The Owners

[fenrirblack]

Despite rarely being seen and having little to do with the plots of the chapters or the comic, the pet's owners or "parents" is still an interesting factor that does effect the way the characters interact and develop. There is Jeff, the seemingly obvious and inattentive one, Jerry who tries his best, Ryan, who all we know right now is that he's a dork, and Jake who has been seen once (so far), Mr. Hartfield who should be arrested for animal abuse, The Sandwiches, who are by far the best owners currently living, Bill, who is a good owner but has his own problems, and finally Sabrina's owner who is never around.

What is interesting is that we do have a diverse cast who range from various types of owners. The Sandwiches who actually do treat Peanut and Grape more like children. It is also worth noting that they seem to have advanced over the years and become more human like as Rick has moved away from more animal related cliche's. The scene with Satau with in the Sandwich house, they are all eating at the table and eating actual human food. Bill is well Bill, he's good natured but dense. Jerry, poor Jerry, he's tries but Tiger is a handful. He is more attentive to Zach, Tiger, and Marvin than we've seen from other owners. The Christmas Pageant for example, he had a camera to film it instead of like the others who seemed more confused than anything. Jake, who I believe is Joey's owner, we know nothing about. Ryan, well he did something right or got lucky when adopting Fido instead of Bino. Speaking of which leads to Jeff, who several people including myself, have made their feelings very clear but feel free to restate your thoughts here.

[NHWestoN]

I'll chime in with something i've said before - I think there's a great backstory behind the relationship between Sasha and Mr. Hartford. Her devotion to the jerk she calls "Daddy" (until just recently, maybe) is touching, intriguing, and hints at the dark side of pet-owner dynamics in BGardens. It's worth and worthy of an arc, especially after what we learned about Maxwell and his poignant kittency.

And "puppy Sasha" ... Nuclear level cuteness !!!!!

[Gameb18oy]

Despite rarely being seen and having little to do with the plots of the chapters or the comic, the pet's owners or "parents" is still an interesting factor that does effect the way the characters interact and develop. There is Jeff, the seemingly obvious and inattentive one, Jerry who tries his best, Ryan, who all we know right now is that he's a dork, and Jake who has been seen once (so far), Mr. Hartfield who should be arrested for animal abuse, The Sandwiches, who are by far the best owners currently living, Bill, who is a good owner but has his own problems, and finally Sabrina's owner who is never around.

What is interesting is that we do have a diverse cast who range from various types of owners. The Sandwiches who actually do treat Peanut and Grape more like children. It is also worth noting that they seem to have advanced over the years and become more human like as Rick has moved away from more animal related cliche's. The scene with Satau with in the Sandwich house, they are all eating at the table and eating actual human food. Bill is well Bill, he's good natured but dense. Jerry, poor Jerry, he's tries but Tiger is a handful. He is more attentive to Zach, Tiger, and Marvin than we've seen from other owners. The Christmas Pageant for example, he had a camera to film it instead of like the others who seemed more confused than anything. Jake, who I believe is Joey's owner, we know nothing about. Ryan, well he did something right or got lucky when adopting Fido instead of Bino. Speaking of which leads to Jeff, who several people including myself, have made their feelings very clear but feel free to restate your thoughts here.

I feel like you skipped the part about discussing if Tarot has an owner as while she could have the same owner as Sabrina, it’s at least mildly suggested that Sabrina is just letting the dog live in the house, though I suppose you can’t really discuss much on owners that might not exist. You also left off the Owner of the Bigglesworths who hasn’t ever appeared but is implied to be mildly senile when she is brought up, plus Rex’s owner who seems sweet even though all we know about her is she got pregnant sometime in the past. Should we also count Jeeves as while he works for the Miltons, it kinda be a pity not to bring him up when talking about the humans. A little surprised you didn’t bring up the cursed coin in here aka, a pretty obvious way for Rick to get some of the owners involved in more of the stories as he’s not making it a secret he doesn’t tend to draw humans if he can avoid them, especially if he has to draw the whole face.

[fenrirblack]

I feel like you skipped the part about discussing if Tarot has an owner as while she could have the same owner as Sabrina, it’s at least mildly suggested that Sabrina is just letting the dog live in the house, though I suppose you can’t really discuss much on owners that might not exist. You also left off the Owner of the Bigglesworths who hasn’t ever appeared but is implied to be mildly senile when she is brought up, plus Rex’s owner who seems sweet even though all we know about her is she got pregnant sometime in the past. Should we also count Jeeves as while he works for the Miltons, it kinda be a pity not to bring him up when talking about the humans. A little surprised you didn’t bring up the cursed coin in here aka, a pretty obvious way for Rick to get some of the owners involved in more of the stories as he’s not making it a secret he doesn’t tend to draw humans if he can avoid them, especially if he has to draw the whole face.

I’ve made my case for the Biggleworths’ owner in the past but I’ll say it again. I don’t like her and it is incredibly irresponsible to name twenty cats the same thing. It’s bad for them and those who have to interact with them. Let’s not forget the date which was a clear example of the consequences. Rex’s owner(s) crossed my mind after I posted. She seem fine enough but since both Mr. and Mrs Holloway’s roles are so limited it’s hard to make a clear judgment. I’m assuming they had that baby but in HP you can’t be sure of anything especially when it comes to the human cast.

As far as the coin goes I think in the past I’ve talked about it in depth about who should and shouldn’t be affected but now I don’t remember what I said. Anyway my stance on it now is that Jeff should be the owner transformed. He’s been the subject of a lot of ire and for good reason. Like I said on many occasions he is not the best owner due to his oblivious and tight-fisted nature. With Max’s recent development and Bino being Bino it would be a good story to have Jeff go through the almost trope-like saga of better understanding his pets. Not to mention a number of other reasons including the elimination of the other owners. The Sandwiches have lives and are too normal, Ryan would be an interesting choice but we haven’t seen or heard from him in years so no need to dig him up, Jake is even more so, and Jerry has enough to deal with (poor Jerry he tries). Bill would do better as a human for plot purposes including the possibility that if a prominent human is changed, King may have to reveal to the larger population what happened to him (I’ll let your imagination run with that because I already wrote a story about what I would think would happen). If Jeff was the one changed then he probably would run to Bill seeing that they friends and Bill’s a cop. That’s not saying that Bill too wouldn’t be a bad choice given that he could easily transfer to the K-9’s but that might have to wait. Anyway, the owners even being prospects is still a long shot. It would be a good opportunity to have them have a greater role but would shift the dynamic of the comic in ways that would have long term consequences in ways Rick rarely does if ever. Odds are it would someone new or someone whose role, even off screen, has been limited to non-existing.

[Gameb18oy]

I feel like you skipped the part about discussing if Tarot has an owner as while she could have the same owner as Sabrina, it’s at least mildly suggested that Sabrina is just letting the dog live in the house, though I suppose you can’t really discuss much on owners that might not exist. You also left off the Owner of the Bigglesworths who hasn’t ever appeared but is implied to be mildly senile when she is brought up, plus Rex’s owner who seems sweet even though all we know about her is she got pregnant sometime in the past. Should we also count Jeeves as while he works for the Miltons, it kinda be a pity not to bring him up when talking about the humans. A little surprised you didn’t bring up the cursed coin in here aka, a pretty obvious way for Rick to get some of the owners involved in more of the stories as he’s not making it a secret he doesn’t tend to draw humans if he can avoid them, especially if he has to draw the whole face.

I’ve made my case for the Biggleworths’ owner in the past but I’ll say it again. I don’t like her and it is incredibly irresponsible to name twenty cats the same thing. It’s bad for them and those who have to interact with them. Let’s not forget the date which was a clear example of the consequences. Rex’s owner(s) crossed my mind after I posted. She seem fine enough but since both Mr. and Mrs Holloway’s roles are so limited it’s hard to make a clear judgment. I’m assuming they had that baby but in HP you can’t be sure of anything especially when it comes to the human cast.

As far as the coin goes I think in the past I’ve talked about it in depth about who should and shouldn’t be affected but now I don’t remember what I said. Anyway my stance on it now is that Jeff should be the owner transformed. He’s been the subject of a lot of ire and for good reason. Like I said on many occasions he is not the best owner due to his oblivious and tight-fisted nature. With Max’s recent development and Bino being Bino it would be a good story to have Jeff go through the almost trope-like saga of better understanding his pets. Not to mention a number of other reasons including the elimination of the other owners. The Sandwiches have lives and are too normal, Ryan would be an interesting choice but we haven’t seen or heard from him in years so no need to dig him up, Jake is even more so, and Jerry has enough to deal with (poor Jerry he tries). Bill would do better as a human for plot purposes including the possibility that if a prominent human is changed, King may have to reveal to the larger population what happened to him (I’ll let your imagination run with that because I already wrote a story about what I would think would happen). If Jeff was the one changed then he probably would run to Bill seeing that they friends and Bill’s a cop. That’s not saying that Bill too wouldn’t be a bad choice given that he could easily transfer to the K-9’s but that might have to wait. Anyway, the owners even being prospects is still a long shot. It would be a good opportunity to have them have a greater role but would shift the dynamic of the comic in ways that would have long term consequences in ways Rick rarely does if ever. Odds are it would someone new or someone whose role, even off screen, has been limited to non-existing.

... you know, for some reason this comment got my mind racing, and I thought of something. Depending on what the coin turns them into, some of the owners wouldn’t be able to directly do work they normally would. I feel like the arc where the wolves entered the working world signals the pets eventually getting them as well, though there is an issue present on the fact that most of the Housepets clearly won’t do that unless they have to. Let’s say Earl is someone who gets changed. Alongside it making it easier for Rick to draw one of the humans with the strongest sense of personality more, let’s say he turns into something especially small like a mouse. How is he supposed to get to and from his garage for repairing stuff, much less actually do anything aside from give orders to Itsuki? He’d have to rely on one of his pets most likely, and if it’s something like a mouse, the arc where it happens would also likely double as an arc for development on Peanut, as it be the first time there’d be significant consequences if he doesn’t take things seriously. Regardless of whether Rick uses Earl when the coin turns up again, I think the point is clear. The coin might not only be a way for Rick to use the owners more comfortably in the comic, it also be a realistic plot point to force the pets to start working as their owners will be finding themselves less capable of doing their jobs in those unfamiliar bodies

[fenrirblack]

You have a reasonable point but because of the overly complex nature of changing one of the owners into something seemingly helpless or incapable of performing everyday task would be reason enough not to change a prominent (one who carries a lot of responsibility) character like one of the owners into something small like a mouse or something with hooves like Thomas. This raises the question of is their rhyme or reason to the coin's transformation or is it random which if it is would mean Rick would simply base whatever animal they become on the needs of the story and any future arc. That reason too would discourage any unsavory animal to be changed into because it would deeply affect the course of the events. Like you said, if Peanut had to suddenly start working in Earl's stead then he wouldn't be able to do the wacky antics that Rick clearly prefers. It would make more sense for them to be changed into a "pet" type animal given the title of the comic and the more simplistic nature of how pets are handled which has been established for eleven years. By this logic it also rules out one of the owners being changed into something more exotic which was my preference which is sad. Going back to your point about Peanut developing, if Rick plays it right, he could have Peanut be more developed simply by aiding one of the owners, not even Earl or Jill, by helping them adjust to their unfamiliar bodies.

[Gameb18oy]

You have a reasonable point but because of the overly complex nature of changing one of the owners into something seemingly helpless or incapable of performing everyday task would be reason enough not to change a prominent (one who carries a lot of responsibility) character like one of the owners into something small like a mouse or something with hooves like Thomas. This raises the question of is their rhyme or reason to the coin's transformation or is it random which if it is would mean Rick would simply base whatever animal they become on the needs of the story and any future arc. That reason too would discourage any unsavory animal to be changed into because it would deeply affect the course of the events. Like you said, if Peanut had to suddenly start working in Earl's stead then he wouldn't be able to do the wacky antics that Rick clearly prefers. It would make more sense for them to be changed into a "pet" type animal given the title of the comic and the more simplistic nature of how pets are handled which has been established for eleven years. By this logic it also rules out one of the owners being changed into something more exotic which was my preference which is sad. Going back to your point about Peanut developing, if Rick plays it right, he could have Peanut be more developed simply by aiding one of the owners, not even Earl or Jill, by helping them adjust to their unfamiliar bodies.

There is the issue of why though. While Peanut is good natured, his large amount of energy only distract from the fact that he’s a somewhat lazy individual. Not unusual for a lot of the pets, but the point still stands, he’s not gonna go out of his way to do something he doesn’t think will be fun. Also, I think Rick is more fond of situations of making the mundane into something exciting like the camping trip with the wolves, or the opposite like psycon seeming kinda like a kind of psychic business network or making a game in which the universe is possibly at stake be displayed as a game of D&D played by cosmic nerds. He’s fond of what we’ll call the contrarian model of storytelling (not sure if that’s what it’s actually called, but gets the point across) since what he likes is playing situations against the idea of how they’d normally be displayed.

[fenrirblack]

There is the issue of why though. While Peanut is good natured, his large amount of energy only distract from the fact that he’s a somewhat lazy individual. Not unusual for a lot of the pets, but the point still stands, he’s not gonna go out of his way to do something he doesn’t think will be fun. Also, I think Rick is more fond of situations of making the mundane into something exciting like the camping trip with the wolves, or the opposite like psycon seeming kinda like a kind of psychic business network or making a game in which the universe is possibly at stake be displayed as a game of D&D played by cosmic nerds. He’s fond of what we’ll call the contrarian model of storytelling (not sure if that’s what it’s actually called, but gets the point across) since what he likes is playing situations against the idea of how they’d normally be displayed.

I think that's just called irony.

[GameCobra]

You know, I have to comment on this topic about it because I feel like I been seeing it in topics lately, but the whole situation about Jeff being a bad owner seems to be inflated that he's a bad owner.

He's not a bad owner: He's just casual about it. He never made any mistakes in what he did with Bino and Max as far as i can tell, but he does get a bad mark for using violence to solve his problem with Joel/PETA (which it's very clear from what the story looks like to be justifiable since it's not far to stretch it that they kidnap pets regularly)

The other owners seem to take it more seriously than he does, but Jeff from what i've seen doesn't do anything that would constitute in my opinion to be a bad owner. Even leaving Max out in the rain, while harsh, can't be judged entirely since it's almost certain it was Max's own fault for breaking the rules.

If there is anything about Jeff i can clear up, i'm happy to reply in this topic tomorrow. :3

[Gameb18oy]

I don’t get where the Jeff hate came from other than maybe people feeling it’s odd there’s only one bad pet owner besides Sasha’s if we count the Bigglesworth’s owner, who I think is more guilty of stupidity rivaling black and white days of Sasha than actual bad owner traits, as they seem perfectly happy besides the name thing. Also could be figuring out if Rick implies any traits shared with owners... which is actually something that should be brought up, a lot of the pets that are siblings in law seem to have at least one shared trait
Max and Bino both have a lot of bravado, but it’s easy to see they are insecure. The Milton ferrets with the exception of two of them all seem highly ambitious. Grape and peanut both have a lot of curiousity and like seeking adventure (if king wasn’t around I’d just say they share protagonist traits). The Bigglesworths... and the last grouping if we excuse Bailey and Fox as they do kinda share an owner, is Tiger, Marvin, and Zach... yeah I can’t think of any shared traits, especially from Marvin who slowly turned into a plank of wood overtime, but maybe I’m overlooking something

[fenrirblack]

The origin of Jeff’s, I wouldn’t call it hatred as much as objection, came from the fact that he is rarely actually shown or at least mentioned and the parts that were shown were not the best side of him. It’s easy to see him come into the spotlight since the last month or so has revolved around Max and Jeff is Max’s owner. But it actually started with the phone call scene. Then it spiraled. Jeff’s behavior started being discussed in length and Jeff became the center of a lot of ire. This is why it’s important to get all the facts and put everything on the table.
http://www.housepetscomic.com/forums/vi ... 38&start=0

Also for what it’s worth it would have definitely helped Jeff’s case if we heard what he actually
said during that call.

[Obbl]

Also for what it’s worth it would have definitely helped Jeff’s case if we heard what he actually said during that call.

Historically, this is rather debatable (people projecting their personal biases and all)

Marvin who slowly turned into a plank of wood overtime

Marvin hardly appears in the comic, so it's not entirely surprising that his character isn't well developed. But as for that, he has always been a bit of a one note character pretty much including the one arc that he (kinda) features prominently in. Not sure where this "turning into a plank of wood" idea comes from

As far as my thoughts on the owners goes, they don't show up a whole lot, so my feelings toward them are rather muted and range from general disgust (Mr. Hartfield) to generally positive (Jeff) to pleasant (Earl and Jill). Not sure what else there is to talk about personally. I am generally in favor of any and all owners being involved in magic(k) coin shenanigans, but neither strongly for or against any particular character's involvement. Ultimately, I guess I think this story mostly revolves around the pets, and I think that may be for the best

[Gameb18oy]

Aside from just wondering if they have any knowledge of the adventures their pets go on, I kinda agree with you Obbi, I normally don’t care that much about the owners. That being said, Earl and Bill are probably the two guys I’d want coin magick to effect first. They have the most well developed personalities of the humans, and it be nice to see them more due to the change. Regardless, I’m looking forward to what species each is... *crosses fingers for an otter*

[NHWestoN]

Earl and Jill seem to have faded steadily from the strip, largely because they were always background supporting characters to arcs centered on the Peanut-Grape team. Not surprisingly, they appeared most often in the first years when the secondary pet cast was relatively undeveloped and the Sandwich house set the stage for much of the comedy and narrative. Earl, in all fairness, did play non-owner roles in such events as introducing the Miles' pack to society and sponsoring Itzuki at his shop, so he has shown more independence than other humans. Still, as the comic has broadened away from focus on "Grapenut" domestic hyjinks, the Sandwichs have been pretty much left behind. Similarly, officer Bill featured often in the first strips with Fox, Bailey, and King, then receded into the background. Some characters, like Tarot, seem to float totally unattached or as "pets of pets".

At the same time, Thomas and Cecelia, Mr London and Mr Steward, Jeeves, other humans have had solid episodes but only Thomas (now "camelized") seems to have developed any depth - and none of these are pet owners. Perhaps because they have roles defined as something other than "parent" (butler, lawyer, account at, etc.), they have had several appearances (Thomas, especially) and gained a little nuance.

Like the owners of older pets, the Housepets humans seem mostly to function like Jon in Garfield, as atmospheric creatures who fill food dishes, provide shelter and very occasional parental support, and display variations of affection, irritation, concern, and perplexity at events around them.

[Amazee Dayzee]

If only some owners on the strips could act just as concerned as JON is rather than just be totally apathetic and oblivious to what happens.

Though it should be pointed out that Tiger, Marvin and (sometimes) Zach's father Jerry could be considered a spoof of Jon and Tiger Garfield, since like Garfield, Tiger eats EVERYTHING that is food and Jerry's full name is "Jerry Arbelt" which is a play of "John Arbuckle".

[NHWestoN]

In fairness, the pets and ferals seem to want to keep the humans as uninvolved and unaware as possible. For example, none of them apparently got invited to Keene's sauna.

On the topic of Jerry Arbelt, I admit his "pet-parenting" style appears disturbingly uninvolved. You'd think Zach's disappearances would have registered at some time. Other areas of responsibility come to mind as well. If your dog bites the neighbor, you're in deep rice pudding, pal. So what if your dog blows up an entire building with a news studio and stage sets in it ...... ?!

And who "owns" Tarot, anyhow ......... ?

Sometimes "Housepets!" is even more enjoyable if you don't think about it too much.......

[fenrirblack]

In fairness, the pets and ferals seem to want to keep the humans as uninvolved and unaware as possible. For example, none of them apparently got invited to Keene's sauna.

On the topic of Jerry Arbelt, I admit his "pet-parenting" style appears disturbingly uninvolved. You'd think Zach's disappearances would have registered at some time. Other areas of responsibility come to mind as well. If your dog bites the neighbor, you're in deep rice pudding, pal. So what if your dog blows up an entire building with a news studio and stage sets in it ...... ?!

Sometimes "Housepets!" is even more enjoyable if you don't think about it too much.......

I have said it before but the humans seemingly unaware of the spa in being in the middle of the neighborhood is odd which harks back to my previous comments about the owners oblivious nature which I disapprove of. On the other hand, if you want to play devil's abacus, it was during a blizzard so odds are they were more concerned about staying warm in a power outage than what was going on the next street over. And we have seen this hand-off parenting where the owners just let the pets do whatever they want without being informed about it which I would assume stems from the pets being home alone while the owners are at work and this mind-set of "let the animals do whatever" that seems to bleed over from our world.

In the defense of Jerry, Tiger did sign a contract so he was not held legally responsible so in that same logic Jerry wouldn't be either. Tiger signed it not Jerry so the laws clearly differ which makes sense because the animals are smart enough to make their own choices and therefore deal with the consequences as such. Jerry is more involved than other owners as far as we see, he tries with Tiger and ultimately fails which I think leads him to a more hands-off approach that we see overtime such as with the tv show and the fair. As far as Zach is concerned, Jerry banded together with the neighborhood the first time Zach ran off into the woods, so I'm sure Zach being as responsible as he is told Jerry his plans and Jerry gave him his blessing knowing that A. Zach is more independent than most pets and B. more responsible than Tiger. I think of Zach moving out as when a child moves out you know it's time to let them go.

Between these two ideas, I do notice a disconnect that seems to exist in the HPU. I don't think it ever really has been established just how much responsibility or role the owners really have when it comes to the pets which is strange considering how the pets and animals are treated by the general population at times example Peanut and Grape having the leashes again during the video store incident when we actually haven't seen that in a long time. Take Tiger and the studio for example. If I'm understanding the law correctly, he is considered an independent being therefore does not need his owner's written permission to do the show or take responsibility for what happened due to the contract he signed. In other words, he is considered an "adult." By my understanding the logic behind the legality of "pets" in this world is more that they are from birth considered independent but by law have to exist within the confounds of not a guardian but an owner whose role is seemingly limited to a name on a piece of paper. This is more complicated when you take Sasha into account. Despite her mistreatment Kevin has to build this case to get her independence which really shows that the owner doesn't have to do much for their pet's welfare again harking back to the independent thing. In other words, the animals are seen as capable enough to take care of themselves but are still incapable of living outside of a human's grip.

One random thought, what was the point of the leashes again? Did it ever have a point? The entire concept was pointless given that there is no human to hold them which is the point of a leash in general. It even went away for the most part but then we see it again at Halloween. Even when Mungo did it to Fox, why? We saw Fox escape so clearly it wasn't even worth the effort. It doesn't make sense of why a pet would be treated differently than a human child when they are essentially the same thing.

[D-Rock]

Leash laws are a thing outside of the neighborhood. Them holding it themselves is a legal loophole. Law never specified who was holding the other end. As for Mungo doing it to Fox, well, Fox went through major breaches in protocol. Mungo was only allowing so much freedom earlier. Probably more of a humiliation thing in regards to punishment. And they likely know that escaping it would be seen as resisting arrest, making things worse. Plus, Mungo is technically Fox's superior.

As for the pets being allowed to roam free, could be that the neighborhood is currently an idyllic "no locks needed" type of mentality, a mentality that really only recently has been going away in some parts.

As for the Mr. Hartford thing, they need to gather evidence of such a poor environment. That can take time to build. Especially as Sasha is really defensive of him.

[Obbl]

edit: ninja'd >.>

And we have seen this hand-off parenting where the owners just let the pets do whatever they want without being informed about it which I would assume stems from the pets being home alone while the owners are at work and this mind-set of "let the animals do whatever" that seems to bleed over from our world.

Probably that plus the fact this is more or less how children used to be raised in America up until relatively recently. Go outside and play, roam the neighborhood, walk down to the community center, just don't go there there and there, and come home for dinner. It doesn't seem terribly surprising to me that this is Rick's interpretation of pet owners.

One random thought, what was the point of the leashes again?

There are leash laws present in the city. All pets must be on a leash. Apparently the law says nothing about who must be holding the other end, so certain areas are more or less flexible in how strongly the law is enforced. It's mostly just a brick joke that Rick likes to keep going (see here for the first instance)

[D-Rock]

Huh, neat. Same ideas.

[fenrirblack]

Leash laws are a thing outside of the neighborhood. Them holding it themselves is a legal loophole. Law never specified who was holding the other end. As for Mungo doing it to Fox, well, Fox went through major breaches in protocol. Mungo was only allowing so much freedom earlier. Probably more of a humiliation thing in regards to punishment. And they likely know that escaping it would be seen as resisting arrest, making things worse. Plus, Mungo is technically Fox's superior.

I understand the principal but I don't understand the logic. The point of a leash law is to keep the animal from running away or attacking someone. To keep them close to your person. By definition of what a law is it's supposed to deter a crime so holding the leash isn't deter anyone from doing anything. I don't even understand why that was ever a thing or why it came back. It would have never crossed my mind if it wasn't still happening at Halloween. I get it was a joke originally but it didn't make sense then and it makes less sense now.
We have seen them without leashes before outside of the neighborhood like the mall or the airport. The airport where they freak out over bottles of shampoo. All the stores King, Bailey, and Fox visited before the wedding. None of the ferrets needed them at the Zoo but the wolves did which also begs the question if it even mattered considering what happened. It bothers me that it came back since it wasn't even a thing since Year 2 unless you count Fox and Mungo which was a different thing all together which as you said is probably more symbolic than anything. Even if they didn't want to be charged with resisting arrest they could have just walked in front of him without the leashes. Sasha already had handcuffs on too.
I think whole speech boils down to where does the logic of treating them like animals from our world come from when they clearly aren't?

As for the pets being allowed to roam free, could be that the neighborhood is currently an idyllic "no locks needed" type of mentality, a mentality that really only recently has been going away in some parts.

I don't remember what my point was or what I was thinking about when I said that originally. I feel like I was trying to make an insightful point but now I can't remember what it was. I think I was trying to essentially trying to say the same thing. Pets and kids follow the same pattern of running around the neighborhood unsupervised because that's just reality. I did that growing up. So they're not bad owners for doing that? Was that my point? Whatever.

[GameCobra]

Leash laws are a thing outside of the neighborhood. Them holding it themselves is a legal loophole. Law never specified who was holding the other end. As for Mungo doing it to Fox, well, Fox went through major breaches in protocol. Mungo was only allowing so much freedom earlier. Probably more of a humiliation thing in regards to punishment. And they likely know that escaping it would be seen as resisting arrest, making things worse. Plus, Mungo is technically Fox's superior.

I understand the principal but I don't understand the logic. The point of a leash law is to keep the animal from running away or attacking someone. To keep them close to your person. By definition of what a law is it's supposed to deter a crime so holding the leash isn't deter anyone from doing anything. I don't even understand why that was ever a thing or why it came back. It would have never crossed my mind if it wasn't still happening at Halloween. I get it was a joke originally but it didn't make sense then and it makes less sense now.
We have seen them without leashes before outside of the neighborhood like the mall or the airport. The airport where they freak out over bottles of shampoo. All the stores King, Bailey, and Fox visited before the wedding. None of the ferrets needed them at the Zoo but the wolves did which also begs the question if it even mattered considering what happened. It bothers me that it came back since it wasn't even a thing since Year 2 unless you count Fox and Mungo which was a different thing all together which as you said is probably more symbolic than anything. Even if they didn't want to be charged with resisting arrest they could have just walked in front of him without the leashes. Sasha already had handcuffs on too.
I think whole speech boils down to where does the logic of treating them like animals from our world come from when they clearly aren't?

As for the pets being allowed to roam free, could be that the neighborhood is currently an idyllic "no locks needed" type of mentality, a mentality that really only recently has been going away in some parts.

I don't remember what my point was or what I was thinking about when I said that originally. I feel like I was trying to make an insightful point but now I can't remember what it was. I think I was trying to essentially trying to say the same thing. Pets and kids follow the same pattern of running around the neighborhood unsupervised because that's just reality. I did that growing up. So they're not bad owners for doing that? Was that my point? Whatever.

Pets don't really need the collars, but the comic rules mirror real-life rules closely. It's safe to assume the collars were added in the comic for the same real reasons like you mentioned, but i doubt Rick has to go into those details.

Long story short, though: In this comic, i'm guaranteeing the owners trust their pets not to do anything foolish with the collars on or off. If they can go to a spa without collars and come home safely without any sort of trouble (Max being the only exception so far, but that's because Jeff points out Max's irresponsible side), then yes, the owners trust their pets to be responsible more than human children these days.

[D-Rock]

Regarding the zoo, it ended up not working out for Keene anyway, as he got stuck there after being tricked out of his collar. Plus, everything else he handed them for identification probably went a long way.
Regarding the wedding planning, Keene was pushing to show the pets deserved the same rights as people, so it does make sense that they had no leashes.
Airport is the only place I think you might have a point, but I would imagine there are other things at play. Perhaps the airport has their own rules depending on where it's located? It was a bit away from home. Or perhaps they wore one until they were completely out of sight?
Also, loopholes. More often than not they're not closed until someone raises enough of a fuss about it at best.

[fenrirblack]

I think my biggest problem (beyond an issue of logic) is that it seems like such a step back not only for the animals but the for story in general. We were doing so well pushing forward and dropping all the animal cliches then its back again like a cold sore. We were really pushing forward with the whole animals being on equal grounds like with Grape being able to get on a bus, go to the airport, and pick up Res without anyone batting an eye. Even the wolves getting jobs and going to school. No one seemed to care (as far as we saw).

[D-Rock]

I mean, they ARE animals. Much of our world's practices and views still apply here.

[fenrirblack]

I mean, they ARE animals. Much of our world's practices and views still apply here.

That makes sense in “The Secret Life of Pets” but not here. My thinking is that this world has always been like this I.e. anthropomorphic animals that at one time had their own independent societies and cultures and in the case of Feraga still do. So how is that over the last 7000 years humans seemed to adopt this mind set that the animals were/are as Keene so eloquently put it “all about instinct and appetite.” So why would practices based on non-anthropomorphic animals be used here when they clearly don’t work?
There is a strange contradiction. Basically we have moments where even without the ECP, the animals and human relationships seem to follow a rationale that one would expect from this society for example the K-9s being able to read the Miranda rights. Then you have things like leash laws and the practice of abandoning pets on the street and the exclusion of animals in mundane tasks but allowing others and the fact that Keene almost drowning was not attempted murder. This world was based on ours but by now it should have thrown out those things as the world evolved and developed. Like taking off the training wheels so to speak.

[D-Rock]

I mean, ultimately you're saying all this like our own world makes sense in how we as a whole view it.

[fenrirblack]

I think I try to find logic and order in worlds that don’t exist to substitute the lack of logic and order in the real world. I like to think of it as escapism. Like I can’t fix this world so let me try another.

[Obbl]

It is mostly a brick joke, so another likely explanation is that Rick forgot to add the leashes here or there. And the whole premise of this comic has always been, what if normal pets, but they walk and talk. There's not a great reason for animals to be treated the way that they are in Housepets!, but there also were equally no great reasons for Africans/Native Americans/Native Pacific Islanders/Indians/Koreans/Aborigines/Moors/women in general/etc. to be treated they way that they were/continue to be, or for animals to be treated the way they often are even today... Not everything is logical, because we are astonishingly good at rationalizing the irrational

[Amazee Dayzee]

Even if it takes some impressive mental gymnastics to rationalize stuff that isn't.

[NHWestoN]

I think for Rick, one of the primary principles is "Funny comes first." Consistency is sometimes secondary, either by intent or accident.The rules of collars and leashes in BG mirror those in our world because that's part of the imagery and a motif for mockery. As mentioned, there are unspoken exceptions, not always explained. Zach goes around with or without collar because a rabbit can "pass" for either domestic of feral easier than a dog or cat - and Zach's status is currently ambiguous. Tiger's contract is intriguing since one must be legally empowered to sign a contract - under what circumstances does Tiger hold such "selective" emancipation. The Milton ferrets wear collars but have no "owner" or "Daddy"; they also employ humans like Jeeves, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. London who behave towards them as professional and respectful subordinates. Yet, it seems, every pet cannot be "ownerless" (excepting Tarot?) Or, like the Wolves or Gale must have an "employer" at risk of becoming declared feral and incurring all penalties liable thereby (shot on sight?).

Mungo putting the leash on Fox seemed more an attempt at restraint than humiliation. However, Sasha the suspect was also leash so the act clearly represents the superior officer asserting a "human/owner" status over the leashed individual no less than a limiting physical restraint. Yet, all the PDK9s wear collars, too.

Perhaps Rick will resolve or expand these collar-leash questions over time, but whatever he does will unfold through storytelling rather than framework explaining. After all, whatever else they are and whatever that means, Housepets is still "pets".

[fenrirblack]

Collars were never an issue.

[fenrirblack]

Do you ever wonder if the Owners get curious about where they’re pets go and/or what they do on a given day? Take the spa for example. They must have been there for several days at least, still there long after the snow melted. So why would none of the owners wonder why they’re pets disappeared to the spa (again parked in the middle of the neighborhood in the middle of the road) or if the pets went home each night, return to the spa day after day. Now if they’re were younger kids or teenagers living in the neighborhood it would be different but even the adults should be curious about what is going on.

[Gameb18oy]

Do you ever wonder if the Owners get curious about where they’re pets go and/or what they do on a given day? Take the spa for example. They must have been there for several days at least, still there long after the snow melted. So why would none of the owners wonder why they’re pets disappeared to the spa (again parked in the middle of the neighborhood in the middle of the road) or if the pets went home each night, return to the spa day after day. Now if they’re were younger kids or teenagers living in the neighborhood it would be different but even the adults should be curious about what is going on.

It really is peculiar Rick never showed kids for the humans. Technically there should be one present at least, Rex’s owner was pregnant the last time we saw her after all. That and a lot of parents get a dog to help teach kids to be responsible amongst other things. The few human kids we’ve seen so far are brats on top of that, be nice to see a big time young animal lover wanting to pet one of the puppies or something. Heck, I feel like that be a good arc involving king and bailey, are they gonna let their kids be adopted into human families? I can imagine King would hate the idea of it, not helped by the fact that one of the kids assumed he was a puppy with how short he was, while meanwhile Bailey was kinda expecting this to happen eventually, possibly even telling King she looked around the neighborhood so they’d know ahead of time if there was anyone that wouldn’t be able to take care of one of their three. I mean how pets getting adopted has always been an interesting topic for Housepets to answer, and we’ve only ever gotten partial answers in the flashback arcs (kitten Maxwell implying it’s not uncommon for kittens to end up strays, everything Grape mentioned about animals in the pound) and it honestly be neat to find out how it works.

[D-Rock]

Contact with their parents is implied. Jeff called Max, remember? And I'd imagine that there'd be some sort of announcement from the Milton estate regarding everyone.

[NHWestoN]

Do you ever wonder if the Owners get curious about where they’re pets go and/or what they do on a given day? Take the spa for example. They must have been there for several days at least, still there long after the snow melted. So why would none of the owners wonder why they’re pets disappeared to the spa (again parked in the middle of the neighborhood in the middle of the road) or if the pets went home each night, return to the spa day after day. Now if they’re were younger kids or teenagers living in the neighborhood it would be different but even the adults should be curious about what is going on.

It really is peculiar Rick never showed kids for the humans. Technically there should be one present at least, Rex’s owner was pregnant the last time we saw her after all. That and a lot of parents get a dog to help teach kids to be responsible amongst other things. The few human kids we’ve seen so far are brats on top of that, be nice to see a big time young animal lover wanting to pet one of the puppies or something. Heck, I feel like that be a good arc involving king and bailey, are they gonna let their kids be adopted into human families? I can imagine King would hate the idea of it, not helped by the fact that one of the kids assumed he was a puppy with how short he was, while meanwhile Bailey was kinda expecting this to happen eventually, possibly even telling King she looked around the neighborhood so they’d know ahead of time if there was anyone that wouldn’t be able to take care of one of their three. I mean how pets getting adopted has always been an interesting topic for Housepets to answer, and we’ve only ever gotten partial answers in the flashback arcs (kitten Maxwell implying it’s not uncommon for kittens to end up strays, everything Grape mentioned about animals in the pound) and it honestly be neat to find out how it works.

In one strip. Officer Lunberg does ask "who gets the puppies?" upon learning that Bailey and King are going to have a litter - and Bailey's reaction is embarrassed, indignant, and sharp. But it does beg one aspect of your question, Game - do owner-"parents" have rights over puppies, kittens, and other offspring that hold precedence over the pet birthing parents? What implications would the answer have over adoption issues? Delusional Steven clearly got dumped as, apparently, did Grape ("I just don't want to be abandoned again."). Bailey got bounced to a new family when "daddy" Chuck sold the farm, a development she accepted as "just how things are for dogs" despite King's indignation and perplexity. Not a small issue.

[fenrirblack]

Contact with their parents is implied. Jeff called Max, remember? And I'd imagine that there'd be some sort of announcement from the Milton estate regarding everyone.

If they knew what was going on then that's all the more reason to want to see it for themselves. Would you not want to go to the FREE spa that was literally outside your door? Not to mention I can't imagine any of the owners trust the Miltons at this point. Jill said point blank she didn't and after the fair incident the rest feel the same.
Your pets are having more fun than you are, I think that's a problem.

Do you ever wonder if the Owners get curious about where they’re pets go and/or what they do on a given day? Take the spa for example. They must have been there for several days at least, still there long after the snow melted. So why would none of the owners wonder why they’re pets disappeared to the spa (again parked in the middle of the neighborhood in the middle of the road) or if the pets went home each night, return to the spa day after day. Now if they’re were younger kids or teenagers living in the neighborhood it would be different but even the adults should be curious about what is going on.

It really is peculiar Rick never showed kids for the humans. Technically there should be one present at least, Rex’s owner was pregnant the last time we saw her after all. That and a lot of parents get a dog to help teach kids to be responsible amongst other things. The few human kids we’ve seen so far are brats on top of that, be nice to see a big time young animal lover wanting to pet one of the puppies or something. Heck, I feel like that be a good arc involving king and bailey, are they gonna let their kids be adopted into human families? I can imagine King would hate the idea of it, not helped by the fact that one of the kids assumed he was a puppy with how short he was, while meanwhile Bailey was kinda expecting this to happen eventually, possibly even telling King she looked around the neighborhood so they’d know ahead of time if there was anyone that wouldn’t be able to take care of one of their three. I mean how pets getting adopted has always been an interesting topic for Housepets to answer, and we’ve only ever gotten partial answers in the flashback arcs (kitten Maxwell implying it’s not uncommon for kittens to end up strays, everything Grape mentioned about animals in the pound) and it honestly be neat to find out how it works.

In one strip. Officer Lunberg does ask "who gets the puppies?" upon learning that Bailey and King are going to have a litter - and Bailey's reaction is embarrassed, indignant, and sharp. But it does beg one aspect of your question, Game - do owner-"parents" have rights over puppies, kittens, and other offspring that hold precedence over the pet birthing parents? What implications would the answer have over adoption issues? Delusional Steven clearly got dumped as, apparently, did Grape ("I just don't want to be abandoned again."). Bailey got bounced to a new family when "daddy" Chuck sold the farm, a development she accepted as "just how things are for dogs" despite King's indignation and perplexity. Not a small issue.

Since King is a "free" dog I would imagine that the puppies would stay with them. Bill doesn't really have a role in their lives despite technically being Bailey's owner. As long as they live with the wolves they are pretty much on their own and independent so one would expect that to remain how it is. Knowing King he would fight tooth and nail to keep his kids around for a number or reasons but most importantly because I think he would want to be a better father than his own was. Not to mention they have both King's career (whatever that is), the Milton's support?, and the wolf pack. I'm sure that Lana and Keene would want the pups to stay with them anyway as a stage in the ECP and further establishing their independence.
As far as the other questions of who gets the final say, that is a more interesting topic. I would assume, going by Bailey's comment, that the owners would have a more final say in the matter and the pets accept that as life. Take the second Balto movie for example. Jemma and Balto stood there with a box and watched their kids get adopted because they knew it was for the best for them. In all honesty, the pets can't actually care for the offspring if the owners refuse to do it so they don't have much choice unless they get a job but the ECP is still developing so that's not happening anytime soon.

[Gameb18oy]

Do you ever wonder if the Owners get curious about where they’re pets go and/or what they do on a given day? Take the spa for example. They must have been there for several days at least, still there long after the snow melted. So why would none of the owners wonder why they’re pets disappeared to the spa (again parked in the middle of the neighborhood in the middle of the road) or if the pets went home each night, return to the spa day after day. Now if they’re were younger kids or teenagers living in the neighborhood it would be different but even the adults should be curious about what is going on.

It really is peculiar Rick never showed kids for the humans. Technically there should be one present at least, Rex’s owner was pregnant the last time we saw her after all. That and a lot of parents get a dog to help teach kids to be responsible amongst other things. The few human kids we’ve seen so far are brats on top of that, be nice to see a big time young animal lover wanting to pet one of the puppies or something. Heck, I feel like that be a good arc involving king and bailey, are they gonna let their kids be adopted into human families? I can imagine King would hate the idea of it, not helped by the fact that one of the kids assumed he was a puppy with how short he was, while meanwhile Bailey was kinda expecting this to happen eventually, possibly even telling King she looked around the neighborhood so they’d know ahead of time if there was anyone that wouldn’t be able to take care of one of their three. I mean how pets getting adopted has always been an interesting topic for Housepets to answer, and we’ve only ever gotten partial answers in the flashback arcs (kitten Maxwell implying it’s not uncommon for kittens to end up strays, everything Grape mentioned about animals in the pound) and it honestly be neat to find out how it works.

In one strip. Officer Lunberg does ask "who gets the puppies?" upon learning that Bailey and King are going to have a litter - and Bailey's reaction is embarrassed, indignant, and sharp. But it does beg one aspect of your question, Game - do owner-"parents" have rights over puppies, kittens, and other offspring that hold precedence over the pet birthing parents? What implications would the answer have over adoption issues? Delusional Steven clearly got dumped as, apparently, did Grape ("I just don't want to be abandoned again."). Bailey got bounced to a new family when "daddy" Chuck sold the farm, a development she accepted as "just how things are for dogs" despite King's indignation and perplexity. Not a small issue.

Since King is a "free" dog I would imagine that the puppies would stay with them. Bill doesn't really have a role in their lives despite technically being Bailey's owner. As long as they live with the wolves they are pretty much on their own and independent so one would expect that to remain how it is. Knowing King he would fight tooth and nail to keep his kids around for a number or reasons but most importantly because I think he would want to be a better father than his own was. Not to mention they have both King's career (whatever that is), the Milton's support?, and the wolf pack. I'm sure that Lana and Keene would want the pups to stay with them anyway as a stage in the ECP and further establishing their independence.
As far as the other questions of who gets the final say, that is a more interesting topic. I would assume, going by Bailey's comment, that the owners would have a more final say in the matter and the pets accept that as life. Take the second Balto movie for example. Jemma and Balto stood there with a box and watched their kids get adopted because they knew it was for the best for them. In all honesty, the pets can't actually care for the offspring if the owners refuse to do it so they don't have much choice unless they get a job but the ECP is still developing so that's not happening anytime soon.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. King probably will want his pups to leave home eventually, human parents tend to expect their kids to grow up and move out eventually, I’m more expecting if he is okay with adoption though, he thinks he and Bailey pick out who adopts them. Plus, while it’s not seen much, Bill is still Bailey’s owner, the deal was only to make sure he didn’t separate them, we never actually heard the verdict on puppies with him. Also just a heads up, that wasn’t talked about when Bailey was pregnant, Bill just knew they probably would be on the way since King went fully native

[fenrirblack]

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. King probably will want his pups to leave home eventually, human parents tend to expect their kids to grow up and move out eventually, I’m more expecting if he is okay with adoption though, he thinks he and Bailey pick out who adopts them. Plus, while it’s not seen much, Bill is still Bailey’s owner, the deal was only to make sure he didn’t separate them, we never actually heard the verdict on puppies with him. Also just a heads up, that wasn’t talked about when Bailey was pregnant, Bill just knew they probably would be on the way since King went fully native

King will want the puppies out on their own but when and how is up in the air. Having them adopted into other families might still be off the table since if that does happen King will have no control over them. Like if said owners move away but then a few years later decide they no longer want the dog and send it to the pound, King would not be okay with allowing that to happen. As long as the ECP is a thing, I'm sure he'd want the pups to grow up like a normal child and go to school and move out when they can fully support themselves. If they choose to find an owner of their own then that's fine but not until King is ready.
Again, considering Bill's nonchalant attitude regarding the puppies, I don't thing he cares or has a real say in the matter. I think technically the puppies are part of the ECP being King's children. I'm sure Keene or Lana would have some legal whatever ensuring that anyway.

[NHWestoN]

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. King probably will want his pups to leave home eventually, human parents tend to expect their kids to grow up and move out eventually, I’m more expecting if he is okay with adoption though, he thinks he and Bailey pick out who adopts them. Plus, while it’s not seen much, Bill is still Bailey’s owner, the deal was only to make sure he didn’t separate them, we never actually heard the verdict on puppies with him. Also just a heads up, that wasn’t talked about when Bailey was pregnant, Bill just knew they probably would be on the way since King went fully native

King will want the puppies out on their own but when and how is up in the air. Having them adopted into other families might still be off the table since if that does happen King will have no control over them. Like if said owners move away but then a few years later decide they no longer want the dog and send it to the pound, King would not be okay with allowing that to happen. As long as the ECP is a thing, I'm sure he'd want the pups to grow up like a normal child and go to school and move out when they can fully support themselves. If they choose to find an owner of their own then that's fine but not until King is ready.
Again, considering Bill's nonchalant attitude regarding the puppies, I don't thing he cares or has a real say in the matter. I think technically the puppies are part of the ECP being King's children. I'm sure Keene or Lana would have some legal whatever ensuring that anyway.

No particular disagreement here. I think Officer Lunburg's question was more of a one-shot joke than any serious assertion of ownership. A remaining puzzlement - at least for me - is whether or not every pet MUST have an owner. I assume - I'm eager to be corrected - that every dog and cat must have a collar and a human. Of course, then what about Tarot who wears a collar but seems pretty "free-range".