‘Feels a little bit strange’: Proposal for $20k pet cemetery as alternative to cremation

Key Concepts

• Pet Cemetery
• Cremation
• Urns
• Rental Property Considerations
• Environmental Impact
• Online Pet Monitoring

Pet Cemetery Development in Banickburn

A new pet cemetery is being developed on a remote property in Banickburn, with an estimated cost of $20,000. The owners propose this as a viable option for pet owners who do not wish to keep their pets' ashes in an urn at home or bury them on their property, especially if they are renters and may move in the future. The property is located approximately 550 meters off the road and features slopes and proximity to a river. The developers claim the cemetery will not harm the environment and will aid in vegetation.

Personal Perspectives and Criticisms

One speaker expresses skepticism about the necessity and cost of a pet cemetery, stating, "I think this is a huge waste of money." Despite loving their own pet, they would not opt for a pet cemetery. A significant point of interest for this speaker is the inclusion of cameras at the site, intended for protection and, more notably, to allow owners to "peer in and look at it online, just check in on your pet in the cemetery online." This feature is perceived as "a little bit strange."

Rationale for Pet Burial Services

The discussion acknowledges that people often treat their pets as family members and may desire to provide them with a burial similar to that of a human family member. For renters, in particular, the options for dealing with a deceased pet are limited if cremation is not chosen. While flushing a goldfish is mentioned as a possibility, it is not an option for larger pets like cats. Therefore, a burial solution is necessary if cremation is not pursued. The speaker believes that such a service, if priced appropriately, could be financially successful and potentially generate revenue for the council.

Clarification on the Cemetery's Functionality

A crucial point of clarification is raised: the pet cemetery is not for traditional pet burials. Instead, it requires animals to be cremated first. The cremated remains are then placed in an urn, which is then stored above ground at the cemetery. This leads to the argument that the facility essentially functions as a "storage place for urns" rather than a burial ground. The speaker questions why individuals would not simply keep the urn at their own home, especially since they are already paying for cremation. The logic is that if one is concerned about burying a pet on their property and then moving, carrying the urn with them to a new residence seems more practical than leaving it at a dedicated facility.

Potential Benefits and Closure

Despite the criticisms, the idea is acknowledged as potentially beneficial for some individuals, offering "nice closure for people" when dealing with the loss of a pet. The speaker recalls the common dilemma of deciding what to do with a deceased pet and suggests this service might address that uncertainty.

Anecdotal Evidence of Pet Burial

An anecdote is shared about finding pet remains in a backyard during redevelopment, highlighting the historical practice of burying pets at home. The speaker mentions having "put away" numerous cats in their parents' garden over the years since childhood, illustrating a long-standing, informal approach to pet loss.

Conclusion

The discussion revolves around a proposed pet cemetery, highlighting its cost, location, and the controversial inclusion of online monitoring. While acknowledging the emotional bond between owners and pets and the practical challenges of pet disposal for renters, significant questions are raised about the cemetery's actual function as a storage facility for cremated remains rather than a traditional burial site. The economic viability and the perceived necessity of such a service are debated, with some viewing it as a potential money-making scheme and others as a source of closure for grieving pet owners.