The Life and Death of Freya the Walrus: Human and Wild Animal Interactions in the Anthropocene Era

SIMPLE SUMMARY: This paper addresses the killing of Freya the Walrus by the Norwegian fishing authorities in August 2022. Freya became famous for sunbathing on boats in the marina in the Oslo fjord, but she was soon euthanized in the name of public safety. Her death caused international outrage, and the aim of our paper is to demonstrate using philosophical argument why her death was unjust. We examine her plight through frameworks developed by animal ethicists involving co-sovereignty, capability, and individuality, concluding that any one of these frameworks, let alone several, would have led to a more just outcome for Freya. We argue that policy makers could put these insights into practice in a number of concrete ways going forward, as such incidents are likely to reoccur given the changes in migration patterns for animals in the Anthropocene era. ABSTRACT: Freya the Walrus, who often climbed onto docked boats to sunbathe and frolic, was euthanized by the Norwegian Department of Fisheries in the Oslo fjord in August 2022, sparking international outrage and media attention. Since walruses are social animals, and since the Anthropocene era of climate change has displaced animals from their Arctic homes, forcing them to migrate, we can expect more human–animal interactions at such places as marinas, where Freya met her end. This paper asks and attempts to answer how we can make such interactions just going forward? In cases such as Freya’s, we need to reconcile three competing interests: the animal’s interest in living a flourishing life as best they can in a changing climate; the public’s interest in a safe and fulfilling wildlife encounter with an animal they have come to know intimately enough to name and follow devotedly on social media; and interests in maintaining private property. Examining these interests through the philosophical lenses of co-sovereignty, capability, and individuality, however, will yield more just results for animals in similar situations of conflict and co-existence with humans in urban spaces. We argue that, going forward, state resources should be expended to safeguard the public from marina access if safety is a genuine concern, while private money should be spent by marinas to enact safe animal removal with a no-kill policy.