The NonHuman Rights Project argues that elephants, like Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, deserve to challenge their detention legally, likening their situation to that of prisoners. They state the zoo conditions negatively impact the elephants’ mental health, causing signs of brain damage due to confinement, as these social creatures would typically roam extensively in the wild, and thus, they should have the right to pursue life in an accredited sanctuary.
Justice Melissa Hart's inquiry about the implications of declaring non-human animals as legal 'persons' highlights a critical concern: if elephants are granted such rights, could domestic pets like dogs and cats follow suit? Her question underscores the complexities of extending legal personhood beyond current interpretations and the potential societal ramifications of such a shift.
The previous ruling regarding Happy the elephant in New York serves as a precedent, where the court deemed granting personhood to an elephant could destabilize modern society. The ruling emphasized that while the elephant was intelligent and deserving of compassion, it did not meet the legal criteria for being considered an illegally confined person entitled to seek freedom.
The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo contends that relocating the elephants, who have spent years in a structured environment, would be harmful. They argue that these animals may not have the necessary social skills to integrate into larger herds, and such drastic changes could induce significant stress, implying that their current captivity is preferable to a potentially stressful attempt at integration into the wild.
Collection
[
|
...
]