within geography, and to harness geographic
information systems (GIS) in the effort to better
understand human–animal relations. Biogeo-
graphers focus on plants; few geographers
contribute to the Journal of Biogeography’s
occasional ‘aspects of zoögeography’ section
compared with contributions from other scholars,
and there are only a handful of geographers in the
journal’s editorial team (although this handful
does include the current editor). This situation
may, in large part, be driven by the increasingly
widespread availability of remotely sensed data
on the biosphere, most of which relate to plants
rather than to inconveniently mobile animals,
and which must be translated into complex habitat
suitability models in order to understand impli-
cations for animals.
Consequently, empirical works on animals are
scarce, particularly in urban areas. Except for
rare animals in ‘wildernes’ or rural settings, data
on animals tends to be scant and inadequate for
most sorts of analyses. Existing data, usually
developed by ecologists or conservation
biologists, generally ignore human–animal rela-
tions, except anthropogenic habitat degradation
(however, see Carter, 1997). New developments
in GIS, however, hold some potential to
creatively combine quantitative as well as quali-
tative data on habitat with information on human
populations and land use practices, in order to
facilitate analysis of how human activities affect
animals as groups and individuals. Such studies
could be theoretically framed in various ways, as
the tools of GIS become more flexible. Even an
approach such as ANT could conceivably be
used to structure a GIS-based analysis of how
people, things and places engaged in an animal-
centred network are located, interact and impact
various actors – especially animals.
Conversely, blossoming areas of scholarship
in social geography also need to recognize the
presence of animals in place, and the agency of
animals in creating those places. Both urban
ecology and rural studies are growing fields that
cannot escape people–animal interactions. Fol-
lowing actor network theory, we find a myriad
of heterogeneous materials also making up the
social, some of which are animals. This encour-
ages us to rethink the possibility of an animal
geography, never mind a human geography. For
if actors are networks of heterogeneous materi-
als, it would seem to make little sense to delineate
an animal geography when humans and non-
humans so promiscuously mix and exchange
properties (Murdoch, 1997: 332). This, then,
would lead to studies in which human and
physical geography are necessarily closely
integrated.More importantly, perhaps, geographers need
to communicate their findings to a broader public
so that the politics of animal geographies can be
better informed. If, in fact, nature and animal
lives are socially sanctioned and produced, deci-
sions regarding those futures must be made with
as much illumination as possible. Biotechnology
is a fast-moving industry that challenges extant
animal lives on a daily basis. So too, resource
development, urbanization and agricultural
expansion continually threaten existing animal
ecologies and geographies. But as geographers
and others writing on human–animal interactions
have shown, narratives or representations of
animals are culturally and economically scripted.
The struggles between groups to create their
‘places’, livelihoods, and future visions will also
be struggles to impose particular narratives and
representations as the correct interpretation. The
historical and everyday construction of these dis-
parate narratives and representations needs
considerably more attention from scholars in
order for people to ‘see’ that they do not derive
from natural law, a deistic nationalism or tradi-
tionalism, or some other source of mysticism.
Just as compelling is the need to outline the
way in which the politics of animal geographies
might be addressed in democratic fashion. If
‘rights talk’ is to be rejected by critical geo-
graphers and others as a capitalist and patriarchal
artifact, and if the nature/culture dualism is to be
dismantled as a modernist mistake or sham, then
some pragmatics of animal futures must be
adopted to take the place of such condemned ref-
erents. Such a pragmatics requires an immense
educational project and a new public arena for
the agonistic politics that must ensue after the
falling away of old moral pillars and culturally
and economically determined categories. The
constant emphasis on democratic decision-
making and the need to appreciate ‘militant par-
ticularisms’ (Williams, 1989) by those on the left
who have contributed most to the new cultural
geography (and animal geographies) leaves little
room for the bureaucrat or expert (in most cases
scientists of one ilk or another). Even environ-
mentalists and animal rights activists – the ‘civil
society’ monitors and advocates pushing and
shoving the bureaucrats into action on animal
issues, quite often using the expertise of the
scientist – have been vilified or called into ques-
tion. Who does this leave to make decisions
about animal lives, to speak for those who do not
speak for themselves, to imagine animal futures?
Are there to be any requirements for participa-
tion? Over what territories are decision-makers
to have sovereignty: Backyards, parks, towns,
villages, nations, the globe? Clearly, we need200 CULTURENATURES3029-ch09.qxd 03-10-02 10:48 AM Page 200