Karen Bradshaw, who graduated from Chico State in 2006, is now a Professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, and Senior Sustainability Scientist at the Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation. Her new book argues for "Wildlife As Property Owners: A New Conception Of Animal Rights" ($27.50 in paperback from the University of Chicago Press; also for Amazon Kindle).
At first glance the notion seems absurd. Do animals actually think of themselves as property owners? Bradshaw rightly leaves that question to scientists and philosophers; instead, she asks the more practical question: "Should people consider animals as potential property owners?" Her book makes the case that not only is this not absurd, property law already has resources that can get us to "yes."
In property law, non-human entities, like corporations, can own things. Trustees oversee the property claims of domestic animals who have inherited an estate as well as others who are unable to act on their own.
Bradshaw's conception of animal property rights does not ascribe human rights to animals (a radical proposition) and broadens the scope of animal welfare laws to include entire biological ecosystems. Under her approach, "humans would retain the right to own pets, eat meat, or kill spiders."
Bradshaw sees many parallels in the animal kingdom to human property rights. "Property rights diminish the need to wake up each morning and fight to the death over where to eat and sleep.... The time and energy saved can be invested in other activities, such as catching prey or creating iPhones."
Communal rights develop among humans especially when resources are scarce, when no one individual can control the environment. It's the same in the animal world: "Lions always maintain territories with two watering holes" and so the pride must cooperate in their defense.
If Bradshaw's purpose is to convince a skeptic, she has succeeded.
