What is the definition of a suitable pet?

How do we define a pet animal and what species make a suitable pet? It is difficult to establish where and when the term ‘pet’ originated to describe animals being kept captive as our companions, and not for food or working animals, but there are various accepted definitions of the concept such as:

  • an animal that is domesticated or tamed;
  • kept for a person’s company or protection;
  • pampered and treated indulgently as opposed to being kept for performance, agricultural value or research;
  • an animal which enjoys being handled or stroked and can show affection.

These tags immediately raise many issues, as to be classified as a suitable species the animal needs all the attributes of these criteria and more which results in much debate and disagreement between the obviously biased pet trade on one side and animal rights advocates at the other extreme and professional bodies and experts in the middle.

macaw, captive
Can keeping an intelligent free-flying bird confined as a pet be suitable.

Every animal on the planet can conceivably be kept captive, but this does not necessarily mean they will thrive and live through this experience. The pet trade would have us believe that any species can be made ‘suitable’ by just domesticating or captive breeding them and they cynically introduce new ones onto the market, ably assisted by internet pet sites, social media and pet care books, all of which are keen on maintaining their turnover and profits, but little thought is given to the animals’ welfare or the ethics of keeping them, whereas professional bodies and welfare organisations believe many are unsuitable and suggest we should perhaps be concentrating more on their unsuitability.

“the mythical beast that is the suitable pet cannot exist”

Suitable pet or not?

Using the word ‘suitable’ in the context of pets is a bit of a misnomer anyway as the mythical beast that is the suitable pet cannot exist as the word is defined as being ‘right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation’ and no species or individual animal can hope to be all-encompassing. In order to fulfill every prospective pet parents’ wishes, situation and circumstances, and to be the right environment for the animal, it would have to be a very bespoke creature indeed to be a perfect match.

The variety and scope now offered on the pet market is vast and the days of just keeping a dog, cat, rabbit or small rodent are long gone and have been replaced with a desire to keep reptiles and other so-called exotics and unusual animals, again mainly through encouragement by the pet trade, internet sites and the media.

“Realistically only the domesticated dog and cat have the attributes and gifts to fulfill the role of a ‘suitable’ pet”

Cat, face, eyes
Are dogs and cats the only species which meet all the criteria of suitable pets?

Most pets are identified as being ‘companion animals’, because a companion is a mate, buddy or confidant and that is all many of us ask in a pet, but there will always be those who want to push the boundaries which usually ends in suffering for the animals involved.

Realistically only the domesticated dog and cat possess the range of emotions, nature and devotion to console and keep us company, and also, if cared for properly, can also reap benefits from the relationship themselves, unlike such creatures as reptiles or fish, therefore it could be argued that pet keeping should be restricted to these species, but there is little hope that this would occur.

Any referendum or vote on restricting pet ownership to just dogs and cats would certainly get my vote.
Why not leave a comment. Just fill out the form below.

Why not become a follower of the blog and receive each article by email when it is posted. Just fill out your email address, click the follow button and you will receive a confirmation email to verify it.

It is killing whatever term you choose to call it.

Our complex attitudes to killing animals

Deep down in our consciences those of us with any empathy to animals are obviously uncomfortable about the act of killing them which manifests itself in our confused use of expressions to describe it. Whether a professional or layman, we seem to have a subconscious hang-up about discussing or contemplating what we mostly view as a taboo subject. For those with little empathy and who enjoy killing animals for fun and entertainment there is no issue

If we kill a fellow human without justification, we call it murder, and it is viewed a heinous crime unless legitimised by war, when we tend to use the word kill. When we deliberately and brutally kill a large group of humans, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group, we use the terms genocide or massacre and when we legally terminate the life of a condemned person, we execute them. We almost exclusively reserve these words to describe human on human killing, but when it involves animals, for some inexplicable reason we refrain from using such terms as they appear to offend our sensibilities and prick our consciences if used in this context.

Instead we prefer to use more agreeable phraseology that we feel befits the occasion and the type of animal involved, such is our idiosyncratic approach to killing millions of them each day. In order to appease our sensibilities, we even manage to categorise certain animal groups as being more worthy of our compassion.

hunting, shooting, country pursuit

The act of euthanasia for companion animals has become almost a ritual”

The most popular generic term for the act of killing an animal is euthanasia, which derives from the Greek words Eu and thanotos meaning ‘well killing’ or ‘good killing’ and has been used since the 1600’s to describe mercy killing of both humans and animals. We tend to reserve its usage for companion animals, particularly dogs and cats, which we hold in more reverence because we view them as almost human family members and our friends.

The act of euthanasia for companion animals has become almost a ritual, carried out with extreme compassion, sensitivity and veneration as suits such a situation, and it is usually performed by a qualified veterinarian in calm circumstances by injection, and with a familiar face present, often in the owners’ home, and is as humane as possible, so different to the way we treat other animals in their final moment.

Some people though, still find this term too severe and so we use more assuaging phrases such as ‘putting to sleep’ or ‘putting out of its misery’, to make it appear less callous when we are discussing it, as though in some irrational way it makes it a more pleasant experience for both the animal and ourselves.

When it concerns farmed food animals our sympathies change, and we go out of our way to distance ourselves from any emotion or guilt. For a start we call them livestock instead of animals, live’ because we have to accept they are living creatures but alsostock’ because we need the assurance that they are also a commodity for us to utilise. We then employ the somewhat ruthless word of ‘slaughter’, the definition of which, in the context of humans, is brutal killing, but with animals just means killing for meat. Slaughter is of course an apt description as it is a rather brutal and ruthless death no matter how humanely done. We are also happy to use the same term for the place where the carnage takes place, so we call it a slaughterhouse in preference to a ‘euthanasia-house’ which we obviously find strangely unsettling because of its inference to pet animals.

We find using the word ‘harvesting’ more agreeable for the act of wholesale slaughter of animals.

When it involves wildlife our compassion unaccountably changes again, and we choose tocull them and the heartlessness of this term is borne out by the word’s definition which is ‘removing an inferior person or thing from a group’ and ‘something regarded as worthless, especially an unwanted or inferior animal removed from a herd’. Culling can involve just an individual, a certain species or millions of individuals.

Conservationists appear to find the word culling a little harsh in certain instances, so they find the term ‘harvesting’ more agreeable for the act of wholesale slaughter, usually with the tag that it is implemented in their long-term interest. But it doesn’t end there as different professions where killing animals is intrinsic also try to ease their sensibilities by using other phrases such as humane killing, hunting, management euthanasia and zoonasia.

We are psychologically uneasy about the killing of animals.

It is obvious that as a society we are uneasy with our various deeds of ending their lives and prefer to distance ourselves from any thoughts of their demise, but it doesn’t stop us from committing animal genocide the world over. The bottom line is that whichever term we choose to use they all mean the same thing – the intentional and premature ending of the life of a living creature.

As already mentioned, when it is time to put companion animals ‘to sleep‘ the procedure is treated with great compassion, sensitivity and veneration as it should be, but it does seem a pity that we cannot extend the same deference to all animals by at least giving them the courtesy of using the same terminology.

Related articles:

What is Zoonasia?

Big Game trophy hunting always in the headlines.

The Shooting of Harambe the gorilla