Depending on the pets, sometimes two can be less work than one. They entertain each other and play together, resulting in less destruction and less demand for attention from their owner. That probably all goes out the window with more than two though!
Hard for me to understand people having several pets. I had one and it was somewhat demanding
The threshold that someone considers “too many animals” is always the number they have plus one.
We have 3 cats. I don’t understand how my wife’s best friend does it with the amount of pets they have. They have 2 ferrets, 2 cats, and 4 dogs.
For us it’s feet
Pet feet cannot outnumber human feet, full stop. Otherwise you lose control and are no longer in charge.
It’s a working theory but so far has been accurate.
I see a couple of flaws
A person living on their own could have any number of fish, a single bird, any number of snakes, etc.
Drake pointing ^^
We’re at a tie right now then. 4 people and 3 cats. The theory seems to have a giant loophole for snakes and fish though.
More a loophole or feature. Fish are easy to take care of same with snakes. You can feed em and head out of town without worry etc.
Bird has two legs.
It’s not an actual rule we every invented and then followed. But more, one we ended up realizing waaaay after the fact.
Does one cat only have two feet or do two cats have three?
Or does one human have 4?
there are a few cats that have 2 feet, even less
Cat or dog witb back leg wheely basket counts as two legs…
Or bird.
Soooo, what about pet snakes?
That’s a divide by zero issue. Snakes and fish don’t count against quota.
Depending on the pets, sometimes two can be less work than one. They entertain each other and play together, resulting in less destruction and less demand for attention from their owner. That probably all goes out the window with more than two though!
For guinea pigs 2 is the minimum. They get depressed if lonely. They are not that demanding though and more piggies is barely more work
Well yes, but cats.
You serve them obediently.