Without going into depth, I went with a commonly accepted definition used in conversational English. I don't want to go off on a tangent related to semantics.

The original post wasn't really meant to say animals don't feel or think. It was a statement that notwithstanding physiological responses that are amazingly similar to ours under what we would consider emotion inducing circumstances, that most animals do not have the brain development necessary for higher reasoning, abstraction, etc... which are key for the thinking part of our emotions. Anthropomorphism isn't found in believing animals think or feel. It is found in believing they do so at a level even approaching humans.

I am a licensed mental health and substance abuse counselor. When I work with people in dealing with say, anxiety--I help them develop cognitive strategies to differentiate the physiological symptoms (most people are not aware of how much of an impact the body's reactions are in an emotional experience) and the thinking end of the experience. They then learn strategies to settle the physical symptoms down and mental strategies to reframe the meaning of the experience so it has less of a negative impact.The animals lack the advanced cognitive abilities to even have a significant cognitive exerience (based on an underdeveloped forebrain), much less "deal" with it.

While obvious that anthropomorphism is nigh unto radical in most animal rights activists, it is clear by many responses here andanother outdoors forum, that it is still a common phenomena among those of us who enjoy hunting and trapping as well. The phenomena isn't the problem, it is the extremes that some experience it that are.