"'For The Dogs' Has A Whole New Meaning"

As I was reading “’For The Dogs’ Has A Whole New Meeting” by Andrew Martin, I was asking myself the same questions as Professor Hollars. Should my family be spending more money for the things we feed our dogs? However, not once did I ask myself if I should be buying special candles, neuticles, or even spring fresh water for my dogs. After reading about Martin’s time at the Pet Expo, I asked myself how far would someone go to make sure his or her dog is “happy”? Which also brought up another good point; is a dog going to notice if they’re drinking spring fresh water or tap water? How do we measure how happy a dog really is? Martin references a man named Mike Pinkard and something he said about what it takes to make a dog happy. He says, “It was regular dog food. Make sure you give them water and exercise and you are in good shape”. It isn’t as if dogs have evolved since the “good old days” and they are still going to be happy if they have their owners time and love. If we can’t buy time, and time is all a pet needs, then why are we spending money on everything else? I think that one thing Martin does well is show both sides of the arguments in his article. On one end of the spectrum he understands the needs people have to satisfy their pets, and he also understands the insanity of how far this need has progressed. Another product Martin sees at the Pet Expo is a treadmill for dogs, and as the obesity epidemic in America rises do you think people would spend more time and money worrying about their dogs weight when in reality they should be buying a treadmill for themselves? Do you think it will get to the point where people will put their dogs health before his or her own health?