Called to testify Thursday and need help.

[fishmommy]

I can tell from your last post Raze that you are on top of this!
I am looking forward to reading your paper but I already know it will be awesome
I'm glad you're on this...you'll do us all proud

[razeraze]

Originally Posted by KrokadilyanGuy3

Use what you can.
I'm confused. There are several breeds (Yes, we created them-almost all from mallards), that are kept and are considered domesticated. One idea used to identify domestication, is that we made them what they are. Dogs, cats, cows, pigs, ect. Domesticated, and created; in a sense.
And ducks are indeed used for commercial use and are absolutly considerd as live stock.
Eggs, meat and down are their commercial properties.
In short, this is something you will have to watch out for, because if you're going against a lawyer, a decent one, you'll face things like this.
And yes, ducks can be pets.
Also, doesn't the law take in their own accordance to definitions?

But a duck that you keep from an orphan or one that wonders into your yard and becomes a pet is not a domesticated duck. Ducks are considered wild animals and not pets (livestock maybe), but by popular opinion (especially peta and the aspca) not pets at all. You can not get them at your local pet store or through many adoption agencies, in fact I would gamble pet ducks are more rare then pet lizards, which illustrates that the use of them in the dictionary can span to even the rarest of pets.
Sorry I needed a little break from my paper.

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

It's a selective area.
You're going by a definition that argues your point, however, the judicial system will likely have a different opinion and will likely counter your definition, as it has already been done here.

Ducks are wild animals, but they are domesticated. It's a loose word, so let's hope they don't follow your lead with that, because it'll probably indicate back to the word domestication. Which are what dogs and cats are, as well as domesticated ducks. (Austrailian spotteds, Bali, Indian runner, Pink german, Appleyard, ect). We made these animals, so to speak. These domesticated ducks are also kept as pets and some are even showed. Like a dog or a cat. In Oklahoma, you can buy ducks at a pet shop. You can buy Ducks at Atwoods. (farm supply). You can also special order ducks through a lot of pet stores. It's easier to house a lizard vs a duck. It's cleaner to house a dog instead of a duck. Learned that the hardway.

In short, know your arguement. Ducks are domesticated and are showed pets. Ducks are also accepted as pets and livestock. Just because you may be unaware to it doesn't make it any less true. If you fight against a lawyer who has done his homework, this will probably go sour.

Speak of solid ideas. We're aware that most people do not like reptiles and dislike the fact people keep them. My original idea has a better chance of getting somewhere.

If I can spin the spoon on this, so can they.

[razeraze]

I think you will find in Illinois duck farms and domestic ducks are incredibly rare, I am sure region may have much to do with what is considered a pet. Pigs are not considered pets in Illinois even if kept as pets. They are considered swine and you have to be zoned accordingly in order to own one, same as horses. So domestication has little to do with pet interpretation. If I bought a domesticated pet royal dandie pig, I would still need to be zoned for swine regardless of domestication or pet status. Luckily there is no zoning in Illinois for reptile keeping which would damage the argument they are indeed being kept as pets and not livestock.

Not to mention wild water fowl or wild ducks are protected and considered different than domestic fowl.

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Originally Posted by razeraze

Not to mention wild water fowl or wild ducks are protected and considered different than domestic fowl.

That is why I said saying the word duck is a loose word.

The entire idea is to convince the judical system of an idea. Forget about the bans. There are dog bans out there, but that doesn't make them any less of a pet. You have zoning for everything so it's argueable to even bring it up.

The idea is to convince people reptilians are good pets. To better that, you have to put ideas in to fight off all of the definitions. One definition for pets states domesticated animal. Another statement states duck. Which are domesticated. And when you think about it, the two definitions go together.

Think about it. Don't fight agaisnt something when you can go with it and alter it for your satisfaction.

We all know a dog is a pet. Shame a lot of dogs have bans depending on zoning and states. The bans are there but it doesnt make it any less of a pet.

Domestication has a lot to do with it.

[razeraze]

Originally Posted by KrokadilyanGuy3

Domestication has a lot to do with it.

Popular opinion has more to do with it than domestication. Pitbulls are the most commonly bred dog in America so one would argue they are the most popular domestic dog in America, how ever it does not change people's opinion on whether or not they make good "pets". Rather than bank my argument on captive bred or farmed reptiles for domestication, I would rather point out the duck example, that any avian kept as a pet is in a different classification than domestic livestock fowl. Avians are still considered exotics both by veterinary practice and popular opinion regardless of the chicken farms. A pet chicken has a different definition than chicken farming, this is where the definition of an animal treated with kindness or fondness comes in to play or the adjective kept as a pet or expressing fondness or endearment /favorite.
Just being domestic does not make a pet and animals that are not domestic still fall into this pet definition both by the farlex dictionary and the webster's dictionary..

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Originally Posted by razeraze

Just being domestic does not make a pet and animals that are not domestic still fall into this pet definition both by the farlex dictionary and the webster's dictionary..

Domestication makes the animal more prone to acceptablility when the animal has nothing else going for it.

Originally Posted by razeraze

Popular opinion has more to do with it than domestication.

Then the argument is moot. We all aready know what the popular opinion is.

Originally Posted by razeraze

I would rather point out the duck example, that any avian kept as a pet is in a different classification than domestic livestock fowl.

You're not debating Avians in general. You're debating ducks in consensus of your definitions. If you buy a duck, odds are you are buying a domesticated duck. If you brought home a duck, or kept a duck you found outside, you broke the law. That won't fly well in court. You're buying the same duck for a pet as you would for your farm.

Now, other aves and fish, you'll have an argument, maybe.

Originally Posted by razeraze

A pet chicken has a different definition than chicken farming, this is where the definition of an animal treated with kindness or fondness comes in to play or the adjective kept as a pet or expressing fondness or endearment /favorite.

Exactly. You have to convince the judicial system of the expressed fondness. Which is why I mentioned the rehearsal of the fish that they themselves kept. You're going with domestication as being just livestock when that's not at all the case.

Dogs and cats are domesticated and are attractive in that state. If you make mention of domesticating the animal, you'll have more chance of the people being more on your side, which is what you want. Domestication is a solid form of acception. And it's a start. You'll have several ways of expressing your ideas on with that route.

Fish and certain aves are popularly accepted because when was the last time your fishy ate the next door neighbors dog? I don't recall too many people being afraid of that parakeet. You want people to accept, you have to take steps towards that acception. Saying hey, I found this adjective saying to "show fondness" so I think it should be widely acceptable isn't going to cut it.

People take notice to the intelligence of a fish. The calm actions and wide deversity. Birds are intelligent, some even talk. These animals actually work for themselves. Show that they are acceptable. Reptiles, well, they're "creepy" and bring nothing to the table.

Basically, you're missing the idea. If you don't want to take steps to making something acceptable outside of an adjective, that's cool. Good luck. Show us the legal pleadings when it's done with. I'm curious to how this will play out

[razeraze]

Again I am not worried about it, domestication is only one section of one definition, one in which is very open to debate when considering the other meanings of "pet". Believe me everyone here will know how this turns out. There are no steps needed to work my way up to reptiles being considered pets. They are already widely accepted and recognized by the usda as companion animals, as well one of the largest industries in the pet trade market. I am sure the numbers and definitions will speak for themselves, if the judge is bent on domestication being the only pet standard then the majority of pets will not be accepted, yet the dangerous livestock would be. That is a seriously flawed mindset and I doubt any judge would view the case as such.