ABSTRACT
In 1805 a certain Lodowick Post and his dog did "upon a certain wild and uninhabited, unpossessed and waste land, called the beach, find and start one of those noxious beasts called a fox." As Post gave chase, another hunter, Jesse Pierson, suddenly appeared, shot the fox, and claimed it as his own. An enraged Post argued that the fox really belonged to him, and filed a lawsuit in a New York State court. Thanks to this obscure hunting dispute, every law student today is introduced to the moral and philosophical complexities of "owning" nature through Pierson v. Post. By what rationale should Pierson or Post (or neither) be considered the "owner" of the fox?
