Bronx Zoo Happy the elephant 'unlawfully imprisoned' lawsuit claims

Here we go again... At least the New York Post isn't writing a bs slander piece about the zoo over it this time.

~Thylo
 
Echobeast said:
Animal rights extremists are filing suit against the Bronx Zoo claiming Happy the Asian elephant is “unlawfully imprisoned”.

The fact that they had to file the lawsuit 300 miles away from the zoo just shows how much they are grasping at straws here.
Click to expand...

New York State venue rules, which decide where a lawsuit can be filed, are fairly broad. All they need is one plaintiff in Orleans County (between Rochester and Niagara Falls) to justify filing there. It can, however, be transferred for "convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice." My guess is that the defendants (the Zoo, etc.) will seek a transfer as one of their first moves, probably to Bronx County.
 
How likely is that the zoo can ask the court to force these activists to pay a big sum of money for conservation of wild elephant habitat in some project managed by WCS?

It would be a good deterrent for groups which seek publicity and subsequently donations in crazy lawsuits. It is my understanding that these organizations are now pretty safe - all they can lose it that the lawsuit is dismissed.
 
When I visited recently, the monorail operator said she was their only one, and she was alone in the yard. It made me concerned to see her by herself.
 
TinoPup said:
When I visited recently, the monorail operator said she was their only one, and she was alone in the yard. It made me concerned to see her by herself.
Click to expand...
The article mentions she is kept alone due to safety concerns with the other elephants (Maxine and Patty). The operator may have been mentioning that Happy was the only one on exhibit at the time. There was a segment in the most recent season of The Zoo about the elephants. Each one gets the same care and Happy has a great relationship with her keepers.
 
Good to know!! The operator definitely said only one, I remember thinking that I thought I saw others in the show episode and wondered if they'd left or died. He must have meant only one in there but phrased it wrong, understandable given how much talking they do.
 
The zoo does indeed have three elephants: Happy, Patty, and Maxine. Patty and Maxine live together and Happy lives alone as she does not get along with the other elephants. All previous attempts to properly mix her with the other two have resulted in fights, including one in 2002 where her previous companion, Grumpy, ended up sustaining injuries which killed her. The zoo had looked into sending her away once, but concluded that, after over 30 years of living at the zoo, a move would likely be too stressful for her. As mentioned, Happy is thoroughly enriched by her keepers, many of whom she is well acquainted with and she also gets limited interaction with Patty and Maxine through fences and such. The zoo alternates which elephant(s) is/are on-exhibit (Patty and Maxine are exhibited the most) but also have several off-exhibit yards for whichever animal(s) isn't/aren't.

The zoo has been facing lawsuits and criticism over Happy for a long time now. PeTA has called for the AZA to strip the zoo of their accreditation, there have been many online petitions (some 200,000 supporters strong) against the zoo, and In Defense of Animals has featured the zoo on their 'Ten Worst Zoos for Elephants' lists every year since 2012, as well as listing it in 2009. Of course there was also the infamous 2012 New York Post article I mentioned earlier where some asshat "journalist" made up a story that the zoo locked her indoors year-round and kept her in solitary confinement. The contents of this article have been the main arguments against the zoo in most of the petitions and movements regarding Happy.

~Thylo
 
Jurek7 said:
How likely is that the zoo can ask the court to force these activists to pay a big sum of money for conservation of wild elephant habitat in some project managed by WCS?

It would be a good deterrent for groups which seek publicity and subsequently donations in crazy lawsuits. It is my understanding that these organizations are now pretty safe - all they can lose it that the lawsuit is dismissed.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely. There's no legal basis for sanctions against a plaintiff unless there's frivolous conduct. In New York:

"conduct is frivolous if:
(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;
(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or
(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false."

This group would simply argue that they are making a reasonable argument for an extension or modification of existing law. And even if there were frivolous conduct, the sanctions are usually either paid to the court and/or to the other party for its attorney fees. There's no real precedent for an order requiring payment such as you suggest. You can find links to the legal papers filed so far here: Client: Happy | Nonhuman Rights Project
 
Happy is rather typical. Old elephants more often than not cannot form new social bonds after death of their companions. Many females which have dominant character start fighting which progresses to danger of life-threatening injuries. Most lone old females cannot share the paddock with other elephants, even when an institution holds further elephants. So called 'sanctuaries', too, keep elderly females singly or in twos.

I am not familiar with the U.S. law practice. In the Bronx zoo's place I would argue that this is harassment and asserts statements which are false, and the group knew in advance that its accusations are baseless, from personal contacts, facebooks groups etc. which covered previous lawsuits. Happy, elephant husbandry and animal rights were the subject of several lawsuits before. The group had access to the information that Bronx elephants are well cared after, that Happy is aggressive to others and that human legal terms do not apply to animals.
 
Thanks for that write-up, Thylo. I wonder how many of the petition signers know those things about her. I wish I could have gotten a photo of her, but she was in the far corner of her large yard and wasn't worth the effort. Had I known I was seeing an animal that was supposedly kept locked indoors 24/7, I would have tried to get one in ;)
 
ThylacineAlive said:
This is absolutely ridiculous and I hope facts prevail over animal rights bs.

In other news, I've never heard of the Commerford Zoo! Looking at the website I suspect they're going to be the people who hold elephant rides at the Big E fair in Massachusetts.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
From the article:
" “Respondents’ imprisonment of Happy deprives her of her ability to exercise her autonomy in any meaningful way, including the freedom to choose where to go, what to do, and with whom to be. Such deprivation of a ‘person’s’ bodily liberty is per se unlawful.”"
I wonder what choices the lawyers have to offer her when she is sprung from the clink?
Perhaps she dreams of a career on Broadway?
 
Zooplantman said:
From the article:
" “Respondents’ imprisonment of Happy deprives her of her ability to exercise her autonomy in any meaningful way, including the freedom to choose where to go, what to do, and with whom to be. Such deprivation of a ‘person’s’ bodily liberty is per se unlawful.”"
I wonder what choices the lawyers have to offer her when she is sprung from the clink?
Perhaps she dreams of a career on Broadway?
Click to expand...

I found that funny as well.

This article wasn't too bad because it at least gave Bronx's response but I hate how most take the rights groups' word for it. Even here they use the word "captivity" negatively, claim she is kept in a cage, and when telling her story say the zoo euthanized her previous companions and separated her from Patty and Maxine without any explanation of why. Still better than that old New York Post article that claimed she was kept in solitary confinement indoors year-round.

~Thylo
 
Zooplantman said:
From the article:
" “Respondents’ imprisonment of Happy deprives her of her ability to exercise her autonomy in any meaningful way, including the freedom to choose where to go, what to do, and with whom to be. Such deprivation of a ‘person’s’ bodily liberty is per se unlawful.”"
I wonder what choices the lawyers have to offer her when she is sprung from the clink?
Perhaps she dreams of a career on Broadway?
Click to expand...
Anthropomorphization gone too far IMO. Happy is in the situation she is, the keeper-staff are making the best of it, it's sad what happened to her former companion who was killed in the Zoo Center by another elephant, her age and her demeanor prevent her from being transferred to a sanctuary, what more do these money-hungry vultures want?
*Edit* I take back what I said. That is an insult to vultures.
 
Wyman said:
Anthropomorphization gone too far IMO. Happy is in the situation she is, the keeper-staff are making the best of it, it's sad what happened to her former companion who was killed in the Zoo Center by another elephant, her age and her demeanor prevent her from being transferred to a sanctuary, what more do these money-hungry vultures want?
*Edit* I take back what I said. That is an insult to vultures.
Click to expand...
They want precedent. If they can get one court to move an elephant out of a zoo, they can get other courts to move them out much easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top