Efforts to free Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo failed after the New York Court of Appeals ruled 5-2 that Happy is not a “person” who is being illegally confined. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would have opened to the door to all kinds of radical rulings regarding animals. The Associated Press has the story:
Nonhuman Rights Project fails in another case to free zoo animals
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s top court rejected an effort to free Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo, ruling Tuesday in a closely watched case that she does not meet the definition of a “person” who is being illegally confined.
The 5-2 decision by the state Court of Appeals affirms an earlier court decision and means Happy will not be released through a habeas corpus proceeding, which is a way for people to challenge illegal confinement.
The majority decision written by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that “while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion,” a writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty of human beings and does not apply to a nonhuman animal like Happy.
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 and other species in zoos.
The court’s majority echoed that point.
“A determination that Happy, an elephant, may invoke habeas corpus to challenge her confinement at the Bronx Zoo — a confinement both authorized and, by all indications, compliant with state and federal statutory law and regulations — would have an enormous destabilizing impact on modern society,” read the majority decision. “It is not this Court’s role to make such a determination.”
The Bronx Zoo argued Happy is neither illegally imprisoned nor a person, but a well-cared-for elephant “respected as the magnificent creature she is.”
The advocates at the Nonhuman Rights Project argued that Happy is an autonomous, cognitively complex elephant worthy of the right reserved in law for “a person.”
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 is 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.
The ruling from New York’s highest court cannot be appealed. The Nonhuman Rights Project has failed to prevail in similar cases, including those involving a chimpanzee in upstate New York named Tommy.
Steven Wise, the group’s founder, said he was pleased it managed to persuade some of the judges. He noted that the group has a similar case underway 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.
Happy was born in the wild in Asia in the early 1970s, captured and brought as a 1-year-old to the United States. Happy arrived at the Bronx Zoo in 1977 with fellow elephant Grumpy, who was fatally injured in a 2002 confrontation with two other elephants.
By MICHAEL HILL
