A Dog of Property

My dog Peterkin has a lot of possessions. I did a brief inventory yesterday, and I counted the following: 2 dog beds, 1 traveling crate, 2 everyday water bowls (plastic), 2 ceramic water bowls, one small and one large, 6 feeding bowls, consisting of 5 small white Corelle bowls and 1 ceramic dog dish with a tasteful pattern of bones on the outside (His cousin Monique the poodle has an identical bowl. They were received as Christmas presents a few years ago.), about a dozen dog toys, mostly stuffed, with at least 2 soft plastic toys, 1 collar (with dog license, rabies tag, and ID tag), a harness and 2 leashes (4-foot and 6-foot), combs, brushes, and other grooming tools, shampoo and conditioner from Drs. Foster & Smith, cans and packages of dog food, pills (he takes a small dose of phenobarbital twice a day), tooth brushing paraphernalia that he refuses to use, several towels, including the infamous "green towel" that lives near the back door and is used for feet wiping, and an inexpensive fleece throw from Walmart that is known as his "nesting material." The nesting material is usually in a heap on "his" chair in the living room. I have probably missed a few things, but Peterkin is definitely a dog of property. Yorkies have their own laws of property, by the way, which it is well to know and obey.

Now, a dog of property is a legal conundrum. In law, dogs are property, so they can't own property. Only "persons," real (people) and artifical (corporations), can own property. Peterkin does not like being thought of as property, although he can't deny the fact that he was purchased from a breeder for the sum of $650.00 plus tax. Plus tax! Yes, I had to pay sales tax on him, so Peterkin is most certainly property. When I told my mother about this, she made two observations: 1) She never would have bought Peterkin because he was a boy, and everyone knows boy dogs are dirty. She was certainly right about that. 2) She never would have paid $650 for any dog. That is outrageously expensive. It is expensive, but there are plenty of dogs that cost more, and if I had bought one of Peterkin's sisters, I would have had to pay more for her.

I rarely think of Peterkin as property, although I am aware that I have to have him licensed every year and I am legally responsible if he bites the plumber. I generally think of Peterkin as something between a buddy and a child. I think he considers me to be his mother. I got him when he was only 10 weeks old, and a boy needs a Mommy when he's that young. So I am his mommy as well as his owner. I do everything for him, and in return he gives me loyalty, affection, companionship, and plenty of aggravation. I wouldn't be without him for the world.

Not too long ago, property tycoon Leona Helmsley left her considerable estate to her pet Maltese, named Trouble. Since then, Trouble has been a lot of trouble for Leona's surviving relatives. People have made a lot of jokes about Trouble as heiress, but I can see Mrs. Helmsley's point of view. Dogs are nice to you, even if you're not very nice. They don't care if people call you the "Queen of Mean." A dog like Trouble will give you the big hello when you get home from bossing people around and doing whatever it is that tycoons do. A dog doesn't care if you did time for income tax evasion. Dogs are nicer than people. Leona Helmsley knew that, and Trouble became an heiress. I imagine Peterkin expects to inherit a packet one of these days, too, but he may have to settle for dog chews and that lengthy list of possessions cataloged at the beginning of this message. Poor thing.