Good idea.
Are you about to tell us about your Saturday night adventures, MrP? :shock:
It would be an excellent reply to several posts.
MrP
Chilla Bulbeck, in Facing the Wild: ecotourism, conservation and animal encounters , says that she uses the pronoun “who” to refer to animals in two ways, i.e. when “an individual animal with a personality is being discussed or the context suggests that the nominated animals are deemed akin to humans”.
If Chilla Bulbeck uses ‘who’ when referring to animals, we should all do it.
I’m for that.
BTW, who’s Chilla Bulbeck?
Did you Google?
It doesn’t matter. As long as she’s not a poster on this forum, her opinion is by definition more authoritative than the opinion of any poster on this forum.
Naturally, on other forums, the opinions of MrP, Molly, Ralf, etc., are similarly quoted, with similar awe.
MrP
amen
and here’s for not knowing which page you’re on
(that “amen” was in response to the posts at the bottom of page three)
It would be an excellent reply to several posts.
MrP
Mr.P, you do know that entering the names of some of this forum’s posters into a Google search (and hitting Enter) is likely to yield search results in the billions, meaning that our opinions are more accurate than those of others.
I doubt it, but natives and nonnatives here often quote the “authority” of writers, don’t they? I quoted her because she is a writer and it is good to see how writers use relative pronouns, isn’t it? She also talks about how that pronoun is used by animal rights activists and by animal lovers, which may be interesting to some.
So, getting back to the language point, what do you think of her view/use of “who” for animals, i.e. when “an individual animal with a personality is being discussed or the context suggests that the nominated animals are deemed akin to humans”.
.
It might depend on what the animals had been nominated for, I suppose.
.
It was mentioned before (probably about three times in this thread) that it depends on the speakers intention to [color=indigo]attach human qualities to the animals in question.
Here’s another ‘natural’ example.
Amoebas who chat amicably amidst American amanuenses are amorally amorphous.
In any similar context, ‘who’ would sound equally appropriate.
I’ve only noticed “who” being reserved for animals with considerable intelligence. Are amoebas in that category?
That changes everything.
Possible examples:
The elephant who remembers everything.
The mare who forgot her name.
Or: The ape who knew too much.
Maybe amoebas are more intelligent in the world of the gamer:
You’re an amoeba who has to grow to live. Move around using the arrow keys.
nerdnirvana.org/g4m3s/amoeba.htm
And religion:
:shock: :shock: :shock: Note how the amoeba gets a “who”, but the poor sperm and eggs only get a “that”. 
Great game! Played it twice and ended up in level 5 on 7797 points 
I’m an amoeba who almost passed the lissomness test :!: Smooth tune as well.
Ah yes. In us and around us.
MrP
Yawn! It’s your obsession, eh? Have you made any on-topic posts in this thread, MrP?