Happy, by species, is an Asian elephant. But can she also be considered a person?

That question was before New York’s highest court on Wednesday in a closely watched case over whether a basic human right can be extended to an animal.

The advocates at the Nonhuman Rights Project say yes: Happy is an autonomous, cognitively complex elephant worthy of the right reserved in law for “a person”.

The Bronx Zoo, where Happy resides, says no: through an attorney, the zoo argues Happy is neither illegally imprisoned nor a person, but a well-cared-for elephant “respected as the magnificent creature she is.”

Happy has lived at the Bronx Zoo for 45 years. The state court of appeals heard arguments over whether she should be released through a habeas corpus proceeding, which is a way for people to challenge illegal confinement.

The Nonhuman Rights Project wants her moved from a “one-acre prison” at the zoo to a more spacious sanctuary.

Project attorney Monica Miller told the Associated Press ahead of the oral arguments: -

“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…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 warn 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.

Kenneth Manning, an attorney for zoo operator Wildlife Conservation Society, asked the judges: -

“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?”

Happy was born in the wild in Asia in the early 1970s, captured and brought as a one-year-old to the US, where she was eventually named for one of the characters from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. She arrived at the Bronx Zoo in 1977.

Happy's longtime companion, Grumpy, was attacked by two other elephants in the early 2000s. Grumpy never recovered from the injuries and was euthanized. Another of Happy's companions, Sammie, later died.

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 behaviour natural for elephants.

The zoo said in a prepared statement: -

“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 wellbeing to set precedent.”

NRP’s attorneys say no matter how Happy is being treated at the zoo, her right to “bodily liberty” is being violated. They argue that if the court recognises 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. Rivera asked: -

“So does that mean that I couldn’t keep a dog? I mean, dogs can memorise 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 recognised as people or “interested persons” with legal rights in the US. The decision had no real ramifications for the hippos themselves, given that they reside in Colombia.

Prior efforts to grant legal personhood to animals, including chimpanzees, have been unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeals did not specify when it will rule.

Main Source: The Guardian