Imposing ferality: a technopolitical analysis of feral and free-roaming animal classification technologies

Johnston, Jacquelyn

doi:10.1080/02723638.2021.1985305

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These hierarchies are not only between species but also within them (Hovorka, 2019;Palmer et al, 2022) and are inherently political. For example, the classification of animals as 'pests' enables them to be killed more readily than members of other categories (Johnston, 2021a(Johnston, , 2021bSutton & Taylor, 2019), reflecting the connections between categorisation and 'killability': the extent to which an animal is treated as sufficiently 'other' that it can legitimately be killed without any real attention or concern, thus justifying mass killing (Haraway, 2008;Schuurman & Dirke, 2020;Sutton & Taylor, 2019). In conservation, differential killability tends to take the form of animals categorised as biodiversity pests (typically non-native and overabundant species) being killed to protect those deemed valuable (typically the native and/or rare) (Lorimer, 2015;Palmer, 2020;Srinivasan, 2014).…”

Section: Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…horses (Beever & Brussard, 2000)). Attempts to cull feral cats and horses as pests are thus widely met with public concern, as opposed to the typically accepted culling of other (killable) feral animals (Johnston, 2021a).…”

Section: Cat Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considerable literature has explored how animals shift in classification and hence in killability (Braverman, 2013(Braverman, , 2017Hill et al, 2022;Hovorka, 2019;Palmer et al, 2022;Sutton & Taylor, 2019). At the same time, scholars have examined how, even within categories, animals are valued differently, for example, how animal advocates and conservationists value feral cats differently (Johnston, 2021a;van Patter & Hovorka, 2018;Wald & Peterson, 2020). We contribute to this literature by exploring not simply how different stakeholders value feral cats but also how different values can lead to different definitions of categories.…”

Section: Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Hill et al (2022, p. 2) feral cats ‘are those who for whatever reason are no longer living under human control’, yet ‘the term is far from benign’. As Johnston (2021a, p. 7) points out, the classification of cats as feral is used to either consign them to a continued feral existence or render them killable through ‘exclusionary narratives that construct them as not belonging [in either wild or domestic spaces] and in need of management’. Classifying cats as feral therefore transforms them from pets to pests (Fredriksen, 2016; Hill et al, 2022; Philo & Wilbert, 2000; van Patter & Hovorka, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Categorisation of cats: Managing boundary felids in Aotearoa New Zealand and Britain

Palmer

Thomas

2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of domestic and wild animals is an integral part of conservation and is often based on how an animal is categorised. For example, feral cats are often killed, while valued companion cats and native wildcats are protected. Drawing on qualitative research and using the concept of boundary‐work, this paper examines the complex categorisation and management of cats within conservation in Britain and Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ). We examine how, both in theory and in practice, valued companion and wildcats are distinguished from unprotected feral cats, and in‐between categories of stray and hybrid cats. We demonstrate that stakeholders draw boundaries between cat categories differently. These differences in boundary‐drawing reflect the inherent blurriness of category boundaries, practical challenges and, importantly, differences in values, in particular whether priority is placed on the life of the cat or the cat's potential victim, particularly native or game birds. This can mean that laws outlining protections for specific categories of animals have limited effect if, in practice, those encountering cats draw boundaries differently. This paper also reports on important differences between the two case studies. In NZ, even cat advocates support the humane killing of unambiguously feral cats while this is less true in Britain. Furthermore, due to the nature of the contexts, conservationists in NZ are more inclined to assume that ambiguous cats are feral whereas conservationists in Britain are more inclined to assume that they are wildcats. This paper demonstrates that values not only shape people's perceptions and treatment of animals but also how they draw boundaries between them. This finding may have important implications for understanding other controversies in conservation and animal management. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract