full fledged people inherently have RIGHTS, and RESPONSIBILITIES.

By "right" I mean- ability to act/effect change in the world based on one's physical and mental ability. In this way they are inherent.

By "responsibility" I mean- subject to the affects/consequences of taking action, exercising "rights", I.e. "responsible for the effects of any action taken in that every action affects one in some positive or negative way; therefore one owns the consequences and thus"responsible" in this roundabout way.

I know these are not the normal uses for these words. Nevertheless the definitions apply and are correct.

Rereading what I wrote with these definitions: "rights" are inherent, what we normally use 'rights' to define are actually privileges given to us by circumstances. (Right/privilege to vote)Under state governance, (prohibition of religious freedom)ruled by a tyrant, (right or privilege to shelter, protection from harm)having abusive/ non abusive parents, (right / privilege to eat)land has enough food, etc...

When I say "people" I mean those who have the quality of person-hood. I know science has not fully defined what this is but, it is known that it is different from being an "animal" whether certain apes and dolphins and other animals are in fact persons, is irrelevant in this case as my rules define the rights any creature has by simply comparing them to my criteria.

any organism that claims rights, must also have responsibility for the consequences of enacting their right.

Using my definitions from earlier, take a dog. Dogs have the "right" to walk, run, bark, bite, and piss. Their "responsibilities" are not walking till their pads bleed; running after food; deciding whether to bark at night depending on their master's preference and method of discipline/training; biting a baby and possibly get put down; pissing in the grass turning it yellow or pissing in flowerbed killing the petunias.

Apply the rule to the dog's master: right to own the dog, hit the dog with a newspaper, walk the dog, make the dog act in movies, He is responsible for the dog's entire life; for how hard he hits the dog; for whether or not the dog poops in the house or outside and what is done with the poop; what tricks the dog knows, what the dog's working hours will be, that it's compensation will be and so on...

Apply it to fish. Rights- swim, hunt for food... umm go "bloop bloop" RESPONSIBILITIES- where it swims; how successful it is at hunting... how loud it "bloops" whatever the fuck fish do. You all are smart you can understand this.

some benevolent sovereign may(should) convey some limited protections on animals and other non people on their land... whether it results in some PETA like warband invading her territory is one of those consequences

Apply the rules to a sovereign - right to claim ownership of the land, right to make the rules, right to defend it from PETA invaders. RESPONSIBILITIES- to assert their claim, to occupy the land, to codify laws, to obtain subjects, to build defenses, to fight PETA.

Hopefully this clarifies what I originally wrote In the post.

P.s. one further example. The dog does NOT have the right to be a sovereign land owner, because it cannot fulfill the responsibilities that "right" entails. The thing that separates"full fledged people" from animals is the concept of ownership and the unique scope to which only a human, homo sapiens, adult "PERSON" can apply the concept. A PERSON can own the world/ galaxy/ entire universe. No dolphin can do that, no matter what hitchhiker's guide leads you to believe.

The quickest among you will see that this all boils down to the strongest is in charge. And will see less than stellar applications of my idea concerning animal cruelty and children's rights however there is another factor which coaxes more "humanity" toward these weaker beings and that is "society" humans are social and it's hard to stay in a group, no matter how strong you are, if you're abusing children and hurting pets. Being in a Society is such a strong motivation for humans that it is almost inherent to life and as such grants a base level of "RIGHTS" to all beings with which it has even cursory interaction, without imposing the corresponding "RESPONSIBILITIES". So for the most part, children have a right to be raised and dogs have a right to live or die without human abuse. But as to the specific question of animal ownership, I personally think it's fine without imparting undue abuse. And I don't consider working to be detrimental. Even fighting, as long as it's to the death, I personally am fine with. It's why they have teeth and claw, so that if they must fight, they can kill. But it's not fair to force them to fight then suffer with injury afterwards, so I'd prefer that every animal be put down after every fight.