Your daily dose of ridiculous

[draggonlaady]

The editors of Journal of Animal Ethics would like you to know that “despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers.”

The highlight of the article, as far as I'm concerned: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’. For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence. There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”

Prejudgment? I suppose so, but it's an accurate judgment. Anybody who thinks that wild animals (yeah, I said it!) are civilized, restrained, courteous, and kind (or whatever the opposite of barbarous is) has obviously never seen a wild animal. How much kindness does the squirrel expect from the owl? How restrained do you think a moose typically is? For frack's sake, why don't these people go do something useful, like volunteer at a wildlife rescue and SEE some of the damn things, and maybe help them in a real, tangible way instead of hiding out in an ivory tower telling us to re-arrange our vocabulary?

Comments

[myuphrid.livejournal.com]

As if the animal in question even cares. I can't imagine any pet would care what we called them as long as we were prompt with treats and stroking.

[draggonlaady.livejournal.com]

You mean you're not buying it that the coyote feels insulted when I refer to him as "wild"? heheh

[myuphrid.livejournal.com]

Not for a moment. Coyotes only speak Coyote, anyway.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

This is hilarious. Thanks for posting it. :)

[draggonlaady.livejournal.com]

You're welcome :)

[fr33f0x.livejournal.com]

Aye, it's dead funny.

Though if you think about it, it's really more about their prejudices, innit? I mean, I obviously like the word "free" (like, d'uh), but I know that being free IS being uncivilized, unrestrained, uncourteous, and cruel... at least it is also being these things. It is allowing for the possibility to be either, not being tied to a set of rules or expectations. So I suppose in a way, animals actually are NOT free, because their options are always dictated by circumstances and biology. A rabbit doesn't have the freedom to attack the hunter, a fox doesn't have the freedom to let an easy meal pass by, and a migratory bird doesn't have the freedom not to migrate when the time comes.
It is us who have all these freedoms... and who freely chose to exchange them for the comforts and safety of civilization... and who then conveniently forget that we still have that very choice, every bloody day of our lives, that we always retain the freedom to walk away from it all, to be uncivilized, unrestrained, discourteous, and cruel if we chose, and are willing to pay the price for it. But instead we project our own freedom on dumb, wild beasts that do not know of any of them, and then pretend we envy them from a afar.
Stupid, stupid humans.

[draggonlaady.livejournal.com]

It just kills me a little inside that people are SO blind and stupid to the realities of these things. And I hear it all the time, though not often so obviously delusional as this. "Nature is beautiful,and peaceful." "Wouldn't it be nice to live like the animals; free and peaceful." Always from people who've obviously never really looked at how nature and animals actually are. I mean, yeah, nature can be dead gorgeous, don't get me wrong! But it's cruelly gorgeous. And people want to just whitewash off the cruel part, and think it's all fluffy lambs frolicking in clover, and not acknowledge the pack of coyotes lurking in the brush waiting for the runt to get close enough.
I love coyotes. I respect coyotes. They sing beautifully and I enjoy listening to them. If someone brought me an injured 'yote, I would do my damnedest to patch him up. But I do not idealize them and pretend that they wouldn't happily eat my hens and house cats if they could.
It probably shouldn't bother me in the least that delusional people want to sit around trying to dictate how I talk and think about things, and I know, logically, that they don't even know I personally exist, but somehow it still bothers me. They are so very, fundamentally, wrong about something that is so basic and important and obvious to me that it's what I've chosen to concentrate most of my life on. Maybe I should just feel sorry for them for not being able to see and appreciate the world for what it is.
Okay, done rambling now, hope the above was vaguely coherent...

[fr33f0x.livejournal.com]

Would you patch up a wounded coyote you found on your own? One without insurance or an owner. You know... a free one?

[draggonlaady.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. And any coyote brought in by someone else would promptly become "property" of my non-profit, and any bill on it would be mine unless the finder made a donation. It's illegal to keep wild caught native animals here, so I would not be giving it back even if someone brought it in. I'd patch it up and turn it loose as close as possible to where it came from.

ALL the wildlife I work on is "free"... All bills are paid by donation, most of the donations are made by me. The state pays me back for none of it.

[fr33f0x.livejournal.com]

Also, my aunt used to call us kids each "pet" in a very affectionate way, and I always loved that. Nothing derogatory in that, I'm certain.

And maybe you got to have worn a collar and knelt at a loved ones feet to know the joys of actually being a pet, owned and cared for.

[draggonlaady.livejournal.com]

Indeed. But they'd probably consider that too twisted to bear. They're missing out.