Wow...well whatever the answer I'm sure God has it figured out...

Why Animals Don't Go to Heaven:

... [David Bentley] Hart’s beef with Thomists this time around is that they deny that non-human animals possess “characteristics that are irreducibly personal,” that they deny that “many beasts command certain rational skills,” and that accordingly—and worst of all, for Hart—Thomists deny that there will be “puppies in paradise.” Hart, by contrast, affirms the “real participation of animal creation . . . in the final blessedness of the Kingdom,” asserting that Heaven will be “positively teeming with fauna.” To make his case, he insists on “the intelligence, cognitive and social” of the humpback whale, the bottlenose dolphin, and the orca. Alas, Hart failed to mention the shark. Perhaps he was too busy jumping it.

I love this as an example of clever writing in the world of ideas.

David Bentley Hart (who the author of the passage above is railing about) wrote a book called "The Experience of God" which I enjoyed very much.  His thesis was that to understand what the other says, we have to define God first.  And does a wonderful job I think.  I read his book in between two other books on the same topic although more directly apologetics:

 True Paradox: How Christianity Makes Sense of Our Complex World, David Skeel, InterVarsity Press

The Experience of God: Being, Conciousness, Bliss, David Bentley Hart, Yale University Press.

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Alvin Plantinga, Oxford University Press

both of which I found as good as the Hart book -- the first by a law professor at Penn who does a nice sketch of the overall apologetic arguments and issues and the second by probably the preeminent philosopher on the congruence between God and science but not naturalism.