Here is an article from KSN.com, an NBC affiliate.
The article is about pets who have weight problems. For one pet, the problem is caused by the fact the dog cannot exercise. "She's had Dyplasia going on the last 3 years, and it's just gotten worse and worse, and now she's developed arthritis on top of it," said one pet owner.
Slentrol is the first diet drug for dogs approved by the F-D-A this month. The article discussed the 9-month weight-loss plans for dogs.
One pet owner is using a pet stroller to help her dog get around while she loses weight. "We try to exercise her, and we go on walks. everyone around here knows me as the lady with the stroller because Melani will only make it about halfway, and in the stroller she goes. She rides the rest of the way home!"
Of course, pets need exercise, and a pet stroller shouldn't be a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. Still, it's nice to know pet strollers can help pets with disabilities and who are struggling with weight issues, as a result.
Read the entire article at http://www.ksn.com/news/local/15045261.html.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
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/.
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/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
