|
Back to Blog
Standard or classic animal rights theories, as Donaldson and Kymlicka have highlighted in Zoopolis. A political theory for animal rights, are based on a simplistic idea about the boundaries of human and non-human animal territories. This led to the standard division between domesticated and wild animals and, consequently, to the development of a theory of rights for each group of animals that mirrors the aforementioned idea. However, these classical theories are insufficient in many ways. First, they are based mainly on negative rights (i.e., “hands off” for wild animals). Second, they presuppose that there is a stark division between urban territories and “nature”. Third, do not acknowledge that many species live among human beings in cities. Therefore, the authors introduce a new category, liminal animals. This category encompasses all animals living among us in urban spaces, traditionally considered exclusive for humans (and some domesticated species). Feral pigeons (Columba livia) are, along with rats, the most pervasive species in cities around the world. Nonetheless, neither have animal rights theories nor advocacy groups devoted much attention to them. In this paper, I present a discussion about how feral pigeons defy the common grounds of animal rights theories -domesticated/wild animal division; nature/urban areas- in line with Kymlicka and Donaldson’s theory. However, I claim that feral pigeons, because their origin as domesticated animals and their need for human caring, should be given more than the basic negative rights as the authors propose. In fact, they should be considered as positive rights holders, including rights to food and medical aid. Moreover, feral pigeons and are a good example of how we need to re-think animal rights. I will show, endorsing Kymlicka and Donaldson point of view, that it is important to provide animal rights political contextualization. This will mean considering pigeons as part of our political communities when designing our urban spaces and when planning health policies, for example. Finally, since feral pigeons re-ignite the classic tension between conservation and animal rights advocacy I will address this topic as well. The categories used by conservationists, native/exotic animals, seem to lose their force in urban contexts because, what is the “nature” that the “non-native” Columba livia is putting in danger? This scenario enables us to propose public policies that recognize the multi-species nature of cities instead of focusing exclusively on re-wilding nature or protecting native species. I will present two cases of feral pigeon management in Argentina and an NGO that promotes their protection that illustrate this tension. Ph.D. Silvina Pezzetta(CONICET - National Council of Scientific and Technical Research - UBA Law School, Argentina) Comments are closed.
|