Dogs Pinch Running in Baseball.

It's about time we all got over ourselves and allow canines to suit up for MLB games; dogs ought to be allowed to pinch run for a human player. As long as he/she is vaccinated, domesticated, and willing to participate, it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports. We aren't just a human race -- but an entire population of organisms living together in unison; allowing animals to compete in MLB games may finally bring that fact to light. They couldn't bat, pitch, or play defense, but they would compensate for it on the bases, where they can run significantly faster than your quickest human player. The chess match between managers would be entertainment at it's finest. Picture a late inning scenario in which one manager has a Persian Greyhound on the bench eagerly awaiting the opportunity to swipe second, third, and possibly home, while the opposing manager is weighing his options of pitching to the #4 hole slugger, or seeing him be replaced by a canine as a pinch runner after issuing him an intentional pass. It's not an easy call for the manager of the dog either, as it carries certain risks as well. He'd have to play late inning defense with 8 players as opposed to nine, and he risks the chance of having the dog bat which would obviously be a major void in the lineup; however, to ensure the dog's safety, they would be an automatic out. I think many of you look at this as a slippery slope: first we will let dogs play baseball, and then a whole slew of animals will be bound to follow, but that simply isn't feasible. The reason why dogs are still in existence is because they've adapted to their environment, specifically to humans, and have found their niche as a symbiotic relation to man kind. No other animal would naturally be inclined to willing participate by the rules, and thus would not be allowed to play simply based on regulations of the game. Cheetahs are violent. Rabbits aren't very good at following orders, and they may just nibble on the grass unaware of what is happening. Thoroughbred horses are too powerful, and deer are too timid. Dogs are the only viable option, and while It may appear unorthodox at first, in the long run it not only will make the game more exciting, but more competitive and strategical. I know what everyone is thinking, "well, then why not just let a peregrine falcon take off from first to second at speeds up to 200 mph?" Well, that is just nonsensical. A falcon could easily avoid a tag because it could fly around the second basemen's glove. A falcon is also unpredictable. Imagine this...an opposing fan purchases tickets within ear shot of where the falcon will be standing on first base. Around his shoulder is a duffel bag that when checked by security, appears innocent enough. Just a few baseballs, felt point pens, and a copy of "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis for casual reading before game time. Just as the bird is about to take off for second base, he opens up his book, and out of the carved out pages he releases a well groomed falcon of the opposite sex that takes off into the night sky sure to attract the falcon in uniform. These situations won't arise with a properly trained dog. They are more docile than most other species of animals (generally speaking), and deserve the opportunity if only the fans would allow them have it. Are we bending any rules for them? No. There is no rule in the books that states a dog isn't allowed to participate in baseball. Are we creating new rules for them, or disregarding existing rules? No to both. Should some unforeseen circumstance arise by which they destroy the integrity of the game, then by all means write a new rule. "No Dogs Allowed," or maybe "No Animals Allowed," if the circumstance is specific enough to negate all non-human animals. As of now, though, I think we'd be crazy not to do it.