OK, let 'em have rights
And the responsibilities.
By Carl Bussjaeger, 1/27/2003

It seems a certain PRC municipality is going to designate folks with pets as "guardians" rather than "pet owners." Animals "rights" activists are cheering the move as recognizing that animals aren't mere property.

I see the potential for a little fun here.

If animals aren't property, that pretty much leaves "person" as the only remaining category. Uh huh, Fido is a person with all the rights of a person.

And the responsibilities. <eg>

People are expected to respect property. Next time some dog comes on your property and dumps your garbage can, call the cops and demand that the perpetrator be arrested, tried, and convicted of trespassing and vandalism. (Don't do this in Cookeville, Tennessee unless you hate dogs.)

Now you really can claim your pets as dependents on your tax forms.

And all those animals who aren't pets? The Taxman cometh, Bambi.

Do deer file environmental impact statements before allowing their "woodland sprawl" to extend their habitat into human cities? Well, they'd better start.

Hmm. Since PETA and Greenpeace like to claim to represent the animals of the world, what say we include them in lawsuits over animals' failures to comply with all the laws the rest of us "people" have to obey? Seems to me that RICO should apply to groups that organized to protect a favored group from the law.

This could be interesting. Well, I've got go figure out how to get Spot to sign his lease. Or toss his food dish out to the curb.

People pay up or get evicted.