“…Despite the more recently adopted inclusive language about the threat plants face from IWT in US wildlife law, these amendments were made specifically to better tackle the illegal timber trade (Rosen & Smith, 2010). Within the social sciences, studies of IWT span the fields of green criminology (e.g., Lavorgna, 2014;Ngoc & Wyatt, 2013;Wyatt, 2009), geography (Collard, 2014;Massé, 2018;Moore, 2011;White, 2014;Zhu, 2017Zhu, , 2018, and international politics (Duffy, 2014;Duffy, St John, Büscher, & Brockington, 2015;Elliot, 2007). Legal scholars have also engaged with IWT and the role and efficacy of legislation in combating IWT, with particular attention to transnational organized crime (Lee, 1995;Warchol, 2004;Zimmerman, 2003).…”
Section: Pl Ant B Lindne Ss and Illeg Al Wildlife Tr Adementioning
Societal Impact Statement
A wide variety of plant species are threatened by illegal wildlife trade (IWT), and yet plants receive scant attention in IWT policy and research, a matter of pressing global concern. This review examines how “plant blindness” manifests within policy and research on IWT, with serious and detrimental effects for biodiversity conservation. We suggest several key points: (a) perhaps with the exception of the illegal timber market, plants are overlooked in IWT policy and research; (b) there is insufficient attention from funding agencies to the presence and persistence of illegal trade in plants; and (c) these absences are at least in part resultant from plant blindness as codified in governmental laws defining the meaning of “wildlife.”
Summary
This review investigates the ways in which “plant blindness,” first described by Wandersee and Schussler (1999, p. 82) as “the misguided anthropocentric ranking of plants as inferior to animals,” intersects with the contemporary boom in research and policy on illegal wildlife trade (IWT). We argue that plants have been largely ignored within this emerging conservation arena, with serious and detrimental effects for biodiversity conservation. With the exception of the illegal trade in timber, we show that plants are absent from much emerging scholarship, and receive scant attention by US and UK funding agencies often driving global efforts to address illegal wildlife trade, despite the high levels of threat many plants face. Our article concludes by discussing current challenges posed by plant blindness in IWT policy and research, but also suggests reasons for cautious optimism in addressing this critical issue for plant conservation.
“…Despite the more recently adopted inclusive language about the threat plants face from IWT in US wildlife law, these amendments were made specifically to better tackle the illegal timber trade (Rosen & Smith, 2010). Within the social sciences, studies of IWT span the fields of green criminology (e.g., Lavorgna, 2014;Ngoc & Wyatt, 2013;Wyatt, 2009), geography (Collard, 2014;Massé, 2018;Moore, 2011;White, 2014;Zhu, 2017Zhu, , 2018, and international politics (Duffy, 2014;Duffy, St John, Büscher, & Brockington, 2015;Elliot, 2007). Legal scholars have also engaged with IWT and the role and efficacy of legislation in combating IWT, with particular attention to transnational organized crime (Lee, 1995;Warchol, 2004;Zimmerman, 2003).…”
Section: Pl Ant B Lindne Ss and Illeg Al Wildlife Tr Adementioning
Societal Impact Statement
A wide variety of plant species are threatened by illegal wildlife trade (IWT), and yet plants receive scant attention in IWT policy and research, a matter of pressing global concern. This review examines how “plant blindness” manifests within policy and research on IWT, with serious and detrimental effects for biodiversity conservation. We suggest several key points: (a) perhaps with the exception of the illegal timber market, plants are overlooked in IWT policy and research; (b) there is insufficient attention from funding agencies to the presence and persistence of illegal trade in plants; and (c) these absences are at least in part resultant from plant blindness as codified in governmental laws defining the meaning of “wildlife.”
Summary
This review investigates the ways in which “plant blindness,” first described by Wandersee and Schussler (1999, p. 82) as “the misguided anthropocentric ranking of plants as inferior to animals,” intersects with the contemporary boom in research and policy on illegal wildlife trade (IWT). We argue that plants have been largely ignored within this emerging conservation arena, with serious and detrimental effects for biodiversity conservation. With the exception of the illegal trade in timber, we show that plants are absent from much emerging scholarship, and receive scant attention by US and UK funding agencies often driving global efforts to address illegal wildlife trade, despite the high levels of threat many plants face. Our article concludes by discussing current challenges posed by plant blindness in IWT policy and research, but also suggests reasons for cautious optimism in addressing this critical issue for plant conservation.
“…Some scholars argue that human eyes developed visible 'whites' to assist dogs in following gaze cues (Shipman, 2012;Téglás, Gergely, Kupán, Miklósi, & Topál, 2012). By contrast, caged birds are often wild-caught, or only a few generations from the wild, and whereas domesticated dogs thrive in human company, birds are known to suffer from specific conditions in connection with captivity, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, malnutrition, boredom and so on (Collard, 2014). These differences speak to a critical nuancing of the experience of 'guest' animals which could be illuminated by animal and carceral geographers; that of the nature of their confinement within carceral space.…”
Carceral geography, whilst in dialogue with many aspects of theory-building in contemporary human geography, including notions of affect, mobility and embodiment, has yet to meaningfully engage with animal geographies to consider the nonhuman dimension of carceral experience. Likewise, criminological scholarship of human-animal carceral co-presence has yet to progress far beyond the consideration of animals as mere 'signifiers' of human endeavour and meaning. Further, the study of prison animals has thus far considered only those nonhumans intentionally present in carceral space, such as therapeutic animals, eliding completely those considered 'vermin'. This paper broadens the scope of extant scholarship, considering the parallels between the discourses of the 'rehabilitation' both of prisoners and prison animals during incarceration, and of both the prisoner and the prison animal as abject.
“…Instead, the lives and agencies of non‐humans are emphasised, recognising that some commodities, like exotic pets, livestock animals or ecosystem services, involve living, thinking, feeling and acting things. Collard () argues that lively commodities have double lives – the social geographical commodity life that has typically concerned rural and economic geographers, and a “wild” life, comprised of various ecological, social and familial relationships. Similarly, with reference to enteric fermentation, Govindrajan writes thatflatulent bovine bodies are not simply passive sites for the assertion of human control, but tenuous zones of encounter that are characterized by the permeability of boundaries and bodily integrity, and by the differentiated sharing of vulnerability and accountability.…”
The “Anthropocene”, a proposed geological epoch in which humanity is positioned as the core driver of planetary change, is eliciting proposals oriented at reworking human–nature relations. The more common technoscientific responses call for more investment oriented at further controlling human and non‐human processes, whereas relational responses seek more convivial relations with non‐humans – recognising the diverse agencies present in more‐than‐human worlds. In this paper, we draw from the work of Bruno Latour to develop an approach oriented at identifying and assessing the composition and quality of propositions emerging in relation to the expanding planetary impacts of cattle industries. Four propositions are identified in the Australian context, variously promoting intensification, naturalisation, veganism and artificial beef and dairy production. The composition, agencies and resistances within each proposition are reviewed, as well as the overall quality of their articulation. We discuss each proposition by considering principles drawn from recent work on more‐than‐human geography and lively commodities – particularly the wild lives and world‐making liveliness of the human and non‐human actors involved. Our analysis shows that the most well‐funded and prominent proposition – based on an intensification of meat and dairy industries – reinforces existing human–nature dualisms and is oriented more at perpetuating existing political economies than providing an effective response to Anthropocene challenges. We argue that creative consumption‐oriented responses, which are able to think in the presence of human and non‐human others, are likely to provide more effective and lively ways of addressing planetary concerns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
