DENVER — Five elephants named Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo have been residents of the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs for many years. An animal advocacy group is now advocating for their release, arguing that keeping such highly intelligent and social creatures in captivity is akin to imprisonment. In the wild, these elephants would roam vast distances each day.
The Colorado Supreme Court is set to hear discussions regarding the legal rights of these African female elephants to contest their captivity. The NonHuman Rights Project, the organization spearheading the effort, claims that the elephants are suffering while being “unlawfully confined.” They aim to see these animals transitioned to an undisclosed elephant sanctuary where they can live in a more natural environment.
“They are experiencing significant and unnecessary suffering. Without legal action, they will continue to endure this misery day after day, year after year, for the remainder of their lives,” stated Jake Davis, a lawyer representing the group, in a brief submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court back in May.
The central question in this legal case revolves around whether the elephants should be recognized as persons under the law. If granted such status, they could then submit a habeas corpus petition to challenge their current situation. The NonHuman Rights Project argues that the definition of legal personhood extends beyond humans.
This current lawsuit echoes a previous legal attempt by the same group to advocate for the release of an elephant named Happy, who resides at the Bronx Zoo. In 2022, the New York Court of Appeals ruled against their petition, stating that while Happy merits inclusion and care, she does not fall under the legal definition of a person that would permit her to challenge her captivity.
The court further stated that granting personhood to an elephant could lead to significant upheaval within society and alter the dynamics of human-animal relationships.
In contrast, the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo has responded by arguing that relocating the elephants would be detrimental to their well-being, as it could introduce stress and anxiety at their advanced age. The zoo pointed out that Missy and her companions have not been part of larger herds and may lack the skills or interest in integrating into a different environment.
Ahead of the court’s hearing, the zoo issued a statement claiming that the NonHuman Rights Project is less concerned about the specific elephants and more focused on establishing a legal precedent that could open the door for questioning the captivity of any animal.
“We urge Colorado to refrain from becoming the starting point for a slippery slope that could lead to legal arguments about whether beloved pets, such as dogs and cats, should also have the right to habeas corpus, potentially allowing them to be released based on someone else’s subjective interpretation of their care,” the zoo stated.