5 ms·

> I've wondered, though. What constitutes a pet? We don't need categories to be so rigid. I have some squirrels in the yard who recognise me and follow me aro

> I've wondered, though. What constitutes a pet? We don't need categories to be so rigid. I have some squirrels in the yard who recognise me and follow me around until I feed them. I call them 'yard pets'. Sometimes they come into the house when they are too excited, but I've never had trouble escorting them out. I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship with animals, even if they are wild.

shliachtx 8y ago
> We don't need categories to be so rigid. For the purposes of law we do. > I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship with animals, even if they are wild. And yet there is a case to be made for these laws to prevent animals from abuse, etc. These kinds of laws are usually well-served by having an attached definition of what constitutes a pet as it is used in the law. The more defined a law is, the less likely it is to get in the way where it isn't supposed to.
- circlefavshape 8y ago
  > For the purposes of law we do No we don't. That's why we have judges
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And judges never give out different sentences based race or affluence....
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      Is squirrel a race now?
      - scarface74 8y ago
        No but the person going in front of the judge is where the less clear the law is, the more of a chance for bias.
      - ozzmotik 8y ago
        sure if you mean it by the old sense of a species (cf. the human race)
  - shliachtx 8y ago
    Judges are not lawmakers. They serve to interpret the laws accurately. Of course, often the laws are not codified very specifically, so it is left to judges to interpret it as straightforwardly as possible.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  Meh, I'm just talking about everyday interactions with squirrels in the yard. You're not telling me I'm going to need a lawyer to negotiate that, are you? :-) It's consensual, the squirrels enjoy the interaction and so do I. Either is free to defect anytime. Fun fact. Squirrels in most north american cities are not wild creatures, they were deliberately introduced into parks to create what was called 'communal pets'. The thinking was that the need to care for them would be a positive influence on people. There is a paper on it: The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.
  - shliachtx 8y ago
    Of course. I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. But if the law is there, it should be codified properly, so that you shouldn't need a lawyer to deal with something the law was never intended to address.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  For the purposes of law we do. Law is a good servant and a bad master. Ultimately decisions are imposed by humans and unthinking obedience to the law is just as totalitarian as unthinking obedience to a leader. It's the unthinking obedience bit that's the problem.
  - emilfihlman 8y ago
    I will much, much rather have a clear cut law than uncertainty. It is not hard to make clear laws but it's impossible to make "interpretation" clear and always the same. I hate the Finnish judicial system.
  - shliachtx 8y ago
    As I mentioned in another comment, I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. Any law is better served by being more specific, thus reducing the chance that it is inappropriately applied. Of course, there is always the recourse to change the law. (I am going to assume for the purposes of this discussion that we are not discussing what might be termed immoral laws, where the argument can be made (quite strongly) that they should be disobeyed even if it is the law.)
vvanders 8y ago
To get a bit pedantic you're on the path to domesticating those squirrels, most wildlife professionals wouldn't consider them wild any more. My father worked for WI DNR for many years and it always irked him that people feeding the wildlife didn't think they were doing any harm when they were making the animals co-dependent on that food source.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  Reposting from below. Eastern grey squirrels were deliberately introduced into city parks for the enjoyment of people.[1] Also wild animals are flexible enough in their behaviour to accommodate interactions with humans. If you observe them carefully, you can see them switch from 'normal' behaviour to the behaviour they use when interacting with people. It's kind of like when you speak two languages and can switch from one to the other in an instant. [1] The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.
  - vvanders 8y ago
    Sure, but that's not really relevant here. The parent still considers them 'wild' despite providing alternate food source which changes their behavioral patterns. Somewhat similar to photographers baiting animals for more dramatic photos: https://www.audubon.org/news/why-you-shouldnt-feed-or-bait-owls https://www.audubon.org/news/why-you-shouldnt-feed-or-bait-o... If you want to keep wildlife truly wild you should do your part to minimize the impact you have on their habitats and behaviors.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      > The parent still considers them 'wild' despite providing alternate food source which changes their behavioral patterns. Who says this is changing their behavioural patterns? Maybe native people in north america have been randomly feeding grey squirrels for thens of thousands of years. Maybe for longer in Eurasia? In fact if it weren't in the animals behavioural repertoire to recognise the opportunity of taking food from people, then we wouldn't even be able to get them to understand.

shliachtx 8y ago

> We don't need categories to be so rigid. For the purposes of law we do. > I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship with animals, even if they are wild. And yet there is a case to be made for these laws to prevent animals from abuse, etc. These kinds of laws are usually well-served by having an attached definition of what constitutes a pet as it is used in the law. The more defined a law is, the less likely it is to get in the way where it isn't supposed to.

circlefavshape 8y ago
> For the purposes of law we do No we don't. That's why we have judges
- scarface74 8y ago
  And judges never give out different sentences based race or affluence....
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    Is squirrel a race now?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      No but the person going in front of the judge is where the less clear the law is, the more of a chance for bias.
    - ozzmotik 8y ago
      sure if you mean it by the old sense of a species (cf. the human race)
- shliachtx 8y ago
  Judges are not lawmakers. They serve to interpret the laws accurately. Of course, often the laws are not codified very specifically, so it is left to judges to interpret it as straightforwardly as possible.
gerbilly 8y ago
Meh, I'm just talking about everyday interactions with squirrels in the yard. You're not telling me I'm going to need a lawyer to negotiate that, are you? :-) It's consensual, the squirrels enjoy the interaction and so do I. Either is free to defect anytime. Fun fact. Squirrels in most north american cities are not wild creatures, they were deliberately introduced into parks to create what was called 'communal pets'. The thinking was that the need to care for them would be a positive influence on people. There is a paper on it: The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.
- shliachtx 8y ago
  Of course. I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. But if the law is there, it should be codified properly, so that you shouldn't need a lawyer to deal with something the law was never intended to address.
anigbrowl 8y ago
For the purposes of law we do. Law is a good servant and a bad master. Ultimately decisions are imposed by humans and unthinking obedience to the law is just as totalitarian as unthinking obedience to a leader. It's the unthinking obedience bit that's the problem.
- emilfihlman 8y ago
  I will much, much rather have a clear cut law than uncertainty. It is not hard to make clear laws but it's impossible to make "interpretation" clear and always the same. I hate the Finnish judicial system.
- shliachtx 8y ago
  As I mentioned in another comment, I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. Any law is better served by being more specific, thus reducing the chance that it is inappropriately applied. Of course, there is always the recourse to change the law. (I am going to assume for the purposes of this discussion that we are not discussing what might be termed immoral laws, where the argument can be made (quite strongly) that they should be disobeyed even if it is the law.)

vvanders 8y ago

To get a bit pedantic you're on the path to domesticating those squirrels, most wildlife professionals wouldn't consider them wild any more. My father worked for WI DNR for many years and it always irked him that people feeding the wildlife didn't think they were doing any harm when they were making the animals co-dependent on that food source.

gerbilly 8y ago
Reposting from below. Eastern grey squirrels were deliberately introduced into city parks for the enjoyment of people.[1] Also wild animals are flexible enough in their behaviour to accommodate interactions with humans. If you observe them carefully, you can see them switch from 'normal' behaviour to the behaviour they use when interacting with people. It's kind of like when you speak two languages and can switch from one to the other in an instant. [1] The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.
- vvanders 8y ago
  Sure, but that's not really relevant here. The parent still considers them 'wild' despite providing alternate food source which changes their behavioral patterns. Somewhat similar to photographers baiting animals for more dramatic photos: https://www.audubon.org/news/why-you-shouldnt-feed-or-bait-owls https://www.audubon.org/news/why-you-shouldnt-feed-or-bait-o... If you want to keep wildlife truly wild you should do your part to minimize the impact you have on their habitats and behaviors.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    > The parent still considers them 'wild' despite providing alternate food source which changes their behavioral patterns. Who says this is changing their behavioural patterns? Maybe native people in north america have been randomly feeding grey squirrels for thens of thousands of years. Maybe for longer in Eurasia? In fact if it weren't in the animals behavioural repertoire to recognise the opportunity of taking food from people, then we wouldn't even be able to get them to understand.