Can you help me articulate what the happy medium is between "there is no such thing as perfect pet ownership" and "a lot of common sense pet ownership advice is wrong"?
There is no such thing as perfect pet ownership, but staying educated from credible sources matters. I don't have a good framing for it in terms of what the medium is, but I get the question you're asking.
What I've noticed over the almost-decade of running this blog (yikes) is that most people really want to do better by theirs pets, and in doing so they turn to whatever resources are most accessible to them. If people aren't exposed to scientific resources about behavior - if they don't know they exist or can't access them - then it makes sense they'd rely on "folk wisdom" about pets that's online or their family member who has had lots of pets. And yeah, a lot of that easily available "wisdom" is based on outdated behavioral concepts or rumor, but that's the unfortunate reality of the information ecosystem we live in.
When you know better, you do better. And I've seen this play out for years and years here. So many asks the blog gets are from people who have either identified a gap in their knowledge and are looking to fix it, or from people who are really worried they've been a bad pet owner for doing xyz without knowing better. But not everyone has the same access to information about animal care. It's unkind and unproductive to condemn someone for not knowing they didn't know something. So I think for me the middle ground is wanting people to try to do their best by their animals, and be willing to change their management practices if they learn there's a better way.
Realistically, no pet ownership is perfect. There are going to be times people have to limit their animal's life (e.g. crate rest for an injury) or result in negative experiences (vet visits). The goal is to do the best you can with what you know and the resources you have, and if people are aiming for that, I'm happy with it.















