The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe UK is widely regarded as a nation committed to animal welfare. On the other hand, the precarious lives of India's stray dogs have attracted a considerable amount of international animal activist attention, and raised questions about the nation's indifference to these animals. Furthermore, animal welfare practice and policy in India are significantly shaped by British law and practice, which is often considered superior. While these contrasting reputations appear reasonable, a closer inquiry reveals complexities that belie an easy relegation to 'cruel' and 'kind'. Bringing together Foucauldian scholarship on power with legal and more-than-human geographies, this paper examines state and civil society discourse relating to the companion species, 'dog', an animal that is protected as a pet if in human homes, and controlled as a pest if out of place. In particular, this inquiry examines the discursive formations of dog control law and welfare practice in the UK and India to interrogate conventional understandings of dog (well)being. This analysis is then used as a foundation to conceptually develop Foucauldian work on biopower for the study of more-thanhuman relationships. The paper also draws out, from the above examination, insights connected to the political question of how humans might share physical and ethical space with animals, even those that do not enjoy the status of 'protected' or useful species.

12 . This paper explores turtle conservation in Odisha, India, to map the complicated manners in which animal well-being is pursued in the contemporary world. Using insights from Foucault's work on biopolitics, it offers an account of conservation as population politics, questioning the entanglement of harm and care that infuses this space of more-thanhuman social change. In doing this, the paper elaborates the concept of agential subjectification in order to track the mechanisms that underlie the asymmetric circulation of biopower in human-animal interactions and to develop Foucauldian scholarship for the examination of present-day manifestations of the 'will to improve'.

The sub-discipline of Political Ecology devotes much critical attention to the complex and often pernicious socio-ecological impacts of mainstream development-developmentality-across the world. However, despite the 'ecology' in its name, Political Ecology continues to be predominantly anthropocentric which, we contend, compromises its critique of developmentality's excesses. Drawing on recent literatures in philosophy, political theory, and human geography, we argue that both the more-than-human and social impacts of developmentality are enabled by zoöpolitical logics of human exceptionalism which support anthropocentrism. We suggest that the adverse effects of development are co-constituted with the positive vision of human wellbeing which runs through developmentality. Thus, an effective critique of development will necessarily have to address the zoöpolitical logics that underpin anthropocentrism. Doing so will strengthen the rigour of political ecology's engagement with developmentality and widen its attention to the diversity of life harmed by mainstream development.

No abstract

This paper examines human-wildlife conflict in and around protected areas to reflect on long-standing questions in conservation social science about protected areas and fortress thinking. It develops a more-than-human political ecology of human-elephant cohabitation and conflict in Sri Lanka to explore how changing socio-material conditions intersect to produce conservation and human-wildlife conflict in today's world. The paper's overarching argument is that fortress conservation is better understood as a relatively proximate cause of human-wildlife conflict and the other social impacts associated with the domain of conservation. Through its analyses, the paper deepens the critique of naturesociety dualisms that is embedded in the appellation of 'fortress conservation' and offers insights that strengthen the reach and force of scholarship that tackles the persistent "appeal" of the "fortress" (Buscher 2016, 115).

This paper examines the socio‐legal and everyday moral geographies of human cohabitation with free‐living dogs in India to think through what is implicated in living with nonhuman difference on a planet where the social and the natural are inextricably entangled. It investigates the contours of canine cosmopolitanism in Chennai city and theorises street dogs as unintentional natures to problematise dominant ideas about valued and pestilent nonhuman life, drawing out implications for biodiversity conservation and other more‐than‐humanisms. Through these analyses, the paper transgresses the silos of domestic/wild and biodiversity conservation/animal protection to advance scholarship on the politics of (non)dualism and offers thought experiments on making and maintaining more‐than‐human society in contemporary times.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Controlling antimicrobial resistance in health care is a public health priority, although data describing antimicrobial use in US nursing homes are limited.OBJECTIVE To measure the prevalence of antimicrobial use and describe antimicrobial classes and common indications among nursing home residents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional, 1-day point-prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use performed between April 2017 and October 2017, last survey date October 31, 2017, and including 15 276 residents present on the survey date in 161 randomly selected nursing homes from selected counties of 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states. EIP staff reviewed nursing home records to collect data on characteristics of residents and antimicrobials administered at the time of the survey. Nursing home characteristics were obtained from nursing home staff and the Nursing Home Compare website.EXPOSURES Residence in one of the participating nursing homes at the time of the survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPrevalence of antimicrobial use per 100 residents, defined as the number of residents receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed residents. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of antimicrobial use and percentages of drugs within various classifications. RESULTS Among 15 276 nursing home residents included in the study (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [13.7] years; 9475 [62%] women), complete prevalence data were available for 96.8%. The overall antimicrobial use prevalence was 8.2 per 100 residents (95% CI, 7.8-8.8). Antimicrobial use was more prevalent in residents admitted to the nursing home within 30 days before the survey date (18.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI,3), with central venous catheters (62.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 56.9-68.3) or with indwelling urinary catheters (19.1 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 16.4-22.0). Antimicrobials were most often used to treat active infections (77% [95% CI, 74.8%-79.2%]) and primarily for urinary tract infections (28.1% [95% CI, 15.5%-30.7%]). While 18.2% (95% CI, 16.1%-20.1%) were for medical prophylaxis, most often use was for the urinary tract (40.8% [95% CI, 34.8%-47.1%]). Fluoroquinolones were the most common antimicrobial class (12.9% [95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%]), and 33.1% (95% CI, 30.7%-35.6%) of antimicrobials used were broad-spectrum antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cross-sectional survey of a cohort of US nursing homes in 2017, prevalence of antimicrobial use was 8.2 per 100 residents. This study provides information on the patterns of antimicrobial use among these nursing home residents.