456 R Sollund highlighting the seriousness of the harm and injustice involved for animals As Beirne argues, the loss of a human life and the loss of an animal life are comparable; both human and nonhuman individuals share an interest in a continued life (Francione 2014) As I acknowledge that animals are sentient beings, I find it legitimate to refer to them as ‘who’ and as ‘he/she’ rather than ‘it’ ‘Wildlife’ is another problematic term In its anthropocentrism, it not only groups a large number of animal species in the same category but also fails to distinguish them from plants ‘Wildlife’ further implies that these species are alien and threatening in some way to humans and that they represent a contrast to civilized, cultured humans and ‘domesticated’ animals put under human dominion, like nature and ‘wilderness’ may be regarded as alien and terrifying (Brisman and Rau 2009) ‘Trafficking’ in this chapter, describes both the legal and illegal trade in animals, as I see few differences between the two in terms of the harm to the victim, although illegal trafficking may result in more victims dying as the trade is then clandestine and the animals hidden, for example, in bottles, suitcases, and other containers I use the term ‘abduction’ rather than ‘poaching’ to refer to forcibly removing someone from their familiar surroundings because the latter implies that killing/taking animals from their habitats is acceptable as long as it is done legally ‘Poaching’ also assumes that animals are property (Sollund 2011), whether of a game park or the state A ‘pet’5 in this context is defined as an animal kept within a domestic setting where the main purpose of keeping him/her is for (human) personal interest, entertainment or companionship (Bush et al 2014, p 664) This definition does not necessarily imply that there is any bond of affection or any form of mutuality between the human and the ‘pet’ in question, for example, reptile owners may be more fascinated by their ‘pets’ than love them (Sollund 2013a) I will begin with a brief overview of trafficking for the pet trade after which I contextualize it by discussing Norway’s position vis-à-vis trafficking and the actions taken by officials based on findings from my own empirical findings of research into this matter Next, I present my findings related to theriocide of trafficking victims followed by some philosophical thoughts on this matter Elsewhere (Sollund 2011, p 438) I argue that the word ‘pet’ implies affection, but it also has a devaluating connotation implying ownership over property, thus objectifying the animals who are there for humans who want or need a physical proximity to a nonhuman animal, which in turn benefits the human, e.g., children, who use the ‘pet’ in an instrumental way, for example the child is expected to learn to show care for others through having a pet