Subsidize Pet Owners!

My brother-in-law is hitting a little financial turbulence in his life. The spa his wife opened simply didn't make it despite endless hours of hard work and dedication; so much for build it and they will come. It was in the heart of old Montreal and I have to admit I wasn't crazy about the location. It's very hard to find parking down there. In fact, I rarely head into downtown Montreal anymore. With all the no parking signs, unfriendly parking meters scamming motorists, lack of parking spots leaving you only the option of paying $12 for the day in a parking lot and above all the traffic, who needs it? And no, I'm not about to use public transit. Give me an incentive to go downtown to fight the misery of crowds. When I was in school it was all so cool to be down there. Now that I'm older cool is chilling out in suburbia with no stress.

Anyway.

They already weren't making too much dough but still decided to purchase a dog. A pit bull no less. Not bad for two people who had zero experience with dogs. Instead of starting small and moving up to such a tricky breed, they went straight for it. Not only that, they went and got a second one because the first was "lonely."

Oi.

But that's just me. Old conservative. That is, I wouldn't even have bought a dog if my finances weren't set.

I know dogs are not that expensive (my sister has a peckler, whatever it's called. It's like a hot dog), but why add an expense when you least can handle it?

Now that they closed up shop, liquidity is tight, although my sister-in-law did find a good job in another fitness center.

But it got me thinking about something. Let's say their income flow couldn't justify maintaining two dogs. They would have been faced with the option of getting rid of them and that's a tough proposition as people get attached to their pets.

A little too attached I reckon sometimes. The other day a girl was sharing her ice cream with...her dog. It was disgusting. I know all about the "dogs mouth is cleaner than ours" routine. My other brother-in-law is always singing the praises of doghood ownership. Nevernonetheless, it's still gross.

Meh. To each his own.

Let's say they would have had to dump the dogs at the pound or something. This is where the nanny-compassion-state and the "oughta be a law" notion comes in.

Since we subsidize more and more (in-vitro fertilization is now offered in Quebec for "free"), it's not a stretch to believe somewhere down the line a lobby group or politician will advocate a law where it's not right for people to have to lose their pets since they're part of the family. Ergo, it will be up to society, under compassionate grounds, to subsidize dog owners.

Just something that entered my mind and don't tell me that's impossible. Every time we say that the impossible becomes a reality.