Wildlife as land owners
Author hopes expanding trusts may prompt people to fight loss of biodiversity, ‘radically reimagine’ their relationship with nature
A heat haze settles on the bees buzzing among the flowers in Karen Bradshaw’s yard. As she walks her property, a bush rattles with motion as a rabbit dashes past, startling a flock of quail.
Within the next few months, this parcel of land will become one of the first in Phoenix to be legally owned by wildlife.
Bradshaw, a professor of law at Arizona State University, is putting into practice a novel theory explained in her new book, “Wildlife as Property Owners: A new conception of animal rights.”
“People and animals have always shared land. Yet law has stripped animals of their right to be on lands and landscapes,” Bradshaw said. “This mistake is driving biodiversity loss, which is the biggest risk to humankind. Bigger than climate change, bigger than anything else.”
The argument Bradshaw makes in her book is that to best safeguard wildlife “the law should allow animals to own land, just as you and I can.” Chapters of her book are devoted to explaining how the currently existing legal framework of a trust could be expanded to benefit animals.
“Biodiversity loss is a property-based problem. The solution is simply to allow animals to enter into our institution of properties,” Bradshaw said. “We are not taking land away without compensation to people. We’re simply adding another category of legal owners, which is wildlife.”
“The goal of this project is to put my money where my mouth is. I’ve written a book about this idea that humans and animals share the Earth, and it’s time to put it into action. In this lot, I have bobcats, javelinas, coyotes, roadrunners and I share the physical space, but the animals don’t have legal rights. That’s a mistake.”
Karen Bradshaw
Author and professor of law at Arizona State University
Radically reimagined
The passion project developing in Bradshaw’s backyard stems from her belief of leading by example, especially with an idea as unique as this one.
“The goal of this project is to put my money where my mouth is. I’ve written a book about this idea that humans and animals share the Earth, and it’s time to put it into action,” Bradshaw said. “In this lot, I have bobcats, javelinas, coyotes, roadrunners and I share the physical space, but the animals don’t have legal rights. That’s a mistake.”
“We’re reimagining our relationship with our natural environment, starting at the most basic level — at our own homes. This is my home, but it is also the home for wildlife that live in my neighborhood, and I want to be sure I’m being a good neighbor.”
Karen Bradshaw
Author and professor of law at Arizona State University
Over the next few weeks, Bradshaw is turning an acre of her yard into what she hopes will be the best potential habitat for local wildlife by creating a water source and planting native vegetation, which could become food for wildlife.
One of her goals is to have her yard meet wildlife habitat certification standards from the National Wildlife Foundation. By proving her theory can be put into practice, Bradshaw hopes others in the area will be inspired to follow suit.
“We know wildlife is something people think about as happening in national parks, or nature preserves, but actually we’re living in a city that is teeming with wildlife,” Bradshaw said. “It is really important to develop pockets of habitat throughout urban and suburban environments, which would contribute to the preservation of wildlife here in Phoenix.”
With her theory being developed into reality, Bradshaw is “exploring the right fit for legal representation” to officially transfer ownership of her yard to wildlife.
“We’re reimagining our relationship with our natural environment, starting at the most basic level — at our own homes,” Bradshaw said. “This is my home, but it is also the home for wildlife that live in my neighborhood, and I want to be sure I’m being a good neighbor.”
In her book, Bradshaw explains that the best way to transfer ownership to wildlife would be through a trust. With wildlife as the beneficiaries, the land would be managed by a human trustee, who would have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the animals.
“Trusts are credibly well established throughout the United States,” Bradshaw said. “Courts, individuals and lawyers manage trusts on behalf of people who can’t manage trusts for themselves, all the time.”
Bradshaw has personal experience with this side of the law. She put her 6year-old daughter as the beneficiary of a trust in the event of Bradshaw’s untimely death.
Bradshaw also pointed out that the idea of non-human beneficiaries isn’t exactly foreign in Arizona: The framework for pet trusts already exist in the state. These pet trusts have been used to provide legal protections for beloved animals when an owner dies or becomes incapacitated.
“We know how to do this because we do it all the time,” Bradshaw said. “The structure is actually already there for this idea of extending a trust to wildlife. That’s the magical part. You’re simply expanding existing laws.”
Like any trust, Bradshaw stresses in her book the idea of wildlife as property owners is all voluntary and she is “offering this land to wildlife.”
“I’m not advocating to take land away from homeowners,” Bradshaw said. “But people who share this vision of humans and wildlife needing to do a better job of having a relationship can see the value of doing this at home.”
‘A bolder vision’
While law professor Holly Doremus shares the same vision and is “very sympathetic to the project’s goal of improving conservation outcomes,” she is “skeptical that property ownership is the most effective or pragmatically achievable way to do that.”
“Whether we recognize animals as property owners or not, people would have to represent their interests and people already do that through state and federal agencies, as well as conservation organizations, that think on behalf of wildlife,” said Doremus, professor of environmental regulation at the School of Law at University of California, Berkley.
“I’m not sure if you will achieve much more if the wildlife themselves own the land since someone else will have to speak for them.”
Even if wildlife legally own land, Doremus isn’t certain it “would convince folks that are already doing bad things to animals and habitat to stop.”
“I’m not opposed to anything that increases conservation outcomes. I believe, in today’s climate challenged world, any and all strategies should be considered,” said Doremus, who has taught property law for nearly 25 years. “I’m just not sure I would prioritize this one because it I don’t think it has the highest conservation value.”
But to Bradshaw, this idea is a “bolder vision for the future.”
While she agrees wildlife owning property may not stop those who are already doing “bad things” to the environment, Bradshaw argues current laws aren’t doing that either.
By expanding the pre-existing framework of trusts to include wildlife, Bradshaw hopes to inspire local residents to take more direct action, on the behalf of wildlife, against biodiversity loss. In her book, Bradshaw explains that currently the solution for biodiversity loss is completely dependent on federal management of public lands.
This dependency on a single solution isn’t enough, Bradshaw says, which is why she believes humans need to “radically reimagine” their relationship with nature.
“I want to empower individuals and private parties with an interest in wildlife to take individual action. Not simply just step back and wait for congress to act but to be empowered to act on an individual level for global goals,” Bradshaw said. “I want to create habitats that are more sustainable and better reflect our values. To do that you need new tools. The Endangered Species Act is definitely not enough. Purely federal control is definitely not enough.”
In her book, Bradshaw delves into how city developments and the subsequent urban sprawl has pushed and contained wildlife to public lands.
The U.S. government relies on four federal agencies to manage approximately 615 million acres of land, making up over a quarter of the entire country. The Bureau of Land Management manages the largest portion of that land, 248 million acres.
Most of these acres are in the western U.S. As a state, Arizona has the sixth highest amount of public lands in the country with more than 30.5 million acres.
According to the book, these public lands have saved an incalculable amount of wildlife and slowed biodiversity loss.
“While these have become a safeguard to some degree for wildlife, they are probably not enough,” Bradshaw said.
The future of U.S. biodiversity can’t solely depend on public lands, she said, especially since the management of these landscapes can vary dramatically between presidential administrations.
“The BLM is subject to different regulations and is in this impossible position that tries to balance goals that are in some ways mutually contradictory,” Bradshaw said. “Anytime you have a vulnerable situation you want redundancy. You want to diversify the risk. But with biodiversity, public lands are becoming the single basket into which we are placing our eggs. If we diversify and think about utilizing both public and private lands to curb biodiversity, it’s a better system.”
Simply summarized, Bradshaw says “you don’t just want to put all your eggs in one basket.” She believes animals owning private land would provide a second basket.
Land management is a key piece of Bradshaw’s argument because she says habitat loss is one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss.
According to Bradshaw, current federal laws, like the Endangered Species Act of 1973, don’t prioritize the protection of habitat enough to curb biodiversity loss. To Bradshaw, complementing this decades-old law by pursuing a nuanced approach to biodiversity loss is the best way forward.
‘The right to the river’
This legal path has been paved by Indigenous tribes throughout both the U.S. and the world.
In 2019, the Yurok Tribe granted the Klamath River personhood, making it one of the first known rivers in North America to have the same legal rights as a human.
“What it means is it gives the right to the river to exist, to flourish and to naturally evolve and a right to a stable climate, free from human caused climate change impacts,” said Amy Cordalis, a member and general counsel for the tribe, in a statement the decision. “What that means is that any time the river is hurt, for example, there’s a toxic pollutant that gets into the water of the river, we could then bring a cause of action against the polluter to protect the river.”
One of the driving factors behind this decision was the steady decline of salmon in the river. Salmon, featured on the tribe’s seal, is culturally significant to the Yurok and provides members with a steady food source.
While this personhood only applies on the portions of the river within the Yurok Reservation, Cordalis says it gives them the chance to make an argument against polluters farther upstream.
Originally from northern California, Bradshaw took inspiration from this landmark law. She wrote in her book that “Indigenous people worldwide are forerunners of this movement, coordinating with one another to grand rights to natural objects.”
With a solid framework established by both tribes and pre-existing laws, Bradshaw is thrilled to see the idea “catching the momentum that it needs to succeed.”
“Arizona is an exceptional state. To be doing this project, which has a national and perhaps even international scope, here in such a special state feels really right to me,” Bradshaw said. “I’m thankful to be in a place that is so innovative and so connected to nature and public lands. Phoenix is the perfect place to be doing this work.”