Animals & Nature/Pets

[Toffee]

I'm deeply interested in (wild) Animals & Nature but have no interest whatsoever in pets. For those who are, do others agree that there should be a separate category for pets so that those of us who wish could avoid the plethora of domestic cat and (to a much lesser degree) dog questions?

[mystyk_star]

Pets are animals incase you have forgotten.

[SteveD]

I think that this would just result in even more questions posted in the wrong section. I started a thread in the "News" section about ways in which Answerbank users would like to see the site improved, but it seems that our requests go unheeded and unacknowledged. I sent a message using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. Perhaps you could do the same. Maybe if more people send them messages they will at least acknowledge that there are ways to make improvements. What is the point of running a web site if you don't take notice of the people who use it?

[Toffee]

Thanks mystyk_star, but your contribution doesn't really address the question.

[boognish76]

Yes - lets have a separate section for pets and wild animals. And a separate section for trees and flowers because some people aren't interested in both. And while we're about it can we have a separate section for cats because I'm not really interested in dogs. And can we have a separate section for homes because I don't have a garden. Do you see where this is going?

[Moonhead]

I have to agree with boognish I'm afraid.

[thewillow]

Boognish - I haven't got a garden but I've got a window box. How would that work out?

[jills]

I'm with Boognish too...........

[andy hughes]

When the site was first constructed, careful consideration was given to the catagories, and those chosen were deemed the most appropriate, and sub-divisions were ruled out for reasons of space and ease of management. Yes, a sub-division such as you have suggested would be an idea, but how long before the Music section is subbed into rock / pop / jazz / soul, or the Adverts into TV / film / print, and so on and so forth. I guess we have to go with the current format, and simply ignore the Questions we don't want to answer.

[mystyk_star]

The category is animals and nature, you want a separate section for pets, but pets are animals, see what I'm saying. Your welcome by the way.

[Toffee]

Thanks everyone. I think there is a genuine distinction between nature in the raw and pets in and around the house. I would never wish harm on a domestic pet but I have little regard for them. On top of that I have an allergy to cats'/dogs' fur. Domestic pets do not live in their historic natural environment and there is therefore a degree of abnormality in their existence. What fascinates me is the behaviour of animals in their natural environment, which I accept changes as human activity impinges on their territory. This suggestion has had the largest reaction of my few contributions to date -- I didn't expect the (over?)sensitivity of, I assume pet owners, when I was only suggesting an administrative change to the site. Sorry if I've inadvertantly upset anyone.

[mjackson]

no pets dont live in their natural environment because our ancestors domesticated them and and took them out of their environment and made them dependant on us but if you watch household pets in action when they think your not looking they display fascinating instinctive behaviour similar to that of wild animals

[mystyk_star]

I'm not upset in the least. And you are right there is a huge difference between domestic pets and animals in the wild.