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.

The word 'weed' isn't anything like as loaded. There were several instants on the fox thread where posters simply wrote 'fox are vermin' or words to that effect. In other words, the argument is made and no more discussion is needed. And we call troublesome people vermin too - once that label is attached we owe them no more consideration than we would a rat in the wrong place.

tether - you are being a bit silly I think. How can you attibute terms such as self-serving and mean-spirited to a word. A word can have no such feelings or intentions. The use of the word is 'self-serving and mean-spirited'.

what more consideration do you want to give the foxes?

we have never hunted them to extinction

we don't hunt when they are raising their young

Well the consideration might be whether an animal going about it's normal business deserves to be killed when there may be other alternatives. My parents kept hens in deep litter for years - they had room to roam, were kept warm in winter and totally safe from foxes.

I am really trying here, Orm. I actually see your point, but I am just going on your OP, which did say that there was something intrinsically wrong with the word, which is plainly nonsense- I am glad we agree on that; I wish it were apparent earlier.

You were not clear in your OP.

I have had many discussions on MN about the use of words (notably 'cunt') whereby there is a general belief that there is indeed something intrinsically offensive about the word, rather than what it signifies. I thought I was on another one. Apologies for my misunderstanding.

My issue -still- is that you seem to see the word as a bad thing. I think it is a good thing as it serves its function well.

probably because the fox population was better managed in those days

would be v interested to learn of these alternatives

But how can a word be wrong? It is only ever it's use that is wrong. I thought that was so obvious as to not need stating.

If you see my point why are you still trying to do?

"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." That was the main thrust of my OP and I thought it was clear enough. Apologies if not.

mitchy - deep litter is in a barn or large shed so safe from foxes. I don't think there are many more these days. There never was a hunt in my parents area so I don't see that that would have made a difference.

so are you advocating that all livestock preyed upon by foxes (such as lambs, poultry) be kept knee deep in its own shit, all year round, never seeing daylight so we don't have to hunt foxes any more?

I suppose I just don't see why we as a species cannot give something a label in order to make killing it more palatable. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

Living in an urban area i tend to think of urban foxes - which is what I thought was beign discussed on the other thread. I don't think they have been hunted, I don't know if there have been other control methods used.

In urban environment most people aren't too bothered by them, they get at the bins which is annoying but other than that no problems. Chicken-keepers and farmers etc different story.

Personally as an urban person with nothing that foxes want to get at I don't consider them vermin. Pigeons on the other hand, different matter... It's all about perception. Nothing is "intrinsically" vermin, it is fluid based on whatever is giving us trouble at any given time.

I know what you mean Orm and agree completely. You can practically see the venom/hate dripping from the word 'vermin' when people use it. And it does engender an 'end of argument, lets slaughter the b**stards' attitude.

I don't hate any animals

Deep litter isn't shit. It's a several feel thick layer of sawdust and straw.

I know what it is, we deep litter field shelters and stables sometimes

but is that what you are advocating, that livestock be kept in these conditions and deprived of sunlight and grazing (which would create whole new problems for the land) to keep them and their young safe from foxes?

Well I think there is something wrong with it tether. I think it's dishonest. It isn't good to make killing easier. You can remove dignity from any group by the use of certain words - hun, paki, chav etc and others I won't even type. It makes it easier to disrespect and hate them.

No of course not. But it's an other alternative to slaughtering foxes wholesale. And let's face it, it's very hard to kill all the foxes in an area and prevent any depradations on livestock. It just can't be done without getting rid of the entire population.

The word is not designed to be offensive to animals in the same way that racist terms of abuse are to humans. Those words also serve their purpose well, even if their purpose is to offend and denigrate.

Do you eat meat? Do you call it beef or cow? Pig or pork?

Is 'livestock' not another word to ease the trauma of the eventual slaughter of said animals?

I like badgers too.

you don't kill all the foxes, you manage and balance the competing interests

much more cruel to keep hundreds of animals locked up out of daylight than to chase and kill a few foxes

but back to 'vermin', do you have similar objections to the words 'game' or 'quarry'?

No.

Quarry and game are just statements of fact. Not loaded.

We only call cow beef because that was the Norman 'posh' word. The commoners looked afterh the cow, the nobles ate the 'boeuf'. Same for pig/pork, sheep/mutton.

And 'livestock'?

I think they are similar, just the killing is for fun and/or table rather than as pest control

Livestock again isn't loaded or denigratory. It's just a description.