>>50160888GameFreak has no reason to ever address that since it has nothing to do with the series. That doesn't mean that GameFreak doesn't throw *unsubtle* clues your way. It is of course why I put a big emphasize on imagery, behavior and interactions. Just as most well-adjusted modern people can tell from a vase from over thousands of years ago tells the scenery of a young boy playing fetch with his dog so does Pokémon use similar imagery for the Pokémon themselves. Even the food they're shown eating feeds into this imagery, I could go on how even the type of drink and food and the way one eats could contribute to someone's perceived social and cultural status.
Just as Pokémon wants you to think of a domestic Pokémon being closer to a pet dog than anything else, and think critically how many domestic like dog Pokémon there are for them to model Pokémon behavior after them, the series also wants you to think of Pokémon as critters and it also uses the concept of what a critter is to great extend. This is also why looking at it from behind the scenes is useful. Most of the 3rd party regulations are there to maintain that image for example and the guides even go as far to state that Pokémon serve as a replacement for real critters meaning they are a fantasy stand-in for them. Even the headwriter of the anime constantly refers to Pokémon as critters, he doesn't call them monsters nor does he only apply that label to rattata or pidgey but as a universal label. Pokémon may be fiction but it's clearly trying to evoke certain concepts.
