Material vulnerabilities and interspecies relationalities: a critical appraisal of the legal status of animals in disasters

ABSTRACT

As liminal, exigent moments in time, disasters cast light on the significance of animals’ relationships with humans. Through their materialisation, human–animal relations are revealed as taking myriad forms: loyal, neglectful, salutary, harmful, benevolent, deleterious. This article examines how a pervasive failure by the Western legal imaginary to acknowledge and account for the relational aspects of animals’ lives amplifies their susceptibility to harm during disasters. To this end, the article analyses two major dimensions of animals’ legal status: their status as property; and statutory provisions governing animal welfare and wildlife habitat. It consults three temporally and geographically disparate disasters which affected jurisdictions within the Western legal tradition, namely Hurricane Katrina, the Victorian Black Saturday Bushfires and New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquakes, to scrutinise how each dimension of animals’ legal status aggravates their vulnerability to the adverse effects of hazards. Drawing from critical literatures which foreground and fault Western law’s inattention to the nonhuman material world, the article attributes this condition to an ingrained feature of animals’ legal status: that it overlooks the determinative role played by animals’ relationships with humans in securing or compromising their wellbeing and survival during disasters.

KEYWORDS:

• Animals
• legal status
• disasters
• vulnerability
• relationality
• new materialism

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Commonwealth Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The author expresses her profound gratitude to her supervisors, Professors Christine Parker and Lee Godden, for their support of the broader doctoral project from which this article is drawn, and for their ongoing academic guidance. She also thanks the anonymous peer reviewers whose feedback assisted with refining and strengthening the article. In addition, she is grateful to her colleagues in the PhD program at Melbourne Law School, especially the First Drafts group, for their comments on an earlier version of the paper. The article is dedicated to the memory of Daphne: a perfectly bright light who reminded us of the power of the human–animal bond.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Sarat and Lezaun (2009), p 1.

2 Sarat and Lezaun (2009), p 1.

3 See, e.g. Kalof (2017), p 1; see, e.g. Kalof and Fitzgerald (2021).

4 See, e.g. Brackenridge et al (2012), p 230.

5 National Hurricane Centre (2005), p 11.

6 Hodges (2011).

7 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol II, pp xvi, 344.

8 Potts and Gadenne (2014), pp 12–19.

9 Pub L No 109-308, 120 Stat 1725 (2006).

10 151 Congressional Record HE1943 (Tom Lantos) (daily ed, 22 September 2005).

11 Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 USC § 5121 et seq, § 5196b, see also §§ 5196, 5170b.

12 National Civil Defence Emergency Plan Order 2015 (NZ) Schedule.

13 National Civil Defence Emergency Plan Order 2015 (NZ) Schedule, cl 75.

14 National Civil Defence Emergency Plan Order 2015 (NZ) Schedule, cl 140.

15 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol II, p 345.

16 Victorian Emergency Animal Welfare Plan, October 2019.

17 Sarat and Lezaun (2009), p 1.

18 Davies (2017), p 57.

19 Bennett (2010), p 3.

20 Grear (2017), p 3.

21 See, e.g. Wise (1996).

22 State v Chambers, 194 La 1042 at 1045 (1940).

23 Putt v Roster (1682) 2 Mod Rep 318.

24 Saltoon v Lake [1978] 1 NSWLR 52.

25 Note: this paper does not examine the legal status of wild nor farm animals during Hurricane Katrina as the focus of the policy response to that event – the PETS Act – was companion animals.

26 See Wildlife Act 1953 (NZ) s 57 and generally; Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic); Sutton v Moody (1865) 1 Ld Raym 250; Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, see especially at 386 (Gummow J), 367 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ); see further Blumm and Ritchie (2005), p 681; Freyfogle, Goble and Wildermuth (2019), p 20.

27 Graham (2010), p 2.

28 Hohfeld (1920).

29 Kurki (2019), p 57.

30 Davies (2012), p 4.

31 Eleftheriadis (1996), p 40.

32 Gray (1991), p 252.

33 Pottage (1998), p 331.

34 Pottage (1998), p 331.

35 Pottage (1998), p 344.

36 Honoré (1993), p 370. It should be acknowledged that the restriction on harmful use could conceivably be extended to apply to – and thus protect – the interests of animal objects of property.

37 Blackstone (1768), vol 2, p 2.

38 Johnson (2007), p 247 (emphasis added).

39 Graham (2010), p 6.

40 Graham (2010), p 4.

41 Graham (2010), p 5.

42 Graham (2010), p 7.

43 Graham (2010), p 7.

44 See, e.g. Davies (2016), p 48.

45 Davies (2020), p 1105.

46 Davies (2020), p 1110.

47 Davies (2020), p 1110.

48 Stephens v State, 65 Miss 329 at 331 (1888).

49 See, e.g. La C C (West, 2022).

50 President of the United States, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (2006), pp 26, 28, 30; La Rev Stat Ann §29:724.C(2), §29.727(5) (2005).

51 Irvine (2009), p 23.

52 Jenkins (2007).

53 Jenkins (2007).

54 Jenkins (2007).

55 Bozes v Parish of St. Bernard, 252 FRD 313 at 315 (2008).

56 Irvine (2009), p 25.

57 Irvine (2009), p 25.

58 Irvine (2009), p 25; UPI, ‘Charges dropped in Katrina dog killings’ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/01/25/Charges-dropped-in-Katrina-dog-killings/92871201299128/?ur3=1, 25 January 2008.

59 See Kinship Circle, ‘Hurricane Katrina’, https://www.kinshipcircle.org/disasters/hurricane_katrina/alerts/2008-Jan20.html, 20 January 2008; Irvine (2009), p 26.

60 Kinship Circle, ‘Hurricane Katrina’, https://www.kinshipcircle.org/disasters/hurricane_katrina/alerts/2008-Jan20.html, 20 January 2008 (emphasis added).

61 Scott (2006) quoted in Irvine (2009), pp 25–26.

62 Jenkins (2007).

63 Cf La Rev Stat Ann §3;2773.D (2005): ‘Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog.’

64 Bozes v. Parish of St. Bernard, 252 FRD 313 at 317 (2008).

65 Graham (2010), p 7.

66 RSPCA (2009), p 3.

67 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol I, p 280.

68 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Statement of Lay Witness, Marisa Robbins).

69 Chretien (2016), p 253.

70 Brackenridge et al (2012), p 230.

71 Chretien (2016), p 253.

72 McNabb (2007), p 75; Persky (2012), pp 60–61.

73 McNabb (2007), p 76.

74 La C C art 3419 (West, 2005); see also McNabb (2007), p 76.

75 La C C art 3418 (West, 2005); see also McNabb (2007).

76 McNabb (2007), pp 75–76.

77 Augillard v Madura, 257 SW3d 494; Minute Entry 2, Best Friends Animal Society v Animals Benefit Club of Arizona (Ariz Super, 2007 WL 1849954, 13 March 2007).

78 Arguello v Behmke (NJ Super Ch Div, 2006 WL 205097, 26 January 2006).

79 Persky (2012), pp 60–61.

80 Davies (2012), p 16.

81 Nedelsky (2012), p 195.

82 Glassey and Wilson (2011), p 53.

83 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 224.

84 Glassey and Wilson (2011), p 49.

85 Deckha (2020), p 43.

86 Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2005 (NZ) Minimum Standard 3.

87 Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2005 (NZ) Minimum Standard 3.

88 See Part III below.

89 Giraud (2019), pp 9–10.

90 Latimer (2013), p 93.

91 Latimer (2013), p 93.

92 Latimer (2013), pp 98–99.

93 See Sutton v Moody (1865) 1 Ld Raym 250; Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, see especially at 386 (Gummow J), 367 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ).

94 Locke (1964), bk 2, § 27.

95 Locke (1964), bk 1, § 86.

96 Locke (1964), bk 2, § 30.

97 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 182.

98 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 186.

99 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 217.

100 Wildlife Act 1953 (NZ) s 7(1), sch 5, see also ss 3, 53; Animal Welfare Act 1999 (NZ) ss 2, 23(1), see also s 177(1); Animal Welfare (Zoos) Code of Welfare 2004 (NZ) cl 3.5.

101 La Rev Stat Ann § 14:102-102.4 (2005); Animal Welfare Act 1999 (NZ) ss 10-12; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) ss 9-10.

102 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) ss 6(1)(b), 7; Animal Welfare Act 1999 (NZ) s 13(1A), (2), (3).

103 See especially Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ); Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 (Vic); Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).

104 See Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2017), p 147.

105 Nading (2014).

106 Barad (2007), p 271 (emphasis modified).

107 Haraway (2016), p 100.

108 Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2017), p 136.

109 Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2017), p 136.

110 Yussof (2015), pp 400–401.

111 Yussof (2015), pp 400–401.

112 Cartsens (2021), p 80.

113 Cartsens (2021), p 80.

114 Bellacasa (2017), p 2.

115 Haraway (2016), p 1.

116 Bellacasa (2017), p 3.

117 Bellacasa (2017), p 5 (emphasis added).

118 See, e.g. White (2003), pp 279–280; Ellis (2010); Deckha (2020), p 75; Marceau (2018).

119 See, e.g. Satz (2013), pp 176–177.

120 See Verchick (2010), p 131.

121 Chretien (2016), pp 252–253.

122 Irvine (2006), p 7.

123 Irvine (2006), p 7.

124 La Rev Stat Ann § 14:102–102.4 (2005); New Orleans, Louisiana, Municipal Code § 18-2, 18-2.1.

125 RSPCA (2009), p 5.

126 Australian Veterinary Association (2009), p 2.

127 See, e.g. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Statement of Lay Witness, Toni-anne Collins).

128 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Statement of Lay Witness, Juliet Moore).

129 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Statement of Lay Witness, Juliet Moore).

130 Irvine (2009), p 21; McNabb (2007), p 78.

131 Irvine (2009), p 21; McNabb (2007), p 78.

132 Glassey (2019), p 18.

133 La Rev Stat Ann § 3:2362, see also § 14:102.26 (2018).

134 Although certain municipal codes placed some restrictions upon the practice of tethering. See, e.g. New Orleans, Louisiana, Municipal Code § 18-2.1(b): ‘No animal shall be tethered as a primary means of stationary confinement; stationary confinement by tethering shall be considered cruel treatment.’

135 Irvine (2009), p 21.

136 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 155.

137 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 78.

138 See generally Glassey (2019).

139 Whitman et al (2013), p 1849.

140 Whitman et al (2013), p 1862.

141 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 226.

142 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 226.

143 Animal Welfare (Dairy Cattle) Code of Welfare 2010 (NZ) Minimum Standard 14(a).

144 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 56.

145 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Statement of Lay Witness, Patricia Easterbrook).

146 Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ) s 15.

147 Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ) s 6.

148 Potts and Gadenne (2014), p 209.

149 Potts and Gadenne (2014), pp 211–212.

150 Potts and Gadenne (2014), pp 211–212.

151 Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ) s 341.

152 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol II, p 279.

153 BEAM Mitchell Environment Group (2009).

154 Upper Yarra and Dandenongs Environment Council Inc (2009), p 4.

155 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol II, p 306.

156 The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol II, p 306.

157 See Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 18, 18A; Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 (Vic) ss 10(2), 17, 19; Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) pt 1A; and the Victoria Planning Provisions cl 52.17; see also The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report, July 2010) vol II, p 306.

158 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) pt 1A; Victoria Planning Provisions cl 52.17-6.

159 Deckha (2020), p 88.

160 Deckha (2020), pp 88–89.

161 Bartel and Graham (2016), p 267.

162 Bartel and Graham (2016), p 280.

163 Davies (2021), p 201.

164 Davies (2021), p 201.

165 Davies (2021), p 201.

166 Holmes and Jampijinpa (2013).

167 Garner (2002), pp 78, 91.

168 Favre (2010), pp 1042, 1062.

169 Cochrane (2009); see also Tannenbaum (1995), p 540: ‘fundamental legal concepts relating to animals … [are] … consistent with excellent treatment of animals’.

170 I thank the anonymous reviewer who drew my attention back to this scholarship.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ashleigh P. A. Best

Ashleigh Best is a final-year PhD Candidate at Melbourne Law School and a Graduate Researcher in the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law. Her award-winning research, supervised by Professors Christine Parker and Lee Godden, examines and critiques the legal status of animals in disasters; the topic marries her longstanding interests in animal law, environmental law and legal theory. Previously, Ashleigh held a Teaching Fellowship at MLS, and taught in Global Human Rights Law and Comparative Legal Traditions. Prior to commencing her PhD, Ashleigh worked as a lawyer in commercial and government practice, across the fields of commercial litigation and environmental law. She also taught Constitutional Law at UTS. Ashleigh holds a BA in Communication (Social Inquiry), LLB (Hons I and University Medal), GDLP and GCLTHE.