Castelló (2022) on Aussie Wild Animals

Pablo P. Castelló, “A Strategic Proposal for Legally Protecting Wild Animals.” Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 25(2): 103-134, 2022.

• This article looks at how wild animal interests might be protected under the Australian Constitution. Its argument builds on Donaldson and Kymlicka: animals need rights to self-determination, individually and communally. So Castelló takes as a starting point the notion that wild animals have interests and deserve some fundamental rights.

• One advantage of providing fundamental rights is that it makes backsliding, retreating on the rights of wild animals, more difficult.

• The approach here is intended to pragmatic, keeping (Australian) political feasibility in view.

• Currently, a division between wild and domesticated animals reaches Aussie common law through roots in Roman law: wild animals are things that can become some human’s property through appropriation.

• “…members of endangered species have strong protections under Australian law [p. 107].” Many wild animals lack similar protection.

• Currently, wild animals can be hunted, can be domesticated (into human property) and/or confined, or be killed if they are viewed as threats.

• In the author's proposal, individual wild anymals and their communities will have rights to political representation; to not be property; to territory; and to self-determination. They, and their ecosystems, are protected against human harm and activities.

• Self-determination is meaningless without territory (p. 109), and anymals need habitats protected against human-induced harms to survive.

• The proposed self-determination is internal: anymals do not have the right to secede, for instance. A similar form of internal sovereignty currently applies to some Australian indigenous peoples.

• Self-determination precludes being someone’s property. Hunting, capturing, or domestication are inconsistent with a right not to be property; nor could wild animals be sold. 

• The right to political representation requires some humans to serve as proxies.

• Castelló proposes a new category, “legal animalhood."

• Horses were brought to Australia in 1788; wild horses can trample the individuals and habitats of smaller species. Should the horses be culled to protect other anymal habitat? Better to nudge the horses away – and such nudges (as opposed to killing) are required to respect the self-determination of wild horses.

• To be a wild animal with the rights suggested, you must live in a Wild Animal Territory and participate in a Wild Ecosystem. Much of Australia (40%) would qualify as a Wild Animal Territory – and such a designation would hold minimal impacts on humans, as these areas are thinly populated by humans.

• Even now, the existing category of “Territory” in Aussie law does not require that inhabitants receive parliamentary representation. 

• Territories in which there is an element of sovereignty for indigenous peoples would not be required to become Wild Animal Territories.

• An animal who wanders out of a Wild Animal Territory would lose their status of legal animalhood.

• Fishing is popular in Australia, so for practical reasons, marine animals would not benefit at first from legal animalhood.

• In some property rights alternatives to "legal animalhood," the rights are easily infringed, and hunting, for instance, would still be permitted -- but not for wild animals within their territories under the author's proposal.

• Alternative legal approaches to ecosystems do little to protect the interests of individual anymals – they are not centered on self-determination.

• The “new conservation,” an econ-style environmental approach, takes it as a given that anymals are resources to be consumed or managed by humans.

• Castelló's approach, however, does share the spirit of the ecocentrist vision of Nature Needs Half.

Javanaud (2022) on the Ethics of Using Horses for Recreation

Katie Javanaud, “The Ethics of Horse Riding, Sports, and Leisure.” Journal of Animal Ethics 12(2): 158-171, Fall 2022. 

• After cruelty towards a horse in the 2020 Summer Olympics was brought to light, the pentathlon event dropped equestrian jumping as one of its five legs. (The 2020 Olympics were moved to 2021 because of the pandemic.) Also in 2021, the BBC broadcast a documentary, The Dark Side of Horse Racing, made clear that the abuse of race horses was a common occurrence.

• "Only through acquaintance with practices commonly found in these settings [everyday situations like rising schools and livery yards], can we begin to challenge and to change dominant attitudes and narratives which portray horses as commodities, objects, and instruments for human entertainment or use [p. 159].” 

• Abolitionism traces animal abuse to the property status of animals. Being a benevolent master to an enslaved animal is still to operate in an unethical system.

• But can’t a dog (or a horse?) be a family member and well-treated even if “property” in the law?

• Legal personhood for anymals would eliminate any treatment that was not in the animal’s best interest. For horses, personhood would rule out racing and jumping competitions.

• But can we make these competitions better before they are banned? Are welfare-improving moves delays, or assurances against backtracking (p. 162)? Can informing and educating humans about their similarities' to anymals serve as a palliative strategy?

• Some human/horse interactions (even within the human leisure realm) appear to be mutually beneficial; nonetheless, in the current environment, horse interests are frequently sacrificed to rider interests. 

• British riding schools are woefully underregulated. Horses are overworked and overburdened; inexperienced riders and the horses have little opportunity to bond pre-ride; schools often foreground ease for the human riders: jump-on, jump-off.

• The Donkey Sanctuary has helped adopt better regulations for donkeys – daily and weekly time off, weight restrictions, and so on. "It is time similar legislation was enacted to protect other equines [p. 164]."

• Spacious group housing is best for horses; better vet care and retirement conditions are requisite.

• Competitions lead to pushing horses to or beyond their limits. Horses are transported to a new area, and surrounded by unfamiliar horses and humans. Some competitions do not provide sufficient protective gear and veterinary care for the horses. 

• Horse parades are judged based on qualities that humans find appealing; these qualities don’t align with horse wellbeing.

• Livery yards which board and sometimes rent horses also are under-regulated: bad conditions can persist for years. Horses can suffer from a lack of exercise and companionship, along with poor nutrition.

• Horses in livery yards can develop stereotypic behaviors, which then are responded to as if  they are the fault of the horses ('stable vices'). 

• Good livery yards are consistent with horse flourishing.