Liminal Animals Creation of Animal Denizenship

ByShannon Hart Jason Etter Tina Huynh Abigail Whitacre Avery Stefan Rebecca Moore Zain

Meghani

What Are Liminal

Animals • Animals that live in

proximity to humans but are not domesticated or wild

• Largely ignored by Animal Rights Theorists

• Often seen as alien or invaders

• Extermination and Domestication are unrealistic

• Denizenship is a possible option • Give up certain

responsibilities in order to coexist

Need for a Denizenship Model

Some liminal animals have no other place to go Humans need to limit the introduction of new liminal

animals Barriers for migration Reduce incentives Use active disincentives

Need to accept that liminal animals belong Denizenship is necessary because Co-Citizenship is

unfeasible Important to note that they benefit from human

environments not human interaction

Diversity Amongst Liminal Animals

4 Main categories of Liminal animals Opportunists Niche Introduced Exotics Feral

Animals from different categories benefit in different ways from human proximity

Animals of related species exist as wild, domesticated, and liminal animals

Not all animals in urban environments are liminal

OPPORTUNISTS

Highly adaptive species, learn to survive in fast changing human-built environments

Some exist in the wild, but most are found in urban environments Ex. White-tailed deer, mallard ducks, liminal foxes,

opossums Non-specific dependence Often viewed as “nuisance species” or potential threats They belong here/have every right to remain here

Synanthropic opportunists House sparrows & mice Don’t have options in the wild

NICHE SPECIALISTS

Less flexible species than opportunists Have adapted to human environments over time

Ex. Wild animals who live in regions with long-standing traditional agriculture

Cannot readily leave their environment or adapt to rapid change Suppressed population growth Suffering of individuals

Rarely the targets of extermination efforts Vulnerable to negligence and

inadvertent harm

Ferals Domesticated animals and their descendants who escaped

human control Some may benefit from returning to domestication, but many

species have adapted to their environment and have become a liminal species

Some cities respond to ferals negatively by attempting mass extermination, while others respond positively and provide shelters, food, and health care

Some species are considered invasive and detrimental to the ecosystem, but that’s not often the case; many species can impact the ecosystem positively or neutrally

Some species are helpful to humans by controlling pest populations

Introduced Exotics

Non-native animals introduced to the environment on purpose or on accident

Many people see all non-native species as invasive and detrimental to the ecosystem (and thus believe in a mass-extermination or some other method of control)

However, many introduced species can have a neutral role in the ecosystem (thrive but do not outcompete, or outcompete but does not impact ecosystem) or a positive role (interbreeding and increasing diversity in native species)

Denizenship in Human Political Communities

Animals Domesticated – bred to be a part of human

society Wild – keep distance from humans Liminal – live amongst us but with limited

human interactionHumans

Co-Citizens – live and participate fully in society Foreigners – everyone else Denizens – live amongst us but not as co-

citizens

Opt-out Denizenship: Rights and the Amish

“Modern democratic states are based on social ethos of participation and cooperation of affiliation (pg 231).”

Amish – view large society as worldly and corrupt and choose to “opt-out” of citizenship but continue to live in the U.S. (pg 231)

Do not contribute to: Jury Duty Military Service Public Pensions Government Education programs Taxes

Benefits that are not received: Voting Political Candidacy Public Courts Welfare and Pension Programs

Problems?

Freeloading off the governmentSheer numbersExit optionsVulnerability of individual citizens

Migrant DenizenshipMigration across international bordersMigrants may have no religious or cultural

objections to the ethos of modern citizenship, but may not want to enact their citizenship in their current country of residence

May continue to see themselves as citizens of their country of origin even after living abroad for extended periods, and so may seek only denizenship rather than citizenship

Migrant Denizens in the Contemporary World

Illegal migrants in search of workState-sanctioned migrant workersShould countries admit permanent

immigrants? Or, would this be ineffective and unfair in cases?

The denizenship solution: weaker than citizenship, but not unfair or oppressive

Limitations

To be denizens, migrants must be more than merely temporary foreign visitors

Different from traditional immigrants with the expectation and promise of full citizenship

Migrant Denizens are long-term residents but not citizens

How Migrant Denizenship Works

Division of labor between states“On this model, migrants are not ‘perceived as helpless

second-class citizens’, but rather as people ‘whose equality of status is secured not by their full inclusion within the host society but by the recognition of their special position and the public awareness of their contingent and temporary relation to that society (Ottonelli and Torresi forthcoming).” p.237

For illegal immigrants (vs. authorized migrant workers), states can use barriers and disincentives to keep them out, but once they are in they must be accommodated as seen appropriate: either with full citizenship or denizenship, depending on their level of integration

Three Clusters of Issues

1. Security of Residence -rights increase over time while living within an area (p. 239)

2. Reciprocity of denizenshipA. part-time or temporary residents (p. 240)B. a weakened form of affiliation (p. 240)

3. Anti-stigma safeguards-states have special responsibility to protect

vulnerable denizens (p. 240)

Defining the Terms of Animal Denizenship

Exclusion and invisibility, “out of place” (p. 240) In or out choice (p. 240)1. Secure residency- right to residency, over time acquire right to stay (p. 241)2. Fair terms of reciprocity- weaker relationship than full citizens (p. 241)

-subject to predator prey relations (p. 242)-humans differ from animals within this aspect

because animals are not protected from killing or starvation (p. 243)

Defining the Terms of Animal Denizenship

Cont. -they do not want to be citizens

-future of denizens unpredictable (p. 243)-we try to control the population of these animals

by limiting food sources and nesting sites (p. 246)3. Anti-stigma- treated as outcasts and become

isolated (p. 248)-protection backed up by law (p. 248)-looks at annoyance instead of benefits of

coexistence (p. 249)

Conclusion

“We must devise strategies for coexistence which recognize animals’ rights as well as our own.”

“If we operate on the idea that adaptive animals are illegal aliens […] we are going to fail.”

Conclusion

Liminal animals cannot be full citizens because they cannot contribute to society

Treating them as denizens mean we should give “reasonable accommodation of their interests in the way we develop the human-built environment”

At the same time, we have the right to limit increases in liminal animal populations (e.g. Dog keeping geese off golf course)

Objections

If we give liminal animals rights, how do we uphold those rights? (e.g. Can Animals Sue? article)

Human legal denizenship comes from negotiation, but we cannot negotiate with animals.