I've gotten a lot of feedback from both camps. The "owners" faction naturally points out that once you provide for the housebreaking/ taming of the animal, and the requisite vaccinations, you then have a pet, or even a companion, for the life of the animal. But I find the arguments of the "lease" faction very persuasive. The ubiquitous (as you know) pet lease companies provide a pre- trained/tamed (as in, guaranteed not to bite unless unduly provoked) animal. Where applicable, the animal will also be pre- housebroken. Veterinary maintenence is in most cases, provided for in the lease. The lessee only needs to provide sustenance (i.e. food and water) for the agreed-upon duration of the lease. Also, I like all sorts of animals, and the leasing option (allowing for a lease agreement of 1 year) would allow me to experience the joys of 5 different animals - say, a dog, cat, hedgehog, python, and ferret - in as many years. So there is an undeniable advantage there. Any thoughts?