1

_______________________________
Research lellow or the Research Center or lumanities and Social Sciences,
Uniersity o Sydney, Australia. 1elephone: ,612, 9351 5344
lax: ,612, 9351 500
Lmail: rihssarts.usyd.edu.au

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

1wo Movements and Human-Animal Continuity:
Positions, Assumptions, Contradictions.

Barbara Noske

Introduction
1his article is about the images, representations, and treatment o
animals in two moements: the animal welare,rights,liberation
moement - the animal moement or short - and the deep
green,deep ecology moement. More speciically it wants to look at
the way in which each o these moements comes to terms with - or
ails to come to terms with - the natural continuity existing between
animals and humans.
No matter how each moement is typiied, any deinition will
contain some orm o generalization. 1his is ineitable since there are
people, among them ecoeminists ,\arren 1994,, who would deine
themseles as animal adocates as well as deep green.

Individualistic reductionism
Members o the animal moement tend to ocus on animal
indiiduals as sentient beings and on our ethics is-a-is these beings.
1he domain or animal deenders is tbat nature which has eoled
indiidual and sentient, tbat nature which can eel pain, pleasure and
ear ,Singer 1990,.
Because many animal adocates ,short or: the members o
the animal moement, lie in urban areas, are city dwellers
,lrancione 1996, Montgomery 2000,, the animals they encounter
tend to be those we hae incorporated into our work and liing
places such as production animals in actory arms, animals used as
organic instruments in laboratories, and companion animals. 1hat is:
urban indiiduals encounter animals that are either domesticated or
been made to lie ,and die, in human-manuactured habitats ,Sablo
2001,. laing said this, animal adocates do ocus on hunted animals
and this concerns wild rather than domesticated animals. Recreational
hunting has a long history, especially in North America ,Cartmill
1993, llynn 2002,.
1he animal moement`s ocus on .evtievce stems rom the
understanding that there is continuity between the human and animal
condition. luman sentience has ethical signiicance. It is at the root
o the condemnation o oppression, torture, genocide. luman-
animal continuity implies the acknowledgement that many animals
hae bodies and nerous systems that resemble ours. I well-being is
important to humans, it cannot but be important to animals also. Not


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

2
only do many animals hae bodies like ours, their subjectiity - their
mind and their emotional lie-bears resemblance to us. Like us,
animals are, in 1om Regan`s terms subject-o-a-lie` ,Regan 1983,.
luman-animal continuity in body and mind calls or parallel
continuity in ethics, such that ethical obligations is-a-is animals
cannot be radically dierent rom those is-a-is humans.
Many people in the animal moement tend to be almost
indierent to all nature other than animal nature. Supposedly non-
sentient liing nature, such as plants and trees, is generally not taken
into consideration. Neither are non-liing, inorganic natural entities
such as rocks, riers, or een ecosystems. In themseles these parts
o nature are not sentient and indiidually they cannot suer so the
animal moement oten oerlooks or dismisses them ,lay 2002,.
1he animal moement is highly critical o the traditional
Cartesian notion o animal-machine` and constitutes the most
important group worldwide to condemn actory arming. But it
seems to hae no objection against similar things done to plants
,Dunayer 2001,. A concept such as plant-machine` and the intensie
egetable and plant arming that is currently taking place do not raise
the same eyebrows. 1he moement`s critique o objectiication and
exploitation seems to rest solely on the aorementioned notion o
sentience. 1he objectiication -including things like genetic
manipulation- o the rest o nature goes largely unnoticed or is
dismissed.
By concentrating on sentient beings, animal adocates
abstract rom the enironmental context o animal existence. Many
animal actiists hae no conception o how animals, een as
indiiduals, are integrated into other nature. One sometimes
encounters a certain uneasiness among members o this moement
about nature`s meat-eaters - as though the eating o animals by other
animals were something that ideally should not exist. Some animal
rightists and liberationists tell me that, were it possible, they would
like to phase out` predator-prey relationships or at least liberate
,sae, the prey animal rom the equation ,pers. comm. in seeral
countries,.
Another example o reusing to accept animal meat-eating as
a zoological necessity is the tendency among egetarian,egan animal
adocates to turn their carniorous companion animals into
egetarians as well by eeding them plant-deried ood oten
accompanied by special dietary supplements. Admittedly in North
America standard pet ood is hardly eer resh and tends to come out
o a packet or tin, unlike Lurope where one can get resh and
increasingly organic ree-range meat or one`s companion animals at
the local butcher. \hile many o these people do acknowledge that
their animal`s body may not be built` or egetarian or egan ood, it
is apparently no problem or them that the necessary daily intake o
supplements will make that animal totally dependent on the health


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

3
industry. Inadertently these people are turning animals into
duplicates o themseles: modern consumers o the manuactured
products o an industrial age. 1he animals` lies are humanized and
cotoviea - their alienation taken to another extreme. Is this about
protecting companion animals rom non-ethical ood or about
imposing human ethics on the animal other Incidentally, much
plant-based and processed ood happens to be the end-product o
unsustainable monocultures - to which many animal habitats hae
had to gie way - and has been put on the market by the same
globalized and diersiied agro-industrial complex which also
produces standard pet oods ,Noske 199,.
Many animal adocates thus seem to hae trouble accepting
nature as an interdependent system where eerything has its place,
unction, and appropriate physical organisation. Organic beings took
a long time eoling in relation to each other and to non-liing
inorganic nature. Nature is a community where eery liing thing
lies o eerything else ,ood, een egan ood, is liing nature in a
killed state,, and in the zoological realm this means that both plant-
eating and meat-eating hae their respectie rai.ov. a`tre. Predation is
neither a negligible anomaly nor an ethical deiciency in the
ecosystem ,Plumwood 1999,.
At the risk o generalizing too much I see a lack o
enironmental awareness and enironmental critique among many
animal adocates. Urbanization, technological optimism, the modern
urbanocentric mind-set ,Lemaire 2002, are oten taken or granted. I
hae met animal rightists, themseles liing in high rise blocks in a
North American city, who eel they should persuade Inuit people in
the continent`s north to moe down south. 1he argument oered is
that by abandoning the rozen lands their ancestors lied on or so
many generations these Inuit could take up a more moral liestyle is-
a-is animals and become egetarians ,which at present they cannot
be or the simple reason that where they are liing hardly anything
grows.,
I also hae come across animal shelters whose managers on principle
do not gie companion animals to people with a garden, or ear that
by going outdoors such animals could escape and come to harm.
Accidental death in traic was seen as ininitely more horriic than a
lielong existence indoors.
Many members o the animal moement seem to moe
surrounded by machines in an entirely humanized, electronic techno-
world and tend to treat this circumstance simply as a gien. 1he
hegemony o the car in modern society, or example, hardly seems
cause or concern to them. loweer, een apart rom eerything else
that the car represents, this type o priate transport does result in
numerous animal deaths. According to \ildcare, a wildlie
rehabilitation centre in 1oronto, most injured and orphaned animals
brought in are ictims o auto transport and to a lesser extent cat


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

4
attacks ,pers. communication with wildlie rehabilitator Csilla
Darasi, see Braunstein 1998 or the US,. \hile cars are causing
direct death or injury, habitat destruction connected with
automobility and road building cause extensie indirect death and
een extinction. Members o the animal moement oten show no
awareness o the iolence inoled in bulldozing an acre o land or
building a road. One doesn`t see much blood but it causes whole
communities o animals and plants to perish ,Liingston 1994,.
In sum: the animal moement tends to portray animals as
though they were isolated, city-dwelling consumer-citizens, liing
entirely outside o any ecological context. Such a iew amounts to a
orm o reductionism: ivairiavati.tic reavctiovi.v.

Lcosystemic reductionism
Animals or people in the deep green,deep ecology moement are
irst and oremost wild animals, i.e., auna liing in the wild. It is not
sentience or cruelty issues that are central here: it is nature,
naturalness, and enironment ,Baird Callicott 1989,. Incidentally, the
word evrirovvevt itsel is a ery problematic term: it literally means
that which surrounds us. By deinition it is not us ourseles`. In the
term enironment the separation between ourseles and nature is
already inal ,Noske 199,.
Deep greens tend to come down hard on anything that is no
longer considered enironment`, no longer pristine or positiely
contributing to the ecosystem. leral animals and domesticated
animals are not popular in these circles. Central concepts are nature,
species, and biodiersity ,Low 2001,. Only those animals that are still
part o a gien ecosystem really count or this moement. Animals
are approached as representaties o their species. 1hey are almost
equated with their species or with the ecosystem o which they are
part. 1he animal as indiidual is oten downplayed.
leral animals seem to be getting the worst o both worlds:
they are neither an interesting species, nor indiiduals worthy o
somebody`s moral concern ,Rolls 1969, Soul,Lease 1995, Reads
2003,. I anything, they are seen as ermin. It goes without saying
that as species they do pose a threat to the natural ecosystems. Rats,
cats, rabbits, dogs, oxes, horses, donkeys, pigs, goats, water bualoes
- animals intentionally or unintentionally brought into the Australian
or American continent ,by humans, - are threatening local
biodiersity. 1hese eral animals can and do destroy the balance in
naturally eoled communities. 1he predators among them
sometimes totally wipe out indigenous species whose members hae
no natural deence against these oreigners`. lerbiorous eral
animals can totally deastate habitats that natie animals are
dependent upon ,Reads 2003,. ,Unortunately such ecological
hazards are sometimes belittled or downplayed by the animal
moement.,


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

5
Deep green-leaning people perceie eral animals as members
o unwanted species and adocate their destruction, oten by ery
inhumane means. Until recently the National Parks and \ildlie
Serice in Australia was in the habit o shooting brumbies ,eral
horses, rom the air, thereby indiscriminately massacring herds and
disrupting whole horse societies and amilies. In the north o the
continent water bualoes are being run down by 4\Ds equipped
with huge roo bars`. Rabbits are purposely being targeted with
introduced deadly diseases, oten by means o specially inected leas
which are then released into their burrows ,Reads 2003,. loxes and
eral cats and dogs are being killed by means o poison baits. lrom
the literature on human poisoning ,Bell 2001, and rom quite recent
cases o ood poisoning in China ,newspaper reports September
2002, we know what horrendous suering is inoled in death by
poisoning. It can`t be all that dierent or animals. Among deep
greens, howeer, the suering o eral and arm animals hardly
counts.
Sentience in the deep ecology,deep green discourse is oten
treated as some sort o byproduct o animal lie. So is indiiduality.
1he natural capacity o sentience is neer included in any notion o
enironment, ecology or nature.
Some deep greens,deep ecologists such as Aldo Leopold,
Gary Snyder, Paul Shepard, ,c. Leopold 1949, Shepard 1996,
endorse modern recreational hunting as a way to be at one with
nature. Not many deep greens are taking a critical position on
hunting except when it inoles endangered species. 1he issue tends
to reole around numbers rather than the preciousness o indiidual
lies. Neither do deep greens tend to take a critical stance on animal
experimentation. Ater all proessional ecologists and conseration
biologists oten conduct experiments themseles.
Mostly, experimenters are using indiiduals o numerically
strong species or species especially bred or the purpose such as
white mice and rats. In the eyes o deep greens and deep ecologists
these are no longer nature` and so their well-being is low on their
priority list.
Deep greens,deep ecologists hae been known to argue that
hunting is part o human nature when it was still in tune with other
nature. 1hey usually point toward hunter,gatherer societies. lunting
is natural, they say.
i
In deep green circles the hunting o animals is elt
to be more natural than haing animals or companions, which is
oten seen as degenerate. loweer the roots o the phenomenon o
companion animals go as ar back as hunting. All societies rom
Paleolithic times onwards hae been known to keep animals as pets
or companions. It occurs in all societies, in all periods o history and
in all economic classes ,Serpell 1986,. It may not exactly be human
nature` but apparently many people hae elt the need or a ace-to-
ace or touch-to-touch relationship with indiiduals o another


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

6
species ,Li-Strauss 193, 1uan 1984,. So much or the unnatural-
ness` o companion animals.
Because deep greens do not hae much time or
domesticated animal nature they tend to be rather uninormed and
unconcerned about what happens to animals in actory arms and
laboratories. During arious ecotours in the Australian outback it
strikes me time and again how no eort whatsoeer is made to aoid
sering actory-armed meat to the participants o such a tour. \hen
queried on the issue, the oten ecologically astute tour guides tend to
demonstrate an entirely alue-ree and neutral attitude to where the
tour ood was coming rom. Deep greens,deep ecologists might
disapproe o actory arming because o its unsustainability and its
polluting eect on the nature outside, but not because o the things
done to natural beings inside. Production and companion animals
simply do not igure as green` ,Noske 1994,.
In sum: the deep green,deep ecology moement tends to
equate animals with their species. Lquating animals with their species
or with their ecosystem amounts to another orm o reductionism:
eco.,.tevic reavctiovi.v.

Disembodied empathy versus embodied antipathy
Both moements are potentially united in their struggle against
anthropocentrism: the idea o humanity as the measure o all things.
But apart rom this there seem to be ew platorms where the two
groups actually meet: only during some international campaigns such
as the ones against seal-hunting and whaling. 1he irst time a group
like Greenpeace showed any concern or indiidual animal welare
was when many years ago in Canada three whales got stuck in the ice.
1he International lund or Animal \elare, though essentially an
animal welare organisation, does rom time to time put orward
arguments to do with habitat destruction and extinction o
endangered species.
Strangely enough - because one would expect it the other way
round - it is the animal moement rather than the deep ecology
moement which inokes animal-human continuity as a line o
reasoning or considering animals as indiiduals. On the other hand,
many animal adocates are themseles almost the embodiment o
human-animal ai.covtivvit,. As mentioned beore, in this moement
there hardly exists any critique o the way present-day technology is
alienating humans rom their animalness`. 1his issue is tackled by the
deep green,deep ecology moement rather than by the animal lobby.
Again consider the car issue. lor all other species, bodily
moement is irst and oremost organic moement: it inoles
muscle power, atigue, or sweat. But or modern humans bodily
moement is more and more being replaced by mechanisation and
computerizing. 1hey let machines do the moing or them and as a
result they are becoming more and more vvavivatti/e. lardly


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

7
anybody in animal adocacy circles looks upon this as something
problematic which could stand in the way o the natural human
condition, i.e. our physical animalness. lor them this issue appears to
hae nothing to do with human-animal continuity. But continuity is
not just about the humanlike-ness` o animals but also about the
animallike-ness` o humans. 1here is an existential and crucial
connectedness between the two. In circles o the animal lobby,
howeer, human-animal continuity remains largely an abstract moral
principle which is hardly lied` in reality. One could perhaps say that
this attitude is characterised by ai.evboaiea evatb,: the empathy is real
but its material basis orgotten.
1he deep green,deep ecology moement, by contrast, does
appreciate the wonders o nature, is conscious o animal-human
continuity, and denounces arious technologies ,including the car, as
alienating and harmul to nature. But there exists a strange
contradiction here too. 1hough in deep green circles it is
acknowledged that modern human practices hae been extremely
exploitatie o nature and the wild, this does not seem to hae
induced much sympathy or exploited animals. Animal ictims, be
they domesticated or eral, are blamed or their own predicament and
in some cases or posing an actie threat to what is perceied as real
nature.
Although the deep greens, in contrast to their city-based
counterparts in the animal moement, are more likely to opt or a
natural liestyle and to be more mindul o a shared animal-human
past, this doesn`t translate into sympathy with animals that hae
allen by the wayside. 1his attitude could be characterised as evboaiea
avtiatb,. luman-animal continuity is lied and realised`, but instead
o empathy is oten accompanied by a disdain or those beings that
no longer lead natural lies in the appropriate ecosystem. Denatured
though such beings may be, they neertheless are still close enough
to nature to possess the vatvrat capacity or suering whether it be
pain, boredom, listlessness, social and ecological depriation or
agonizing death.
Another contradiction is apparent here as well. In regions like
North America and Australia the ecosystemic ocus is strong and as
mentioned beore is oten expressed by adocating harsh measures
against the exotic and the eral ,Aslin,Bennett 2000, Reads 2003,.
One wonders what sel-image underlies such attitudes. Is this a
curious case o human oreigners ,in the ecological sense,
condemning animal oreigners \ould such people adocate the
eradication o themseles, members o a group o exotic white
inaders whose aderse impact on the local ecosystem has been well-
documented \ould they be in aour o curbing all - non-aboriginal
- human lies and births, not to mention more drastic measures I
the answer is negatie, how can such measures be justiied with
regard to animals Downplaying animal sentience and animal cruelty


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

8
issues while at the same time upholding human sentience arguments
endorses ethical discontinuity between humans and animals, albeit
perhaps unintentionally.
1he recent deelopments in animal biotechnology are going
to be a test case or both moements.
ii
Some animal welarists hae
claimed that genetic engineering may enable us to design animal
species that are ully adapted to actory arming conditions ,Rollin,
1995,. Others, among them eterinarians, are toying with possibilities
o cloning and engineering more suitable` and made-to-measure`
transgenic companion animals ,Quain, 2002,. lor deep greens the
issue o genetic engineering highlights pressing dilemmas with regard
to species integrity ,Birke,Michael 1998,.
low will the animal moement react And will the deep
ecology moement tackle the issue at all Admittedly, the deep
green,deep ecology moement concerns itsel with species but only
with species in the wild. Deep greens may be worried about what will
happen i transgenic populations come into contact with naturally
eoled wild ones. low will that aect the community o species
Most genetic engineering is done to already domesticated species, the
ones the green moement isn`t interested in. But recently there hae
been calls by green-leaning scientists to bring back extinct wild
species such as the 1asmanian tiger ,thylacine, by way o genetic
engineering.

Common ground?
low we are to naigate between indiidualised ethics and
ecosystemic reductionism
1he animal lobby bestows on the sentient in nature a status o
indiidual humanness: it asks how animals are part o human society
and ethics. 1he moement could perhaps bridge the gap which
separates it rom deep ecology by oercoming its exclusie ocus on
sentience. It could extend its compassionate ethics so as to include
the non-sentient and een the inorganic. 1he tricky part would be
how to include the whole earth without simultaneously humanizing
and colonizing it. Moreoer there always will be clashes o interest
between animals and animals, animals and plants, indiiduals and
species, the organic and inorganic.
I compassionate society is about extending ethics as ar as
we can, deep ecology is not. It is about compliance with and
obedience to nature`s measure, nature`s rhythm, nature`s limitations
,Liingston 1994,. It concerns compliance with a nature that includes
things like mortality, predator-prey relationships, the preiousness`
o species, imperect bodies, our own initeness. Instead o asking
how animals are part o ethics, deep ecology asks how animals ava
humans are part o nature.
Consider Val Plumwood`s musings about Being Prey`. In
1985 this egetarian ecophilosopher barely suried a crocodile


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

9
attack in Kakadu National Park, in Australia`s Northern 1erritory.
1hereby she came ace to ace with her own eaibitit,. It made her
realize that not only had she a body, like all animals she ra. a body:
she was ,potential, meat or another animal to deour. 1he
experience has orced her to rethink the ethics,ecology dualism. It is
good to ocus on large predators such as crocodiles, bears, sharks -
those that can take a human lie - Plumwood states, because these
animals present a test or us ,also or the two moements, I would
add,. Are we prepared to share and co-exist with the ree, wild, and
mortally dangerous otherness o the earth, without colonizing it into
a orm that eliminates all riction, challenge, or consequence
Predator populations test our recognition o our human existence in
mutual, ecological terms, seeing ourseles as part o the ood chain:
eaten as well as eater. ,Plumwood 1999,
1he two iewpoints - compliance with nature and societal
ethics - at times seem incompatible. It is a diicult dilemma. Mary
Midgley ,1983, and Baird Callicott ,in largroe 1992, tried to sole it
by arguing that wild animals desere our protection as part o the
ecosystem and that domesticated animals are entitled to our care,
because they are part o a mixed human-animal community and we
hae ethical obligations to att the indiiduals o such a community.
1he problem is: this arrangement would not coer all animals. leral
animals and exotics belong neither to the irst group ,the original
ecosystem, nor to the second ,the mixed domestic community,. 1he
reason commonly gien or persecuting and eradicating these animals
is precisely that they do vot seem to belong to any community. Pests`
are neither interesting as species nor as indiiduals, it is elt, and this
turns them into outlaws.
Neertheless all o us, animals as well as humans, somehow
exist in nature and also in society ,or at least in a human-deined
nation-state,. Lach and eeryone o us is a sentient indiidual, a
species-member as well as a place` in the world. In this world nature
and society intersect. It is all there is, nobody and nothing exists
outside either.
1he animal lobby needs to realize the importance o wildness,
the relatie otherness` o non-humans, and what Liingston has
called, the preiousness` o species. It should guard against an
ethical colonization and humanization o nature. 1he deep ecology
moement will need to pay more heed to matters o sentience,
cruelty and suering in the way it conceies o and treats indiidual
animal beings, including those that objectiely do damage to other
nature. Many eral species did not choose to lie where they are now
liing. lumanity took them there.
1o really do justice to animal-human continuity we must ask
ourseles what it is we ,should, do with nature but also how we
ourseles are o nature`. According to Plumwood ,1999, we cannot
in a neo-Cartesian way diide the world into two separate domains:


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

10
an ethical, human realm and an animal, ecological realm. Leryone
and eerything exists in both. All ood is souls, she says - and
ultimately all souls are ood.

References

Aslin, l.J. & Bennett, D.l. ,2000, \ildlie and world iews:
Australian attitudes toward wildlie`. vvav Divev.iov. of !itatife. 5 ,2,
15-35.

Baird Callicott, J.,1989,. v aefev.e of tbe tava etbic: ..a,. iv evrirovvevtat
bito.ob, Albany: State Uniersity o New \ork Press.

Baird Callicott, J. Animal liberation and enironmental ethics: back
together again. in largroe, L.C. editor. ,1992,. 1be avivat
rigbt.,evrirovvevtat etbic. aebate: 1be vrirovvevtat er.ectire. Albany:
State Uniersity o New \ork Press, 249-261.

Bell, G. ,2001,. 1be oi.ov rivcite: Sydney: Picador Pan MacMillan
Australia.

Birke, L & Michael, M. ,1998,. 1he heart o the matter: Animal
bodies, ethics and species boundaries`. ociet, c .vivat.. 6 ,3, 245-
262.

Braunstein, M. M. ,1998,. Roadkill: Driing animals to their graes`.
.vivat ..ve., 29 ,3,.

Cartmill, M. ,1993,. . rier to a aeatb iv tbe vorvivg: vvtivg ava vatvre
tbrovgb bi.tor,. Cambridge: larard Uniersity Press.

Dunayer, J. ,2001,. .vivat eqvatit,: avgvage ava tiberatiov. Derwood:
Ryce Publishing.

llynn, C.P. ,2002,.lunting and illegal iolence against humans and
other animals: exploring the relationship`. ociet, c .vivat.. 10 ,2,
13-154.

lrancione, G.L. ,1996, Raiv ritbovt tbvvaer: tbe iaeotog, of tbe avivat
rigbt. vorevevt. Philadelphia: 1emple Uniersity Press.

lay, P. ,2002, Maiv cvrrevt. iv re.terv evrirovvevtat tbovgbt. Sydney:
Uniersity o New South \ales Press.

Lemaire, 1. ,2002,. Met oev ivvev: ^atvvr, tava.cba, aarae.
Amsterdam: Ambo.



.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

11
Leopold, A. ,1949,. . .ava covvt, atvavac. New \ork: Oxord
Uniersity Press.

Li-Strauss, C. ,1984,. 1ri.te. troiqve.. larmondsworth: Penguin
Books.

Liingston, J.A.,1994,. Rogve rivate: .v etoratiov of bvvav
aove.ticatiov. 1oronto: Key Porter.

Low, 1. ,1999,. erat fvtvre. Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia.

Midgley, M. ,1983,. .vivat. ava rb, tbe, vatter. larmondsworth:
Penguin Books.

Montgomery, C. ,2000,. tooa retatiov.: .vivat., bvvav., ava otitic..
1oronto: Between the Lines.

Noske, B. ,1994,. Animals and the green moement: A iew rom
the Netherlands`. Caitati.v, ^atvre, ociati.v, . ]ovrvat of ociati.t
cotog,.5 ,4, 85-94.

Noske, B. ,199,. e,ova bovvaarie.: vvav. ava avivat.. Montreal:
Black Rose Books.

Plumwood, V. Being prey. in Rothenberg, D & Ulaeus M. editors.
,1999, . 1be ^er artb Reaaer: 1be be.t of 1erra ^ora. Cambridge: MI1
Press. 6-92.

Quain, A. ,2002,. Improing their bodies, improing our bodies`.
.rttiv/, Covtevorar, .rt Qvartert,, theme issue 1he improed body:
animals & humans. 22 ,1, 33-3.

Reads, J.L. ,2003, Rea .ava, greev beart: cotogicat aarevtvre. iv tbe ovtbac/.
South Melbourne: Lothian Books.

Regan, 1. ,1983, 1be ca.e for avivat rigbt.. Berkeley: Uniersity o
Caliornia Press.

Rollin, B. ,1995,. 1be rav/ev.teiv .,varove: tbicat ava .ociat i..ve. iv tbe
gevetic evgiveerivg of avivat.. Cambridge: Cambridge Uniersity Press.

Rolls, L.. ,1969,. 1be, att rav rita. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.



.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Barbara Noske

12
Sablo, A. ,2001,. Reoraerivg tbe vatvrat rorta: vvav. ava avivat. iv tbe
cit,. 1oronto: Uniersity o 1oronto Press.

Serpell, J. ,1986,. v tbe covav, of avivat.: . .tva, iv bvvavavivat
retatiov.bi.. Oxord: Basil Blackwell.

Shepard, P. ,1996,. 1be otber.: or avivat. vaae v. bvvav. \ashington
DC: Island Press.

Singer, P. ,1990 second edition,. .vivat tiberatiov. London: Jonathan
Cape.

Soul, M.L & Lease, G. editors. ,1995,. Reivrevtivg vatvre. Re.ov.e. to
o.tvoaerv aecov.trvctiov. \ashington DC: Island Press.

1uan, \. ,1984,. Dovivavce ava affectiov: 1be va/ivg of et.. New laen
and London: \ale Uniersity Press.

\arren, K. editor. ,1994,. cotogicat fevivi.v. London and New \ork:
Routledge.



i
lunting would indeed be natural i human hunters would kill their prey with their
teeth or nails but they happen to use arteacts such as high tech hunting or ishing
equipment which makes hunting cultural` rather than natural.

ii
Incidentally, the two moements hae so ar not been all that interested in each
other`s literature. \hile working in a North American aculty o enironmental
studies I ound that my colleagues were generally unamiliar with animal ethics and
animal rights literature other than perhaps Peter Singer`s ,whose work they had
heard o, not read,. A journal such as ociet, c .vivat. is unknown among deep
greens and wildlie enthusiasts. On the other hand, many o the animal ethicists and
rightists I met on book tours and at conerences in the US, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand remain unamiliar with literature o the deep ecology kind.