal bills racked up trying to repeal the law) and go weed the garden. Have a nice day.
Comment by K.B. — June 23, 2010 @ 8:26 am
Boycotts are supposed to hurt, that’s the point. The hope being that your government won’t want to see tourism reduced, people losing jobs, home sales down, etc. and they will step in and change the law. If they never see consequences what’s their incentive to change?
I’m sure there are people living in AZ who will be hurt by people who will boycott the state because of the their immigration law. It’s a casualty of a kind of war, which is, I’m sure, horrible to watch from the front lines. But it doesn’t mean the statement doesn’t need to be made.
Comment by Original Lori — June 23, 2010 @ 10:34 am
“Boycotts are supposed to hurt.”
Yeah, but they aren’t NOT supposed to hurt the actual people you are trying to help. And when my brother, my nephews, my niece, my neighbour lose their jobs, are all of you going to step up and help pay their bills? Their mortgages? Their tuition? Because at the end of the day, THAT is what a tourist boycott of Ontario does, and the law will remain the same. It’s so damn easy to sit behind your computers, and yell “boycott”, because none of this actually affects YOU. A boycott affects real, living, breathing people, people I KNOW, people like me, in fact, it affects ME.
Do you honestly think dog lovers avoiding Ontario is going to affect anyone other than those employed in the tourist industry? Do you honestly think the government, for one second, will equate the two?
Work on changing public perception. Work on raising funds for legal challenges. Work on providing support and effective training for current pit bull owners. Work on a dozen other things, things that are effective, instead of turning your backs, and effectively saying “not my problem, glad I don’t live there”. Because that’s the same as me saying “I’m not a pit bull owner, and never will be, so it’s not my problem”.
Comment by K.B. — June 23, 2010 @ 11:14 am
I’m not saying let’s not discuss the efficacy of boycotts, but we might want to remember that this is an area in which a tremendous amount of debate goes on, and it’s not related to pets, pit bulls or Ontario. It cuts across all political boundaries and issues.
I personally do believe in boycotts as long as they’re done well and effectively, while realizing they can and do cause collateral damage. I am boycotting the states of Utah and Arizona — as are MANY other people, companies, organizations and even entire states — even though I know there are many people in those states who do not support the homophobic and racists laws or acts of lawmakers or citizens of those states. I’m doing it because it, in turn, makes the business community put pressure on lawmakers to CHANGE THEIR POLICIES.
Boycotts work precisely because they hurt people’s pocket books — because local business concerns will get listened to even when a letter from some out-of-area citizen won’t. So if they’re organized and done effectively, they can indeed result in change.
That doesn’t make all boycotts right nor does it make them all effective. Opposing a specific boycott makes all the sense in the world. Opposing the tool of boycotting, period? Not so much.
Comment by Christie Keith — June 23, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
Oh, and can anyone find ONE story of a pit bull being stopped at any Ontario border, seized and destroyed? I understand anyone’s reluctance to test the law, but I’ve yet to hear of any rampant animal control patrolling the borders. Then again, living here, I see un-muzzled, young pit bull-type dogs all the time.
It’s legally possible for someone’s dog, whether pit bull or just a dog that some dim ACO decides looks like a pit bull, to be seized, and nobody wants their dog to be the test case. And no one owes it to you to have their dog be the test case. People’s travel decisions are not, in fact, all about you.
Oh, and unemployment in Ontario, I see, is currently at 8.9%. In Massachusetts, it’s 9.2%. In my city in Massachusetts, it’s 17%. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Comment by Lis — June 23, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Please turn down the vitriol and focus the discussion on issues, not personalities. Thanks.
Comment by Christie Keith — June 23, 2010 @ 11:57 pm