I will give it a go, but I think the question misses the point I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make.If you had to make a distinction how would you describe the two, livestock and pet?
My point is that 'livestock or pet' is a false dichotomy. Having just two categories to describe the full complexity of our relationships with other species is inadequate.
In human relationships the dichotomy 'family or friend' would miss a whole host of relationships such as colleague (or the even less intimate American 'coworker' which, when I first saw the term, I thought was about farming). And I am not even touching on a host of others, largely derived from human social context, such as enemy, subordinate, boss, competitor etc.
So, I would lean towards something like the following:
Livestock: Animals kept solely or primarily for 'use' by the keeper. This would include whether that use is for food, labor, or entertainment for commercial purposes (e.g. circus or zoo animals).
Pet: Animals kept solely or primarily for companionship or personal entertainment of the keeper (entertainment without commercial gain).
Comrade: Animals kept for a balance of psychic and ‘use’ benefits, and with whom we have an individual relationships. I think This would include many back yard chicken flocks.
Ambassador: Wild animals who form friendships with individual humans such as @Perris's pheasant. This is not uncommon and could be considered a category of Comrade - we often provide food to the animal and we derive psychic, non-commercial, benefit (joy, entertainment etc.) from them. I chose Ambassador as in 'they are a representative from another species'. There is probably a better word.
***
I do not think these terms dictate how people treat the animal. A person can be concerned for the welfare of livestock (or not), can mistreat a pet (or not) etc.
Nor do I think it is defined by species as many species can cross boundaries. Chickens obviously. Horses can fall in any of the four categories.
Not sure I have expressed how I feel about this perfectly, but hopefully it provides some food for thought.
Last edited: