Bronx Zoo Happy the elephant 'unlawfully imprisoned' lawsuit claims

ThylacineAlive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good point Thylo, although a scary one... if they wanted what was best for the elephant, they wouldn't block her moving. This I think signals they do not actually have the interests of the elephant in mind, they want to hammer on Bronx.

Going to be a little blunt because I'm frustrated, I think it's stupid Bronx now can't move its own animal because someone disagrees with them. Seriously, who puts an elephant under house arrest? That's essentially what it is... More or less NHRP is saying, "We don't like where {the elephant} is, but she can't leave either, because we're not done."
 
AmbikaFan said:
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. !
Click to expand...
I believe that the ramifications are far greater than that. If an elephant is a "person" under the law then why not all apes?? For that mater, horses? Dogs? Cats? Pigs?!?! The societal and economic effect of zoos losing elephants is nothing compared to the rest. If this group can sue for the "freedom" (that is, they get to say what the animal's future is instead of someone else saying) of Happy then why couldn't I sue for the liberation of your family pet... or the millions of pigs held as political prisoners in this country? So it is a HUGE step for a judge to take. Few would want to take it on.
 
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 agree with you 100%. The group says Happy is their client. I fail to understand how she could be considered a client as she does not have the capacity to ask for representation. Yes, Court's have allowed lawyers to represent parents of relatives of someone who has lost all calacity to communicate, say someone in a coma, but I can't believe the plaintiffs can have standing to describe Happy as their client.
 
AmbikaFan said:
I agree with you 100%. The group says Happy is their client. I fail to understand how she could be considered a client as she does not have the capacity to ask for representation. Yes, Court's have allowed lawyers to represent parents of relatives of someone who has lost all calacity to communicate, say someone in a coma, but I can't believe the plaintiffs can have standing to describe Happy as their client.
Click to expand...
I hope they send her a bill. She is notoriously cheap. Then they'll meet her REAL lawyers! :D
 
Zooplantman said:
I believe that the ramifications are far greater than that. If an elephant is a "person" under the law then why not all apes?? For that mater, horses? Dogs? Cats? Pigs?!?! The societal and economic effect of zoos losing elephants is nothing compared to the rest. If this group can sue for the "freedom" (that is, they get to say what the animal's future is instead of someone else saying) of Happy then why couldn't I sue for the liberation of your family pet... or the millions of pigs held as political prisoners in this country? So it is a HUGE step for a judge to take. Few would want to take it on.
Click to expand...

I think we all suspect that that's ultimately what all of these activist groups want--no animals in human care at all. But their choice of Happy is crucial for their purpose; unlike the quarter horse or even the Commerford elephants, Happy passed the self-recognition test. No other elephant has done this, but for Happy, it's an argument that she's a non-human person. If she is a non-human person, they reason, she can not be considered property, which a typical animal is under the law. Habeus corpus is a "guarantee against any detention forbidden by law." (Wikipedia) Because animals are deemed property, of course they may be confined as their owners wish. Habeus corpus does not apply to Happy unless she is considered a non-human person. The mirror-recognition test is a powerful argument for them. However this law is meant to refer to human being held in jails who should be released. Even if she were ruled to be a non-human person, Happy does not have the capacity to exist in the human world. If Happy is released from "confinement," she can't simply walk out the Rainey Gates, get an apartment, find a job, and find bodegas selling 200 pounds of hay a day. She does not have the capacity to live in the human world, which is really the essence of habeus corpus. This is where NHRP's agenda becomes clear. They want to select where she should go, not the zoo that owns her. I don't think anything in this procedure would grant them the right to force her to go to a sanctuary. Even if it were decided that, as a non-human person, she should not live alone, the zoo as her owner would be the one to decide where she should go.

Someone above put it very well:. You'd think that NHRP would be delighted to see her moved to an AZA zoo, which would have a minimum of three elephants for companions. That's where their agenda is exposed. They advocate sanctuaries, which are one step closer to the wild, where they would prefer to see no animals in human care.

But choosing Happy for this suit is everything. She's the one whose passed a test for non-human personhood. Their hypocrisy is very clear when they didn't add Patty to the suit. Patty is equally alone, but they don't care about her. They see Happy as a way to declare all elephants as non-human persons. Yes,@Zooplantman, there are other species like orcas and dolphins, and primates and magpies who have passed these tests for non-human personhood, and they will be next. But first, as the activists in LA said about Billy, elephants are the "low-hanging fruit," the first and easiest to go after. It is really important to stop this this suit from continuing. I hope Happy is on a truck speeding away from the Bronx to a whole new life as I write.

I never ever thought I'd say that. Especially since I wouldn't have the chance to say goodbye. She has people who really love her here, and I am one of them.
 
Last edited:
You make excellent points but it all hinges on a judge (or a panel) ready to make that call. Justices do take ramifications into account. If Dred Scot wasn't considered a person for political and economic reasons, what chance does Happy's case have?
Any judge who agrees to this will be very aware that they are opening a door that could dismantle our very culture. In any case, I assume that if a judge does ever accept this argument it will end up with SCOTUS. It may be the one time I'll be happy for a conservative court.
 
Zooplantman said:
Client: Happy | Nonhuman Rights Project
Click to expand...

Thank you for this article, which fills in the backstory of the "Seven Dwarfs.". Without the studbook, I had forgotten that Sleepy died on arrival.

What caught my eye was the revelation of elephant performances and elephant rides and elephant tricks in the 1980s. Happy and Grumpy were purchased for the New Asia Monorail, but certainly all of this riding and and performances must have been on the "mainland.". I wonder where? Perhaps the Zoo Center? As I mull over ways of getting elephants out of Asia where they can be seen so briefly, I continue to think that there is already room all around the Zoo Center that could be used for elephants. Clearly there was enough room in the 80s! With a barn in the narrow space between the dragon end and the Children's Zoo and outdoor yards surrounding the building as they once did, they could make a decent space for elephants without all the complex moving of exhibits to make room that other zoos face. It would be a great use of that magnificent old building as well.
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
You make excellent points but it all hinges on a judge (or a panel) ready to make that call. Justices do take ramifications into account. If Dred Scot wasn't considered a person for political and economic reasons, what chance does Happy's case have?
Any judge who agrees to this will be very aware that they are opening a door that could dismantle our very culture. In any case, I assume that if a judge does ever accept this argument it will end up with SCOTUS. It may be the one time I'll be happy for a conservative court.
Click to expand...

The one problem is that this won't be the first judge making the claim valid. There is precedent in Canada, which declared orcas non-human persons and banned holding them in captivity throughout Canada (and at Marineland after Kiska passes away). This might embolden the judge.
 
AmbikaFan said:
Clearly there was enough room in the 80s!
Click to expand...

There wasn't enough room, that's why the zoo eventually moved all of their elephants to the monorail. The ZooCenter, build in 1900, is never going to be suitable for a breeding herd of elephants.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
There wasn't enough room, that's why the zoo eventually moved all of their elephants to the monorail. The ZooCenter, build in 1900, is never going to be suitable for a breeding herd of elephants.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

Maybe not a breeding herd, but a fine space for a few retirees. A new barn would be necessary but the rhino yard could be expanded toward Astor Court, providing a good deal of space. And I love the idea of visitors seeing elephants inside the building too. A few retirees in a building that celebrates elephants would be a powerful message and allow people to watch elephants and advocate for their survival.

I only set out upon this digression because @Zooplantman's excellent article described elephant activity in the 80s. It specifically says that while elephants were on Wild Asia, there were also elephants giving rides, doing tricks, and doing performances. These couldn't have been on Asia. Perhaps the current rhino yard at Zoo Center? In Asia Plaza where the camel rides are and perhaps a performance arena where Jungle World is? Elephants on the monorail wouldn't be so inadequate if they also had this kind of presence in the main part of the zoo.
 
AmbikaFan said:
Maybe not a breeding herd, but a fine space for a few retirees. A new barn would be necessary but the rhino yard could be expanded toward Astor Court, providing a good deal of space. And I love the idea of visitors seeing elephants inside the building too. A few retirees in a building that celebrates elephants would be a powerful message and allow people to watch elephants and advocate for their survival.

I only set out upon this digression because @Zooplantman's excellent article described elephant activity in the 80s. It specifically says that while elephants were on Wild Asia, there were also elephants giving rides, doing tricks, and doing performances. These couldn't have been on Asia. Perhaps the current rhino yard at Zoo Center? In Asia Plaza where the camel rides are and perhaps a performance arena where Jungle World is? Elephants on the monorail wouldn't be so inadequate if they also had this kind of presence in the main part of the zoo.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity I made some rough calculations using an area calculator and the current rhino yard is about 0.34 acres. Assuming the yard could be expanded towards the Monkey House a bit and ignoring the steep hill that begins right after this yard, the yard could maybe to expanded to about an acre, which is about the size of the current enclosure. I'm not really sure where you'd be a new barn if the Zoo Center is to remain as well.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
Out of curiosity I made some rough calculations using an area calculator and the current rhino yard is about 0.34 acres. Assuming the yard could be expanded towards the Monkey House a bit and ignoring the steep hill that begins right after this yard, the yard could maybe to expanded to about an acre, which is about the size of the current enclosure. I'm not really sure where you'd be a new barn if the Zoo Center is to remain as well.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
Elephant “performances” and public riding occurred for many years in the (more or less) “original” spaces of the zoo’s Elephant House, a series of stone-walled yards that at one time included spaces for Asian and African elephants, black and white rhinos, hippos and tapirs! In the late 80s it was renovated as “Zoo Center,” with expanded and naturalized exhibits for Asian elephants, Malayan tapirs and Sumatran rhinos. At the time, plans for a new “show arena” and elephant riding track were scrapped and instead the zoo built the formal rhino garden on the south side of the building. The interior holding areas were also renovated at this time, but within a decade it became apparent the indoor spaces were still not sufficient or appropriate for elephants and the two animals who had lived there were moved to Wild Asia.

In short, the historic building has lived through just about every stage in the evolution of zoo thinking about how to exhibit and manage elephants. But there is no scenario I can envision in which it would make sense for them to return to the architecturally constrained space available there.
 
Ah, this is just the info I was seeking! It seems that when Asia Trail was planned, there were no plans for that to be the only place to oh-so-briefly see such an important species. Having elephants in that magnificent building just seems like a natural, accentuating the beauty of the building and the beauty of the species. You mentioned them remodelling the building for several species. What if both sides of the building were used solely for elephants? The indoor enclosures and the outdoor enclosures that once surrounded the Zoo Center with those stone walls? Ideally visitors could walk straight through Zoo Center, but with visitor paths bisecting the two sides, there needs to be some clever way developed for visitors to walk over or under elephant yards that would surround the building to go through Zoo Center.

AIl I know is that elephants need to be in some location where they can be seen and appreciated for the sake of conservation. The zoo seems to have no budget for major building projects, so I've been thinking of ways that involve re-purposing of existing spaces. 15 seconds on the monorail just doesn't cut it.
 
Last edited:
The available space around the Zoo Center which could be used as a potential yard (at the expense of destroying the rhino garden and reptile yards) is still less than 1.5 acres.. I don't know the size of the inside of the Zoo Center but can't be very suitable for elephants nowadays.

~Thylo
 
Last edited:
ThylacineAlive said:
The available space around the Zoo Center which could be used as a potential yard (at the expense of destroying the rhino garden and reptile yards) is still less than 1.5 acres.. I don't know the size of the inside of the Zoo Center but can't be very suitable for elephants nowadays.
Click to expand...

Zoo Center? That place where the Komodo dragons are? If so, no, that's nowhere near enough space to house a single elephant.
 
Buldeo said:
Zoo Center? That place where the Komodo dragons are? If so, no, that's nowhere near enough space to house a single elephant.
Click to expand...

I would agree, I was responding to Ambika's idea of creating one looping yard around the Zoo Center and providing the space available to show that the area isn't suitable for elephants anymore.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I would agree, I was responding to Ambika's idea of creating one looping yard around the Zoo Center and providing the space available to show that the area isn't suitable for elephants anymore.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's even suitable for rhinos either. The dragons work well, and any future reno would do well with similarly sized animals. I've said this elsewhere, but La Menagerie has the best reuse of historic structures I've come across. That'd be a good place to start.
 
Buldeo said:
I'm not sure it's even suitable for rhinos either. The dragons work well, and any future reno would do well with similarly sized animals. I've said this elsewhere, but La Menagerie has the best reuse of historic structures I've come across. That'd be a good place to start.
Click to expand...

The outdoor yard for rhinos is good I think, the indoors could use some overhauling.

~Thylo
 
AmbikaFan said:
The one problem is that this won't be the first judge making the claim valid. There is precedent in Canada, which declared orcas non-human persons and banned holding them in captivity throughout Canada (and at Marineland after Kiska passes away). This might embolden the judge.
Click to expand...

To touch on this briefly: If I remember correctly, there are zero precedents set within the US legal system that have arisen from foreign case law. There have been some flirtations with the idea, but the U.S. legal system treats foreign law mostly as a novelty. Which is funny, because several foreign courts (Canada & Australia notably) have sited U.S. case law numerous times in settling their own legal matters.

An old article on the subject: U.S. Court Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations

Of note in that is the testimony of now Chief Justice Roberts being against the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

I'm not even sure any of this even rises to the level of a "federal issue" given that each state is a sovereign entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top