In Denver, a recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court has established that five elephants residing in a local zoo do not possess the legal rights necessary to seek their release, despite being described as “majestic” creatures. This ruling aligns with a previous loss in a New York case concerning an elephant named Happy, which was also claimed by an animal rights organization to challenge its captivity. Should courts rule in favor of these animals, it might have initiated a legal precedent enabling them to contest their confinement akin to how prisoners argue against their detention, potentially resulting in a transfer to an elephant sanctuary.
The court made it clear that the ruling was based not on the court’s feelings toward these elephants but on the fundamental legal distinction between animals and humans. Their ruling stated, “The legal question here boils down to whether an elephant is a person,” ultimately concluding that elephants do not qualify as persons and therefore lack the standing to file a habeas corpus claim.
The case was presented by the same animal rights group that advocated for Happy’s release, known as the Nonhuman Rights Project. Their argument rested on the claim that the elephants, who were born in the wild in Africa, exhibit signs of brain damage and emotional distress attributable to their captivity in the zoo. The group expressed a desire to see the animals relocated to one of the few accredited elephant sanctuaries in the United States, asserting that the elephants could no longer adapt to their natural habitat.
In defense of its position, the zoo contended that moving the elephants would potentially inflict unnecessary trauma, especially considering their age and established living conditions. The elephants, according to the zoo, are not familiar with the larger social structures of elephant herds and lack both the skills and desire to integrate into a new setting.
While the zoo expressed relief at the court’s resolution, it also voiced regret that legal action was necessary. The facility accused the Nonhuman Rights Project of exploiting the judicial system for fundraising purposes. The zoo’s statement declared that this organization appears focused on manipulating public sentiment to solicit donations through sensationalized legal disputes.
Contrastingly, the Nonhuman Rights Project characterized the ruling as a continuation of an obvious injustice and has hopes that future judicial systems will recognize that freedom is not solely a human right. They draw parallels to other social justice movements, where initial defeats are common in advocating against an entrenched system that they say has led Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo into a life filled with both mental and physical challenges.
