When it comes to animals, words matter

I’ve always been fascinated by language and the power of words. As Marin Humane’s director of marketing and communications, language, and, specifically, words, are key to my work. Words allow us to inform, influence and inspire others — and vice versa. Essentially, words matter.

In animal welfare, words can carry even more weight. How we use them can have real impacts not only on how animals are viewed and treated but also on the human-animal relationship.

Historically, language used to describe animals often mirrored societal norms that accepted and even encouraged their exploitation. Terms like “beast” and “creature” have been used pejoratively, reducing animals to mere objects of disdain or utility. Animals raised for meat are referred to as mere “stock” or even “production units.”

There are problematic words related to our pets, too, that connote their treatment as mere objects. Referring to an animal as an “it” or one who has a pet as an “owner” relegates these sentient beings to mere property. And while sadly the law still regards animals as property, we don’t have to when it comes to the words we choose.

There are also words related to animal shelters that are outdated, misleading and hurtful to those who work and volunteer in these often underfunded, overwhelmed organizations.

Here are a few key words to consider along with some suggestions for alternatives:

• “It.” Many journalistic standards, including the Associated Press Stylebook, widely used by print and online news sources, still call for the use of “it” or “that” when referring to an animal. Instead, consider using “he” or “she” or just the pet’s name.

• “Owner.” As noted above, this word treats animals as mere objects. Consider using “guardian” or even “pet parent.” After all, many of us think of our pets as our fur babies.

• “Kill (or no-kill) shelter.” This relatively new term is divisive and misleading. While likely coined with good intentions, it demonizes underfunded, overwhelmed animal shelters, implying that those that have no choice but to humanely euthanize animals are doing something akin to murder. These terms have the opposite effect from what was likely intended as many people now refuse to adopt from what they perceive as a “high-kill shelter” when those are the shelters in the most critical need of adopters and volunteers.

• “The pound.” This term is born out of legal terminology that requires the use of “impound” for an animal that has been brought to a shelter. It suggests again that the animal is an object and it demeans the care given to animals at a shelter. Instead, refer to what it is, an “animal shelter.”

• “Dog catcher.” This term is incredibly disrespectful to animal services officers who serve the community by keeping animals and people safe. These highly trained women and men care deeply about animals and must navigate difficult situations every day.

• “Pests” or “vermin.” While these terms relate more to wildlife than pets or farm animals, it lumps a variety of animals simply trying to exist under a term that elicits feelings of disgust and fear. That’s not to say we should embrace the idea of mice in our homes but using a blanket term like “pest” can allow us to safely distance ourselves psychologically from the inhumane options of removing them. Not to mention the fact that what some view as pests, such as skunks, others recognize for their importance in our ecosystem. (Skunks eat mice, moles and insects.)

The shift toward more humane language is not merely semantic. Words carry weight and influence behavior. By adopting more accurate, compassionate terms, we foster a greater respect for all living beings.

Lisa Bloch is the director of marketing and communications for Marin Humane, which contributes Tails of Marin articles and welcomes animal-related questions and stories about the people and animals in our community. Go to marinhumane.org, find us on social media @marinhumane, or email lbloch@marinhumane.org.