I propose that we make a small advance in the Animal Rights Movement. I firmly accept that ALL beings must be allowed to pursue their own lives in their own way. I even include human beings in this acceptance. Human beings, however, are limited in this pursuance in that they must be ethical and moral. As a matter of fact, beings that are human are the only beings that must be governed by codes of conduct.

The point I wish to make here is that the term "wild" should no longer be applied to beings such as Grizzlies, Wolves, Elk, etc.--- beings, in other words, that are not domesticated. These beings are not wild, they are free.

The term "wild" has taken on several connotations that are not beneficial for the species thus termed. The term implies a distinction between human animals (who supposedly are not wild) and those animals that are wild. Somehow, those that are wild have to be managed because they have a tendency to infringe on those who are not wild. Those who are wild have a lesser intrinsic value than those who are not. Humans can and do utilize the services of those who are not wild to a greater extent than those who are wild. This is certainly not to ignore that all animals have been, and are being, exploited by human animals.

As an animal who accepts the intrinsic rights of all animals, I suggest that we disallow the word "wild" from being applicable to any other of our kindred species.

What do you think?