Mule deer and other animals inherit knowledge across generations where they live that is vital for survival.

Castello argues that wild animals should have rights to reside in their territories.

Granting agency would honor wild flourishing—the opinions of wild animals—and advance interspecies justice.

Philosophers, legal scholars, and people interested in the growing, diverse field of animal studies often ponder alluring, important, and rather difficult questions. Some of these queries involve whether or not wild animals should be granted the right to own their homes, or whether they are merely renters, and whether we should try to reduce the suffering of wild animals, and where we should draw the line and let things be, no matter how horrific they are.

Along these lines, another important question arises that centers on the territory/residency rights of wild animals and what they may be. This is among the reasons why I was very interested in an essay titled "The Territorial Rights of Wild Animals: Justification" by Pablo P. Castello. Focusing on mule deer—but his discussion is relevant to other nonhumans—he argues that deer do not simply inhabit landscapes and that their ability to lead social and cultural lives that they have control over depends on residing in their territories or homes.

Marc Bekoff: Why did you write "The Territorial Rights of Wild Animals: Justification" and how does it relate to your areas of interest?

Pablo P. Castello: I wrote it for a number of reasons, including these two. First, because in areas such as wildlife management, animals are often treated as a nuisance or a function of their ecological role, overlooking that their lives matter in their own right. The literature on territorial rights is very rich and helps demonstrate why animals’ ties to particular territories matter so deeply that they place duties on humans to recognize and respect their rights.

Second, because in territorial rights scholarship, most authors treat animals........

© Psychology Today