I have a problem with vacations.

My problem is that I want one. Might even go so far as to say that I NEED one. 

It’s been several years.

The thing is–I have trouble taking a vacation because there are so many more lasting and responsible things we could do with our money.

If we had money, that is.

One of our cars, a Volkswagen Jetta, is 11 years old. Our other car, a Toyota Matrix, currently has a broken windshield, no hubcaps, and a V100 sticker holding the back bumper on. But it’s nearly paid off–and not a moment too soon, as we’re inching ever closer to reaching the national average for credit card debt.

Our clothes dryer is contemplating a career change (it aspires to be the first icebox with tumbling action), while our air conditioner is going through menopause (unpredictable hot flashes, general moodiness, considerable whining).

Our yard was recently blessed by the appearance of a small pool of black, mucky goo with a scent dogs find irresistible. Black gold? Texas tea? No such luck, although I could bottle and sell this Eau de Swamprot and fund one fine vacation, except few dogs carry cash and the allure of this fragrance doesn’t cross over to humans.

I’m a practical person. I understand the difference between a need and a want. I get that it would be irresponsible to traipse off to the beach to get sunburned and sand flea bitten and jellyfish stung. I’ve calculated the cost of gas to the closest beach and back, have added up how long it would take, how much we’d likely spend eating out.

It’s simply not going to happen. There are more pressing priorities.

Generally, I’m good with priorities. Except I can’t stop thinking about my daughter, who turns 11 this week.

I want to play in the waves and the sand with my girl before she’s too grown to enjoy doing such things with her mom. I want to take her to tacky souvenir shops and spend ages trying to convince her we don’t need to liberate hermit crabs. I want to drag her out of bed before dawn so she can experience the sun as it rises over the water.

But at the same time, I want to teach her that we don’t always get what we want. That sometimes, we have to do without, that we have to work extra hard to save up for a trip.

And that, with a little creativity, we can have a decent vacation right here at home.

We can go to the wave pool or maybe put up at tent near the woods at my parent’s house. Have a campfire. Roast marshmallows and cook hotdogs on a stick.

We can go to Blenko Glass and watch the glass blowers. Go fishing at Ridenour. Take a canoe ride down the Coal River.

We can rearrange furniture (her idea of fun), trade bedrooms, sleep in sleeping bags on the living room floor. Hang out at the dog park.

Spend a day (or three) collecting and pricing stuff for a yard sale, then have the yard sale.

And start building our savings for a trip to the beach. 

I wasn’t going to post these since I’m thinking about doing a story on some of my recent projects, but I’m just so charged up about how this one turned out that I have to show off and post it.

This is a picture of my fireplace before I got started. That pile of wood in front of it is a disassembled antique fireplace mantle I got at the Habitat for Humanity ReStore for $40.

And this is after…

The miniature fireplace-looking thing used to be a firewood box, but since our fireplace is gas and we didn’t need it for that, I decided to make it into a little dog house. The entire project came in right at $75, and it completely changed the feel of the room.

I love doing this kind of work. Wish I could do it full-time, except I’m the slowest worker imaginable. I still need to do some kind of tile around the fireplace opening, but I’m not sure what. I bought a couple cheap tables ($10) at ReStore to practice on.

Don’t believe Kermit D. Frog for a second. It’s actually pretty easy being green. So easy that some of us didn’t even realize that’s what we were. 

For instance, I was trying to decide what to do with an old recliner that was too stained to donate, but too comfortable to throw out, when my daughter said, “Let’s put it out back. It’s better out there than in a landfill somewhere.”

Since our porch is covered and private, and since we had no real outdoor furniture to speak of, I saw no harm in temporarily “repurposing” the chair.

“Repurposing” is one of those green words the ecologist types are constantly tossing around, like “carbon footprints,” “eco-friendly,” and “harmonically grown.” Those who repurpose are “converting an item for use in another format,” which is something most of us frugal types have been doing for decades. I doubt I’ve thrown out a Cool Whip container, shoebox, or rubber band in my life.

Someone needs to start a movement to drop these goofy enviro-words and call it what it really is-frugal. Although I’d just as happily settle for “economical,” “thrifty” or “cheap.”

It’s like some marketing genius repackaged the concept of being thrifty and thoughtful into something that even the recklessly wealthy would feel obliged to do, lest they risk being viewed as a bad “global neighbor.” 

According to a Greenbiz report, there were 2,400 trademark filings in the United States last year that included the word “green” in some fashion, more than twice as many as in 2006. There were more than 900 applications for trademarks that began with “eco-.”

Seems a day doesn’t pass without a news story about green architecture, green clothing, or even green speed-dating, which is a trendy new way for eco-extremists to meet. A recent NPR story on “verdant” speed-dating told of one potential green suitor who made the mistake of driving his Land Rover to the event.  I’m betting he left alone. 

Many of us long-time cheapskates and packrats didn’t even know we were playing, and yet here we are, way ahead of the game. Those ratty clothes we held onto long after they were no longer stylish-they’re now called “vintage.” Our mismatched chairs, plates, and silverware have “eclectic charm,” and our chipped and paint-faded furniture is now “shabby chic.”

I love that hanging your clothes outside to dry on a line is no longer a sign to your neighbors that you can’t afford a dryer. I’m tickled that driving a small car is now admired, not pitied. Still, I’m not quite ready to buy into Celeste’s argument that a couple of goats would be more green than a lawnmower, or my husband’s counter suggestion that we not mow at all.

There are different shades of green-ness. I expect we fall somewhere around a light sage. 

After Celeste and I moved the recliner out to the porch, then covered it with an old cloth shower curtain, we stepped back to assess how it looked. 

“It looks lonely,” she said.

She helped me drag a not-quite-as-stained chair, an orphaned ottoman, and a seen-better-decades coffee table out there to join it.

It was a far cry from the vision I once had for our porch. I’d wanted to tile the floor and paint the pillars and hang ceiling fans. Maybe a built-in fire pit. Still, this looked comfortable and inviting.  And it required just a smidgen of labor and didn’t cost us a cent. 

Perhaps we’re not really green. We’re just lazy and cheap.  

I thought I’d post a few new pictures of the girls. That’s Lucy on the left and Ethel on the right.

Lucy’s the friendliest by far, but Ethel can be sweet. Both seem to like nothing more than to sit on my shoulder and watch old episodes of Law & Order. (I think they like Benjamin bRatt.)

In last Sunday’s column, I expressed surprise over the large number of online voters at the Gazette-Mail Pets website who were opposed to a mandatory spay/neuter law. I thought the need for such a law seemed to be a no-brainer.

Seems the no-brainer was me. Although the need for spaying and neutering wasn’t disputed, the wisdom behind imposing a law requiring the procedure was heavily questioned.

Wrote T.F. Workman, “The opposition isn’t to a spray/neuter program. The opposition is to ANOTHER LAW. Americans are slowly legislating away our civil liberates. We need to stop trying to legislate common sense or good habits. I think almost everyone would agree pets should be neutered or sprayed, but we don’t want to be forced to do so by law. Some of us are just plain scared by the trend to pass legislation for everything.”

In the forums of the Gazette-Mail Pets website, Firewolf4 wrote, “By making spaying and neutering mandatory, you’re infringing on the rights of pet owners. Since pets are considered property, you’re in direct violation with the Constitution.

“The only ones who will be impacted will be the responsible pet owners who take pet ownership to heart-not because it’s mandated, but because they see themselves as the guardians of their animals. Backyard breeders and puppy millers don’t care what laws are on the books. They’ll break them anyway.”

Firewolf4 also asked, “Who’s going to pay the medical bills when the municipality is sued for wrongful death of a pet [due to] complications [for a procedure that] was mandated? You guessed it-the tax-paying public.”

Wrote Vicki Aucremanne, “When something like this is made mandatory, many folks will simply give up their pets because the surgery is so expensive. If it’s too expensive now, what changes with a mandatory law? We have to work with people, through education and other venues, to help animals find new homes.”

Aucremanne included a link in her email to an article called, “The dark side of mandatory licensing and neuter laws,” put out by nokilladvocacycenter.org, that warns against mandatory type laws requiring pet sterilization because they’re often written in such a way that those who don’t comply can have their animal seized, impounded, and euthanized, while the fines for lesser offenses can be so substantial that large numbers of animals end up being dumped at shelters or abandoned, and people refuse to care for homeless strays. 

The article cited research that shows that the main reason pet owners fail to alter their pets is the cost and the lack of access to spay/neuter services. “The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance.” 

So what is the answer? We need to find ways to make the procedure so simple and affordable there’s no reason for pet owners not to have it done. 

One caller said his idea for a possible solution came after hearing that the late billionaire Leona Helmsley had left $12 million to her dog. “An interest-bearing national trust fund should be set up and administered by the ASPCA. Anyone could donate to the fund, and I think there are plenty who would. The interest earned from the money could be used to help fund spay and neuter programs in every state.”

Another emailer, philbarboxers, asked, “Why can’t the state offer a license plate for vehicles with an animal theme, then donate a dollar or such towards the spay/neuter of pets in West Virginia?”

I was alerted to the existence of the FOHO Spay Mobile, which is a traveling low-cost spay/neuter clinic that operates within a 50-mile radius of their home base in Huntington. (They’ve attempted to get legislation passed allowing them to extend their borders so they can travel statewide, but have not been successful.) The mobile spay/neuter clinic was purchased in 2001 through a donation from Laura Davis of Clarksburg. 

Vicki Aucremanne wrote, “We need to work on getting low-cost clinics in place to help people. We have low cost rabies clinics. Why not work locally to create low cost spay and neuter clinics?”

I imagine most vets are swamped with requests to provide some kind of free or discounted service. I was once in a vet’s waiting room when an injured dog was rushed in by a stranger who saw it get hit by a car, and I listened as the vet agreed to treat the animal even though no one there was willing to pay. Later, he told me that if he’d refused, everyone in that waiting room would’ve thought him cold-hearted. It would’ve damaged his reputation and their image of him. 

While most veterinarians have chosen their profession because of their love for animals, they still have a business to run. We can’t expect them to discount their services to the point where they’re losing money, but hopefully, we can find a middle ground that will satisfy them while also enabling more people to be able to afford to alter their pets.

Are there any vets out there who would like to add their two cents? Send me an email at karinfuller@cnpapers.com.

While tending the Gazette-Mail Pets website, I was astounded by the response to a recent poll: “Do you believe we should have mandatory spay/neuter laws in West Virginia?”

The question seemed a no-brainer. People who visited a pet-oriented web site would surely understand the need to fix their pets.  But nearly 3,000 responders voted No. 

Over the past several years, I’ve become more aware of the plight of animals in our area. The stories I hear about unethical breeders and negligent owners have brought me to tears many times. I’m stunned by the number of animals put down each year when homes can’t be found. 

I’ve read about states enacting mandatory spay/neuter laws and thought, That’s what we need! How could anyone oppose such a logical solution?

But some people claim altering their animal changes their pet’s look (for instance, male Rottweilers neutered before six months tend not to have the big head male rotts are known for). Others who have paid a hefty price for a full breed plan to sell the offspring to help recoup the cost. But whatever the reason-regardless of whether or not it’s self-serving-the problem of mass euthanizations is undeniable, and solutions have to be found.

Puppy mills, backyard breeders, and legitimate breeders continue pumping out puppies and kittens by the thousands while an even greater number of pups and kittens (many of them thoroughbreds) are being euthanized in our shelters. At the same time, owners are allowing intact animals to roam and indiscriminately breed, thus producing even more unwanted puppies and kittens.

According to an article by the Best Friends Animal Society, “Eighty percent of the pet overpopulation problem is caused by 3% of pet owners, many of whom are low income.” Even if that statistic is off, it still highlights a good place to start. A big way to control the pet overpopulation crisis is to make spaying and neutering accessible and affordable. 

Overpopulation and euthanasia should not be a concern limited to pet owners and animal lovers, but also to those who earn their living treating animals. Many veterinarians volunteer or cooperate with animal shelters to offer reduced cost spay and neutering.  Perhaps some of them could take it one step further by offering a no-profit spay and neuter program, enabling all pet owners to affordably alter their pets, not just those willing to ask for financial assistance. 

There are always going to be animals that aren’t adoptable because of personality issues, because they’re difficult to housetrain, are destructive or hyperactive or have a medical condition that makes them too expensive to maintain. And there are always going to be dogs who aren’t place-able simply because they’re too big. Most people want small. Or because they’re black. (There’s apparently a prejudice against black dogs. Fewer black dogs are adopted than all others.) 

An employee at the Central California SPCA, which receives over 50,000 animals a year, wrote, “Look into the faces of our euthanasia technicians after they have compassionately spent an entire day extinguishing the lives of many wonderful animals because there is no place on earth for them to go. Anyone who opposes this should sit for one day at our front desk, spend an hour in our euthanasia room, or one minute in our freezer. Our animals deserve better.”

There are plenty of good people who do the right thing without being forced, but far too many don’t. It seems the first step might be to make the procedure affordable and easily accessible, and then the selfish people who still refuse to do the right thing will stand out. 

Share your suggestions on how to combat pet overpopulation, and voice your opinion about a mandatory spay/neuter law at karinfuller@cnpapers.com.