Bronx Zoo Happy the elephant 'unlawfully imprisoned' lawsuit claims

ThylacineAlive said:
Dallas has been featured on previous years as well. In the past it's been for them taking in some of those imported wild elephants even though they would have been shot dead otherwise. These groups love to remove all context in order to spin their agendas, however.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I really hope the average person reading this IDA propoganda can realize how over-the-top the rhetoric is and question the organization's credibility. "#Metoo at the Zoo" to compare AI to sexual assault is beyond the pale. So too all the inflammatory words like "kidnapped" and "solitary confinement" are so disingenuous. If one must resort to techniques like this, their position must be pretty weak. And I have to laugh seeing them describe how terrible life is for dear Shirley of Valdosta, the oldest elephant in North America at 75. Her care team is clearly doing something right!

There's something different about this year's list. All but one of the ten are zoos that hold Africans. While it's clear that some of their old targets reinquished their animals or some died, there are still a couple of longtime listees that aren't present. They've shied away from a zoo that lost a young one to EEHV and another that "moved" a male to create a breeding possibility. And that case for Happy's non-human personhood has failed in five venues. IDA really has so little to complain about that they're reduced to all this highly dramatic rhetoric that sometimes borders on outright falsehood. I hope WCS fights to keep Happy and Patty, even if they never become herdmates. I'm satisfied that Happy's need for socialization has been filled by her close relationship with a large staff.
 
Yi Qi said:
Well, there goes a big chuck of members who'd vote for or just like her, even those abroad.
Click to expand...
That's quite a reach, especially without providing any evidence to indicate that AOC's position on the elephants will have any impact on voters intentions in her constituency. Without any evidence to indicate what if any impact her decision will have, it is just as conceivable that her decision could increase her support.
Further, it is also possible that people may disagree with her on this decision but still respect and support her.
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Even AOC is joining the "Free Happy" movement.
/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

The zoo also has another elephant living alone since the death of Maxine, one who was actually used to elephant companionship. Shows how little both the advocates and those in elected positions have really looked into this issue.

Does anyone know how Patty is doing? Or if the AZA is giving WCS any kind of pressure over its herd-size rule? Would the AZA really revoke the zoo's certification over this?
 
AmbikaFan said:
The zoo also has another elephant living alone since the death of Maxine, one who was actually used to elephant companionship. Shows how little both the advocates and those in elected positions have really looked into this issue.

Does anyone know how Patty is doing? Or if the AZA is giving WCS any kind of pressure over its herd-size rule? Would the AZA really revoke the zoo's certification over this?
Click to expand...

Rehousing two individual elephants is not going to be easy, as Patty has lived with Maxine exclusively for well over a decade, along with happy being solitary even longer. I saw both last week and Patty looked in good health and had plenty of accessible enrichment with her. Happy was in the off exhibit yard, although they do both rotate. The exhibit is obviously inadequate for new elephants, especially the puny barn from the 70's. So the only option right now seems to be finding them new homes, I imagine it'll just take a lot of time though.

Given the prominence of the WCS within the AZA I don't think losing its accreditation would ever be an option. Especially looking at how much of conservation funding is directed to WCS run programs.
 
nczoofan said:
Given the prominence of the WCS within the AZA I don't think losing its accreditation would ever be an option. Especially looking at how much of conservation funding is directed to WCS run programs.
Click to expand...
I think the zoo losing its AZA membership is very much possible. Since the aforementioned AOC wants to get involved, I fear this could lead to some government body forcing the zoo to send Happy away. Since the AZA requires animal transfer decisions to be made by the zoo itself and not by outside parties, that's why I think this is possible. It happened with the Toronto Zoo, and I see no reason why it couldn't happen here.
 
NVP said:
I think the zoo losing its AZA membership is very much possible. Since the aforementioned AOC wants to get involved, I fear this could lead to some government body forcing the zoo to send Happy away. Since the AZA requires animal transfer decisions to be made by the zoo itself and not by outside parties, that's why I think this is possible. It happened with the Toronto Zoo, and I see no reason why it couldn't happen here.
Click to expand...

Groovy. Politics + Zoos = DISASTER.

BUT in all seriousness, these are the following reasons why transferring Happy is, in my opinion, an absolutely horrible idea(and how phasing out elephants in general isn't such a good idea as well)

- Elephants are part of the reason people make the long walk to the monorail to begin with, as not that many people are interested in rare deer, plus there are standalone exhibits for red pandas and tigers in Himalayan Highlands and Tiger Mountain respectively, and there's another species of rhino in Zoo Center. Not only that, but the extra dough paid for the monorail anyways goes directly to more WCS conservation programs. Elephants are one of the staple conservation programs WCS partakes in. By the way, the original name for this exhibit was Khao Yai, referring of course to the reserve in Thailand where elephants, once plentiful, went into dire straits in terms of population. So there was an original message to be involved that would be more than welcome brought back.

- It would be an absolute sin for future generations living in the Bronx borough (or NYC in general) to not see an elephant in the flesh, especially when Bronx has a significant amount of acreage to develop, as well as a vocal nature regarding their elephant conservation programs.

- Happy's age, plus the communicability of TB to other elephants in a potential sanctuary situation leads to the dilemma: should Happy remain at Bronx? YES. YOU ARE GOING TO SAVE OTHER GERIATRIC ELEPHANTS' LIVES-my point is, logistically speaking and in the best interest of the other elephants living at The Elephant Sanctuary, and for the sake of maintaining current relationships with keepers and the occasional peacock, Happy should remain where she is.

So the question remains regarding elephants at Bronx: Should a new facility be invested in for the main zoo or Wild Asia? Would it be feasible given a public/private partnership as well as a crowdfunding campaign? Or am I just wishfully thinking?
 
You bring up a good point I've never really thought of before: the elephants probably are the main reason people bother to ride the monorail. Such a significant portion of the zoos Asian and hoofstock collections are exhibited here, and it'd be a major blow to the zoo should this attraction ever lose popularity. I'm even more convinced now that the zoo should maintain elephants here for this and many other aforementioned reasons.

~Thylo
 
I was really trying to point out how ludicrous all these people in the public eye seem when they are not adequately informed. Happy is no longer the issue. The zoo has made a convincing case--to me at least--that Happy has substituted more-intensive interaction with humans for a herdmate. By all accounts, she is happy. It's amazing in all of this that all of those trying to force Happy to move aren't even aware that Patty has lost a companion she loved and got along with and is actually a more-appropriate target for their efforts.

The zoo has been very clear for over a decade that they will not relinquish their elephants. Legally, animals are considered property, so an institution has the right to make that decision for themselves. But the AZA can hold accreditation over an institution that refuses to comply with TAG rules and regulations. Pittsburgh lost its entire accreditation by refusing to switch to protected contact with its elephants, a position the zoo defended vociferously even after the director's husband was killed in the elephant yard. There are still a couple of zoos that have two elephants, like the one in Massachusetts that houses Emily and Ruth, two more that don't get along. Perhaps the AZA recognizes that there are some elephants who can not live with others and isn't pressing the issue. The minimum is three, but there are zoos out there with three who don't live together or share space. Phoenix has three ladies who can't be together, and several zoos have a "three" combination of male(s) and female(s) who don't all live together.

In case anyone is thinking the obvious, to try seeing if Happy and Patty could get along in the absence of Maxine, it's not an option. A former keeper told me that the zoo had tried combinations of Happy/Patty and Happy/Maxine for a good while, and Happy was always attacked. It would be the ideal solution, but it's just not an option.
 
Wyman said:
Groovy. Politics + Zoos = DISASTER.

BUT in all seriousness, these are the following reasons why transferring Happy is, in my opinion, an absolutely horrible idea(and how phasing out elephants in general isn't such a good idea as well)

- Elephants are part of the reason people make the long walk to the monorail to begin with, as not that many people are interested in rare deer, plus there are standalone exhibits for red pandas and tigers in Himalayan Highlands and Tiger Mountain respectively, and there's another species of rhino in Zoo Center. Not only that, but the extra dough paid for the monorail anyways goes directly to more WCS conservation programs. Elephants are one of the staple conservation programs WCS partakes in. By the way, the original name for this exhibit was Khao Yai, referring of course to the reserve in Thailand where elephants, once plentiful, went into dire straits in terms of population. So there was an original message to be involved that would be more than welcome brought back.

- It would be an absolute sin for future generations living in the Bronx borough (or NYC in general) to not see an elephant in the flesh, especially when Bronx has a significant amount of acreage to develop, as well as a vocal nature regarding their elephant conservation programs.

- Happy's age, plus the communicability of TB to other elephants in a potential sanctuary situation leads to the dilemma: should Happy remain at Bronx? YES. YOU ARE GOING TO SAVE OTHER GERIATRIC ELEPHANTS' LIVES-my point is, logistically speaking and in the best interest of the other elephants living at The Elephant Sanctuary, and for the sake of maintaining current relationships with keepers and the occasional peacock, Happy should remain where she is.

So the question remains regarding elephants at Bronx: Should a new facility be invested in for the main zoo or Wild Asia? Would it be feasible given a public/private partnership as well as a crowdfunding campaign? Or am I just wishfully thinking?
Click to expand...

Hear, hear to everything said here. No, Happy should not leave. No, the zoo should not sidestep its unique position to help the species and build a decent exhibit for a future breeding herd. And Wyman's changed my mind--there are vast off-exhibit holding areas, and some of the hoofstock pastures need not be quite as massive. Asia is a huge tract of land, and I see no reason why a large elephant complex couldn't be fit there.

The main reason I've always wanted a new exhibit to be in the park's main area is that the monorail gives visitors absolutely no way to get up close and personal, see a keeper demonstration, ask questions, feel in your bones why this species must continue to exist. Why not build a big new elephant complex very visibly right across the river so they're front and center? Then add a footbridge across the river so visitors can explore the elephant habitats, linger there, ponder. Keep Khao Yi front and center. (And keep the monorail going for everything else)
 
NVP said:
A court hearing was held today regarding Happy's legal status. The zoo, of course, denies the claim that she is a "nonhuman person."

https://nypost.com/2019/09/23/bronx-zoo-blasts-claim-that-happy-the-elephant-is-a-person/
Click to expand...

I've never really trusted the New York Post on Bronx Zoo elephant matters ever since they published that article claiming Happy was chained up in a windowless room 24/7 in "solitary confinement" without ever bothering to check for facts or even asking the zoo. They're a big reason why the zoo has had the troublesome history with elephants and with Happy in particular in the first place :mad::(

~Thylo
 
What's most interesting here is that the Bronx has suddenly refused to agree to keep Happy until the upcoming case about legal personhood for elephants. If the zoo were to move Happy before then, two important things happen:. 1). She isn't forced to go to one of the sanctuaries, and perhaps more importantly, 2) she would no longer be in the jurisdiction of this lawsuit, and it would be dropped.

Having promised 16 years ago to phase out its elephant program anyway, perhaps Jim Breheny is agreeing to move Happy simply to stop the ramifications this law would have on elephants across the country. Remember, Happy is THE elephant who passed the self-recognition test, a key feature only humans were previously thought to have. Any case claiming elephants should be in zoos because they are nonhuman persons needs Happy. If she's not available this case is withdrawn. Perhaps Jim Breheny is taking the sword here and moving Happy to prevent a possible ruling that could ban all elephants from zoos.

I feel strongly about keeping elephants in the Bronx, but this could be a move that saves elephants nationwide in zoos. Without Happy, these cases will be MUCH weaker, so despite her life without elephants and with keepers, moving her to another zoo could be important. Happy is one of my favorite elephants ever. But I'm for this move.

Now the question is where, though. It would be ideal to keep travel time short. It can't be Syracuse, which may be in this Court's purview,, and she's not a good fit in DC, where there are two female groups because the Calgary girls are very domineering. My first pick would be Columbus, with lots of space and many different personalities she could potentially get along with. It would be hard to make an effective case there if she were actually living with other elephants. And, if, over time, she does prefer alone time, years may have passed and a new lawsuit could be delayed procedurally for years. If she is still alive by that time, (perhaps in her 50s), she could either be moved to Cincinnati, or back to the Bronx to live out her days with her beloved keepers. Who knows? By that time, the Bronx could have a few other retirees and Patty could be long free of TB and some degree of cohabitation could be tested.

The group has issued an injunction preventing Happy's removal before the case on the 21st. If Happy is going to be moved, it's going to be VERY soon. Thanks for this article, @NVP. Please keep a lookout for updates!
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
I am surprised that the Court allowed this case at all. One would expect a Court to declare that the NHRP has no standing to represent Happy.
Click to expand...

Unless someone is pulling strings... Most of these groups are not known for their honesty, they care more about forcing their agenda on others.
 
AmbikaFan said:
What's most interesting here is that the Bronx has suddenly refused to agree to keep Happy until the upcoming case about legal personhood for elephants. If the zoo were to move Happy before then, two important things happen:. 1). She isn't forced to go to one of the sanctuaries, and perhaps more importantly, 2) she would no longer be in the jurisdiction of this lawsuit, and it would be dropped.

Having promised 16 years ago to phase out its elephant program anyway, perhaps Jim Breheny is agreeing to move Happy simply to stop the ramifications this law would have on elephants across the country. Remember, Happy is THE elephant who passed the self-recognition test, a key feature only humans were previously thought to have. Any case claiming elephants should be in zoos because they are nonhuman persons needs Happy. If she's not available this case is withdrawn. Perhaps Jim Breheny is taking the sword here and moving Happy to prevent a possible ruling that could ban all elephants from zoos.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same exact thing while reading it, though I think it's important to clarify that this is not confirmation that Bronx was going to move Happy. It's entirely possible that the zoo was just refusing to work with any of NHRP's demands regardless of what they were.

I also think it shows a lot about NHRP's true motives here that, assuming Bronx did now want to send Happy out of state, they then sought out a legal court order to prevent her from leaving the zoo. Surely if all they wanted was for Happy to be sent to live with other elephants, they wouldn't have stopped her from leaving. It also allows them to continue to accuse Bronx of being cruel for keeping all the while they're the reason she can't leave, which I definitely wouldn't put past them.

Zooplantman said:
I am surprised that the Court allowed this case at all. One would expect a Court to declare that the NHRP has no standing to represent Happy.
Click to expand...

I would have thought so, too. It's pretty scary how far this case is going.

~Thylo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top