“The Wild World of Animal Prostheses”

The title of the article didn’t draw in my attention very well. In this case the attention getter for the article was the first few sentences. The first paragraph causes the readers to be intrigued. It uses pathos. Using the examples of Motala, Fuji and Stumpy, Sayre pulls at the readers’ heartstrings. Giving the article a very strong emotional appeal and causes the reader to have the desire to keep reading.

The tone of the article was informative. Throughout the article there was a good balance between facts, quotes and explanation. The quotes are consistent and logically placed within the article. They add to the after every quotes the name of the person and their credibility was established.  By doing that the reader knows that this article has lots of ethos, adding to that, since the article was published in TIME magazine, the article has some previously established credibility.

 Yes, this article is directed to the general public because of where it was published. However, since the article discussed both animal and human prosthetics, I think this article appeals to people who are in need of prosthetics, specifically war veterans. In addition, the target audience is also people in the medical field or animal lovers.

 Overall I liked the article. I definitely learned a few things about both human and animal prosthetics. I liked how for every example of an animal prosthetic there then was a human prosthetic mentioned, making a good connection between humans and animals.  

 I think that everyone deserves to have working limbs. Depending on the circumstances, buying a dog neuticles, may be a little extreme. It ultimately depends on the owners of the animal. If they want to spend the money, perhaps feel guilty, and want the dog to be happy then they should purchase neuticles. My dog doesn’t have neuticles, is neutered, and his overall demeanor hasn’t really changed since the surgery. If prosthetics will help the animal or human then I think they should have them. 

"The Wild World of Animal Prostheses"

In a 2007 article published in Time magazine, author Carolyn Sayre engages the reader by telling the stories of mutilated animals, something that really pulls at the heart for animal lovers alike. She cleverly lures the audience in by giving a brief description of how each animal has been disfigured. In her next paragraph she switches from her sympathetic tone to something a little more uplifting, a solution to this problem, a cure of some soft. Sayre continues to further draw the reader in by giving us hope that these animal prostheses will eventually be able to help some of the 1.9 billion amputees living the Unites States; and in my book, this is a win-win.

One of my friends in high school had a three legged cat, something at seems quite outlandish, but for them it was completely normal; in fact, the cat coped quite well, it didn’t even seem to faze him. In my opinion, the idea of a prosthetic leg for a cat seems futile since they’re already so agile, but in the case of an elephant, it’s defiantly a game changer. After reading this article I fully support researching and finding ways to improve the overall quality and functionality of prostheses because not only will it improve the lives of these helpless animals but also, in the long run, it will help our human amputees live more normal lives.

 

“The Wild World of Animal Prostheses”

Motala The Elephant with her prosthetic leg

Sometimes people think that caretakers go too far to care for their pets and/or animals. In our previously article, we found out that we are spending an extreme amount of money on high-class food for dogs and other pets. But when we are spending money on prosthetics for animals to later benefit people, I’d have to say that that’s pretty okay. Yes, I know that animals don’t always react the same way to things the same way humans do, I get that, but sometimes there’s nothing for us to complain about (The only thing I’m not crazy about are Neuticles, ridiculous!). I myself would have a hard time adjusting to a prosthetic for an arm or leg and the fact that animals can do it so easily amazes me. I am a full supporter in giving animals prosthetics, but if the animal is very, very old, maybe not so much, know what I mean? When I read about Motala the elephants story about stepping on a land mine I was on the verge of tears, I am touched by this story that, after years of planning and testing, Motala got her foot back and is now leading a, somewhat, normal life. This is probably the best it will get for her. There was also something that I could (kind of, in a way) relate to throughout the article, and that was the ‘ingrowth’ prosthetics, otherwise known as osseointegration. This is relatable to be because I have teeth implants, two screws have been surgically implanted into my upper jaw so that I may have teeth again! But before I made that choice, I was given the decision of either that or just having the same retainer I had had for almost 8 years. This situation is very much like the decision that people would have to make for themselves, or even their animals, when deciding on a prosthetic. The decision I made was to get the implants done and it has forever changed my life, very much the same way it would change a dog’s life or even a human’s life to have the decision between the ingrowth prosthetic or the other option which just covered the area and you needed to wear a sling. If I had to make a choice, I would 100% go with the ingrowth procedure, and I would walk out with no regrets.

"The Wild World of Animal Prostheses"

When I first heard the title of this article, I thought it would be about three legged cats or dogs. I feel that these animals have almost become normal to bring up when discussing prosthetics, considering the large amount of three legged dogs and cats I know. For this reason, I wasn't necessarily interested until the author disclosed that the animals she was referring to were exotic animals that most people tend to feel affection towards; such as elephants, kangaroos, and dolphins. Instead of using humor, like the last author, Carolyn Syre used heartfelt stories of redemption. She then sprinkled these stories with facts and quotes from reputable people. She also involved the human side of this article by including stories of wounded soldiers and other individuals who need  prosthetic limbs. I think she used the perfect combination of pathos and logos that would keep any reader interested. 

Personally if my dog were to loose a limb, I wouldn't get her a prosthetic limb. I have seen quite a few dogs and cats with only three legs and from what I've witnessed they looked perfectly happy, and their life didn't look impaired by any means. Although, in the case of the elephant I think a prosthetic limb may be necessary for it to live a normal and happy life. 

Blog Leader: "The Wild World of Animal Protheses"

The theme of our blogs is “Animals and Us” and as I was reading “The Wild World of Animal Prostheses” by Carolyn Sayre, I was thinking to myself; there couldn’t be a better article to connect the evolving relationship humans have made to animals. For years humans and animals have been dependent on each other throughout experiments, testing, and research purposes. Sayre emphasizes this relationship through the many times she related it back to her intended audience; humans. She repeatedly explains that every prosthetic we make for an animal will help further the things we can do for humans, more specifically amputees. 

Right from the beginning she includes pathos. She wants us to feel something for the animals that have lost limbs before she explains the logos of how animal prosthetics work. Sayre’s audience is the average person, for TIME is a very common magazine, therefore the article continues to switch between logos and pathos so she could keep the general public interested. What do you think the effect of this pattern between the two was? Would you have stayed interested if she used more pathos? 

Something else that we have to take into consideration is the money we are spending for research on wild animals to receive prosthetics. Do you think it would become the normal for people to spend thousands of dollars on a prosthetic leg for their dog that will only live for a maximum of five more years anyway? I don’t know any three-legged pets but if we think about the money spent on dogs as it is, and add in what people would pay for prosthetics, we would be doubling our already tremendous budget of 58 billion. Now imagine your own pet, or the pet of someone you love…would you spend thousands of dollars on your pet for a leg when they would be perfectly happy and get used to hobbling around on three legs? 

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

See where the void is and fill it. New products and new art forms are often introduced when a creator takes this approach. Some voids are meant to be filled, while many others are filled simply because it's a new way to create a profit where there's no competition. Just because there's not a market for hamster swimming lessons doesn't mean there should be. Not all voids are meant to be filled. I think luxury pet products are one of these voids. According to Pet Pop of Australia their products originated because, "[they] saw there was a gap in the market for beverages for dogs."

In Martin's article the only proof provided that these products provide benefits to pets comes from the marketers themselves. The reliable source mentioned, a veterinary study of thousands of animals, hasn't even determined one pet food better than another. Therefore, the article did not persuade me to believe there's value in pet luxury items. The real value is in what Jim Myer's said, pet products are in a "pretty emotional category." As Americans we express gratitude by consuming and then giving to those we love and we love our pets.

I understand this human-pet relationship and my own experiences has led me to believe the money we spend is out of love, not necessity. My family dog just turned nine the other day with the health and energy of a four year old. Her dog food costs my family a dollar a pound. I found the same to be true this summer when I visited Happy Trails Kennels with some of the best canine athletes in the world. These dogs belong to a four time Iditarod winning kennel and their ordinary kibble averages a little over a dollar a pound.

For the Dog's Has a Whole New Meaning

In the reading "For the Dog's Has a Whole New Meaning" I was undecided about how I feel about the value of pet luxury items. For example, I understand spending extra money on pet food because pet owners want their pet to eat healthy and live a  long healthy life so they give them natural organic food without preservatives or food with real meat and vegetables but some of these luxury items I still don't understand. One in particular the article talks about is candles made specifically for dogs. these candles are called sniff pet candles and the prices can be up to $28.00. I think this is a little ridiculous because the money could actually go o the pets needs like vet bills, toys, and food it shouldn't be spent on items like this that are irrelevant to the pet.
      Also in the article it talks about how the CEO of Petco discusses that pet products are a "pretty emotional category". I actually agree with him . the reason I do is because us pet owners care a lot for are pets and love them to death which is the reason we want to get the best products for them such as food, water, and grooming material like shampoo even if it means spending a lot of money on them because I honestly I agree that it is how some pet owners show love to their pets. the reason why I believe this is because sometimes we are not with are animals all the time to show them the affection they need because we are dealing with work or school or other things that keep are life hectic so too make up fro the lost affection we cant give to our pet, we sometimes make up for it buy giving them things like new toys, new treats, and items like that.
   So from this article I believe that some things are worth spending the money on for are pets and others not so much. I came to this conclusion based on the authors bias and detail in the article like when he was talking about  the expensive food  and how they are made with real ingredients such as pumpkin and freshwater trout and the benefits from it ( keep pets body and teeth healthy). this made me think that spending extra on pet food is okay. but when he talks about buying bottles of water designed for pets and then comparing it to the price of a gallon of milk, it makes me think that some of these luxury items are way too much and spendy for the pet when we can get it just as good for incredibly cheaper

"'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning"

As I read, “’For the Dogs’ Has a Whole New Meaning, I found myself thinking about many things.  First of all, Andrew Martin did a great job of sharing his insights of his encounter with the luxury products for dogs. He also leaves his readers with knowledge as to how there are many people out in the world who are willing to spend such amount of money of their pets. This initial understanding of Martin’s thoughts had me questioning myself. Would I spend that amount of money on a pet? Because I grew up with dogs who came and went, I wondered if my family never kept a dog long enough because we didn’t give the dog its wants. Throughout this reading, I realized I never spent the extra money for the best brand dog food, nor did I spend extra money to buy the luxury products. For the high prices, I do believe that it’s worth it. Just like us human beings, we’d like the high-tech newest electronic device, the brand-name jeans. And I’m sure when we go to Wal-Mart we don’t always want to buy the Great Value brand because we want food that may be better for us. This should be the same for our pets and I really regret not treating my dogs’ better prior to giving them away. I believe that it’s okay to spend the extra money for your pets because they should be treated just like a family member. I believe that buying the luxury products will only show your love and appreciation more. And its true that we may never know how the dogs really feel or if they can even sense that we are putting in the extra for them; but if it can give you the satisfaction that you did something great for your pet, that should be all that matters.

"For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning"

Andrew Martin's article "For the Dogs" gives an interesting insight into what you can spoil your animals with and made me ask myself if there is such a thing as spoiling your animal too much. It amazed me to find out the kind of money that some people are willing to spend on their pets and hearing about all the different products that are now available to pamper your pet makes me wonder if some of the products are meant to be for your animals own good, or for the entertainment of the pets owner. Most pets should be considered apart of their owners family and I understand the impulse in trying to put cute clothes on your animal. At the same time unless you are doing it for warmth on a cool day, you are not only just doing it for your own entertainment, but also taking away your animals dignity.
 Beyond those accessories that are there to entertain the pets owner though, I think that if you want to get your pet something that will entertain it, or make it's life better, I don't disagree with letting your pet appreciate a gift from it's owner. I think that people tend to love their pets and not only does the pet benefit from getting a new play thing, but the owner also gets to enjoy vicariously the enjoyment from their pet. People are also spending more and more on food and I don't think it is a bad idea to spend a little more on what your animal eats. There is always an exception to the rule, but we are told that we are what we eat, so why should it be any different for your animal. Cheap cat food contains things in it that cats don't even eat in the wild so I think that spending a little more on food is a good idea.

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

I found this article very interesting as a dog owner myself.  As I shared in class I used to show my dog in 4-H and have seen some of these things in the way that people spoil their dogs and treat them more as children then as animals.  I understand completely the want to make your pet happy and treat them well.  This emotional appeal is what keeps the pet industry booming and people creating these absurd products such as “neuticles” that serve no purpose for the dog and only satisfy how the owner wants the dog to look while having the benefits of having the dog neutered.  Also, trying to give your dog human grade food to try and extend their life will not do much, especially for purebred dogs.  Many conditions that end dogs life are genetic or they just happen as the dogs age.  Paying for food that costs $4 a pound is simply ridiculous at least in my experiences.

There are certain products that do serve a purpose even though on the surface seem ridiculous.  While showing my dog I met a girl who now owns and runs her own company that does a variety of services that relate to dogs.  She owns a doggy treadmill because she owns border collies and Australian Shepherds that are high energy dogs and without regular exercise become destructive.  She sprained her ankle and was physically unable to take the dogs out.  The dogs needed something to do otherwise her furniture was going to turn to shreds over the next six weeks while she wasn’t allowed to put pressure on the ankle. 

            There are definitely two sides to every issue.  While some of these luxury items are somewhat necessary, the people who sell these items use emotions against their customers to convince them that their dog will be happier if they buy these things.  In reality if your dog is fed the right amount, given the correct amount of exercise, and you spend lots of time with it, it will be happy and healthy.

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

It Crossed my mind several times when reading "'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning" that people are crazy. Maybe I am old fashioned but I believe that we love our pets based on the experiences and memories we create. I loved how Martin started off by listing the food options as if he was looking at a dinner menu. But then he stated that this menu was for a pet. As a dog lover I always want the best for my pets but I have always fed them general processed food. So far everything has been fine and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. I personally don't think that the benefits of organic dog food is worth the cost. Science has no proof whether organic food is better than processed food. When asked about various types of pet food at megastore Dr. Buffington was quoted saying, "I don't even go in there anymore." Even the professionals are shocked by the variety. Historically, pets would have long and productive lives eating classic brands such as Kibbles n' Bits, Gravy Train, and Milk Bone. Why start pushing for organic pet food? My theory is that in todays society the lines between pet and human have crossed. Humans treat their pets and one of the family. Some humans have pets instead of children. People are "humanizing" pets to the point where healthcare, beauty, diet, and so on become part of a pets life. People think that once they have a pet there is a responsibility to give their pet the very best. I think that we can our pets the best but without breaking the bank. I enjoyed how the CEO of Petco said that, "thankfully, we are in a pretty emotional category." This means that people have created a market where demand for the newest, latest, and safest products will fuel an entire industry for decades to come. Companies are innovating new ways to walk your dog to minimize stress. This kind of market will always be around and will never fade because people love their pets. Martin has convinced me that luxury items does not determine the love for my animal.  Martin used cold, hard facts to show that a pets life is not enhanced with the purchase of organic food or new pet clothes. Martin interviewed scientists and CEO's to show the impact of luxury living. Finally, Martin used his experience of walking into a pet store and his shocking realization that people will go to great lengths to treat their pets. I feel that we should interact with our pets but not take things out control. We need to keep that tradition of "man's best friend."

'For The Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

I would say that the author of this article did a good job highlighting how owning a pet is ranked in the emotional category. He used statistics, personal stories, dialogue, and humor to outline just how far people will go for their pets. Personally, I cannot think of one individual who isn't emotionally connected to their pets.

This article definitely brought about conflicting emotions for me. I consider the idea of organic pet food generally great, but if it wouldn't lead to a majority of the food industry to become organic, then I think its quite ridiculous. If all humans don't have affordable access to healthy and organic food, then why should pets? To be completely honest, if I had a pet I would probably feed them the middle of the road pet food brands. Purchasing organic food wouldn't be very realistic for me and unless I was making exuberant amounts of money, I would probably never buy it.

I found the idea of neuticles absolutely appalling, but this was partially due to the price of them, and the fact that they would serve only as a basic decoration. I volunteered in Ghana a few years ago, and still to this day compare all of the ridiculous wants we have in the developed world, to all of the unfulfilled needs many people in developing countries still have. I just can't believe people would buy their animals neuticles or a running wheel, instead of funding projects around the world that would help better humans.

"For the Dogs Has a whole new meaning"

I believe that a dog may be considered man's best friend, but not man's equal. Upon reading this article I was taken back by the lengths people go to pamper their pets and show their love. As a pet owner myself I do believe that pets should be considered a member of the family, but I know for a fact my family does not dine on "pan seared duck with brown rice and blueberry compote" for dinner. I view a pet as something you can love and care for, but you do not need to pamper and elevate them to almost human status to let them know they are loved. Upon returning home for winter break, I noticed our dog was significantly rounder than he was when I left. Upon questioning my mother she explained that while my sister and I were at college he was "her baby" and she would share her breakfast and snacks with him and pamper him whenever he begged for attention.  Although I am sure my dog enjoyed this treatment, I am certain that he would have been just fine if he ate his regular dog food and went on a daily walk without extra special treatment. Also while on break I have seen evidence of how lack of special treatment does not at all lead to unhappiness in pets. While visiting relatives up north I got the opportunity to meet the neighbors dog. This old yellow lab lived outside behind the house and was blind in one eye, but trotted up to meet me with it's tail wagging seeming happy as can be. It is not the monetary value that determines how much you love your pet, but rather just putting forth the effort to properly care for it. It is entirely possible to provide nutritious food meant for pets, as opposed to something that could be mistaken for a three course meal in a restaurant, water, exercise and basic veterinary care to keep them content. A pet remains loyal to whomever feeds and cares for it, and I strongly doubt they will love their owners less if they do not feed them a gourmet meal each night.

Ian Godin

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

While reading this article I found myself really engaged, nodding my head and agreeing to some things while utterly disagreeing with others; I found this article to be particularly interesting because Martin not only gives us both sides of the industry but also some statistics, such as Americans spending $55 billion on their pets in 2010, and how the pet industry actually grew throughout the recession. It was fascinating to learn about some of the luxury items that people buy for their pets. I will be the first to admit, I have two dogs and I do buy them the occasional bone, chew toy, and sweater. I’m not ashamed, I love my pets, but I’m not going to show them my affection by buying them outrageously overpriced dog cupcakes, aromatherapy candles, or “vitamin-infused ‘ mountain-spring water’”. Maybe people buy these things because they want their pet to feel like a member of the family, I totally understand this, but is it really necessary to buy them overpriced organic dog food; whilst comparing the all-natural vs processed dog food, Tony Buffington, professor of veterinary nutrition at Ohio State, stated “if you put them all in a plain brown bag, you’d probably be fine with any one of them.” If this is really true, then why spend the extra money? Why would I waste hundreds of dollars a year buying my dogs’ pheasant, trout, salmon, duck, yak’s mil, venison, and organic vegetables when I don’t even buy those things for myself? I could easily find a better use for the money. What about when my dogs get a little overweight? Should I splurge and buy them their own personal treadmills? The fact that they even exist frightens me a little, the line between man and dog has been crossed, but more importantly, how far will society be willing to go before realizing this?

 

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

Growing up I never had the title of dog owner.  My family’s only pets consisted of my brother’s goldfish, which he had back when he was in middle school.  After reading Martin’s article “’For the Dogs’ Has a Whole New Meaning,” I couldn’t help but laugh at these insane new products that are being made for pets.  Again, maybe this is due to my lack of a family dog when I was younger, but these ridiculous new lifestyle pet owners are creating for their pets constantly intrigued me. The example of this luxurious lifestyle that I found the most appalling was the idea of neuticles.  This over priced procedure in a way contradicts the original procedure of removing the testicles of your pet.  How do we, as humans, know that this removal lowers their self-esteem or adds trauma to their life.  It might, but the price of the operation is far too high for an average family.  Just like many of these alternative foods, treats, exercise equipment, and any other inventions they are coming up with. If I were a dog owner my dog would be a Kibbles ‘n Bits dog, and I would take him on plenty of walks, versus getting him his own person treadmill, that way we both can stay in shape.  Appealing to the audience through humor, Martin’s is successful in revealing the extensive changes people take to provide them with what is “best” for them.  However, there is no really solid evidence saying one is better than the other.  This doggy lifestyle adds to the billions of dollars spent every year on pets, however, as Martin clarifies much of it can only be seen by celebrities or high income people, not the typical family.

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

                As I first started reading the article I found myself thinking, what has being a pet owner come to? I can understand that people want what is best for their pets but, in reality all they really usually want is attention. Of course, I have splurged occasionally to buy my puppies some expensive treat or toy on a special occasion but not all the time. By reading the article I wasn't persuaded at all that I need to buy my pets more luxury items, I was merely shocked how many new products are now offered for pets. The most shocking advancement to me was the prosthetic testicles. I understand that getting a dog spayed or neutered does change their demeanor but they usually bounce back fairly well. I see prosthetic testicles as an unnecessary luxury.  

Where will it end!?

           Two weeks ago when I first took my new puppy to the vet, she asked me what dog food I gave my dogs. I told her Beneful without hesitation because that is what we have always fed our dogs and they have usually lived very long healthy lives. However, she told me that Beneful was sort of a middle of the pack dog food and that I should consider a different more “organic” brand that is better for my dog. The same thought occurred to me while I was reading this article as it did when I brought my dog to the vet. Is this new, healthier, organic dog food really beneficial to my dogs? I have owned dogs for as long as I can remember and we have fed them everything from table scraps to pieces of chocolate cake. Personally, I believe that if a person takes good care of their pet they can live long happy lives as long as they don’t need special food because of medical issues.

           The author of this article, Andrew Martin, did keep drawing me in because of his facts and statistics. He didn't cover just one angle he took points from many different people to make a well-rounded article. While reading I realized just how much people want to please their animals. However, do dogs really understand how long a person leaves them alone or how good or bad the

ir dog food is for them? Love for an animal isn't measured by what you buy for them but how much attention you give them. Of course there are the people who believe that buying expensive things for a dog proves your love for them. Even the Petco CEO admitted that people tend to let their emotions control what they buy for their pets. However, what proves that our pets today are happier with their more expensive lifestyles then our pets were 30 years ago?

"For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning"

The article "For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning" by Andrew Martin discussed the common trend of the ways people are treating their animals. Today, many people are giving their animals higher quality foods, better toys, and paying more for the best care possible. Some people are treating the animals so well that they sometimes put their animals before themselves. Pet owners today are trying to make sure that their animals are living the best possible life they can provide for them. I fall under the category of a pet owner of both a cat and a dog. To answer Professor Hollars' question, I would say that Andrew Martin's article did not so much persuade me to give my animals a more luxurious life because I feel that my pets live a pretty good life. We love our pets to the point that they are part of the family and yes, we definitely do spoil them. I would agree that the amount of money that people spend on their pets does show that this is a "pretty emotional category" because I found the 55 billion dollars to be an outrageous amount of money to be spent on pets. Our family gives our pets all the necessary care and then some, so I would say yes, people do spend vast amounts of money on their pets to show their love. Martin also leads us to this conclusion because he gives the facts on the extremes people will go to make their animals have a good life, and he even provides his reader with some statistical facts on the amount of money people spend. Also, he tells the reader how some of the foods we provide for our animals is eatable for humans, which i found crazy! I am not one to buy the special top brand dog food or the best possible toys for my pets, but I love my pets and they do live pretty awesome lives.

"'For the dogs' has a whole new meaning"

This article does a good job outlining exactly how silly some of our decisions regarding our pets really are, but then what is the line between silly and warranted animal products.   

I found this article particularly interesting as I come from the perspective of an environmentalist and a pet owner. Many of the products and perspectives that Martin looks at would not be out-of-place in an environmental agriculture debate. Both subjects wrestle with the question, is "the best" worth it? I have a friend that only eats all natural, free range, organic, it goes on and on, I'm not supposed to eat that noodle, or this vegetable but when it comes to her cat anything goes. He gets the cheap stuff, full of artificial flavors and binding agents, the opposite of what she consumes. Does this mean she doesn't love her cat? 

I don't think so, he appears healthy and content, but how do we really know? In the post "Pets as children" wonders, is it more for our human gratification? I would say at lest some part of our pet products are for us, and I think part is for our pet, however I have no idea how much is for each. I have a rabbit and he loves food, I know I give him much more than he needs. I very often say that I stress feed my rabbit, and I know it's almost all for my pleasure. He always keeps eating but I know he doesn't need the food. My rabbit is also a picky eater, such as he only eats brand name oatmeal, uncooked and only the "old-fashioned" kind, if you try to give him anything else he will not eat.  Which bring me back to my first question, is "the best" worth it? My rabbit will not eat organic oatmeal, so should I feed him the regular kind that he likes or should I cut that out of his diet completely? Its his favorite treat and he would be crushed if I stopped giving it to him but he probably shouldn't be eating it anyways. Its fattening, not good for the environment, and doesn't offer any form of nutritional value. 

This raises the question, is short-term enjoyment or long-term wellbeing better? Each of us ask this question before we eat anything, and the answer to this question dictates a lot of what we eat; so shouldn't we ask ourself this question when feeding our pets as well? 

'For the Dogs' Has a Whole New Meaning

To be honest, the whole time I was reading this article I was laughing to myself. I thought a little bit about if maybe organic pet food is better, but I thought about the pets I've had and how they seemed to be perfectly happy. My family always fed our pets regular dog or cat food, nothing organic or specialized, made sure they always had water and took our dog on a lot of walks. I don't believe we need to pamper our pets as much as some people believe we do. The Neuticles, treadmills for dogs, aromatherapy candles and water that costs as much as a gallon of milk seems ridiculous too me. Is your dog or cat really going to benefit so greatly that you need to spend all of this money on lavish items? Some of the things these people are marketing for pets, I wouldn't buy the human version for myself. All the organic food is so expensive, and yeah it's good for you and maybe your pet, but in the end is it really worth the money? Without proper evidence showing these luxury items truly benefit our pet, I don’t think they are necessary. I think the luxury pet items are just another way for humans to show off the money that they can spend. I believe that as long as you are not harming your pet in anyway you are going to make your pet happy, whether they have all the luxury items or not.