Could Animals Be Protected in a Free Society?

The answer to this question depends on the status of animals. If animals are property, then the answer is no. However, I think that there could be a libertarian argument made for animals as being protected as parts of the environment.

For example, while I may own land, I do not have the exclusive right to the river that flows through it. Yes, I have the right to swim in it, build a bridge over it, but I would be going beyond my rights if I installed a large fishing net and captured all the fish that went through, or if I dumped toxic waste in it. In this sense, the river is common property to all the land owners whose land it flows through. The reason is that what happens in one part of the river affects the other part. It is a continuous entity.

I think the same could be applied to animals. Think of the wildlife that run through your property as the water in the river. In a similar way, you do not own the animals. They are common property, parts of the environment. Say, five people each own property bordering a forest, and each person uses the land for hunting purposes. It would be wise for them to establish a rule on how much each person could hunt per season, for fear that one greedy hunter would leave little for everyone else. And if they so desired, they could establish a rule as to how to treat the animals.

So the point is that while animals do not have rights, they are not private property either. Just as the government ought to have the right to punish air polluters, it is permissible for the government to set some standards in regard to how animals are treated. The question now becomes, where do we draw the line? If I breed the animals myself, then it'd be a stretch to say that they are still part of the common realm. In which case, the government might not have the right to intervene if I were to abuse them. However, some where down the line, the animal's lineage could be traced back to the wild. It's tricky.