Animal Trusteeship – A Revolutionary Framework for Wildlife Advocacy

Jasmin Singer: We're gonna be joined in just a minute by some wonderful guests, Liv Baker and Kristin Stewart, who are going to be talking about PAN Works. And I'm gonna let you talk to them directly about what it is and what they think about it and why they think this is a new way forward in terms of turning theory into action when it comes to animals, which is so cool Mariann, because I, you know, you and I have given talks at various universities and I have from some of them come away thinking like, are we just sort of talking to the people at the table?

Like, what, what's going on? I love the idea of turning theory into action. Just a quick reminder that the Our Hen House podcasts are now multiple days a week. Rising Anxieties comes out on Tuesdays, The Hen Report on Thursdays, the long form interview, which is this, on Fridays, and bonus for Flock members comes out on Mondays, we're a podcast, and we're on YouTube. That's why you're looking at us right now, for some of you who are looking at us. So, hit subscribe and like wherever you listen. All right, so now let's get to it. Mariann, do you wanna introduce our guests?

Mariann Sullivan: Liv Baker is a conservation behaviorist and expert in wild animal wellbeing and the Chair of the Board of PAN Works. She also teaches at Sarah Lawrence. Kristin Stewart is an attorney, scholar, teacher and founding board member of PAN Works and her work bridges legal practice and ethical theory with a focus on how we care for and represent animals in law and policy.

And I'm excited about this conversation because as Jasmin just said, like, like we spend a lot of time talking about, uh, about philosophy and, and theory and how it should be, and it doesn't seem to actually happen in the real world. There's such a real huge disconnect. So it's great that you're talking about that.

Liv, lemme start with you since the intro that Jasmin just gave basically dodged the question of what PAN Works is, um, can, can you tell us what it is and what its mission is?

Liv Baker: So, um, PAN Works essentially is a, a think tank, a nonprofit think tank, um, that is composed of an international group of people that, um, is led, as it were, by a working board, which includes, um, Kris and myself along with um, William Lynn, as well as Fran Santiago-Ávila. And it is focused on, that theory into practice of promoting, privileging and enabling the wellbeing of non-human animals across all spaces.

That is it, that's what it is in short, and, but I would want Kris to weigh in on that if there's something to add in this introduction.

Jasmin Singer: Can I just ask a quick follow up question though? Did, did you say promoting, privileging? Did I hear that right?

Liv Baker: Promoting and privileging.

Jasmin Singer: Okay. I don't, what does that mean?

Liv Baker: Well, you know, I'm sure you come across this, this talk all the time about balancing, right? I mean, we we're in an anthropocentric world and we'll get into this, right? We're, we privilege humans, we privilege human needs, human interests, human conveniences, and if we don't always privilege it or prioritize it in this hierarchy, we'll talk about balancing the needs of humans alongside non-human animals. We want to decenter humans, right? Really deconstruct the anthropocentrism that dominates our world, and in doing so to privilege the needs, the interests, the lives, wants, the desires, the motivations of non-human animals.

Jasmin Singer: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I've just never heard it used like that in a, as a verb. And I'm kind of, my, my whole life is going through my head right now from a different perspective. But, uh, Kristin, yeah. Why don't you weigh in as well? Because, um, I know that you two work closely together and, and you probably compliment each other like a black and white cookie.

Kristin Stewart: Ooh, yum. Um, yeah, so I think PAN Works, PAN stands for people, animals, and nature. So our, our focus is quite broad in that respect. We are, we're interested in privileging non-human animals, especially in the context of the natural world that we as humans share with other animals. And like Liv said, we think of, well, we, we are a think tank, a nonprofit organization, and we have, um, when she says we are worldwide, I, I want to share that we have amazing fellows that are part of the organization that, um, contribute.

And we have, we have, um, events where the fellows come together from all over the world to talk about various issues, um, with non-human animals and how to, um, how to promote the wellbeing of other animals. And this comes through academic work and also through these more practical programs. One of them is this animal trusteeship framework that we are in the, we're really in the process of developing.

So this conversation is, um, this is, this is not a, oh, here's the done deal. End of the conversation. This is, we are stepping into the conversation with you now as this framework is developed and, and we go forward. And it's really exciting. So we're super happy to be here to talk about it.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. And I definitely wanna focus on, on this whole idea of animal trusteeship. It's really interesting. I would say, I mean, from what I can tell, it's a work in progress and, and there's still a lot to be worked out, but at least you're starting on this like, uh, uh, on this idea that, that after all these years of talking about philosophy and is it, should it be utilitarianism or deontology and, and on and on and on for years and, and real world change just never gets, if, if we do have real world change, I shouldn't say we don't have any, but it's tiny.

It doesn't have anything to do with the actual thoughts that people are having about the meaning of animals in their place in the world. So, alright, so let's get to this specific idea though i, I, I know it's not the only thing that PAN Works will or is focusing on, but it's what I really wanna focus on this, this idea of the of animal trusteeship.

Can you explain what it is, Kristin, and how it differs from current views of the appropriate... it's really a legal re I mean, we're really talking about a legal relationship and you are a lawyer. So the current views of the appropriate legal relationship between humans and specifically wild animals, though I do wanna mention for people listening, this is starting with wild animals, but from what I can tell, if we're thinking really big, it may not stay with wild animals, but that's where we're starting. So, so let's stick to that that cause you know, gotta change the world one step at a time.

Liv Baker: I'll just say at the, the outset, you're absolutely right. Um, wild animals and someone like myself who has wor, who works largely with wild animals, largely with free living, wild animals, but not exclusively, um, we've...our thinking really was generated around wild animals and free living, wild animals.

But it's very crucial to point out that our conception, our idea, the implementation of the, of an animal trusteeship is very much for animals across all domains. Across all spaces.

Mariann Sullivan: So can you, uh, uh, I, I guess I turned to Kristin 'cause you are the lawyer, but either of you can answer that. Like, like just kind of explain what, what this idea is of animal trusteeship. Like who's the trustee, who's like... really specifics on how this works.

And then we'll get into maybe some of the actual, we're not just talking theory, we're talking about specific situations in which this might actually move the ball forward.

Kristin Stewart: Yes. Yes. And that's what makes it so cool, we think. So, I mean, starting at the beginning, um, for ages, animals have had no real voice in decisions that affect their lives. Especially, we're talking about wild animals. We make decisions. They affect real animal lives. They have no voice in it. This is just status quo.

Sure. So even the best advocates, um, they come with conflicts of interest, to some degree. Our framework solves that with this, what we think of as a new role of these animal trustees. So we are, um, as we were thinking about really how do we about animal representation, how do, how do we get the animal's perspective into the room when decisions are being made about them?

That's the question we, um, talked about, and I don't know if you've had any guests that have talked about the public trust doctrine.

Mariann Sullivan: No.

Kristin Stewart: The Public trust doctrine is kind of a, it's a court doctrine, it's a common law doctrine, that, um, has been applied to, um, wildlife and nature in general that says that the government holds nature in trust for the benefit of the public and future generations of the public.

And, um, this is sort of the governmental role and this is something that, um, many legal scholars point to, to say, well, look, this, this is, um, it started out with just sort of, um, the natural landscape and has expanded to include wildlife really only pretty recently actually. And isn't that wonderful? And, and they lean on the public trust doctrine to sort of enforce this idea that the government who has control of wildlife and the natural world, that it, that it manages it well for the benefit of the public.

And by the public we mean of course the human public. So the, the problem with a, a trustee in this kind of public trust doctrine framework, which, um, I know I'm starting with what we're not doing, which is kind of strange, but it's, it's...

Mariann Sullivan: I really wanted to get into what the Public Trust doctrine is because I do think, I mean, and I, I, I, you know, like it, I assume the Public Trust doctrine, public trust doctrine is a big step forward from just out and out capitalism free for all. So, so it, you know, it might've been a, a really good way to think about, about holding land and, and, and as you point out later, animals for, for, for the public good, but not good enough

Kristin Stewart: Not good enough and, and in fact it's been around for quite a long time and how it's applied and whether it's applied, and all of those things are really important questions, um, if you're interested in managing the whole of the natural world and making those trade-offs in, in how it ought to be managed for the benefit of the public.

And then you've got competing interest in the human public, like the hunters versus the conservationists versus the, well, often those are the same versus the, um, animal rights advocates, let's say, who would like to see individual animals on the landscape, um, uh, treated as individuals worthy of protection because they have inherent value in and of themselves, not just as parts of the larger environment.

Jasmin Singer: Mm-hmm.

Kristin Stewart: Well, once we start talking about that, we kind of leave the, the realm of the public trust doctrine because the public trust doctrine is based on trust principles. And so maybe we should go back to that as a starting point. Right? So a trust is essentially, um, an agreement we have, uh, a trust holds property.

The trust maker says, I'm going to make this trust, call it a bucket, and in that trust bucket, I'm going to put some property, some money, say, um, or other property for the benefit of I'm going to name a beneficiary.

Jasmin Singer: Mm-hmm.

Kristin Stewart: And then the trustee is also named to take care of that bucket of money for the beneficiary.

The problem has always been that with regard to trust thinking and wild animals, that the animals are in the bucket with the money. They're not over here as beneficiaries. And that's the case under the Public trust doctrine. And that's the case under Common Law Trust, generally speaking.

And in fact, it makes sense if you understand animal law in most of the world and certainly in the US and that is that our law separates. There is a dual kind of status available to all of us under the law, and as Steve Wise put it, there's this wall between those two statuses. One are persons and the other is property. At common law, animals are property.

Jasmin Singer: Hmm.

Kristin Stewart: They cannot be persons. There is that wall that is between them. So a person must be... a beneficiary must be a person. And since animals are property and cannot be persons, then animals cannot be beneficiaries of the trust.

Jasmin Singer: Hmm.

Kristin Stewart: Alright, this changes though around the nineties. Into the late nineties, we see, um, actually for a long, long time people have tried to use trusts and name mostly their companion animals as beneficiaries of the trust.

Some of those cases would get to court and the court would say, well, that's not a trust, because the beneficiary can't be an animal. However, sometimes the court would would call it an honorary trust because they knew what was kind of going on and they would sort of, it's not really enforceable in court, but we'll call it an honorary trust and we're not going to kind of disturb the relationship in some times, in some cases.

But in the now, I'm really kind of creating kind of a quagmire here when I'm trying to simplify it. But by and large, if we were to go up to the 30,000 foot view, persons on the one side of the wall, animals on the other side of the wall, beneficiaries of a trust must be persons. Therefore, animals cannot be beneficiaries of a trust, a legally enforceable trust at common law. In the nineties, something changes, and that is what we've come to call pet trusts.

Enough people... companion animals have the best legal coverage. Legal, um, I can't really say rights, but their legal status is the highest of all of our relationships with other animals. Companion animals kind of win the prize in this respect. One of the ways we see that is through these pet trusts, companion animals are, have been legislatively walked through a back door of that wall, if you will, and are allowed to, to be beneficiaries of a statutory trust.

So now suddenly we have one state sees there's a, there's a, there's model legislation that comes out. And this pretty rapidly, we, you know, I feel the same way, Mariann, when you started talking about how slow things are and how things just don't, you know, it feels like it takes eons to get anything to happen, but these pet trust statutes really kind of came along and, and proliferated pretty darn quickly because today we've got, I guess how you depend, depends on how you think of quickly.

But over the past, hmm, since I was out of law school till now, all 50 states now have these pet trust statutes. And these statutes say your, you may name your companion animal, or in some cases it doesn't even say companion animal. It just says animal and it doesn't say your animal. It says an animal, you may.

Mariann Sullivan: I was kind of involved in animal law and, and in the New York City Bar Association when all of these, when this whole movement kind of started. And, uh, and one of the lawyers on the committee at the Bar Association, Fran Carlisle, was one of the leading, uh, leading state... trusted estates attorneys, really interested in animals getting this going.

And I think even at the time there was some consciousness that this could be, this could have legs. This could be an idea that it will go beyond. Because this is, this was a huge breakthrough that people really didn't recognize as such, it kind of got in under the, under the wire, under the conciousness of people that they're making animals the beneficiaries of trusts.

I mean, that has always been impossible. And

Kristin Stewart: Exactly.

Mariann Sullivan: That's a whole different legal status

Kristin Stewart: Exactly.

Mariann Sullivan: something with that. And I think in New York, uh, and I know this is something you're looking into, so maybe you're aware of this particular case. There have been cases where, uh, I know chimpanzees have been, um, have been made the beneficiaries. Roger Faust's chimpanzees were made the beneficiaries of trust with this idea that this is creating precedent to do something different. I'm not sure what that something is going to be, but do something a little different. And I love that, that you have taken it like that next step or you're, or you're in the process of working to take it that next step as, alright, let's do something with this.

This idea that the law is already recognized, that animals, maybe not just pets, maybe not just, uh, privately held animals have a new status under the law and we can do something with about it. And before we get further into that, you started off your discussion in, in this paper that you wrote with a little bit about the Animals Lawsuit against Humanity.

And I was un totally unaware of that, but I know it was recently performed in New York City and we were so sad that we, we, we couldn't make it. Um, but I think it's so interesting that you've written about it and how it of, as an introduction to your own work and this idea that animals can be the beneficiaries of trust and that could lead us to all these new places.

Can you just tell us a little bit about the, that I, I, it's a theater piece, I guess. It's a very, very ancient theater piece. Um, and how it relates to your work.

Kristin Stewart: I didn't know about the theater piece. Honestly. I, I knew about it.

Mariann Sullivan: too bad.

Kristin Stewart: Oh my. Yeah. Oh my gosh.

Mariann Sullivan: ago. Two weeks

Kristin Stewart: That would be amazing. I would love to say no. I came across it. Um, I use it in, gosh, I, I, I use that... it's a small book, beautifully illustrated little book. And it does go back, it goes way, way back. And there have been many translations of it.

Um, and I use it in all of my classes as a way to think about, you know, I mean, in animal law it's just makes perfect sense, right? To I start the semester with, let's read this book and let's think about, you know, throughout the semester we touch back on that book and say, okay, well what would be the animal's perspectives on this?

And in fact, sometimes I've built out kind of some narrative kind of exercises around it where they argue at the end of the semester based on what the law is and what it ought to be and, and those kinds of things based on, based on that text where the title says it all. If, if the listeners haven't, um, had a chance to read this or see the show, oh my gosh, I can't wait to look that up.

Look more information about that up. Um. It's about an island where, a pristine island where all of the animals live, um, in harmony. And these, uh, humans show up. They're blown off course and all types, all different types of humans, and they inhabit the island. And, um, you know, what happens next, just look around. And then the animals decide, uh, this is not working for us.

And so they get, um, they get together and they go to the spirit king and they air their grievances and they have a lawsuit about it.

Jasmin Singer: Hmm.

Kristin Stewart: Yeah,

Jasmin Singer: Well, I'm, I am excited for you to look up the show. We had a

Kristin Stewart: I know.

Jasmin Singer: to see it and she said it was really cool. Can either of you share your thoughts on how animals as individuals have too often been left out of environmental scholarship and activism and how this, I would say, new way of looking at it can change that?

Liv Baker: Sure, maybe I'll, I'll take that. Um, so as someone who, as an animal behaviorist, um, whose research is very much focused on the individual, it's very much sort of like grounded in who animals are and how the who of them entangles with their environments, their social environments, their ecological environments, and so forth.

And what we see on balance is that individuals, the who of individuals, is largely dismissed. Um, not understood. Um, when individuals are invoked, it's the essentialized. It's the wolf, elephant, not the wolves, not the elephants, not their, their social groups, their families, the who and the what they are. Um, and that's pervasive. We, you know, we see that certainly in conservation. You know, we've spoken about the public trust doctrine, which is anthropocentric inherently so. Um, and it informs the North American model of conservation, of wildlife management. And so in turn, those practices, those disciplines are anthropocentric. Um. And so in conservation and certainly in wildlife management, individuals were dismissed, not considered, and certainly not understood. Not understood from an ethical perspective of, of beings on this planet that have intrinsic value. Um, are not, and not just have value because of what they can provide humans. Um, so the ethical who of animals has been historically dismissed, but also in that, that dismissal of understanding animals and who they are, there's been a dismissal of ecological understanding of, of just scientific knowledge. And so we've, we've spent a lot of time spinning wheels, um, in that dismissal.

Um, and we've had a lot of failed conservation inter interventions as an because of that. You know, as someone who's done translocation work, reintroduction work, the, the utter failure historically of those interventions has largely come because conservation had a entrenched practice, implicit practice, sometimes explicit practice of ignoring individuals, their needs, and their contribution to their environments.

Mariann Sullivan: I think we would, we would be amiss at this moment if we didn't mention Jane Goodall. And, um,

Liv Baker: That's right.

Mariann Sullivan: The enormous, uh, change, she, not enough of a change 'cause it still goes on, I'm sure, especially with animals who are not as sophisticated as chimpanzees.

Kristin Stewart: Hmm.

Mariann Sullivan: It's harder to see them as individuals, but she, it's my understanding she was one of the first to do that.

Liv Baker: right. That's right. Um.

Mariann Sullivan: All right. So I'd like, I I, I'd really like to get into the, um, 'cause I, I promised in the beginning that this wasn't just theory. This is, this is a way of moving things forward. And so I wanna talk a little bit about what the implication, I mean, people really don't know what a trust is, but you kind of explained that and it's a very common thing to set up a trust for somebody. So, so if I understand correctly, you have ideas for how activists could actually work or other, you know, whatever, scientists, activists, that, that could do some work in this direction without even passing any new laws. That, that, that there could be begin at least beginning, um, effort to, to set up a trust like this.

So if somebody decided they, and you're talking about wild animals now, you're not talking about some setting up a trust for your cat. Um.

uh, and so if someone were to become an animal trustee and, and they said, all Right.

I'm gonna be the person to move this forward, what, how would that work? What would be their responsibilities and how would they set that up?

Kristin Stewart: Well, okay, so we've proposed, and, and the framework we're working on is a sort of a, a dual path framework. So there's this legal, enforceable animal trust. Uh, codified animal trust that we're calling a statutory trusteeship. That I happen to think that some of the statutes, some state statutes would allow this with other than companion animals even today.

But as a practical matter, we have named this the practical animal trust that is, um, more of a normative trusteeship. And I mentioned this honorary trust before. It's not unlike this honorary trust. It may not be, uh, strictly legally enforceable, but we are, we are coming off of those same principles from that statutory trust.

So we've talked about kind of the principles there. We've got the, the trust itself is the, um, the property or maybe some money or whatever it is that is needed to, um, advance whatever the advocacy is and it's kind of hard to... maybe we need an example, to really? Yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: Made up a story

Kristin Stewart: good.

Mariann Sullivan: All right, there's a per piece of, I don't know whether this would fit, there's a piece of land in your neighborhood. It's, it's publicly owned and either they're going to, uh, you know, build a skateboarding place there or they're going to turn it into a sanctuary for animals or something like that. And you wanna go in there and say, alright, I'm for, I'm, I'm for the sanctuary for the animals, but I'm not here just representing myself. I'm here representing those animals. Is that how this works?

Kristin Stewart: Yeah, it, okay. So where I live, we've got these, um, I'm in Florida and we have these Florida black bears and they're in the neighborhood. They're roam in the neighborhood. We've got, you know, let's say we're in my neighborhood and the black bears particularly are gonna be like really particularly affected by this skate park that's going in.

And let's say the black bears are really, um, that's, that's who you're particularly concerned about. And so, yes, you might, what we're envisioning here and, and what we are envisioning with the normative trusteeship is you would identify your beneficiaries here. We'll call them the, the black bears in this neighborhood where this skate park is taking place.

So we're getting a very clear context. It isn't like all animals in this area for all time, but this park situation, this decision whether to make it a skateboard park or a natural space where the bears would thrive versus not. The bears are the beneficiaries.

You, um, as the advocate would make a document that would articulate, um, these things that we've identified in the essay. Um, ideally we'd we'd like to see that document made public so that, you know, it's, it's, there's transparency there in what's going on. And then you could name yourself or somebody else as trustee. So bears are the beneficiary.

The trust document contains, um, uh, an explication an an explanation and details about what this is about. It's about the skate park, it's about these decisions that are being made. We're going into, um, represent the interest of the black bears in this case. And if you can find an expert in black bears in this neighborhood, all the better.

If you can't, you do the best you can and, um, you show up and you say, I'm there to speak and represent the interest of the bears and only the bears, and that's the real key. Other advocates may show up, but as a trustee you have a singular duty, and that's to represent the interest of the bears.

Mariann Sullivan: The thing I love about this the best or just, let's just, lemme finish my thought so I don't forget it. That, that you get, you would get to go in and just represent the bears. 'cause when we have to go in advocating for anything, we're expected to take this global view and take into account the needs of the children and the needs of of, of the neighborhood.

And that that's what's expected of us. We're not expected to just go in and say, no, somebody else will make the decision, but this is what the bears need. Uh, because, and nobody's saying that because, you know, because the bears weren't there. So that is, uh, that's something that's so appealing about this type of a advocacy. Liv did I under, did I interrupt you?

Liv Baker: Yeah, I just wanted, well, I wanted to, let me just say, add to what you, you pointed out Mariann is that, even if, you know, you know, Kris mentioned other advocates, so say there are advocates from a well-known animal advocacy organization, and you would think that they are going there to advocate and represent the bears.

You know, Kris has mentioned that they're, they're also tethered to their organizational interests and missions and campaigns and so forth. But even if right, that you as an advocate, as someone representing a voice or bringing a perspective is not expected to be global in whom or what you're advocating.

Even if you go in thinking I'm there for the bears. But it's not articulated in the way that Kris and I are talking about the practical animal trust, the explication of your responsibility, your roles, the beneficiary. What does it mean in an explicit, articulated way to represent the wellbeing of these, in this case, bears?

If you don't go in with that articulation for yourself, for your community, who, whether what that community is, it could be a small, you know, neighborhood group, it could be a, a town organization, a larger organization, what have you. If you don't have that articulated, then things can happen, such as peer pressure. The pressure for, for, from being in these settings, right? Even hear, hearing other advocates that, or you know, people with certain personalities that might dominate. More, you know, louder voices and you start to feel drowned out. You feel, feel literally drowned out 'cause people talk more, or you feel drowned out because maybe you start to second guess. Or you start to feel the pressure of like, well yeah, I'm here for the bears and the bears, but there are other animals.

And then you start to, do I have to do, I have to be the one to, or to deal with these tr potential trade-offs or think of...? And, you lose your, you lose the, the task that you're on and we're all susceptible to those type types of pressures. The practical animal trust is right? It should, it should give a person who's, who's taken on the role of trustee, should give them the confidence, right? Because it's, you're, in some cases, you're literally handing out, this is the practical animal trust, these are my roles and responsibilities. These are the animals that I'm here to speak on behalf of. And that is there to bolster, to protect, to buffer. And it's a, it's a point that you can look to right? To say, no, these are my tasks, these are my responsibilities. And everything you advocate for in those settings should be filtered through how does this support, protect, defend the lives of these bears,?

Jasmin Singer: You mentioned other animals, and, I just wanna go back to that because I understand that there was one attempt to put this into practice already at something called the National Wolf Conservation. Can you tell us about that?

Kristin Stewart: The National Wolf conversation was Yeah, yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: Conservation

Kristin Stewart: Conservation conversation

Jasmin Singer: Yes. Yeah, that's all I was doing.

Kristin Stewart: or both? Um, yeah, actually, yeah. Was it was, this context was much larger than the one that we've just imagined. This is, this, this was a, um, a huge, it, it's unfortunate because it was kind of cut short because of political things and the new administration coming in and that sort of thing as I, as far as I understand it, but it was about like wolves in all the lower 48.

And the Fish and Wildlife Service kind of commissioned this sort of stakeholder process, this nationwide stakeholder process. And the person or the organization that facilitated this, they are, I think they're in the process of kind of cutting together video footage to make a documentary. If I understand, that's still going forward. But it's all about, you know, the wolf management and, um, how we ought to be in relationship with the wolves on the landscape.

So, I mean, we're talking a very, very broad context here. We at PAN Works thought, hmm, you know, there's a lot of the, the organizer was going around to all of the, the stakeholders that you might imagine. The ranchers, and we have some Indigenous, folks and we have, um, advocacy group, the big ones that you might imagine. And, um, we thought a trustee should be there, someone to speak just for the wolves should be there.

Jasmin Singer: Yeah.

Kristin Stewart: because as we've seen with wolves, um, advocates who I think most people would be surprised, advocates who they might think would, would be a great trustee for the wolves would... the oftentimes I'm, yeah, you can tell I'm trying to like, Hmm.

I better, uh, I wanna say this carefully because I advocates are, they do heroic work and, and I'm not trying to put down advocates in any way, shape or form. And I think Liv would agree with me, this isn't about saying advocates aren't adequate, this isn't about that at all. In fact, we think that this would be an amazing tool for advocates so that they can, um, free themselves from what constrains them, which is this, you know, that they, they have many masters.

They have their other campaigns, their donors, their board, their, you know, they, they go into these conversations with a lot of competing interests in every conversation. So what, what we thought would be a fabulous thing is to have an animal trustee, a wild animal trustee, a wolves trustee, present and part of this national wolf conversation.

And, um, and so we did. And Bill Lynn, who is, um, you know, a founding board member at PAN Work, served as the wolves trustee. And, uh, it was, um, pretty extraordinary, pretty awesome. Yeah.

Jasmin Singer: Yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: I can see how it would be so much, uh, just from my own point of view, uh, you were saying that people have other, you know, advocates are doing a great job, but they have so many different things pulling on them. Well, that's kind of the whole point, that when you go in there, you're expected to take into consideration all these other problems.

Getting back to the skate park, which is an, you know, tidy, tidy problem. Like, people will ask, well, what about the kids? Don't the kids really need? And I would be able to say, I can't speak to that.

I can only speak to what this is going to do to

Kristin Stewart: exactly.

Liv Baker: Right.

Mariann Sullivan: You know, then somebody else would make that decision.

But have to tell you what's, because you always get, it always ends up being about the humans. It always ends up being about something else. And this, your duty in this situation would be to go in and only talk about what's happening to the

Liv Baker: That's right.

Kristin Stewart: Precisely. You so get it. Yeah. I mean, you so get it. That's the thing. And the thing is, now you're free to.

Mariann Sullivan: Really,

Kristin Stewart: It's so much easier.

Liv Baker: Right.

Mariann Sullivan: don't, I, you

Liv Baker: You're, it's focused.

Mariann Sullivan: care about kids

Kristin Stewart: Exactly.

Liv Baker: You don't have to dismiss other interests. You don't have to dismiss. not saying that, it's not like you're putting blinders on or you are removing knowledge that you have. You're, you're still going in as part of a community, but the task is clear.

Your role and responsibilities are clear and like you're ge, like you're intuiting Mariann. It's...

and as we've talked about, it's freeing. It should be freeing. It should, it should bolster the confidence, it should relieve pressure, because of that clarity or what should be that clarity.

Kristin Stewart: We're looking on the horizon, we're thinking about how to kind of put together some trainings for folks that want to kind of embrace this and move forward with this. And part of that Liv and I, we've kind of joked about this, but I don't really think it's a joke.

I, I really think it could be part of the swag package, but a hat that says trustee on it. Sometimes, you know, you might wanna take that hat off in a conversation, maybe not an official conversation, but say, okay, now as Mariann, yeah, of course I'm concerned about the kids. I'm concerned about this, that, and the other.

But when I had this hat on, I'm the trustee and I'm here and I have to tell you, the bears use this corridor all the time and you know, I, the young and blah da da. What this is where the, the science comes in and the, you know, awareness of this particular population that is or are the beneficiaries come in.

But you're absolutely right, it is freeing and, and the clarity and the, and the, um, the singularity of purpose is, is everything. It takes the heat off of those folks that are in these conversations too, that feel so often, what I didn't really know about until the last few years, frankly. I didn't understand the pressure that many advocates are, are under to compromise and compromise in some major ways on policy things. This alleviates that.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, because it's not your job to compromise. You're

Kristin Stewart: In fact, the opposite, right? Yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: I can, I mean, there are a lot of practical questions here.

Kristin Stewart: Yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: I, you know, like, what if two people coming in come in and say, I represent the deer? Um, and how do you, how do you deal with that? And, and can you take this to a, you know, less informal place to a formal place. I assume some of this is, is waiting to be worked out, but is there anything you wanna add to, uh, the structure?

More than what we've said today?

Liv Baker: Can I just speak to, uh, some things, Kris, if you don't mind, first?

Kristin Stewart: Yeah.

Liv Baker: So training. I'll just say if we have the problem, if there's the problem of multiple trustees for animals in a room?

Kristin Stewart: Yeah.

Liv Baker: Abso like that is the problem to have, as Kris and I have talked about, right? You think about in the, the National Wolf Conversation, there was more than one rancher there.

There wasn't the singular rancher there was. Right? And so think where the balance should be in a, in a space that is there, there to make decisions on behalf of, that will affect the lives, will decide death of other animals, the balance should be in their favor. The goal should be multiple trustees.

So I would say that is a good problem to have.

Mariann Sullivan: You ever, but is there any concern that not everybody will be entirely honest about whether they're representing the interest of the wolves? Like people going in and saying, uh, well, I know wolves. I've known wolves all my life!

Liv Baker: Well that's, that's what we're right. And Mariann. But that's, that is the, what we think is the importance and the beauty, if I can say, of the practical animal trust. That one is held to account. Um, and that the transparency that a practical animal trust affords, provi, confers to the process.

Because otherwise, that's exactly what you get. You'll get people who internalize their role and say, yeah, I care about wolves, or bears or spider, or whomever it happens to be. And say, so I, yeah, of course. And that happened. We saw that occurring, or we anticipated that during the National Wolf Conversation because they were in an advocacy, an advocacy role, or they knew wolves or the wolf, that therefore they're the trustee.

Well, that's the, the whole point of what we've developed is to say that is not enough. That is, that is not sufficient. Here is a, an approach, a model, to get to what is more than sufficient. What provides these animals. So, so if we, but, so if, in a preferred scenario, if we had multiple bear trustees in, in this, in the hypothetical that we've talked about, the hope, the goal would be that they would be there genuinely. They will have developed the practical animal trust. And what's wonderful about having more than one trustee, is that you get that, you get that breadth and depth. Because, and this is what I wanted to get back to, we've talked about experts, right? You know, if there's a bear expert or I, what does it mean to be an expert? To be even, um, sort of have the, have the characteristics right for the role of a trustee.

Jasmin Singer: Mm-hmm.

Liv Baker: I wouldn't want an ecologist steeped in that world of ecology to be the bear trustee necessarily if what they're going to do is just bring ecological principles, think about bears in an ecosystem, and, and we're at that level.

That is not the role and responsibility of the bear trustee. So that, and part of the practical animal trust should be, what does it mean to represent animal, animal wellbeing? The wellbeing of these animals in this context. That should be the fundamental question. What does it mean to do that? And how do we do that?

And who should do it? And so in some cases, you know, so we've got, we can have more informal trustee spaces. Someone going to maybe a public hearing in their township, in their municipality, they're looking for public perspectives, um, to something that's facilitated or led by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, right? And so there's gonna be a lot of wiggle room as to who the expert is, right? Who is sort of eligible, as it were, to be a trustee. So needs, needs will must, you know, depending upon the situation. But if someone is entering into a trusteeship role with authenticity, with, with a genuine heart, with a genuine want to represent the wellbeing, even if it's flawed, the practical animal trust that they develop, it will be leagues above what would otherwise occur. And that flawed process is still good. Right? So if, and, and, and, and goal for PAN Works is to pro, is to develop and provide training for people at all of these different levels from the individual in the neighborhood.

Mariann Sullivan: And hats. Yes.

Liv Baker: Right. From an individual in the neighborhood that says, I care about the squirrels. Right. And you know, to, I am part of this organization, but I want to decouple myself from the constraints of my organization to represent the wolves, for example, at this national level. Right? To get that training to talk about what do you need to develop? What knowledges do you sort of need to draw from? Right. And it's all gonna be context specific and that's going to be crucial. And what we wanna be able to do in this training is to provide a very flexible, practical, animal trust template that people, organizations, groups, can take back and to use.

Because our goal is not to micromanage this process, right? You have to go through us to, you know, but training is no doubt, absolutely crucial if only to talk about, to learn about what does it mean to develop a trust, to understand who the beneficiaries are, to bound that, to bound your role and your responsibility, and to articulate that to yourself, to your group, and yes to the animals you're, you're acting on behalf of.

Mariann Sullivan: Well, I'm sure many people listening will be extremely intrigued by this idea. Um, and can you just tell us where they can, where they can find out more?

Kristin Stewart: panworks.io. PAN, like PAN works uh, WORK s.io. And um, also the Medium. We've got the, the essay there on the Medium and can read a little bit there about, um, things.

Mariann Sullivan: We can link to that in the show notes.

Kristin Stewart: That's great. We, I mean, we'll have, we don't, we'll have materials up on the training as we've said. This is a, this is a work in progress and, um, we're working as fast as we can to get there because we think it's time.

Mariann Sullivan: Well, it's very exciting work and and I wish you all the best for it, and,

Kristin Stewart: Thank you.

Mariann Sullivan: I know there is more to be developed, but you've already thought through a lot of issues that I think people have been struggling with, so thank you so much. I hope you'll stay on for a little bit for, to join us for our bonus segment with the flock and, and thanks for joining us.

Kristin Stewart: Thank you.

Jasmin Singer: Thank you so much.

That's it from us today. Thank you so much for tuning in. Don't forget to subscribe to Our Hen House on your favorite pod catcher and on YouTube. Hit like wherever you can. We really appreciate it. It helps us get the word out there and we will talk to you next time.