Talk:Livestock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agriculture
Agropedia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Livestock task force. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Livestock was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on August 29, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
To-do list for Livestock: edit · history · watch · refresh

Contents

[edit] Clarifications

Cattle dogs are rarely used for mustering, as their name implies they are heelers and not what is required when mustering. Kelpies and their crosses are the most popular stock dogs as they are hardier, will head and heel if necessary. A lot of mustering is now done with some form of vehicle ie. Utes, motorcyles or quads. Branding may be by a fire brand or a freeze brand. I have personally branded hundreds of calves without any infection and damage to them. Ear tags on the other hand are often torn out in plants and/or fences leaving a long tear in the ear. They, too, often strike the eyes when stock are flicking their ears to hunt flies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgoodwin (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks. Big typo in the "Origins of Livestock" section. Dogs were domesticated 45 years ago? Wow! - Kilgore Trout 02June2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.16.95 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] big changes

Made come big changes to livestock page, including uses and types. Please continue to improve.

EastNile 04:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The definition of the Swedish translation livdjur is animals that are useful when alive, such as cows that give milk or stallions used for insemination, as opposed to animals that are only useful when slaughtered, such as swine or cattle raised for beef. Doesn't this distinction exist in the English word livestock?

Not really. In english, pigs or steers are considered to be as much livestock as dairy cows or sheep are. Gentgeen 01:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


What about Fish? they are often raised on a commercial basis for all kinds of purposes, especially the meat

[edit] Definition of livestock

I'm not sure the above query is resolved. I suspect that yes, technically livestock is animals useful when alive. I'm not sure all the animals listed should be included. But then again, I think that cattle, regardless of whether for meat or dairy production, are classified as livestock. So in summary, we don't have a good definition of what is, and what is not livestock. Zoney 12:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some might consider catfish and other captive raised fish to be livestock. H2O 04:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect we'd have to draw the line before all that - perhaps just a sentence noting such opinions, with a link to fish farming (or whatever it's called). I think most types of fish can be farmed - certainly there's farmed salmon. We don't need a whole list on this page I suggest. It's not as nice/good for you as grabbing what you can out of the water - but it's sort of more sustainable. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I added a link to aquaculture, we need that at a bare minimum. H2O 14:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Here are some common definitions of livestock and their sources:

  • "Domestic animals, such as cattle or horses, raised for home use or for profit, especially on a farm" from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
  • "The horses, cattle, sheep, and other useful animals kept or raised on a farm or ranch" from Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
  • "Any animals kept for use or profit" from WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
  • "Domestic animals, especially horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs" from Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.

It seems that livestock can be any animal kept for a useful purpose: which in most practical cases refers to "domesticated" animals. On the Wikipedia "List of Domesticated Animals" page they make a distinction between domestic animals that have significantly "altered as a result of being under humans control for many generations" and those that were semi-domesticated animals or wild animals that were under human control (captive). I think this is a good precedent to follow.

I don't know why animals in all of those categories are listed on the "List of Domesticated Animals" page, though, that seems to be the job of the "livestock" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.32.100 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 Apr, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other proposed areas of coverage for this article

The following areas should be mentioned, at least briefly, and links given where relevant. Of course this will be general, as there are entire textbooks on the subject. H2O 04:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Livestock feeds
  • Housing
  • Breeding and typical breed organizations
  • Livestock shows, fairs
  • Expand animal health care, veterinarians
  • Livestock marketing, auctions, commodities markets
  • Transportation of livestock
  • More history and geography
Of course, nothing useful at feed, show (fair), fair, veterinary (doesn't even mention livestock animals - despite a list of other types e.g. companion) or market. It appears not only is livestock not covered well, but unusually there's not even good pages on subtopics. zoney ▓█▒ talk 14:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • environmental impacts of ranching/farming/raising livestock.Pedant 21:23, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

[edit] Profit

While the previous wording was perhaps, not careful enough, merely including "economics" as a factor does not go far enough. The whole point to livestock, in this day and age, is profit! That's what the whole shebang boils down to! Now, I suggest we put this across somehow (obviously without implying farmers are greedy).

There's no piece either about the fact that farmers (unless large-scale big farmers) find it hard going in Western countries to make a living from it - so much so that both the EU and US heavily subsidise their farming sectors. Meanwhile, those in the developing world struggle to get their goods sold in these markets, and get a pittance for it. There's no discussion of the whole mad screwed up "system". I mean, really, there's something fundamentally wrong with someone "giving up farming" in Ireland, while there's people going hungry, and people attempting to farm on infinitely poorer land. There's something crazy about farming having to be subsidised in the West!

zoney ▓█▒ talk 00:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the system is screwed up, and I am philosophically opposed to subsidies, as are many farmers I know, but I don't know how to fix the system. It's kind of like trying to kick a drug habit. Most people want cheap food and clothing. There is an article that addresses this issue, agricultural policy, and there is an entire field of study agricultural economics (a teeny stub). It think a mention is warranted as to how ag policy affects livestock production, but it's impossible to adequately cover the subject in this one article. H2O 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


subsidies sometimes take the form of "paying farmers to NOT grow tomatoes etc, at least in the US, so subsidies don't really increase food production, just profit...Pedant 21:26, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I think NPOV demands that we treat subsidies with caution. There are justifications for subsidies such as maintenance of the countryside, national security in the event of a war, and even the mere fact that a lot of people in a democratic country want to continue buying subsidised local produce. I'm not going to start a debate, though, just remember NPOV. PhilHibbs 17:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


There are reasons but not always justifications for subsidies... you cannot buy subsidised local produce if the produce is 'being paid not to be grown', but as far as that goes there's the whole ethics of 'meat is murder' etc, and I think even that can be treated NPOV-ly, (but obviously not by me, sorry) but, though I completely agree that there are issues with the profit end of livestock raising, I think the environmental impacts are just as important,
such as diseases that have been traced to pig farms' sewage overflow and similar causes, diseases that actually were created by having animals in crowded unsanitary conditions, being legally fed an 'acceptable amount' of their own feces, and "rendered" byproducts of other slaughtered animals...
maybe a mention of rainforests and african jungles being cleared for more livestock raising land, as well as the slaughter of 'competing species', such as the extinction of the black rhinoceros caused by poaching that competing species to make more graze available for cattle and for their meat and 'horn'...
and also some mention of the more modern trend towards preserving wildlife while still raising stock... like villages in the Sahel defending their crops from nighttime elephant raids by building deep ditches backed by fences, and the whole village gets up at night to make noise and drive the elephants away rather than simply slaughtering them --
and African ranchers raising half the amount cattle their land could support, in order to allow the wildlife and their habitat to recover from their depleted state.
(if all of that can be touched on briefly, I think it would improve the article) I'd be willing to supply raw data, if someone can make it not sound so disgusting... I don't think I can.Pedant 04:49, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

[edit] Table needs work

[edit] Is poultry livestock?

Britannica says poultry isn't livestock, but we're listing it as such. Which is right..? Tom- 21:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think in its most general sense, livestock would include poultry, but I think in common practice, poultry is treated as a separate category, with both livestock and poultry falling under the ag category of animal science. I think an even more questionable entry is "dog". --H2O 00:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Dict.org says not used technically; any animals kept for use or profit - quite how one interprets the not used technically bit I'm not entirely sure, but I guess it means in the industry and we'd need to note that.
Whereas my Oxford Reference Dictionary says animals kept on a farm regarded as an asset which certainly would seem to rule in chickens etc. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Most of the ag related websites I am seeing, including university ag departments, show poultry as closely affiliated with, but separate from livestock. Here is a typical farmer-oriented website: farmworld -- I made some changes - hope ya'll like 'em. --H2O 02:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I still fail to see why one would treat poultry different than goats, cows or sheep, in this article. The poultry class includes many different animals, but thats no reason not to include these. It just seems an artificial separation to me. I want chicken tonight! Walden 12:07, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

As part of my efforts on the H5N1 related pages, I read a great deal of scientific literature on poultry raising practices and poultry are very very definitely called "livestock" by scientists and policy makers and corporations. WAS 4.250 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that may be true, in common parlance however ducks, geese, chickens, etc are not considered livestock, I think most people would consider livestock to be cattle and pigs. -- Librarianofages 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept the argument that poultry are not livestock. I suggest a note to that effect and a link. I'll see if I can do it.Mzmadmike (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] west nile and horses

I heard on CBC radio today that horses can't be the source of human infection of west nile. The host was talking to some vet about why farmers risk not giving their horses the vaccine. This is after several deaths (of horses) due to the virus. The only source is avians, particularly crows. Horses can die of the disease but apparently they can't pass it on to humans because there is a small amount of virus in the blood stream. I don't know if this is accurate but as a whole, humans know little about the virus. I reccomend removing or putting a side note on the horse transmission of disease section. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] minnan:Cheng-siⁿ

What's that link at the end all about? PhilHibbs 17:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia house style guide, links to foreign language pages should be directly germane to the page. There should probably be an English language description to provide some context.
To allow the person who added this link to add the proper explanation, I have moved it here:
de:Vieh
es:ganado
zh-min-nan:Cheng-siⁿ
nds:Veehtüch
nl:vee
ru:скотина
Would the author of this link kindly step forward and explain what it is? --DV 07:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The author of this link, Donarreiskoffer has added it again with no explanation. I will continue to be courteous and move it back here, with the polite request for an explanation of what it is:
de:Vieh
es:ganado
zh-min-nan:Cheng-siⁿ
nds:Veehtüch
nl:vee
ru:скотина
Please see the Wikipedia house style guide, regarding links to foreign language pages.
--DV 20:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Donarreiskoffer hasn't replied yet, but here is a theory of what is wrong. It appears that someone is trying to add links to translations of this article. There appears to be a way to add links to the translations in such a way that they don't appear in the article for a reader, however in this case, the link entry for "minnan" is broken in some manner to defeat the mechanism which hides the language links from the reader.
Since the other links besides the "minnan" link appear to work correctly when I preview them, I am restoring all but the "minnan" link back to the main article page. If anyone can fix the link to the "minnan" page, please let me know what the problem was. Thanks. --DV 06:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a discussion on the talk page. I thought the language links were accidentally removed. I did only check the language I understand (Dutch, German, Spanish) and suppose the others were also ok. Apparently I went a little to fast. But I see that you have already solved the problem. Thank you. By the way, I only contributed once to the article Livestock, I is not true thta I KEPT adding the language links. Donar Reiskoffer 07:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Donar Reiskoffer. As for you not being the original author of the broken link, I neglected to search the history far back enough to realize that another user, A-giâu was the original source of this contribution.
After much struggle trying to decipher what language he was trying to support, lo and behold, it turns out his user page documents a bug with the page parser that is causing the link to the language he is using to wrongly appear on the main page read by readers. Donar, thanks for helping to solve the mystery. --DV 07:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stock shows

I inserted a mention about stock shows and fairs, but it needs help from someone else more knowledgeable. --H2O 19:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is the spelling of this article to be in British or American English?

Examples:

  • "labor" or "labour" (currently the latter)
  • "plow" or "plough" (currently the latter)

--DV 07:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It began as British spelling, and is not a US topic, so it should remain in British/International spelling. zoney ▓█▒ talk 07:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on making the spelling consistently BE, Zoney. I didn't catch "civilisation". The online http://www.dictionary.com doesn't clearly mark that spelling as the British English version (it only has the notation, "Cf F. civilisation" listed next to "civilization"). Can you please point me to a better online reference source to check for these? Thanks. --DV 09:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The 'z's are quite often used in non-US English, in fact many British dictionaries use them (many international organisations however, do use "s" consistently, e.g. the EU). To see an example as to how widespread the "s" spelling is, google for "organisation" vs "organization". Remember to explicitly search only English though (French uses organisation also). 's' is usually specifically a non-US spelling, and as such, ensures US spellings don't creep in. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 18:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poison collection ?

"Poison Collection - Some poisons are collected during food consumption and are not released from the body. Such poisons are accumulated in increasing amounts the further up the food chain a species is. For example, insecticides sprayed on plants won't kill the plant nor the mice eating the plants. A hawk eating those mice might be killed by the accummulation of the insecticides taken in by its prey." Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not something is livestock. Are you saying that livestock don't tend to accumulate toxins, because they are low on the food chain? If so, please reword it so it is understandable and make this more relevant to this article --H2O 20:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

H2O, I'm not sure what this contributor intended either, because hawks are not a type of large land-based mammal, which the list is predicated upon, and it's also not clear how "poison collection" is a prerequisite for domesticating an animal into livestock. Unfortunately, the wording of one of the other examples, "Danger" also reverses the sense of the list, such that the intent of the list seems a bit unfocused.
Rather than delete the "poison" example outright, I have simply reversed its sense (along with "Danger"), to fit the intent of the list (Prerequisites), and also picked a large land-based mammal which might plausibly eat a mouse, to replace the odd "hawk" example.
However, if this list were to consist of reasons something is not livestock, the list would be endless, so the relevance of this item indeed depends upon how one interprets it, and I wouldn't feel bad if someone else chooses to delete it. --DV 06:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think this whole list of "Prerequisites for livestock" sounds pretty speculative. It sounds nice, but "wikipedia is not a place for original research". I would like to see some references to back up these notions. --H2O 07:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The whole notion of safety seems very speculative. I had a boar hog with 2 inch tusks try to bite my hand once. I pulled it back just in time. I would never get in the pen with him. He was huge and if he ever knocked me down it would have been the end of me. Bulls can be very dangerous, not to mention some of the other animals listed. --H2O 07:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The poison section was an elaboration of why we don't use carnivores for food animals. Hawks are the specific example I know of where this poison accumulation happens. I don't know that there are other species/poison combinations that actually do this. BTW- I'm a programmer, not a biologist.
I do like the rewording. Much better. Hrm, well before it got deleted. --TomCerul 15:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Don't know if this is germane to the issue, but many poisons are concentrated in fatty tissues, so poisons such as DDT and other less notorious ones, can be uptaken into the food chain, especially if animals are fed their own feces and rendered animal byproducts, more and more poison concentrates in the meat and the milk as this cycle continues, until it ends up in humans, especially important being that it ends up in human milk, and infants are particularly susceptible to poisons...
so a "large land-based mammal which might plausibly eat a mouse" need only be a cow or steer, and be fed using the common (almost universal in the U.S.A) practice of feeding animals parts of other animals and feeding them feed intentionally (and legally) mixed with their own feces...
or be fed hay or grain which was raised on land poisoned by insecticides and herbicides (also quite common and almost universal in the U.S.A)
or drink similarly tainted waterPedant 05:04, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

[edit] Prerequisites for livestock

I recently discovered that most of this information is duplicated in an article called domestication. I think we should remove most of this section and link to this article. --H2O 04:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it. Also rearranged a bit. --H2O 05:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the deleted text ought to be copied to domestication (on a quick look, I couldn't see it there - apologies if it is already). I see there is a table of dates of domestication in that page too - are the two tables consistent? Should they both be removed and a new page, say Date of domestication of livestock be created to which both pages can link? Alternatively, should livestock just be merged with domestication? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Don't think they should be merged: not all domesticated animals are livestock (parakeets and kittens), and not all livestock are domesticated (herds of bison bison bison raised in Colorado are not domesticated) (wild mustangs are considered livestock, and are sold at livestock auctions, prior to domestication, sometimes they are never domesticated, and are exported for slaughter or as meat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedant (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Welfare

There’s very little here on the rights and wrongs of animal welfare. The way livestock are reared is a hot issue in the UK and there are regular demonstrations against the worst practises. eg the banning of the farrowing crate for pigs, the debate over free range v battery hens, the de-beaking of birds to name a few. Lumos3 12:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why you would ban a farrowing crate. Years ago I raised pigs. We did not use farrowing crates. The sows would often step on and crush their own young. --H2O 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

absolutely some mention of all of those issues seems suitable, if it can be described neutrally, I can't even talk about talking about it without getting agitated, but I would be pleased to see some mention of that in the articlePedant 05:12, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

These issues should be included, but in an introductory fashion, as they are already covered in other articles. --H2O 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More specific definition - your thoughts, please

I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, though I have made some additions & minor changes as an unregistered user.

What do you all think of this definition? I felt that its fairly inclusive and explanatory.

"Livestock refers to domesticated animals that are kept or raised in pens, houses, pastures or farms as part of a agricultural or farming operation, whether for commerce or private consumption. Such animals may include goats, sheep, turkeys, chickens, beef or dairy cattle, horses, hogs, camels, donkeys, rabbits or any animal kept in an inventory that may be used for food, fiber or pleasure. There are some minor disagreements that the term may not appropriately apply to wild animals such as deer, elk or quail that are raised for release on hunting preserves or for slaughter, or to domesticated birds such as chicken or turkey. Generally, aquaculture (the raising of fish, mullusks, shrimp or other water-borne invertebrates) is not included within the term livestock." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mink Butler Davenport (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 Sep, 2004 (UTC)

"As well, while honey bees or bee keeping have not been classically thought of as livestock, its importance to the agricultural community in the United States was recognized by being included in the definition of livestock for crop insurance purposes in H.R. 2559, the "Risk Management for the 21st Century Act," which was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Clinton, June 19, 2000." - a government definition is always helpful (or scary, depending on your perspective) --H2O 19:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include such a technical definition in the introduction? It would seem more suitable to simply mention that bees can also be seen as a form of livestock, then get into the details of American law later in the article.
Peregrine981 22:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't add it and I agree with you. I was trying to merely state, however unclearly, how the government has a tendency to muck things up. --H2O 18:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the supporting info about the honeybees should be added to the footnotes at the bottom. It doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph. --H2O 18:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that the term "Livestock" has a legal definition in some, perhaps most jurisditions. For example, the definition in Nevada Statute is as follows:
NRS 205.219 “Livestock” defined. “Livestock” means:
1. All cattle or animals of the bovine species;
2. All horses, mules, burros and asses or animals of the equine species;
3. All swine or animals of the porcine species;
4. All goats or animals of the caprine species; and
5. All sheep or animals of the ovine species.
NRS 501.003 “Alternative livestock” defined. As used in this title, “alternative livestock” means the following species, including subspecies, of the family Cervidae, if they are born and reared in captivity and raised on private property to produce meat or other by-products of animals or as breeding stock to produce alternative livestock:
1. Fallow deer (Dama dama).
2. Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus).
3. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) that have been certified not to be hybrids with other cervid species or subspecies using the most current and scientifically accepted genetic tests available.
I don't know how or if this sort of information should be incorporated into the article, especially because the legal definition will vary a good bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it's food for thought. Toiyabe 21:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You could add that "In some jurisdictions the term "livestock" has a specific legal meaning." and leave it at that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exotic animals

why are camels considered "exotic"? Someone in Asia would not consider them to be exotic. --H2O 18:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is a sign that perhaps a page doesn't represent a world view, rather than just a Western one. -- Librarianofages 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antelope anyone?

It has come to my attention that the noble antelope may be also a form of livestock. I was reading through the wiki and came across the antelope section and thought that they might be kept as livestock. I did a google search and the "i'm feeling lucky button" came up with this business website for exotic livestock. Interesting. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 00:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Enviromental Impact

This article ( http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece ) says livestock has the biggest enviromental impact bar none. Any thoughts on the inclusion in the article?--Energman 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I would support inclusion of this article. -- Librarianofages 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some more citations here? 24.61.47.29 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Agriculture or Livestock Proposed

I've proposed a WikiProject Agriculture, though I would scale it down to Livestock if I could get more interest. Please comment or sign up at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Agriculture--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done See Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of livestock

Since when were dogs and cats considered livestock? The dicdef of livestock I get is "farm animals regarded as an asset". Dogs arguably fit this if you are speaking of working dogs, but cats? Surely not. VanTucky talk 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)