You may also be interested to look at the list of animals who have been (a) completely delisted from CITES “protection,” or (b) transferred to a lower level of “protection” (Appendix II) that allows trade in animal products if an export (or re-export) permit is obtained. (No import permit is necessary.)

On-line records are only available as far back as 1992, but records going back to 1975 can be obtained from CITES.
See:
http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml
For each year, click on the link to “Amendments to Appendices”

For example, in 1992 alone, one species of animal was completely delisted and two species were demoted to level II; exploitation allowed by permit. One of the demoted species was crocodiles (crocodylus niloticus). They then moved back and fourth between levels II and I over the years and currently they are in level II. So now it’s acceptable under CITES to trade in crocodile leather, whereas before crocodiles were supposedly “protected” under CITES.

I mentioned in a previous post that even species given level I “protection” such as elephants have been killed in “overpopulated” areas and their ivory traded.

Thanks for responding and clarifying your position. I definitely think nonhuman animals will need their basic rights protected by law when they are emancipated from legal property status. All sentient beings deserve equal consideration and respect.

I believe vegan education is the most efficient use of our time at the moment. Much of my activism consists of handing out literature on veganism and animal rights to educate the public. We need a much larger percentage of vegans in the population to create the social conditions for political change.

The “wildlife conservation” laws are deeply speciesist as they regard individual beings as “replaceable.” When nonhuman animals are granted personhood and the applicable legal rights, these laws will be abolished in favor of those protecting individual rights-holders. Respecting the rights of free-living nonhuman animals must include the preservation of their habitats.

Yes, I believe that rights such as life and liberty will have to be codified in law after the pre-legal right not to be property is recognized. I believe this because the system we have now is to protect interests with legal rights and laws, and it is unlikely that this system will have changed by the time abolition is achieved. That said, I am open to other systems that don’t involve punitive justice. The crucial points to qualify the above answer are these:
1) Once the property status of non-human animals is abolished, this in itself will require that rights such as life and liberty be codified in law. In other words, the legal codification of the rights to life, liberty etc. will necessarily and automatically follow from the act of granting non-human animals legal personhood — provided this act results from broad social consensus.
2) Therefore, there is nothing for us to do now except work on abolishing the property status of animals in the most efficient ways possible. I believe this to be vegan education. If others believe it to be protecting free-living animals, fine — but don’t entrench the status of animals as property by using environmental legislation and endangered species treaties. Don’t entrench the regulated killing of free-living animals. Instead, protect free-living animals by buying land or educating consumers about the ivory trade and producers about alternative employment. This is the new ecological ethic that we need for animals.

Plants, water, air and land can continue to be protected for human-centric reasons. The new ethic would also require that the interests of both human and non-human animals be given equal consideration when making environmental policies, although this would not happen in practice until the establishment and the public start to agree with we activists. Ecosystems can be protected for human-centric (or animal-centric) reasons. But the individual free-living sentient beings that are part of ecosystems cannot at this time be protected by human-centric law that regards them as resources to be consumed. First, we need to radically transform the focus of environmental law by progressing the consciousness of the human inhabitants of the planet.

You argue that basic rights to life and liberty of nonhuman animals cannot be protected by law without first abolishing their status as legal property. After this status is abolished, do you believe that nonhuman animals will need their basic rights to life and liberty codified into law in order to be protected from human harm? Why or why not?

I have argued that the right to association (and to own property, or live in an undefiled environment, etc) for both free-living non-human animals and humans is impossible to protect without first recognizing the right not to be property. What reasons, if any, do you have against this view?

“I didn’t say nonhumans can’t wait for abolition — I said *free-living nonhumans* cannot wait for us to abolish the property status of their domesticated cousins. Big difference there. What I said is not at all reflective of PeTA or animal husbandry activism.”

The above two statements amount to the same thing for the following reason. The abolition of the property-status of both domesticated and free-living animals is likely to occur, for the vast majority of individuals, at the same time. When a large enough percentage of the population is vegan and believes in animal rights, then this social support will allow abolition to happen for the vast majority of domesticated animals and free-living animals at the same time. Therefore, your statement that free-living animals cannot wait for the abolition of the property status of domesticated animals is practically equivalent that all animals cannot wait for abolition.

Perpetuating the term animal “husbandry” is sexist because it assumes that women cannot oppress non-human animals or, if they can, they are acting not as women but as men. This is not necessarily true. For example, a small commune could rid itself of all human-sexism but still eat eggs. A non-sexist term to replace “husbandry” is animal regulationism.

Regarding your view that destroying the home of a human or a bird for profit does not use the human or bird exclusively as a resource:
I suggest you submit an article to a law, political science or philosophy journal arguing for this view of yours, as this view goes against hundreds of years of considered analysis. The objections and debate you would stimulate would be an interesting read.

Your statement that ‘free-living non-human animals cannot wait for the property status of their domesticated cousins to be abolished’ shares the same logic of exploitation as the following view professed by PeTA:
‘Existing domesticated non-human animals cannot wait for the property status of future domesticated non-human animals to be abolished.’

Just as PeTA assumes that there is no abolitionist alternative to advocating regulationist laws for domesticated animals, you assume that there is no abolitionist alternative for free-living animals. I ask you, instead of enforcing legislation and treaties that require non-”endangered” animals to be exploited and killed, why don’t you instead advocate the abolitionist alternatives I suggested?:

1) Buy the habitat of free-living animals and leave it alone
2) Give elephant poachers resources and education to get new jobs that they would prefer more; cooperative vegetable farms, small business, etc.
3) Educate the citizens of Alaska so that they demand investiment in renewable energy
4) Most important, address the root problem that creates the violation of free-living animal rights in the first place; the property status they share with domesticated animals. In other words, vegan education helps domesticated animals in the short term and free-living animals in the long term.

If free-living animals “cannot wait,” then surely they cannot wait for actions like those mentioned above. They certainly *can* wait for environmental legislation and endangered species treaties to be enforced, as these coercive legal regimes involve nothing more than sustainable murder. Do you know how many species of animals (and the individuals they represent) have moved from CITES Category ‘A’ to lower categories since 1975? The answer is a lesson in the institutionalized murder of free-living animals. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/14/conservation.wildlife

“The 108 tonnes of ivory have been collected from culls in **overpopulated** areas, natural deaths and seizures and are being offered for sale by Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
International trade in ivory has been illegal since 1989, but in 2006 the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), which oversees the ban, agreed a one-off sale.”

Also see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/15/conservation.wildlife
“China given green light to buy African ivory stockpile”

Why don’t you leave regulationism to the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace? Why do you advocate such a murderous document such as CITES instead of the four practical suggestions I made above?

You write:

“In fact, human slaves were not prohibited from assembling at religious gatherings and in group activities.”

Correction, Ellie Maldonado, I didn’t say human slaves were denied the right to assemble — I said a *civil* and non-basic right is the right to assemble, which Africian Americans were previously denied. Big difference there. Civil rights do not apply to slaves; they apply to persons in the civil rights movement. In the early 1960s (in Columbia, S.C.) 187 African-American students marched to protest civil rights violations. Although the demonstrators were non-violent, they were all convicted of breaching the peace. However, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions in its 1963 decision Edwards v. South Carolina. This case would not have even been brought to trial had slavery not first been abolished. It is impossible to have less-basic rights without first having the most basic right not to be property.

You write:

“Some slaves owned property, including other slaves. In other countries and eventually in the U.S., it was against the law to murder a slave. So ‘type’ of slavery, as you suggest, is not the issue here,”

Correction: No human *chattel* slave ever had the right to own property. The only laws in the U.S. prohibiting the killing of *chattel* slaves prohibited killing for gratuitous, non-profitable, “unnecessary” reasons. These were not laws against murder as people today understand them. I am only talking about *chattel* human slavery because non-human animals are also chattel slaves.

You continue:

“basic rights don’t always depend on not being owned or having the right to assemble.”

When you say “basic rights,” I assume you mean rights such as life, liberty and bodily integrity. Yes, these rights absolutely do depend on the most basic right of the right not to be property. Again, if you disagree, I suggest you argue your point in a law, political science or philosophy journal. You would have to make a very strong case, as this view goes against rigorously established truths.

I agree with you that basic rights don’t depend on the right to assemble, as the right to assemble is a non-basic right compared to life, liberty and bodily integrity.

Yes, you are correct that free-living nonhumans assemble on a daily basis. But Lee Hall was concerned with the violation of this non-basic right when Lee Hall wrote:

“The ability of free-living animals to … interact with other members of their communities is basic and it is essential.”

Above, I have argued that the right to association (and to own property, or live in an undefiled environment, etc) for both non-human and free-living (and domesticated) non-human animals is impossible to protect without first recognizing the right not to be property. What reasons, if any, do you have against this view?

Why is the regulated killing of CITES preferable to buying land or stopping the ivory trade through education?

Changing your example from a wood cutter destroying a bird’s home to a corporation destroying the homes of humans makes no difference. In both examples the victims are not exploited of themselves. In fact, displaced humans are usually entitled to alternative homes or monetary compensation.

In fact, human slaves were not prohibited from assembling at religious gatherings and in group activities. Some slaves owned property, including other slaves. In other countries and eventually in the U.S., it was against the law to murder a slave. So “type” of slavery, as you suggest, is not the issue here, and basic rights don’t always depend on not being owned or having the right to assemble.

Free-living nonhumans assemble on a daily basis. Unlike domesticated animals, they take care of themselves, and embody the right to live on their own terms. Yet humans can rob their habitat and kill them for convenience or even for fun. Should that surprise us? Not when humans have robbed the habitat and killed other *free humans* for eons. History shows some fun went with that too.

Clearly, rights for humans and nonhumans require more than abolishing the status of property and installing a right to assemble.

I’ll continue with the convention started in your post of April 16th 4:03pm and use first names, This discussion need not be formal or confrontational.

Regaring your remarks about intention:
Intention is not one of the aspects of the two situations that I was comparing. So, it’s irrelevant to the aspects I am comparing. But, if intention is a sticking point for you, it’s easy enough for me to change my example: instead of a competitor burning down another business, use the example of a coproration acquiring a social-housing apartment building, tearing it down and replacing it with an office building. This is also a case of using humans merely as a means.

Regarding your comments about non-human animals not being able to wait for abolition, Lee made the same point and I have already responded to it. You realize that saying this makes you sound like PeTA?

Regarding the analogy with human slavery, my agreement with what you (and Leila) have said is found in the sentence after the one you quoted. After your quote, I wrote:

“Of course, [right to dignity achieved by abolition] was not enforced — and that is why the Civil Rights movement followed, but this was not a basic rights movement. ”

So we’re in agreement about this. Leila, note that some human slaves had empathy with exploited and caged non-human animals, they opposed animals being property and there is a written historical record showing this. The fact that racism and speciesism are interconnected is not a reason to refrain from noting that connection, as you seem to advocate. One person who welcomes exposing the connections between racism and speciesism is Alice Walker. Another was former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

Regarding your comment that human slaves sought equality within human society whereas non-human animals (and their advocates) are not:
Yes, that is another difference between the two cases of slavery that I was discussing, which is also not part of the analogy. But, if you want to make it a part, then note that all adult human slaves who had the capacity to make autonomous decisions (which was most of them) were seeking all of the same basic and non-basic rights that humans of European ancestry enjoyed. Also note that those slaves who were chidren were not, for example, seeking the right to vote. Also, slaves who were severely mentally challenged were not seeking the right to attend university. Rather, these human slaves were seeking equality of basic rights only; i.e. the right not to be property and the major less-basic rights that fall under this; life, liberty, bodily integrity, etc. The same is true of non-human animals today. The same was true of the Native Peoples who just wanted to be left alone by the humans of European ancestry.
In the above paragarph, I adjust my analogy so that it accords with the concern you expressed. If you prefer, use the example of ancient Greco-Roman slavery, which was more similar to non-human animal slavery.

The only reason for the comparison between humans as property and non-human animals as property in this discussion is as follows. It was impossible for humans as property to have the right to assemble and other non-basic (including civil) rights before their status as property was abolished. The same is true of non-human animals today. You have not presented any counter-arguments or reasons to the contrary.

But I have to agree with Lee that this tends to be an analogy that causes more trouble than it’s worth. People of African ancestry were historically compared to non-human animals in order to bring them down. I can’t imagine that they welcome the continued or renewed comparison even though I am sure that you don’t intend it to harm them.

Jeff (Perz), constitutional rights are against the government. Punishment for murder is against non-governmental actors.

The right to not be property did not give emancipated slaves the right to equality. Former slaves were no longer owned, yet they were denied equal consideration in both society and under the law, which ultimately denied their right to live on their own terms.

Importantly, nonhumans are not seeking to establish equality within human society, which differs from the human struggle for civil rights. Nonhumans can only live on their own terms within their own natural habitat; this is the essence of their right to equality.

I think the difference is seen in intention. To destroy a competitor’s business — with intention to edify one’s own — is not the same as cutting down a tree — with intention to obtain wood — and destroying the birds’ home in the process. The intention to obtain wood is the same whether or not there is a nest in the tree. The wood cutter has no use for the birds or the nest. Destroying their home and quite probably their lives is thus incidental to obtaining wood.

Free-living nonhumans can’t wait for us to abolish the property status of their domesticated cousins. Supporting their freedom and well being should be an integral part of animal rights advocacy now.

This discussion is not about integration or many civil rights. Civil rights are non-basic rights. One civil non-basic right, however, is the right to assemble in groups of more than three. Previously, Africian Americans were denied the right to assemble. You have also mentioned free-living non-human animals’ right to ” interact with other members of their communities.” You said this right is basic. I replied that it is less basic than the right not to be owned. The point of discussing all of this is the broad claim that it is impossible to have a less-basic right without first having the more-basic right that encompasses it. It is uncontroversial that what I have said so far is true of humans. For what non-speciesist reason is this also not true of non-human animals?

I am not simply assuming that the claim I make here is true. I am arguing for it with reasons. I believe it would be helpful if you presented counter-arguments instead of simply re-stating the opposite claim without rationale.

Non-human animals won’t be property and they will be persons. Not being property means not having one’s nest crash to the ground in a falling tree. It means not being used exclusively as a resource to someone’s getting wood chips to make newspapers with. Being a person means having all of the interests that fall under personhood protected, including the interest of having a stable nest in a safe place.
Describing the legal (and moral) status of non-human animals in both negative (abolish property) and positive (recognize personhood) terms are simply different ways of discussing exactly the same thing. The idea is simple. You can’t have a right to own your nest if your personhood is not yet recognized. Regognizing personhood includes recognizing your right to own your nest — or, for humans, your house.

You write:

“Animal rights will not mean much for any beings who aren’t around for it because we’ve allowed biocommunities to unravel and disappear.”

In a previous post, I presented two views that share the same logic of exploitation. The first was about regulating slaughter of domesticated animals. The second was about regulating slaughter of free-living animals through coercive legal regimes. In the above-quoted sentence, are you saying that it is morally acceptable to regulate the slaughter of free-living beings (via laws/treaties) if this is done for the purpose of benefiting future (unborn) members of the species as a whole?

What about domesticated human slaves who had a right not to be created in the first place? Many human slaves were psychologically conditioned to love their owners and be servile. The bodies of many human slaves were mutilated through vivisection, such that they would never be able to live a flourishing life again. In other words, they were domesticated. You are saying that domesticated slaves have a right NOT to be brought into existance. Are you also saying that domesticated slaves cannot have positive rights; the right to be a person, the right to interact with others, etc.? I disagree with this view, and I apply my disagreement consistently to both human and non-human (former) slaves. Why do you agree or disagree with this view? Why can’t domesticated human or non-human slaves become persons with positive rights?

There are better ways of understanding and acting upon the fact that natural habitats comprise the locus of animal rights:
1) Buy the habitat of free-living animals and leave it alone
2) Give elephant poachers resources and education to get new jobs that they would prefer more; cooperative vegetable farms, small business, etc.
3) Educate the citizens of Alaska so that they demand investiment in renewable energy
4) Most important, address the root problem that creates the violation of free-living animal rights in the first place; the property status they share with domesticated animals. In other words, vegan education helps domesticated animals in the short term and free-living animals in the long term.

For what reasons does our new environmental ethic have to mean enforcing old laws and treaties that do nothing more than regulate (and temporarily — often very temporarily) delay the murder of individuals and the genocide (extinction) of groups? How is this not a waste of a rights advocate’s time? For what reasons are the four alternatives suggested above less worthy as regulating the exploitation of free-living animals through laws and treaties?

How will we define ourselves in a respectful role? As non-violent, peaceful, vegan anarchists. As farmers who use non-harmful techniques to discourage insects from being killed when we harvest our crops. As free-thinkers who use reasons when debating eachother, while still holding eachother in high regard, and engaging eachother in respectful, mutually-beneficial and friendly debate.

So far, you have not presented any reasoned arguments for your view that the right to own property and live safely in an undefiled environment is independent of the right not to be property. I believe that we would both benefit from a reasoned debate, as would our readers.

The question on the relationship between ending animals’ property status and animal rights is addressed several times above.

Brandon stated, “A new ecological ethic is necessary.” Yes. Natural habitats comprise the locus of animal rights. This understanding is critical, and it can’t just be assumed that it follows from or is implied by a call for the end of commodified animals. A “right not to be property” is, for an animal purpose-bred as a commodity, a right to be non-existent. One must think and talk not only about what animals won’t be, but also what and who they are. Animal rights will not mean much for any beings who aren’t around for it because we’ve allowed biocommunities to unravel and disappear.

We have many new questions to consider, perhaps the most important being how we’ll define ourselves on a daily basis when we no longer insist upon being dominators and become genuinely interested in finding a respectful role.

“proceed” should be “precede.”

You write:

“It’s not enough for birds to be non-property (although the de-commodification of life is needed); birds ought to be accorded the dignity of living on their terms and they must have that if they’re to continue being at all.”

The latter necessarily follows from — indeed falls under the rubric of — the former. It is impossible for the latter to proceed the former.
This is what I argued in my previous posts. Lee or Ellie, would you care to address the merits of the reasons I presented?

When humans of African ancestry were granted the right not to be property in the U.S., it automatically followed that they had the right to own and be safe in their own homes; they were accorded the dignity of living on their own terms. Of course, this was not enforced — and that is why the Civil Rights movement followed, but this was not a basic rights movement. Civil rights come after basic rights in the case of humans. Why is this not also the case with non-human animals? Is there a non-speciesist answer to this question?

Lee writes:

“The ability of free-living animals to exist, to procreate, and to interact with other members of their communities is basic and it is essential.”

I agree that the abovementioned ability is more basic and essential than the ability of, for example, a gorilla to use a leaf as a tool for food foraging. On the other hand, the ability to exist/procreate/interact is less basic than the most basic need of all; the right not to be property. It is impossible to acquire lower levels of rights before the higher levels are acquired.

Lee writes:

” Kant notwithstanding, it is not enough to stop using other animals `merely` as means to our ends. If animals might live free of our dominion, we wouldn’t use them at all;”

Not using them at all is exactly the same as not using them ‘merely’ as a means.
An example of ‘using’ someone while not using them ‘merely’ as a means is as follows.

A research scientist wants to test new medicines for (a) Alzheimer’s disease, (b) AIDS-related dementia and (c) childhood leukemia. Humans with these diseases are incapable of providing informed consent to participate in the clinical research trials. Yet medicines for these diseases are badly needed. So, an ethics committee is required to determine whether the trial poses any significant risks to the human research subjects. Assume it is correctly determined that there are no significant risks. More than that, the ethics committee determines that participating in the research may actually be of benefit to the individual research participants. Because participating in the research may involve a therapeutic benefit, the subjects are not being used ‘merely’ as a means; i.e. they get something out of it, participating may be in their best interests and it does not otherwise harm them. Yet, they are still being ‘used’ in the research to benefit future patients.

The above example illustrates what is meant by ‘using’ someone while not using them ‘merely’ as a means to someone else’s ends.

To prevent a free-living non-human animal from procreating, interacting with other members of the species or living in a safe habitat are clear examples of using someone merely as a means. I am confident that any activity that you might find objectionable regarding non-human animals will always fall under the most basic category of using someone merely as a means. I am open to hearing any counter-examples. You seem to agree with what I have said above when you write:

“…we would strive … to live symbiotically as far as possible with others…”

Symbiotic relationships involve using others, but not using others merely as means to our ends.

I completely agree with the following:

“…the purpose of our activism would be less about establishing elaborate and coercive legal regimes and more about learning to control ourselves.”

To me, this means educating and helping others to control themselves, whether this involves vegan education or lobbying a government to transfer subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Do you agree that legal regimes such as environmental legislation and endangered species treaties do not have a place in animal rights activism? Why or why not?

Likewise, you ask:

…This should actually read:

Likewise, you ask:
“Cutting down a tree where a bird has nested violates the interests of the bird and her family, and their right to the home that she created. How does this make use of the bird?”

You say that protecting the habitat of non-human animals would not necessarily follow from abolishing their property status because the habitat protection would first need to be codified in law. I, on the other hand, maintain that habitat protection would necessarily follow from abolition. We are both correct. Consider:

The constitutional right to life is codified in the law prohibiting murder. But, the existence of the constitutional right alone automatically and necessarily entails that a law against murder must be created, and that this law will be enforced–thus protecting humans.
Similarly, recognizing the pre-legal (non-constitutional) right not to be property would automatically and necessarily entail that a law against slaughtering animals would be created, as well as a law against destroying the homes of the newly recognized legal persons. Why? Because slaughtering a non-human animal entails using the animal merely as a means to getting taste enjoyment, which is another way of saying that the animal is being exploited as property. Likewise, you ask:

<>

First consider a classic example from the philosopher Immanuel Kant, and then consider the bird. Kant argued that if I borrow some money, promise to repay it, but have no intention of repaying it, then this lie involves using the **lender** (not just the money) merely as a means. This is because my lie prevents the lender from making a fully autonomous decision to lend the money. By making the lying-promise, I am using the other person merely as a means to acquiring money. Similarly, if I burn down my business-competitor’s empty shop, then I am using my competitor merely as a means to make more money. Similarly, if I cut down a tree with a bird’s nest in it, I am knowingly destroying the bird’s home for the purpose of getting the paper I want. I am using the bird (and the bird’s interests) merely as a means to getting the paper.The right not to be used merely as a means to someone else’s ends is basic. Another name for this right is the right not to be property.

Therefore, recognizing the right not to be property in non-human animals would automatically entail that they could not be used merely as means for any purpose whatsoever–including the purpose of eating them, and including the purpose of making paper out of their homes. Yes, these things would need to be codified in law, but this would happen as a matter of course, and only after abolition.

Today, before abolition, laws and treaties that may appear on the surface to protect endangered animal species’ and the environment do nothing more than treat non-human animals as property. For example, the international whaling treaty requires that whales be killed if they become more numerous. American scientists can persuasively argue that the Japanese scientists are incorrect in their view that the overall whale population is large and genetically diverse “enough” to be sustained and viable. But, if “conservation” (read warehousing) efforts become successful and the oceans become teaming with whales in the future, then the international whaling treaty requires that the whales be killed.

The logic behind the following two views is exactly the same:
1) The property status of animals is not going to be abolished for a long time. Yes, we can do vegan education, but we can also do something in the mean time to protect non-human animals: we can lobby to enforce the laws that regulate animal slaughter–which prohibit unnecessary killing, or killing for gratuitous reasons.
2) The property status of animals is not going to be abolished for a long time. Yes, we can do vegan education, but we can also do something in the mean time to protect non-human animals: we can lobby to classify elephants in Category A of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species while our opponents lobby to classify them in lower categories. All categories, including Category A, involve temporary and exploitative “protection.”

I reject the logic of exploitation that is behind both of the above views.

Before the non-basic right to sit in the front of the bus can even be considered, slavery must first be abolished; the basic right not to be property must first be recognized. Similarly, before it is even possible to protect the less-basic right of a bird, whale or elephant to live securely in his or her habitat, it is first necessary to abolish the property status of these non-human animals. So, for an activist to spend time enforcing CITES (and other treaties and environmental legislation) is not advancing animal rights; it is simply enforcing animal regulationism.

Vegan lifestyle education — and nothing else — is the only thing that advances animal rights at this point in history.

We create nothing, for everything we do and work with is before us to discover.

I do not know where you call home, but the destruction of the family farm is where this all began.

5 billion people need to die to bring back some semblance of equilibrium.

That is not illusion.

THAT IS REALITY!