“A dog is and always will be incapable of argumentation/reason therefore it is property and cannot own property.”
For an elaboration on the difference between man and animal; see a small excerpt from Hoppe here.
“The first lecture, I want to talk about the nature of man. Comparing men with animals and illuminating the major differences, and characterizing what one can call the human condition, the condition that mankind finds itself confronted with.”
“So with this, let me begin talk about the nature of man and the human condition. And speak in particular about three elements that are unique, so to speak, to mankind. One is language, the second one is property, and the third one is production or technology.”
Cont…
A human that is currently incapable of argumentation/reason [eg. coma] falls into a third possible status. Guardianship rights go to those with the best claim. Should someone wish to end their guardianship “the concept of guarding” [ because of eg. costs associated with such a status] they lose the rights. If you want this elaborated on - I can endeavour to find some sources.
"It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say “no” to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child’s producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child’s trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say “no.”[8] ~ Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.