kraut wrote:

I disagree with the statement on
http://members.shaw.ca/black-sky/rainbow-bridge.html where it says:

"When an animal dies that has been especially close
to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge."

I believe that ALL pets go there whether the have a loved one here or
not and wait for someone that did not have one as it says in the
original, unsdulterated version of the Rainbow Bridge at
http://petloss.com/

I like that better, too. Why should only pets who had loved ones get
to go someplace nice after they die? The ones who had nobody need it
even more.

Another question. Not trying to be a smartass here, I'd be really
interested in answers: How come the pets who go to the RB wait only
for humans? What if their best friend was another kind of animal?
Wouldn't they wait for them?

Also, what if an animal had several different well-loved companions
in their life, perhaps of various species? And if those left behind
don't all die at the same time, then the first one to die will meet
up with the pet at the RB, and they'll go off over the bridge together.
Then when another of the left behind dies, there's nobody waiting for
them. No fair.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be contentious here. Now, you could
accuse me of being a bit too literal. But I just don't think that
people, animals, or combos of people and other animals pair off in
just twos. Most of us, human and non-human alike, have many loves
throughout our lives. I certainly wouldn't want to die knowing that I
only had one person (or pet) waiting for me! I want a whole welcoming
committee!

Joyce