What is your definition of a pet?

[Abigal7]

I get the impression some people think the word pet means a animal you have locked up? Or do you think the word pet has a complex definition? I would consider my dog and bird companions. My family understands that they mean a lot to me. But I think there are people that would not understand. One elderly lady sometimes asks me how my "little family" is doing. That always makes me smile. I have a betta fish but unlike the bird and dog he does not really interact with me etc. But that is normal.

 

[MikeyTN]

I consider them my children, I don't like human children....lol....I like my bird, dog, and cat kids....My friends, family, and coworkers find it funny that I would go awwwwww with baby animals and I wanna go hold them. But if someone brings me their kids to hold, I would tell them what you want me to do with it, please take them away!!! LoL....But I can be nice to kids unless they're screaming and carrying on....

 

[ShellyBorg]

I think the word "pet" has gotten a bad rap. My animals are my companions, my family and my pets. I do own "working " animals. We have a small herd of meat goats and a small herd of pack goats. The meat goats have a job, and I care for them and make sure they have a good life, but my packers are my pets and partners. I could not hike half of the places I go without them.

When it comes to my birds I do not feel they are my "pets" , they are more wards that are under my care. I care for them to the best of my ability, train them and enjoy them, love them. They are more like kids with issues I know will never grow up and leave. I know they may outlive me and have made plans,they are in my will. For them I have gone hungry to make sure they have the vet care they need, much as I would/have done with my own kids. These are highly intelligent wild animals and have not asked to live with us. As they are all we can do is make there lives as good and full as we can. It drives me nuts when I read about the issues some one is having with a bird and will just dump them, but that being said I also believe that if a bird is just not happy with you after many attempts and training that there is no shame in finding them a great match where they will be happy.

 

[JDlugosz]

First online dictionary I checked lead with, “any domesticated or tamed animal that is kept as a companion and cared for affectionately.” I'll check my compact OED when I go downstairs. I agree with Shelly, animals kept for livestock or work are not the same as companion animals. An Eskimo might treat his dogs as "things" for the most part, but have one he feels affection with. It is not an absolute and there may be gradiations between pet and non-pet.

 

[Auggie's Dad]

I've recently seen this too, some animal rights group was advocating for not referring to pets as pets.

I'd like to understand why they had this concern - but I currently cannot understand it at all.

Pet and companion seem nearly synonymous, though companion seems too much like 'partner' and seems to imply a ... physical relationship.

Other objections often associated with this one make a lot of sense: our fids are he or she, not it - I agree. But what is wrong with "pet"?

 

[kendrafitz]

My "pets" are my family members, simple as that.

They are not human, but they are "people". Meaning they have the same basic rights as everyone else in the house. To be treated with love, respect and dignity. Like the human family members in our house, they each have their own quirks and personalities. So we expect different behavior from each one and know they are individuals, just like the rest of us.

 

[crimson]

for me pet =family member.
some say I've gone way overboard with how many animals I have, but they enrich my life like nothing else.

I guess in the technical sense they are pets, but to me they are a part of our family.

One time my husband hit a deer on the drive home from work, it was dark out and ran right in front of his car....he phoned me and told me what happened....my response was this..." how is the deer, is it dead, is it ok??.... needless to say my husband thought it was a distorted attempt of showing concern for the animal rather than him or his car..... I still do it to this day, and he still teases me about it.

 

[Mayden]

Hm. All my animals are pets, (Budgiesx2, Senegalsx2, Rabbits x2, Gerbil.)

Of the lot, I consider my senegals and rabbits as my companion style pets. The 'pets' (and children - fids) that I interact with the most, on a mutual-appreciative level.

My budgie's and gerbil however are different. I wouldn't say they enjoy my company as much as I enjoy theirs. They tolerate my company, the occassional head scritches, or a little playtime with the gerbil, but they're more than happy to get on with life without me being there. They are still my pets, still my feathered/furred children, but I don't feel they 'need' me (asides from the basic needs, food, water, shelter etc)

My rabbits, my sennies, they need my interaction. So it's different between the two, but they're all still my pets, all still my fids.

I don't even know how to explain it

 

[Kalidasa]

My pets are my family members that I pet, without it being weird.

 

[Zazoothehahns]

I classify any animal I own and given my care, needing to be fed, watered and looked after to be a pet. It is a animal welcomed into our home and lives to be part of our family and have a forever/ long term home regardless of the amount of interaction it requires to keep it happy and content. I think not calling a pet a "pet" is silly. They are much loved and accepted regardless of their level of difficulty. They are a luxury to have and a responsible owner, regardless of the animal being a rat, bird, mastiff or Clydesdale will only welcome them into a stable environment in which they can provide adequate housing, vetting, food, love and attention.
They are not purchase, rescued or adopted only to toss them aside like a toy when the novelty wears off. Their best interest is always foremost in our minds and hearts. sometimes, when a long term stable environment can no longer be provided, that may mean finding the best suitable home for that cherished animal.
This does not mean that that long term owner does not care, it means they love them so much they want better for them (owner faced with cancer, assisted living, nursing home, eviction due to lack of job/economy....) and they will not throw them into first available home that comes along. If me calling my critters pets offends anyone, so be it, I think they're all pretty darn spoiled, loved and accepted parts of our lives.
They are animals not used as a meat, fur or hide source, and yes, I stated it that way because I feel certain animals that provide milk or eggs can still be loved and cared for as a pet.

 

[forbey]

Skittles (BFA) lives at our house. He has 4 pets, two humans and two dogs. He has trained the humans to fill his water dish 2 or 3 times a day, fill his food dish and to freely give up their own food for his pleasure. He trained the dogs to clean up the food he has dropped on the floor outside his house.

Skittles does not treat us like pets. Some days he is very attentive and some days he just ignores us. Overall, us humans have appreciated the time Skittles gives to make sure we are happy!

 

[Pajarita]

I've recently seen this too, some animal rights group was advocating for not referring to pets as pets.

I'd like to understand why they had this concern - but I currently cannot understand it at all.

Pet and companion seem nearly synonymous, though companion seems too much like 'partner' and seems to imply a ... physical relationship.

Other objections often associated with this one make a lot of sense: our fids are he or she, not it - I agree. But what is wrong with "pet"?

The difference is what it means legally. A pet is a possession, just like any other object except it's an animal which sole purpose in life is to give you pleasure. Because of this, you can do what you want with it, even kill it as long as you don't make it suffer unnecessarily and dispose of the body properly (it's perfectly legal to shoot a dog in the head even if the dog is perfectly healthy and has no behavioral problems whatsoever). A companion animal, on the other hand, is not an object and would have rights of its own so there would be legal guidelines as to its proper care that everybody would have to follow (same as there is for children).

 

[getwozzy]

I've always considered any of my "pets" to be family members. My two huskies I've had since they were puppies and have always called them my kids we have 3 dogs, 1 cat, 2 fids, and 1 human kid... They all get spoiled rotten. No matter how many legs, wings, or type of life- they all deserve unconditional love in my book...till death do us part.

 

[Mitchan]

I don't call my birds "pets" because TO ME, the word pet sounds more like something that's inferior to you, an animal you keep mostly for your own pleasure and that you can pick up and hang out with whenever you feel like it, and then go on with your day (and your social life LOL), and not something you spend all of your free time with and have basically devoted your life to and does not feel superior to at all - which basically describes my relationship with my birds.
Of course, people may think of their birds/other animals this way and still refer to them as pets, and I'm all cool with that and won't in any way assume they don't love them or anything hahaha. It's just that I personally don't usually refer to my birds as pets, and especially not the Swedish word (which directly translates to "house animals"), I rather just say "my parrots" or "da birdies" or when I'm feeling fancy, "companion bird"

 

[kendrafitz]

Love your definition forbey!!!! Awesome! And very, very true!!

 

[forbey]

Conversely, Missy (the Yorkie of the house) and Paco (the Chorkie of the house) do not recognize Skittles as their owner. For the most part, they simply identify the bird as one who loves really good food and tends to be a terribly messy eater (which they seriously appreciate). Missy has also determined that Skittles has great potential as a TOY, and has tried to play with him on more than one occassion.

As for the ownership of the resident humans, they might argue that they each are the primary owner and tolerate sharing them with the other, but they can get a tad snotty when they believe it is their turn to snuggle up on one.

 

[kq_fan]

For me, All 2 dogs 3 cats 1 bunnie and 2 parrots are ALL my lil babies! When I grow up and have kids, it will not be the same. But maybe ill change my mind. But to answer your question, I treat them like family. They are also spoiled little brats!

 

[Auggie's Dad]

The difference is what it means legally. A pet is a possession... A companion animal, on the other hand, is not an object and would have rights of its own.

Thanks. I would agree killing an animal under such circumstances should be illegal. But I'm still not following how what we call them is relevant.

You say that a pet can be legally killed for no substantial reason, where a companion animal can't. What is this based on? What laws say pets can be killed but companion animals can't? Shouldn't we work to change the laws to protect pets, rather than changing what we call them?

If someone is to be prosecuted for killing a companion animal, could they get out of it by saying "Oh, no, it was only a pet"?

 

[forbey]

The difference is what it means legally. A pet is a possession... A companion animal, on the other hand, is not an object and would have rights of its own.

Thanks. I would agree killing an animal under such circumstances should be illegal. But I'm still not following how what we call them is relevant.

You say that a pet can be legally killed for no substantial reason, where a companion animal can't. What is this based on? What laws say pets can be killed but companion animals can't? Shouldn't we work to change the laws to protect pets, rather than changing what we call them?

If someone is to be prosecuted for killing a companion animal, could they get out of it by saying "Oh, no, it was only a pet"?

I'm not sure they we're talking "legally". I know lots of people who have "pets", who care little about their food and water, who would sooner put a bullet in their head than spend a dime at the vet. At the same time I know people who have picked up their rescued mutt, taken it to the veterinary surgical center 90 miles away and spent thousands of dollars trying to figure out why their baby won't stop throwing up.

"Pet vs companion", it's an ideological position.

I tell people I would sooner put my children to sleep than my dogs, because I like my babies, I don't always like my children. (It is, of course, a joke ... I love my children as much as I love my dogs ...almost ... maybe!)

 

[Pajarita]

The difference is what it means legally. A pet is a possession... A companion animal, on the other hand, is not an object and would have rights of its own.

Thanks. I would agree killing an animal under such circumstances should be illegal. But I'm still not following how what we call them is relevant.

You say that a pet can be legally killed for no substantial reason, where a companion animal can't. What is this based on? What laws say pets can be killed but companion animals can't? Shouldn't we work to change the laws to protect pets, rather than changing what we call them?

If someone is to be prosecuted for killing a companion animal, could they get out of it by saying "Oh, no, it was only a pet"?

No, no, as it is right now, it doesn't really matter what you, I or anybody else calls them, the law doesn't call them anything but animals and refers to them as property, same as a chair or a table, so whether you call them 'pets' or 'companion animals' makes no difference, you can still kill them just because you want to (take into consideration that animal cruelty laws were put in the books a looooong time ago and were meant for farm animals when people believed they had no intelligence or even felt pain!).

The reason why animal rights activists want this changed is because of the power in words. It might not make a difference to us, people who love animals and would treat them right regardless, but, according to experts, what you call an animal makes enough of a difference in the long term about the way society regards them (there was an excellently researched and very well written article about this in the Journal of Animal Ethics). And that's the whole Gordian knot of the issue and why they want not only more stringent laws on the books but also certain words changed, like 'euthanized', which implies compassion and regard for the animal's quality of life as well as an acknowledgment of sentiency, instead of 'destroyed' which doesn't - 'companion animal' which implies a loving relationship instead of 'pet' which implies a source of pleasure or entertainment - 'guardian' which implies a moral and even legal responsibility for the animal's welfare instead of 'owner' which implies the right to use with no moral restrain whatsoever.