Salon mentions Pet Strollers

Salon, a wonderful e-magazine I enjoy reading, recently featured an article about pets and veterinary bills, and this article mentions pet strollers. The author notes that we pet lovers are shelling out more and more for vet services, and she attributes is to several causes:

One is the "increasing acceptance of the notion that pets are family members." The second is that pets are increasingly getting the same treatments as chemo and dialysis.

The last, according to the author, is the luxur-ification of pet's lives. The article states, "For those who can afford it... there's no shame in spending disgusting amounts of money on stylish sweaters, "doggy daycare," Prozac and $400 pet strollers (yes, pet strollers)." The implication is that pet strollers are frivolous and unnecessary--a silly luxury, in the eyes of this editorialist.

I don't disagree with the author about the luxur-ification of pet's lives, but I wonder why she has to be so negative about pet strollers. As mentioned elsewhere on this blog, many people get pet strollers for good reasons. Some have pets who are old or injured; some want to keep their pets safe on busy city streets on their way to parks; some want to take longer walks than their pets so they walk their pet part of the way and stroll them the rest; some use pet strollers to permit their cats to safely get fresh air; and many cat and dog lovers simply want to spend more quality time with their pet.

By mentioning the upper end of pet stroller costs and referencing pet strollers as she has, the author has diminished a legitimate product with serves a legitimate need for many pet lovers. I think it is too bad when journalists don't take more care.

To read the entire article, visit http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/02/08/my_1300_cat/.