Since so many families have dogs (and cats) that are treated as family members, why shouldn't we include them as family on our trees? Yes, it sounds a bit loony but these loving animals are so much more than "pets." As mentioned, they sleep with us (sometimes nose to nose), have misadventures (that can rival episodes of "I Love Lucy," and simply have life experiences that we never forget, i.e., from just growing up and getting old to having puppies or kittens. And, of course, we mourn them after they have spent a lifetime of giving us unconditional love.   Now, I started to add a pet on Ancestry. No problem listing the dog under Mom and Dad, but then again, they aren't really our siblings. They can't marry. (Will this ever become a civil rights issue like gay marriage? I don't think so. In the end, I removed the dog from the family tree. However, there is no reason that we shouldn't write up their life stories and save them as we save the memories of all of our ''loved ones."   What do you think? From: Margaret Toole <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [NORCAL] Want to help Index the 1940 Census? Anyone can be part of the indexing of the 1940 census. Click on the link to the page with the information.  You have to download the indexing software....www.the1940census.com/ ....Margaret ----------------------------------------- NORCAL ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/ Enter NORCAL.  Browse by month. Or click the "Search all archives" link to search by keyword. ----------------------------------------- To post a message to the NORCAL mailing list, send an email to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message