Should wild animals have property rights over their habitats

[Catherine]

I came across an article that brings up the idea of property right for wild animals. Before a developer could wipe out a habitat the rights of the animals living there would have to be considered.

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sr=1&ct2=...t=2&at=dt0


It is a radical concept, but when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. We can't go on destroying habitats without wiping out species. We don't have the right to wipe out a species. So therefore it follows that we don't have the right to do the things that will wipe out a species.
What do you think?

[LPC]

There is a legal case for this. In the UK it is called "squatters' rights" and in the USA I believe that it is called "adverse possession". I don't know about Canada. Such laws apply normally to "people" (meaning humans), but the recent cases of animals being given legal recognition as "persons" could change all that. (See http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org )

The idea is basically sound, although I suspect that developers will not give up that easily. Money before everything else, for them. It is even more important than the future survival of the world.

[Tobi]

UK planning laws have to consider other species, and usually a survey is done before planning permission is granted. This so far, applies to protected species only. But there has been many a bat who has had a property developer pulling his hair out!

However, as sometimes can happen, skullduggery goes on. Peoples' palms are greased, and social status ('funny' handshakes??) relatives or buddies on the parish council, local investors, especially farmers who own huge tracts of land....etc can work wonders in the developers' favour.
Illegal re-location and occasionally -worse -of certain animals can also happen, done secretly of course before the survey.

Some skullduggery goes on in my area.
But the most unexpected and tinest creatures can be protected species, so anyone dishonest really has to do their homework, and get out into the wild which is asking a lot of these money-men.

[Catherine]

I think squatters rights applies in Canada, but then our legal system came from the British system so it would be the same. That rule could be important when applied to animals. If the Non Human Rights Project has any success it could spread. Once you recognize the rights of some animals then you start to recognize the rights of all animals. If animals have rights therefore squatters rights could apply to them.

Developers won't like it.

Quote:UK planning laws have to consider other species, and usually a survey is done before planning permission is granted. This so far, applies to protected species only. But there has been many a bat who has had a property developer pulling his hair out!

As kids we were told that bats would get in our hair(totally untrue), but  it seems that right now bats are getting in developers hair.

It is important that they have to assess land before they can do anything to it. That means a vulnerable species might be able to protect the habitat for all the other species in the area.
It is a recognition that we don't own the whole planet.

Not all decisions will be made for financial reasons. I know there are underhanded practices and things happen that shouldn't. But there are times when the right thing happens. There is progress, but it is slow.

[Ruth]

In the USA now there are legal rights services for animals that give a voice to these animals. They should not be wiped out of their habitat, they were there first!

[LPC]

(11-19-2016, 08:32 PM)Ruth Wrote: They should not be wiped out of their habitat, they were there first!

Like button

[Tobi]

(11-19-2016, 08:32 PM)Ruth Wrote: In the USA now there are legal  rights  services for animals that give a voice to these animals.  They should not be wiped out of their habitat, they were there first!

I am glad to hear that, Ruth.
And you are right, animals shouldn't be wiped out of their habitat. That is all they have.

[Catherine]

We go too far when we destroy a species and its habitat. I think even the worst person somehow knows this even if they don't admit it.
We need to consider the animals who live in an area before we do something to the area. I hope this idea spreads from country to country.
Imagine a day when the rights of all animals are respected. I think it is in sight. We could do it.

[platy]

Of course they should, but it rarely happens. Need only look at Australia's history on that.

Governments lying about having done "thorough surveys" on precious habitat they want to destroy for mining, only for the public to find out they never did any surveys at all.

I had never seen a dead wallaby around my parents place in the many years they've been there. And now with all the development the roads are littered with dead wallabies. Oh a wallaby, who cares. This is a mans world.

[Catherine]

I hear you about the surveys. I question the truth of some of them.

We just have to keep pushing for animals to be respected. Even without the animal issue, we can't keep trashing the planet. Somehow I think it will fight back. Mother Earth is already giving us droughts and floods and more serious storms.  Who knows how bad it could get. Caring for animals and their environment also preserves the environment we need to survive.  We need to think about that before the consequences of our actions catch up with us.