Owner Leaves Injured Dog on Mountain and Wants Her Back?

[K-II]

If he thought he had just let his dog die, I don't find it too surprising if he wasn't exactly rushing to be responsible for putting even more lives at risk. Plus this seems like a very rare outcome to me... most people probably wouldn't expect to be able to summon an improvised rescue team for their possibly-alive pet, and likely wouldn't get one if they tried.

 

[kazyeeqen]

If he thought he had just let his dog die, I don't find it too surprising if he wasn't exactly rushing to be responsible for putting even more lives at risk. Plus this seems like a very rare outcome to me... most people probably wouldn't expect to be able to summon an improvised rescue team for their possibly-alive pet, and likely wouldn't get one if they tried.

Not that he should get Missy back, but I agree that it wouldn't be that easy. Part of the reason it worked out is probably that someone left her up there, not just that she was up there. People responded to the unfairness of it (the abandonment) more than they would have to the basic necessity of saving the dog (like if the guardian put out a plea for help).

Not that he did, so we really won't know...

She was not fatally injured, so it's weird to write her off as dead after a day when the only thing that might kill her would be dehydration or wild animals. He could have left and then gone back, with more people if possible or by himself to keep giving her water and food and trying to get her down from there one step at a time.

 

[kazyeeqen]

Oh and I hate when they refer to an animal as 'it'. I think news articles must be required to for professionalism or something. Animals have two sexes, just like human animals, there's no reason not to use the gender pronoun if we know what the animals sex is.

 

[K-II]

I was under the impression the terrain and weather were also factors, though I might just be misinterpreting what was said.

Also: I almost never really think of animals as he or she. Obviously I realize they have male, female (and so forth) sexes, but I think in other species my mind just goes 'what does it matter?' or something. I don't think of 'this female dog' or 'this male cat', just 'this dog' and 'this cat'. Even ridiculously obvious ones like a peacock just seems neutral. I wonder if other species (generalizing, of course) have a concept of gender in us, or if we're not male or female but simply human to them.

In fact, I wonder what they think of each other and themselves when spayed or neutered, for that matter...

 

[Calliegirl]

I think they do know there are male and female humans. There are a lot of animals that prefer one sex over another, I know some dogs and birds who do. We have two dogs here that won't go anywhere near a male.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

I've heard of many dogs who prefer one sex of human over the other, so I am reasonably certain they recognize male vs female humans. And if dogs exhibit this, I have no reason to believe that other animals can't recognize this, as well.

Even if they didn't exhibit a preference, I would have no reason to believe they couldn't differentiate.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I don't object to referring to animals as 'it" because we don't know their sex. I object because "it" refers to things. Animals are persons, not things.

 

[Muggle]

I don't object to referring to animals as 'it" because we don't know their sex. I object because "it" refers to things. Animals are persons, not things.

This.

If I don't know a dog's (or any animal's including human babies) sex then I refer to them as they etc until I find out. For dogs I meet I tend to ask their owner what their name is and usually that will tell me what sex they are. The other thing that pisses me off is when people write their pet's name with speech marks around it, like "Missy" instead of Missy. I don't know why they do it.

 

[Calliegirl]

From their FB page...

There have been some questions as to Missy's (Lucky's) actions when she was found. First of all, we were concerned that she had gained enough strength from the minimal water and food from the previous day to get herself in further trouble- as you've all seen the terrain is endless boulders forming countless caves- plenty of places to hide, and to die. I (Stefan) spotted her as I reached the bottom
of the saddle, her dopey ears and sweet face peeking out from between two larger rocks. As I approached, she growled lightly and rose up on her hurt forepaws. Her nose was cracking. I sat down below her, and talked to her in my best Barry White Voice, waiting for Scott. We decided to wait for John Steed, because he has the lightest touch, and he held out his hand, which she accepted, and in a twinkle she was lapping water from a dish and taking kibble gingerly. Her appetite increased, I believe, as did her hope, and soon she was gratefully crunching biscuits in the pack. More on her rescue to come!

 

[kazyeeqen]

This.

If I don't know a dog's (or any animal's including human babies) sex then I refer to them as they etc until I find out. For dogs I meet I tend to ask their owner what their name is and usually that will tell me what sex they are. The other thing that pisses me off is when people write their pet's name with speech marks around it, like "Missy" instead of Missy. I don't know why they do it.

Exactly; "they" is a super new way of referring to unknown gender people or animals.

 

[K-II]

I've heard of animals (dogs, specifically) also having a preference for certain races, too, so I'm not sure that sort of preference indicates much besides that they can tell there's some kind of difference. That much isn't surprising at all, and I'd think some differences between sexes (scent, voice) would be easier for them to discern than for us.

English is annoyingly lacking in good terms for a gender-irrelevant thing that may or may not be human but is at the least alive or personified. I do abuse 'they' for that in humans, but I never liked it because it sounds like more than one, although it makes more sense to me than the previous 'he' when gender is not yet specified. 'It' feels much more logical. I think I can refer to pretty much anything with an existence as 'it' except for a living human in its entirety. Except just then, because I found a way. In general though, 'it' unfortunately can't replace 'they' without seeming off.

Maybe it's time to look at one of those other languages we trade words with on occasion and see if they have something. If Europe/Scandinavia don't have a decent substitute I'd even be willing to try something Cyrillic as long as I can write it easily without new characters.

 

[kazyeeqen]

I've heard of animals (dogs, specifically) also having a preference for certain races, too, so I'm not sure that sort of preference indicates much besides that they can tell there's some kind of difference. That much isn't surprising at all, and I'd think some differences between sexes (scent, voice) would be easier for them to discern than for us.

English is annoyingly lacking in good terms for a gender-irrelevant thing that may or may not be human but is at the least alive or personified. I do abuse 'they' for that in humans, but I never liked it because it sounds like more than one, although it makes more sense to me than the previous 'he' when gender is not yet specified. 'It' feels much more logical. I think I can refer to pretty much anything with an existence as 'it' except for a living human in its entirety. Except just then, because I found a way. In general though, 'it' unfortunately can't replace 'they' without seeming off.

Maybe it's time to look at one of those other languages we trade words with on occasion and see if they have something. If Europe/Scandinavia don't have a decent substitute I'd even be willing to try something Cyrillic as long as I can write it easily without new characters.

You're not used to 'they' but it's becoming legitimate. It's the new real, it's already happened.

 

[mlp]

Nonhuman animals certainly can and do distinguish between the sexes in humans. It's especially obvious with parrots, who quite often have a strong preference for humans of one sex over the other.

I definitely think of nonhuman animals as either male or female - their are quite obvious differences in behavior, even among neutered/spayed nonhumans.

 

[K-II]

You're not used to 'they' but it's becoming legitimate. It's the new real, it's already happened.

I can't use 'they' in as many situations though. It covers he/she but not her/him, so for instance I couldn't use it in 'um, I wouldn't annoy that, if I were you.' A singular term for those sorts of situations would make much more sense to me, if we're going to start considering things like 'it' to be incorrect.

Or maybe I can just rebel by not using any term at all, as in 'Oh, went shopping or something I think.'

 

[kazyeeqen]

I can't use 'they' in as many situations though. It covers he/she but not her/him, so for instance I couldn't use it in 'um, I wouldn't annoy that, if I were you.' A singular term for those sorts of situations would make much more sense to me, if we're going to start considering things like 'it' to be incorrect.

It's not just the subjective pronoun form 'they', it includes the objective form 'them'. It's just using the entire plural 3rd person pronoun as a neuter 3rd person singular pronoun.
"I wouldn't want to annoy them."
"My friend Pat is getting top surgery tomorrow, they are so excited about it."

It may seem weird because it's plural, but it's not like this kind of thing has never happened in language before. We already have no distinction between singular and plural 2nd person pronouns. The point is that that's how English speakers are already handling the situation of a gender neutral pronoun. There was a movement to introduce new words as gender neutral pronouns, but that really didn't get very far. It's rare that language can be changed so deliberately.

 

[K-II]

Funny you should mention that actually... we don't technically have different singular and plural in second person, but at the same time as people are starting to blur the third person ones together, we're getting things like 'you'se' and 'y'all'. Hurray for circularity I guess.

I think I'd rather just slur 'that'n' or 'th'un' (that one, depending how fast I say it ) than use 'them'. Or maybe they, even. I suppose in time it might sound less weird though... maybe. If they ever sort out that 'curing ageing' thing, nobody will understand me a century from now...