These are also not terms of venery, as OP repeatedly claims. That usage died out in the fourteenth century, and ever since the term has referred to pursuit of sexual pleasure (cf. "venereal disease"). It seems a bit odd to argue against over-specialized terminology by using a term that's both specialized and obsolete.
I'm well aware. I did post the etymonline link, after all. However, it doesn't change anything. The series of glyphs used by the OP author hasn't represented what he meant it to represent for centuries. It's still a deeply archaic usage, whether we're dealing with a single word or two homonyms.
"terms of venery" is still used as a phrase to refer to those collective nouns for animals. Even wikipedia mentions it while describing "collective noun": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun
that "venery" is an outdated word that ~nobody uses in the hunting sense anymore does not mean that the term "terms of venery", which specifically refers to the pattern of words developed during the time the word was used in that context, isn't relevant anymore.
I suspect the author would agree (about the term venery). They even make an aside to explain in the article. They probably selected and used it to demonstrate its archaicness in relation to the other terms.
The author used an archaic collective noun in a way that doesn’t accurately describe the grouping it represents... to needlessly poopoo people doing just that with other words [shrug emoji]
