After reading multiple essays based upon the idea of animal rights, I came to the conclusion that I strongly disagree with the idea of creating an Animal Bill of Rights. My disagreement stems from the fact that animals themselves cannot understand the concept of these “rights” they are being given. Although I do agree with the fact that animals should be treated correctly, I do not agree with going to the extent of creating their own Bill of Rights. Considering the many gaps within the current outline of the Animal Bill of Rights, it seems as though it will be nearly impossible to even be able to get the bill supported. While it is true that animals are constantly treated inhumanly, one must understand that creating an Animal Bill of Rights would not have the power to fix that. It would be unable to be fixed because to no extent of laws will animals ever be treated completely right. The current Animal Bill of Rights consists mainly of ideas and ideas only. Sure, it would be nice to see animals healthy and treated correctly all the time, but how exactly will these rights be enforced? The outline tells its readers nothing about how the laws will be enforced, and truthfully, I do not know if the authors and creators themselves even know. Due mainly to the lack of information I get from the rights outlined within the Animal Bill of Rights, I disagree with the whole idea that much more. I believe that attempting to pass a Bill of Rights just for animals is basically next to impossible. In Victoria Braithwaite’s essay “Hooked on a Myth,” she states that “perhaps it opens up a can of worms-so to speak-and begs the questions of where do we draw the line” when writing about fish and their ability to feel pain (Braithwaite 37). I strongly agree with what she is saying when she brings up where we as humans must draw the line. So it is proven that fish feel pain, but what might this mean? If fishing was banned throughout the United States due to this proven fact, what would come next? It would be one law after another, a domino effect one might say. If fishing became illegal then maybe eating pigs might, or wearing fake fur because people may get offended. The line is very thin between all of these things, and it seems highly impossible to draw a line when it could so easily get pushed further and further. This is why I do not think the Animal Bill of Rights would work; people would become angry and upset and most likely feel as though all of their own rights as humans were taken away. Not only do I fail to understand the clarity and point of the Animal Bill of Rights in general, but also I fail to understand the reasoning of people who support it.