Bronx Zoo’s Happy the elephant is not a person, New York high court rules

ALBANY, N. Y. — Happy the Elephant is not a person, the New York state’s Court of Appeals ruled in a 5-2 decision Tuesday, meaning the Asian elephant will continue to reside at the Bronx Zoo, her home for the past 45 years.

The years-long and novel legal attempt to secure Happy’s transfer to an elephant sanctuary failed with the court’s rejection of the petition from the Nonhuman Rights Project. The ruling that Happy is not a person, in a legal sense, and therefore not entitled to a fundamental human right, rejects the animal-advocacy organization’s argument that she is being illegally detained at the zoo. The decision puts to rest a longstanding legal dispute over whether a highly intelligent animal can have the same rights as a person, although it is unlikely to stop animal rights advocates to press for them.

The Nonhuman Rights Project filed a writ of habeas corpus on Happy’s behalf, suggesting a legal instrument that has safeguarded the liberty rights of human beings by providing a means to secure release from illegal custody should also apply to an elephant. The New York Court of Appeals disagreed, though it said Happy was entitled to proper care. “Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it has no applicability to Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a ‘person’ subjected to illegal detention,” the decision said.

“Thus, while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the courts below properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we therefore affirm. ” The Nonhuman Rights Project wanted her moved from a “one-acre prison” at the zoo to a more spacious sanctuary. “She has an interest in exercising her choices and deciding who she wants to be with, and where to go, and what to do, and what to eat,” project attorney Monica Miller told The Associated Press ahead of the oral arguments.

“And the zoo is prohibiting her from making any of those choices herself. ” The group said that in 2005, Happy became the first elephant to pass a self-awareness indicator test, repeatedly touching a white “X” on her forehead as she looked into a large mirror. The zoo and its supporters had 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.

“If there’s going to entire be a rewrite and a granting to animals of rights that they never had before, shouldn’t that be done by the Legislature?” Kenneth Manning, an attorney for zoo operator Wildlife Conservation Society, asked the judges. Happy was born in the wild in Asia in the early 1970s, captured and brought as a 1-year-old to the United States, where she was eventually named for one of the characters from “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. ” Happy arrived at the Bronx Zoo in 1977 with fellow elephant Grumpy, who was fatally injured in a 2002 confrontation with two other elephants.

Happy now lives in an enclosure adjacent to the zoo’s other elephant, Patty. The zoo’s attorney argued in court filings that Happy can swim, forage and engage in other behavior natural for elephants. “The blatant exploitation of Happy the elephant by NRP to advance their coordinated agenda shows no concern for the individual animal and reveals the fact they are willing to sacrifice Happy’s health and psychological well-being to set precedent,” the zoo said in a prepared statement.

NRP’s attorneys said no matter how Happy is being treated at the zoo, her right to “bodily liberty” is being violated. They argued that if the court recognizes Happy’s right to that liberty under habeas corpus, she will be a “person” for that purpose. And then she must be released.

Judges peppered attorneys for both side with pointed questions during oral arguments. Judge Jenny Rivera asked Miller about the implications of NRP’s position on human-animal relationships. “So does that mean that I couldn’t keep a dog?” Rivera asked.

“I mean, dogs can memorize words. ” Miller said right now there’s more evidence showing elephants are extraordinarily cognitively complex with advanced analytical abilities. Lower courts have ruled against the NRP, and the group has failed to prevail in similar cases, including those involving a chimpanzee in upstate New York named Tommy.

But last October, at the urging of a different animal rights group, a federal judge ruled that Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar’s infamous “cocaine hippos” could be recognized as people or “interested persons” with legal rights in the U. S. The decision had no real ramifications for the hippos themselves, given that they reside in Colombia.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the New York Farm Bureau and other agriculture groups said the NRP’s “new-fangled theory of personhood” would sweep up pigs, cows and chickens. The National Association for Biomedical Research said authorizing such petitions on behalf of animals could drive up the costs of conducting critical research. State and national associations representing veterinarians filed a brief saying NRP’s lawsuit promotes animals’ personhood rights above animals’ welfare.

Supporters of NRP’s action included public figures such as Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. Many of them saw this case as a chance for society to take a step forward in the ethical treatment of animals. Report a correction or typo.