The judge acknowledged the profound and far-reaching implications of attempts to legally blur the line between human-like and human by claiming that a segment of the animal-rights movement seeks to go beyond the expansion of animal-welfare laws to recognize the legal personhood of at least some species of highly intelligent animals. He stated: 'The NHRP well knows and intends opening of a heretofore-unopened legal door that would quite likely have the effect of upending much of our legal system, in which humans, for better or worse, exercise dominion and control over the animal world. If an elephant today, why not a dog, a pig, a cow, or a chicken tomorrow?'
STEPHANIE EARLS: An animal rights group’s lawsuit accusing Cheyenne Mountain Zoo of illegally confining and neglecting its five elderly African elephants, and demanding they be relocated to a sanctuary, has been dismissed by the 4th Judicial District in Colorado Springs…
A writ of habeas corpus petition filed in June by the Florida-based Nonhuman Rights Project claimed the zoo’s elephants, Jambo, Missy, LouLou, Kimba and Lucky — all female and born in the wild between 40 and 54 years ago — were traumatized and chronically stressed due to their life in captivity. A habeas corpus petition seeks the liberation of a person unlawfully confined. The group argued that by virtue of their highly developed intelligence, elephants fit the legal definition of personhood and therefore are due rights to “bodily liberty” and protection under the law… Similar arguments failed to sway the courts in a series of 2022 suits the nonprofit filed against zoos in California and New York.
In a lengthy response explaining his decision, Bentley acknowledged the “profound and far-reaching” implications of attempts to legally blur the line between human-like and human, as well as the complexities of arguments that lie at the nexus of ethics and public policy, science and sensibility.
“There is no doubt that views, norms, and expectations regarding treatment of highly intelligent species of animals are rapidly evolving,” Bentley said. But “one segment of the animal-rights movement seeks to go beyond the expansion of animal-welfare laws to recognize the legal ‘personhood’ of at least some species of highly intelligent animals.”
Bentley found that the nonprofit’s petition didn’t seek justice for Cheyenne Mountain Zoo’s elephant herd, under existing laws, so much as to create a legal toehold for an expansion of existing rights — a “sustained nationwide campaign … to establish rights for animals at large.” Therein lies a societal dreamscape and legal nightmare.
“This case does not concern just ‘five elephants,’ as the NHRP asserts…. It concerns, as the NHRP well knows and intends, an opening of a heretofore-unopened legal door that — were it to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and be affirmed — would quite likely have the effect of upending much of our legal system, in which humans, for better or worse, exercise dominion and control over the animal world,” Bentley said. “If an elephant today, why not a dog, a pig, a cow, or a chicken tomorrow?” SOURCE…
STATEMENT FROM THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT:
The zoo has already attempted to spin this decision on its social media pages, but one thing about it is clear: based on the factual record before the Court, which consisted of declarations from seven of the world’s most renowned experts on elephant cognition and behavior, Judge Bentley found that the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo “deprives Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo of the space and variety of terrain that they need to roam, exercise, and live healthy elephant lives; and that they would be better off in an accredited elephant sanctuary.”
“As a matter of pure justice,” Judge Bentley acknowledges, “the NHRP has made a persuasive case that elephants are entitled to be treated with the dignity befitting their species; and that that cannot be done, no matter how conscientious those who care for them may be, if they are confined in zoos that lack the substantial acreage needed to allow them to flourish.”
However, despite recognizing the injustice inflicted upon these elephants, Judge Bentley concluded that habeas corpus is unavailable to remedy this wrong. This conclusion is simply incorrect. In contrast to his careful attention to the factual record, Judge Bentley’s legal analysis is incomplete, deficient, and mistaken in critical ways, and the NhRP is prepared to demonstrate these errors in future filings.
We are still analyzing the decision, and in the coming weeks, we look forward to announcing our next legal steps. Further litigation will not be necessary if the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo chooses to do what is morally right and just: release the elephants to an accredited sanctuary, where they can live out the rest of their lives in an environment that can meet their complex needs (CMZ can choose to finally accept our standing settlement offer, even though they’ve rejected it in the past). Nevertheless, the NhRP is prepared to litigate this case to its ultimate conclusion. Jambo, Kimba, LouLou, Lucky, and Missy are entitled to their freedom, and they deserve nothing less. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: