An Asian elephant named Happy that has been at the Bronx Zoo for more than 40 years will remain there after New York’s highest court ruled Tuesday that it was not human, in the legal sense, and therefore not human. not enjoy basic human rights.
By a vote of 5 to 2, the Court of Appeals rejected an animal rights group’s argument that Happy was being held illegally at the zoo and should be moved to a more natural environment.
The dispute revolves around whether the fundamental legal principle of habeas corpus – which people claim to protect their bodily freedoms and combat illegal detention – should be extended to other species. autonomous, cognitively complex animals like elephants or not. No, the court said.
“While no one disputes the elephant’s impressive abilities, we reject the petitioner’s argument that it is entitled to seek remedies on Happy’s behalf for habeas corpus,” said Janet DiFiore, judge, write. “The Habeas Text is a procedural means of guaranteeing the liberties of human beings who are unlawfully restricted, not animals not humans.”
But during a lengthy debate, Judge Rowan D. Wilson said that the court’s duty “to recognize Happy’s right to claim her liberty not only because she is a wild animal not to be kept in captivity and display. , but for our own sake. giving in to others defines who we are as a society. ”
Judge Jenny Rivera, in a separate argument, wrote that Happy was “contained in an environment that was unnatural to her and that did not allow her to live her life the way she wanted to.” : like a self-determined elephant, autonomous in the wild.”
The ruling concluded what appeared to be the first case of its kind in the English-speaking world to reach such a high court. And while it does keep Happy where she is, the results are unlikely to quell the debate over whether highly intelligent animals should be viewed as something other than objects or possessions. .
The case was brought by Nonhuman Rights Group, an animal rights organization, as part of the long-term legal promotion arrive Free captive animals. Last month, even with Happy’s fates in the balance, the group confirmed a statement by habeas seeking to get three elephants out of the Fresno, Calif., zoo.
In a statement on Tuesday, the group focused on dissenting opinions, saying it offered “great hope for a future where elephants no longer suffer as Happy had and where rights human rights are protected along with human rights.”
The team found a way for Happy to move from the Bronx Zoo, which they call her “prison”, to one of two large elephant sanctuaries, which are described as more natural settings that would help her life. Happy’s life happier.
Steven Wise, the group’s founder, said in an interview before the verdict was announced: “She’s a depressed, bad elephant.
On the other side is the Wildlife Conservation Society, which runs the zoo and flatly rejects the group’s claim of the existence of Happy’s Bronx. The society said in a statement before her verdict “she is well looked after by professionals with decades of experience and she has a close relationship with each other”.
The society did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
The subject of debate can be seen on a clear, cool May day from a monorail rolling through the zoo’s wild Asia section. She and another Asian elephant, Patty, moved slowly, separated by a fence in the tree-lined, two-acre estate they shared, with logs scattered all around and a nearby swimming pool.
A tour guide said: “Both of our elephants look great. Happy roamed his lawn in Patty’s direction, ears, torso, and tail wagging in the morning sunlight. “They get a lot of attention,” said the guide.
Elephants are very sociable by nature, living in herds and communicating with each other using everything from low-frequency rumbles to the soft sounds of their bodies. They have been observed in various acts of mourning when one of them dies.
The Bronx Zoo acquired her and another of the seven, Grumpy, also a female, in 1977. Initially, the two lived with an older female elephant, Tus, in Elephant House. (not in wild Asia, where Happy is currently kept).
Tus, Happy and Grumpy have been trained to do stunts, ride children and perform at the “Elephant weekend“Put on a costume made by a keen downtown performer and “play” tug-of-war with fireman and college football player. (The elephants usually win.)
They were eventually shipped to wild Asia, as zoos around the country retooled or abandoned their elephant exhibits, in part to satisfy a growing animal rights movement. Tus died in 2002. A few months later, Patty and the second elephant, Maxine, attacked Grumpy, severely injuring her. Happiness no longer holds with them.
In 2006, a young female elephant, Sammy, was brought in to be Happy’s new companion, but she died shortly after arrival. The zoo decided not to add any more elephantsfocus instead on helping endangered species in the wild.
That leaves Happy alone on one side of the fence, with Patty – and, until her death a few years ago, Maxine – on the other. Despite the barriers, zoo officials said Happy was not isolated and that she and Patty touched tree trunks, smelled each other and communicated.
Eugene M. Fahey, a judge on the court at the time, joined his colleagues in dismissing the chimpanzee case. But in a concurring opinion, he said the issue presents “a profound ethical and policy dilemma that requires our attention”.
“The question of whether a non-human animal has the fundamental freedoms protected by the text of habeas is profound and far-reaching,” he wrote.
“Ultimately,” he added, “we won’t be able to ignore it.”
For Mr. Wise, Judge Fahey’s comments offer a glimmer of hope. When the appeals in the chimpanzee case had dried up, he turned to Happy, who had identified himself as exceptionally cognitively advanced even for a species known for its intelligence.
In 2005, she passed a self-recognition test in front of a mirror, touching her trunk marked with an X on her head while looking in the mirror – the first elephant to show such a level of self-awareness (only children babies, apes and dolphins are humans only) it used to).
In February 2020, a trial court judge dismissed a habeas petition filed by Mr. Wise’s team on behalf of Happy. The judge, Justice Alison Tuitt of the Bronx Supreme Court, said she was bound by legal precedent and reached the “regrettable” conclusion.
“This court agrees that Happy is not just a legal thing or property,” she wrote.
An appeals court confirmed the lower court’s decision, setting the stage for a hearing last month before the seven-judge Court of Appeals.
The judges gathered at the hearing on how to define agency rights for animals; the meaning of bodily freedom in this case; and the potentially larger effects of a ruling that would prompt Happy to leave the zoo.
Questioned by Monica Miller, an attorney representing the Human Rights Project, Judge Rivera addressed the ramifications for pet owners.
“Does that mean I can’t have a dog?” she asked. “I mean, dogs can memorize words.”
No, Ms. Miller replied, the group’s argument does not apply to dogs: “We don’t have the dog evidence that we have of elephants right now.”
The conservation society’s main argument is that Happy is not being held illegally, but its attorney, Kenneth Manning, also raised the specter of humans losing control of the animals if the court ruled. beneficial to Mr. Wise’s team.
“I wouldn’t call this a ripple, sir,” he told Judge Rivera.
In her view, Judge DiFiore concurred. A decision in favor of Mr. Wise’s team, she wrote, “would have enormously destabilizing effects on modern society”.
Judge Fahey resigned from the court last year and was not part of the deliberations. But he voted for the court to hear the case before resigning and in an interview before the decision was announced, he said it was an important step regardless of the outcome.
“The real issue is whether they are creatures with a complex sense of self,” he said of elephants and other intelligent animals such as chimpanzees. There is a “massive amount of evidence” to support that argument, and “not a single piece of evidence” contradicts it, he said.
He notes that although dictionaries can define “person” in one way, the legal meaning of the word has changed over time. He notes that companies are now treated like human beings in certain situations.
Judge Fahey also said that advances in technology – such as those related to artificial intelligence – make questions of human dignity even more important to address.
“The nature of man and the nature of intelligence will change as science changes,” he said. “And if we don’t confront how we define these things now, we won’t have anything to build on when those changes come.”
