An expensive waste of time. Cloning is complicated and has a high chance of producing damaged individuals. There is nothing morally wrong with it, but a lot practically wrong. And when there are plenty of perfectly normal pets available, why waste time and money?

g'day Janacide, Thank you for your question. I think it would be a bad idea. For a start it has a low success rate. According to Wikipedia, "The success rate of cloning has been low: Dolly the sheep was born after 277 eggs were used to create 29 embryos, which only produced three lambs at birth, only one of which lived, Dolly. Seventy calves have been created from 9,000 attempts and one third of them died young; Prometea took 328 attempts, and, more recently, Paris Texas was created after 400 attempts. Notably, although the first clones were frogs, no adult cloned frog has yet been produced from a somatic adult nucleus donor cell." In my mind, it would be unethical to put animals through this to become pets. It is also expensive with Little Nicky the first cloned cat costing $50,000 especially when you can buy pets relatively cheaply. Finally, we like our pets for their individuality and cloning would end that. For those reasons and others, the Humane Society and other animal welfare organisations are opposed. I have attached sources for your reference. Regards References Wikipedia Cloning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Dolly_the_Sheep President's Council on Bioethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President%27s_Council_on_Bioethics Livescience http://www.livescience.com/cloning/ Wikipedia Pet Cloning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_cloning Humane Society http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/hsus_statement_on_the_cloning_of_pets.html

I think they're a little too expensive for me, at $50,000 per clone. But it's not for me to say how other people should spend their money. Obviously, it's worth that much to somebody, or they wouldn't be getting much business.