Could Property Law Help Achieve ‘Rights of Nature’ for Wild Animals?

[UngulateNerd92]

A new legal theory proposes granting property rights to wildlife to protect them from habitat destruction.

Humans share the Earth with billions of other species. We all need somewhere to live, yet only humans own their homes.

What if other species could own theirs as well?

That’s what Karen Bradshaw, Arizona State University law professor, proposes in her recent book, Wildlife as Property Owners.

Drawing on Indigenous legal systems and the ideas of philosophers and property law theorists before her, Bradshaw argues that wild animals should be integrated into our system of property law to prevent further habitat destruction — the leading cause of species extinction.

Could Property Law Help Achieve ‘Rights of Nature’ for Wild Animals? • The Revelator

 

[Pantheraman]

I'm all for it. If it means wildlife habitat is protected.

This law sounds like it's needed in Florida.

 

[Zooplantman]

Then they will be sued by every fool that gets a scratch while hiking. And besides: if the animals are granted ownership what, then, are the plants? Tenants?

 

[Jurek7]

Then they will be sued by every fool that gets a scratch while hiking.

Or animals will be asked to pay the property tax. And if not, get legally evicted and the habitat sold to the highest bidder.

I actually made a thought exercise what if, and written such a piece.

WHY ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE TOO DANGEROUS FOR ANIMALS?

On the example of what would happen in real life, if Mr Black Bear was given legal property rights to his wood.

1. Existing system of conservation is tested for over a century and works well if properly enforced. There is no proof that another system would be better enforced or less prone to abuse.
2. Declaring and enforcing legal rights would put an additional cost on conservation, because animals don't normally own or generate money. For example, a fee of a property lawyer representing Mr Black Bear would diminish the budget assigned to conservation of bears or woods.
3. Animals are too vulnerable to abuse by their legal guardians. For example, any lawyer could claim that Mr Black Bear prefers to trade its woods to a timber company in exchange of a very big barrel of honey.
4. All rights exist as one unified legal concept, giving animals only some rights but not others will create dangerous legal situations. For example, if Mr Black Bear can own property but has no human-like right to live, an easy solution would be to shoot Mr Black Bear and declare his property vacant.
5. Animals cannot fullfil secondary obligations coming with rights in the legal system. For example, property rights usually come with property tax, but Mr Black Bear cannot pay taxes. This could lead to Mr Bear falling into debt and his forest sold to the highest bidder.
6. Animal rights automatically create conflicts of rights between animals, and these are not solvable and not enforceable. For example, Mr Black Bear, Mrs Grizzly Bear, Mr Coyote and Family Timber Wolves could come into a conflict about ownership and use of woods. A human court cannot solve or enforce this.
7. Animals cannot understand their rights
8. Animals cannot enforce their rights
9. Animals cannot fullfil moral obligations which come together with rights. For example, a bear cannot understand to stick only to the place a human declared as his.