Beavers' Rights

October 11, 1939

Some beavers, in Connecticut, have built a dam and are flooding a lot of roads. The highway department of the county where this disaster is taking place has brought the matter to court, asking for the power to remove these audacious beavers.

The Attorney General, in Hartford, hands down a decision making this possible, by saying that rights of rational animals are inferior to those of the state, and therefore the rights of beavers are just that much more inferior to the rights of the state. Therefore, the beavers have to get out.

On the other hand, the beavers also have rights, and therefore "these little animals should be compensated." They will be removed to another home, where they will be "able to perform and exercise their natural skill and ability." I am sure there is some legal subtlety that makes this phrasing of the highest importance: "perform and exercise."

Wouldn't it be too bad if he forgot one of the words, and somebody took advantage of the decision and, while permitting the beavers to perform their natural skill, maliciously made it impossible for them to exercise it. Or what if someone brutally refused them the right to exercise their ability, but without, at the same time, interfering with their skill!

This hierarchy: beavers: rational animals: state, is just abstract enough to make me feel disturbed the whole story. I wish they had kicked out the beavers without such a lot of talk: because obviously no court is going to bother with the rights of beavers anyway, not really. How can a court make itself responsible for dealing out justice to beavers?

If it pretends to, it makes you wonder how serious they are in dealing out justice to men.

I have no doubt the beavers have certain natural "rights," but I have every doubt whether those rights can be protected by a human court of law as if they were the rights of human beings. And what are the rights of these beavers? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The court said they had a right to perform and exercise their natural skill and ability.

I suppose the same can be said of rabbits. Btu also I suppose the rights of rabbits are not eternally fixed: they vary according to whether or not the hunting season is on. When it is closed, they have a right to life and the performance, etc. of their skills (which are all very elementary, so be sure), and when the season is open they lose all their rights.

I don't suppose even a State supreme court could go so far as to puzzle over the rights of rabbits in relation to foxes. Let us take it for granted that irrational animals have rights before men who are capable of making judgments, but not before other animals.

Even if beavers have rights (which I don't doubt), it doesn't do you any good to talk about them, or to guarantee them, or anything of that sort. On the contrary, to make a big argument over the rights of beavers is a suspicious enough joke to cast doubt on the validity of the rights of men.

There is one very simple way of dealing with beavers: not according to rights, but according to love. If you love God, you will respect his creatures, and respect all life because it comes from Him, and you won't waste so much time talking about the rights of irrational beings.

But admittedly a law court is not designed to take care of questions insofar as they can be decided by love: that is the difference between a court and a confessional. So let it pass.

The Secular Journal of Thomas Merton
Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959