They're going to keep on until they find a judge that will side with them, or until Happy dies. Whichever comes first.
~Thylo
~Thylo
Bronx Zoo Happy the elephant 'unlawfully imprisoned' lawsuit claims
- Thread starter Echobeast
- Start date
This is the NY Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state. Seven judges will decide and, at least when it comes to state law, this is the last stop. From what I can tell, their argument is entirely based on the issue of the definition of a person under state law, so they would have no basis to continue the fight in federal court and whatever decision comes from the NY Court of Appeals will end this case.
Happy the elephant at Bronx Zoo is not a person, New York’s top court rules
"'No one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants,' Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote in the majority 5-2 decision. But, she wrote, 'nothing in our precedent or, in fact, that of any other state or federal court, provides support for the notion that the writ of habeas corpus is or should be applicable to nonhuman animals.'"
So basically, thousands of taxpayer dollars are wasted on an inane case, nothing of value is learned, and we are all collectively dumber for it.
"'No one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants,' Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote in the majority 5-2 decision. But, she wrote, 'nothing in our precedent or, in fact, that of any other state or federal court, provides support for the notion that the writ of habeas corpus is or should be applicable to nonhuman animals.'"
So basically, thousands of taxpayer dollars are wasted on an inane case, nothing of value is learned, and we are all collectively dumber for it.
Wait you're telling me that an elephant isn't a person??? Color me shocked.
While true, the head of the animal rights group has stated they will continue to push stuff like this wherever they can. Also the ruling was not unanimous, two judges voted against it.
"Two judges, Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera, wrote separate, sharply worded dissents saying the fact that Happy is an animal does not prevent her from having legal rights. Rivera wrote that Happy was being held in “an environment that is unnatural to her and that does not allow her to live her life”.
“Her captivity is inherently unjust and inhumane. It is an affront to a civilized society, and every day she remains a captive – a spectacle for humans – we, too, are diminished,” Rivera wrote."
From the AR founder -
"Steven Wise, the group’s founder, said he was pleased it managed to persuade some of the judges. He noted that the group had a similar case under way in California and more planned in other states and other countries.
“We will take a really close look at why we lost and we’ll try to make sure that that doesn’t happen again to the extent that we can,” he said."
Coverage on this news from here in Australia:
US court rules elephant is not a person in 5-2 split decision
Key points:
The 5-2 decision by the state Court of Appeals comes in a closely watched case that tested the boundaries of applying human rights to animals.
The zoo and its supporters warned that a win for advocates at the Nonhuman Rights Project could open the door to more legal actions on behalf of animals, including pets, farm animals and other species in zoos.
The court's majority echoed that point.
...
- The court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty of human beings and does not apply to elephants
- Advocates from the Nonhuman Rights Project argued that Happy is worthy of the right reserved in law for "a person"
- Happy has been at Bronx Zoo in New York since 1977
The 5-2 decision by the state Court of Appeals comes in a closely watched case that tested the boundaries of applying human rights to animals.
The zoo and its supporters warned that a win for advocates at the Nonhuman Rights Project could open the door to more legal actions on behalf of animals, including pets, farm animals and other species in zoos.
The court's majority echoed that point.
...
Now rather focusing on Happy for another decade, why not focus on roadside zoos that actually treat their animal badly?
Just a thought though, im pretty sure they are fine as long as they have money in.Who cares about a zoo in the middle of nowhere :C
Just a thought though, im pretty sure they are fine as long as they have money in.Who cares about a zoo in the middle of nowhere :C
Now see this would be the logical thing to do if they actually cared about animals. Go after things like the chimpanzee cages at Hovatter's Zoo that @TinoPup recently posted photos of or go after people like Joe Exotic. However it is about their ideology rather than the animal's welfare - hence the outlandish targets where it is widely known the animals receive top notch care. If they can win a case in an instance like this they could potentially crumble the zoo industry and subsequently pets and livestock even. And so the AR people pick big targets like Happy at Bronx, SeaWorld's Orcas, and I suspect the California case alluded to is against Fresno Chaffee. None of those three have any reason to be picked on for animal care - and the AR people know it, just read the nonsense they call facts. They literally have to make up 95% of their rant against these places, which is usually pretty obvious if you do a little digging. In many cases you'll find that reports of what happens to animals handed over to AR groups suffer horribly - so much so that some people have actually renounced their affiliation and now speak out against the AR groups and what they have done.
Luckily the AR groups lose far more than they win, which honestly is in the best interest of anyone who loves zoos, owns pets, needs a service animal, and yeah pretty much anything regarding captive animals.
I guess there's the difference between animal rights and animal welfare
Cases against roadside zoos won't generate the headlines that going after the Bronx Zoo or other major institutions do, and headlines are what these groups need for their financing.
The full opinions are attached.
The full opinions are attached.
By the way, the main opinion is only the first seventeen pages and is, by judicial standards, fairly critical of the dissent.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
In this case "rights" are legally protected and there are limited legal protections for animals in the USAI guess there's the difference between animal rights and animal welfare
Animal welfare, on the other hand refers to the quality of care and to a lesser extent quality of life. The latter is very subjective and difficult to establish legal definitions.
That the environment is "unnatural" (how is that defined?) does not translate into a legal requirement. And if her captivity is unjust there needs to be a law that defines that or else the Court's oversight is limited, as I understand it.
Remember this is about the law, not about personal opinions.
I guess there's the difference between animal rights and animal welfare
Strictly speaking, since animals are legally property (as the majority in the Happy decision points out--by law all animals in New York State not privately owned are property of the state), they do not have any "rights" in the full legal sense of the word any more than your house or your car can have "rights". There are legal protections, but these are the responsibility of humans to enforce rather than the "right" of the animals to have enforced. If there is any "right" involved, it would belong to the animal's owner, and the appropriate governmental authority/authorities also have the power to enforce the protections. A landmarked building has legal protections, but it is the owner that has the legal standing to sue for the benefit of those protections if denied rather than the building, and the government also has the authority to enforce those protections.
.
Coming up next: frutarians will demand that plants are given animal rights, and the end of imprisoning plants in pots! 
Well, pest animals too. Rats and mice would get right to live and eat in houses and fields. Legal rights don't depend from size.
Yes, animal conservation very much needs more people and funds, so it is especially sad that many 'animal rights' organizations achieve very little and very much don't spend money where it is needed most.
Well, pest animals too. Rats and mice would get right to live and eat in houses and fields. Legal rights don't depend from size.
Yes, animal conservation very much needs more people and funds, so it is especially sad that many 'animal rights' organizations achieve very little and very much don't spend money where it is needed most.
I agree with @Great Argus that the activists’ actions do not line up with their claim of actually caring about the animals.
In some ways, it seems like the activists do not care about captive elephants at all— they just care about Happy individually.
I find it hypocritical that these activists are working to free Happy from her “imprisonment” at the Bronx zoo, all the while almost never mentioning Patty— another female elephant who also lives alone at the Bronx zoo in basically the same conditions that Happy does.
If these activists truly cared about the “flaws” with the Bronx zoo’s elephant management program, then they would advocate on both of their elephants’ behalves. Because these activists are A) only focusing on Happy, and are B) completely ignoring Patty’s existence and well-being, the activists’ claim that they actually care about captive elephants as persons/individuals comes off as insincere.
In some ways, it seems like the activists do not care about captive elephants at all— they just care about Happy individually.
I find it hypocritical that these activists are working to free Happy from her “imprisonment” at the Bronx zoo, all the while almost never mentioning Patty— another female elephant who also lives alone at the Bronx zoo in basically the same conditions that Happy does.
If these activists truly cared about the “flaws” with the Bronx zoo’s elephant management program, then they would advocate on both of their elephants’ behalves. Because these activists are A) only focusing on Happy, and are B) completely ignoring Patty’s existence and well-being, the activists’ claim that they actually care about captive elephants as persons/individuals comes off as insincere.
I could never have said it better myself.
If only they used the money that was used on this pathetic excuse of a case to sponsor toys for Happy and Patty, the same way that Friends of the Philadelphia Zoo Elephants did for Bette and Kallie...
A man can only dream.
Reenie Mastrella
Member
Is it possible activists sought to free Happy and, with that victory, then free Patty? What is Bronx Zoo against them going to a sanctuary?
Sanctuaries are not "free". Happy is perfectly fine where she is, with keepers who understand her personality and health and aren't trying to anthropomorphize her or turn her into a representative of some weird mission. Places that call themselves sanctuaries are rarely good, reputable spaces.
