to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language.

[OrmIrian]

Tis a thread about a thread - sort of - well a spin-off from the fox-poisoner thread. Sorry.

Human animals dominate the planet. I think that is a given. Other animals have to squeeze into the spaces that we leave. The truly 'wild' bits of the world are getting smaller and smaller. Tigers for example are getting increasingly rare as they have the temerity to attempt to carry on living in their natural habitat where humans are encroaching. I don't need to tell you what is happening to polar bears. Most of the land in the UK is built-up or farmed. What is left is seen as a playground for humans - mountain bikes, motocross, walkers, climbers etc. Not much space left for other species to thrive. And we pollute the water and the air - a problem for other species even more than for our own.

There isn't a single species that hasn't been affected, usually for the worse, by human activities. Apart from those opportunistic enough and 'clever' enough to benefit from us. To fit into the cracks we leave - pigeons, rats, foxes, squirrels for example. They live alongside us, eating our rubbish, finding homes in the little bits of waste ground that we don't want. But as punishment for that adaptability we give them a name, we call them vermin, and declare them fair game - find them disgusting and try to poison them, hunt them or shoot them. Is it really acceptable to only permit the survival of those creatures that we find appealing and that don't impinge on us.

I am not a beleiver in animal rights. I think that is errant nonsense. But a bit of self-knowledge and compassion when dealing with the creatures we share our space with is needed.

i think this is a really good thread, and you have made me really think about this.

i am such a pleb, i go for the cute factor, i think that foxes are cute - but pigeons aren't.

I didn't pigeon-hole anyone tether

But that is my point tinsel - it shouldn't be made easier to treat animals with disdain by the use of a word. If it is right to kill an animal for your own purposes, it is right to kill them. But it shouldn't be made easier to do it by the application of a label.

Is this thread for real?

"to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language."

By implication then, those who use the word are mean spirited and self-serving, no?

You ascribe those human connotations to the word, but that is nonsense, it is a word. Those connotations are telling you something about that person. That's pigeonholing.

You are completely ignoring context.

where has anyone treated animals with disdain on the fox poisoning thread? tinselian puts it well, it is contextual, a wild rat in your compost heap is not vermin but one shitting all over your kitchen top probably is

the countryside has to be managed, not just to protect human interest but for overall sustainability - this is why we cull deer, for example, they destroy woodland and crops when their population grows too large

you seem to have nothing but disdain for your fellow man but presumably are happy to tuck into food that we just couldn't produce without management of vermin

What was it I read somewhere about something about how giving fellow humans names like "vermin" allows us to overllok their treatment, or indeed to treat them badly and think they deserve it in some way.

Ditto animals - if we label them vermin it means we can do whatever we like with them. If beautiful fragile tiny hummingbirds came here and started feasting on our crops we would soon be dismissing them as vermin and slaughtering them.

Animals do what they do, they have to fight to survive in this world that we have over-run. We classify them as useful/pretty and keep them as pets or farm them, often breeding them to the point that they are unrecognisable from the original beast. If they live away from us in the West, and are unusual or pretty, we say they must be nurtured, even if the locals see them as pests. If they come close to us or interfere with us we exterminate them.

Badgers, foxes, lovely animals, we can't wait to kill them.

We're a bit like the vogons actually, now I come to think of it (hitch-hikers guide to galaxy for anyone unfamiliar)

"you seem to have nothing but disdain for your fellow man"

Eh?

How can standing up for animals be read as disdaining your fellow man?

tether - you can read the thread as pigeon-holing people if you want to. It wasn't my intention.

Orm, so would you say that a severely mentally disabled person shouldn't be given rights because they cannot take on the related responsibilities?

I totally agree that we have a responsibility towards animals. But, like the right of the human being it needs to be regulated, and the appropriate rights given to prevent abuse.

Yes swedes it's for real. Why wouldn't it be? Don't you find the use of words interesting and worthy of debate?

it is our responsibility to afford animals their rights - although better to think in terms of promoting their welfare

would you prefer it if we just let the fox, rat, deer population expand to the point that we are unable to produce food?

"you can read the thread as pigeon-holing people if you want to. It wasn't my intention."

Orm, now I'm confused- what was your intention?

Who has made you angry? The word has existed in the English language for hundreds of years, it cannot have made you angry on its own; someone must have actually said it? Who?

I'm not angry tether. Not at all. I just think it's an interesting point of discussion.

mitchy - I wouldn't 'prefer' anything. I think a little more honesty in our dealings with beasties is in order - why should we make it easier on ourselves by calling them 'vermin' because it's more convenient.
I've put down poison for rats, I've even watched a hunt before now. I don't have a problem with humans killing animals when they deem it neccessary but there is a kind of callousness in denigrating them before we kill them. 'Vermin' makes them less than animals.

Foxes are not lovely animals. They are beautiful to look at, I'll give you that, but they are killing machines that kill rampantly for pleasure. They don't go around helping old bunnies cross the road safely. A friend of mine lost 70 lambs to foxes one year. Do you really expect them to smile sweetly at the lovely animals that did it while they watch their livelihood destroyed?

I love animals, I'm a vegetarian, but you have to be realistic. If you stop animals (vermin: insects, rodents, foxes) from being killed to protect food supplies you'd find food in short supply.

I assume of course that everyone objecting to the killing of vermin is vegan and eats organic food where no insects have been harmed? No? Or is it ok to kill lambs to eat but not to kill foxes to protect them perhaps? Or to eat eggs but not protect the chickens from the foxes?

Kill a fox and save hundreds of other animals...

I know what you mean orm. It is a label that we give to things that get in our way, so we can justify to ourselves our actions towards them.

It's the same sort of thing as people who won't eat meat or fish that "looks like what it is" - that way they can pretend that what they are doing is not related to the killing of an animal.

It's the same labelling things vermin. If we called them animals it would be harder. But the word vermin brings a shudder of disgust and "get rid of it" knee-jerk reaction, it excuses the act of killing.

I'm quietly appreciating Orm's "I don't need to tell you what is happening to polar bears", when it's soon apparent that she needs someone to tell her what's happening to polar bears.

I'm not sure the rest of the OP has enough of a cogent point to be worth discussing, though.

Exactly imnottelling.

So glad you understood the tenor of my OP. Everyone seems to have thought I was advocating universal suffrage for animals (I do think we behave badly to animals in many cases) Whereas I was objecting to the use of the word.

it's just a collective term, as someone else said earlier, like weeds for plants that are growing where we'd prefer them not to - it doesn't mean you lack respect for the fascinating beauty of flora generally if you dig up weeds in the garden does it?

Really bruxeur? Off you go then.

doobry I don't think it's the killing orm objects to as much as labelling the animal as "vermin" in order to make that killing more acceptable.

Cats decimate the wild bird population, but I don;t see loads of people calling for a culling of domestic cats. Because the wild bird population doens't do anything obvious for us.

(In fact they do loads in the spreading of seends etc but that's not immediately obvious so people don't bother to worry about it).

Orm is right that vermin is a self-serving term. I'm really starting to like your thinking orm.

The labelling of plants as weeds and their destruction as such - yes weeds are things that grow where you don't want them - they are usually therefore things that are well adapted local plants which thrive in the location. And the local wildlife (insects birds butterflies etc) are adpated to those plants. In destrying "weeds" we are destrying the habitat of our local wildlife.

There is now a huge movement encouraging people to leave "wild" patches in their gardens and to grow native and local plants.

Whether something is a "weed" or "vermin" is all in our perception, and perceptions can change.

Orm, I think I understand now ImSoNotTelling has rephrased it- your OP came across slightly differently.

I would say the word 'vermin' has a function much the same as the word 'meat'. The fact that it makes killing or eating an animal more palatable is indicative of the successful function of the word. Whether or not you agree with its premise, its function is carried out efficiently.

Don't blame the word. Blame the human need to make the unpalatable palatable.

"Are polar bears endangered?
Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Copenhagen in 2009), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight were declining, three were stable, one was increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. At their 2005 meeting in Seattle, the group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Russia lists the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed."

From Polar Bears International.

"Blame the human need to make the unpalatable palatable."

Well I thought I was. A word can't be blamed for anything.

but deciding I don't want dandelions in my lawn (haha as if) does not mean I 'denigrate' flora on the whole or fail to appreciate or value it highly - which I think is what the OP suggests?

"to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language."