The Etiqette of Freedom Shanna Harvell

On page sixteen the author of "The Etiquette of Freedom" makes the claim that we, as humans, are animals. This may be true to some extent, however, the old Native American, Louie, mentioned in the beginning provides a perfect example of what divides humans from animals. The author says there were three people remaining on Earth capable of speaking Louie's native tongue. Louie refuses to meet with this other native because of past family tension, even though his race seems to be on the verge of destruction. Any animal, when faced with extinction, need only to be the same species as a fellow creature in order to repopulate their kind. Louie, making a very human decision, refuses the offer regardless of the scenario (distinction). This is a product of reason, which is inately human. Another example to prove the point that humans are distinctly separate from animals, is Dr. Redick's fun little story he told in class of his dog getting shocked by an electric apple peeler. As he explained, the dog had no clue as to what had happened because the creature does not have a world, a trait distinctly animalistic. My question is this: Where exactly does reason end and instinct begin?
The author also advises against writing too much about the wild because it "embarrasses other animals." Once again, emotions are human characteristics. We like to think dogs and other pets who receive our affection have emotions, and indeed at times they are convincing. But, as Dr. Redick said, animals do not feel, they simply react to stimuli. Another question: If this last paragraph be true, how can we explain the dog whose master dies and, refusing to leave his grave, eventually starves, virtually grieving itself to death?