Talk:Working animal

Early commentary

the Latin scientific name (of humans), sapiens meaning 'wise' or knowledgeable, is a somewhat presumptive declaration of genetic superiority justified only by its high intelligence.

What, this isn't enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.83.157 (talk • contribs)

The "Human toil" section was somewhat confusing both in terms of sentence structure and content. I renamed it "Human labour" as suggested below and tried to streamline it a bit and make it more clear without losing any relevant information. Also fixed a few minor mistakes. Removed a few things which aren't relevant to working animal topic, e.g. the comment about Homo sapiens/wise and "Nevertheless, in terms of natural history, the period when culture allowed humans to live significantly differently to animals (hunting and gathering is essentially animal subsistence) is still too short period of time to count as more then an experiment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.52.216 (talk • contribs)

Human toil?

The first two paragraphs of the 'Human toil' section don't add much to the article (not to mention the characterization of the scientific term Homo sapiens sapiens as 'arrogant'); the second one doesn't even make sense. On top of that, the title of the section -- 'Human toil' -- is a bit loaded. Perhaps, a more neutral name would be 'Human labor', and the section would inform that even though humans are involved in physical labor, and are technically animals, they are not considered 'working animals', although some humans have been treated worse than working animals. The talk about slavery and exploitation can instead become links in a 'See also' section. --Ze ivan 05:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the first two paragraphs and changed the heading title. This whole article needs to be cleaned up anyway. Graham talk 08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

flying animals that you can mount?

why isn't there any? :( lol... imagine how awesome it would be. 86.101.129.87 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a power to weight thing - a flying animal capable of carrying the load of an average human would be bigger than it appears possible for a flying animal to be on this planet. And as for how great it would be ... have you ever been crapped on by a pigeon? Now imagine something large enough to carry a human doing that... 62.196.17.197 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No one thinks of the little guys.

Bees and wasps work for people to produce honey, art, guard duty, medicine, pollination, killing small pests, and weapons of war. Worms aerate soils Praying mantises and lady bugs protect crops from small pests. Thrips protect crops from small pests and fungus. Weeds work for people as medicine, ground cover, attracting beneficial species, repelling or poisoning detrimental fauna, producing fertilization, providing mulch-like cover, soil aeration, creating humidity, scent masking, soil softening, and contraception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.250.173 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

These can't really be trained, so they don't count. Also, who has guard bees? Lithium (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrier pigeons?

Maybe someone who knows more about it than I do, could write something about carrier pigeons or other animals that are used for sending messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.160.171 (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Vague Section Titles

These are the current section titles: Types of work, Animals used for their senses or instincts, Other Uses. These section titles are vague and misleading. I would recommend reorganizing the entire article using the following section titles:

Animals used for pulling or carrying (which would still include riding, pack, and harness as subsections)

Animals used for seeking or gathering (which would include hunting, searching, and herding as subsections)

Animals used for military or security

Animals used to help people with health impairments

Animals that make food or other products

I know that last category is debatable since we don't typically consider bees as working animals. There is also a good question about whether to include plants as working plants. We need to come up with a clear cut definition of what qualifies as "working" and what doesn't.--96.18.205.61 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Only problem is that several animals fall into multiple categories, dogs, for example, could fall into at least four of these groupings. Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced Material

Someone added that rats were sometimes used for their sense of smell. There was no citation, but it was followed by the list of duties dogs perform (drugs/explosive/missing persons etc.) Can anyone verify this and add it back in? Lithium (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Elephants are wild animals, right?

It mentions animals often used for riding—such as equids, bovids, and camels—but also mentions elephants. Then, it says some certain wild animals have been tamed and used to ride for novel purposes, such as zebras and ostriches. Shouldn’t elephants go with the latter? They’re not domesticated, and are rarely used by people for day-to-day transportation, and aren’t most species endangered? SaltySemanticSchmuck (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)