Bronx Zoo Happy the elephant 'unlawfully imprisoned' lawsuit claims

I don't know what to think about it. It's quite stupid to give in to activists and their attacks. On the other hand, after her departure, the situation might calm down. I don't think the elephants in the Bronx have bad conditions. There are much worse. It is quite common for older dominant cows to have to live separately. However, the elephant shrines are suitable for circus elephants. Elephants in zoos have better care. They often castrate the bulls in the shrines, which is an interference with animal life.
It's like Lucy's case in Edmonton. It can be seen that activists are not concerned with the health of an elephant if they continue to send it to the sanctuary. The zoo herself said it was no longer possible, because she had difficulty moving and had a recent worsening of her health, so the transport would not have to survive at all!
Billy in Los Angeles ... has a lot of space and a natural exhibit ....
Chendra in Oregon ... first pregnant at age 26! This is a tremendous rarity and success. Having an abortion is quite normal because at this age having a first calf is quite risky. It has several spacious exhibits. She don't suffer.
The Bronx Zoo has two older cows, Patti (49) and Happy (48). Both are already old elephants and I think they should live where they are. Activists do not take into account that the old animal should be quiet? Both have a relatively spacious grassy enclosure. However, if the Bronx Zoo still decided to move Happy, the following zoos would be the best:
Phoenix: only after the reconstruction, specializes in older and troubled cows.
San Diego Zoo: Specializes in older cows
Miami: An old bull, a young bull and almost the same age Nelly live here.
 
AmbikaFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. Activists used the great intelligence Happy. Maybe that's why they don't understand each other too much. She has a different mindset and prefers to live alone in peace.:D
 
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...
The move in Canada was by Parliament rather than the judiciary, I believe. It banned holding the animals but did not grant them (or recognize?) their personhood. The move came under the heading of "animal cruelty" as underscored by allowing facilities currently holding cetaceans to continue to hold them.
I am not saying that this move towards recognizing animals' personhood will NEVER succeed, only that it has a long long way to go.
 
Thinking of the pending Happy lawsuit and new possibility of the Bronx moving Happy themselves before any verdict comes down. I was wondering why they would consider this now? If they lost the lawsuit, Happy would be moved to a sanctuary. At first I thought this was just a matter of principle and the Zoo wanting to choose the best fit for Happy if she has to move. Then too maybe the AZA has spoken up in some way, pointing out that the zoo no longer has the minimum three elephants, and is acting knowing that the AZA might insist on amelioration of that situation.

But then I got to thinking. Toronto lost its accreditation for "allowing" the city government to order the removal of their elephants from the zoo. This and the situation in LA is important precisely because a zoo should only be making its decisions based on expert opinion of zoo professionals who know the animals in question. In Toronto and LA, it's city government, but what if a court orders the removal of Happy? Does that constitute the same breach of AZA rule that lost Toronto its accreditation? Or that would jeopardize LA's? We all bet that the AZA might not make a stink if an entity as big as WCS had only two elephants, but would there be significantly greater chance of that happening if an outside entity made the decision to move Happy and WCS was forced to comply? Maybe this is why WCS is suddenly considering to move Happy itself.

Any legal minds on the forum?
 
You seem to be missing the point. The purpose of this type of lawsuits is not winning, nor honest belief in 'non-human persons'. They are started to get publicity by piggybacking on the popularity of zoos and elephants.

The zoo should not respond by face value because it would only give the organization what it wanted - more publicity and more donations - and it would only encourage further such lawsuits.

The zoo might instead, cleverly piggyback-back on the public interest and challenge the rights organization to donate X amount of funds towards the Y conservation project of wild elephants. Whatever the rights organization would do - accept, oppose or sit quiet - would look bad. Or challenge who will collect more money for conservation of wild elephants. Or some organization could sue back the rights organization on behalf of animals on its posters, claiming that individual animals are persons and should be directly paid for their photos. For elephants - all gains to its food or conservation. Etc.
 
AmbikaFan said:
I don't miss the point that activists don't care about the animals they are "representing," but your ideas for responding to any such group are creative and photo-op wonderful, showing them very publicly and embarrassingly for their true motives. I think both Bronx and LA could use you right now.
Click to expand...

I’d be concerned it could make the zoo look petty, vindictive and legitimise the points the animal rights activists are making. I want them to fight back, of course, I’m just sceptical that it wouldn’t galvanise support for the opposition.
 
Echobeast said:
Good news. It sets precedent and it will make it harder for AR activists to try again with the same tactics as before.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure. The NhRP is one of those organizations that doesn't know when to quit, since they've tried the same song-and-dance when attempting to have chimps be recognized as legal persons. They just won't learn.
 
Matthew Guimac said:
So, are Happy and Patty the Asian elephants still staying at the Bronx Zoo or will it change with animal rights activists sending both of them to a sanctuary?
Click to expand...
The lawsuit was only for Happy and they deferred to the lower court’s ruling that the activists had no standing claiming Happy was a human being being held without reason and therefore should be sent to a sanctuary (which they also haven’t shown how it’s different in a meaningful way). Elephants are staying at the Bronx but the activists say they aren’t done with litigation even though they’ve tried several times before. Seems appropriate considering other pointless lawsuits going on recently ;)
 
Echobeast said:
The lawsuit was only for Happy and they deferred to the lower court’s ruling that the activists had no standing claiming Happy was a human being being held without reason and therefore should be sent to a sanctuary (which they also haven’t shown how it’s different in a meaningful way). Elephants are staying at the Bronx but the activists say they aren’t done with litigation even though they’ve tried several times before. Seems appropriate considering other pointless lawsuits going on recently ;)
Click to expand...
I agree on your observations, even more so the latter part. It is a waste of public interest space and this litigation is at cost and to no benefit to anyone, least of all the Bronx Zoo elephants. I wish that fed judges would throw the whole sham bam out of court and order the activists to pay all legal costs (including those incurred by the Zoo and New York municipality).
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I agree on your observations, even more so the latter part. It is a waste of public interest space and this litigation is at cost and to no benefit to anyone, least of all the Bronx Zoo elephants. I wish that fed judges would throw the whole sham bam out of court and order the activists to pay all legal costs (including those incurred by the Zoo and New York municipality).
Click to expand...

I wish they would throw it out and put and end to all the nonsense. The money being spent has so many better uses that could actually benefit elephants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top