Welcome Green Monsters! We're your online guide to making conscious choices that help people, animals and the planet.
Download food monster: the biggest, baddest, yummiest vegan food app!
single

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR Newsletter

  GET FOOD MONSTER AppX

On May 25th, the California Supreme Court vacated a lower court’s injunction requiring the Los Angeles Zoo to treat its three elephants better. Specifically, the injunction mandated that the zoo allows the elephants to exercise for at least two hours a day on rototilled soil and prohibited the zoo from using illegal, painful electric shock or bull hooks to control them. This decision is deeply disappointing to those of us concerned about the elephants’ well-being.

The core problem facing these elephants (and their advocates) is that like all nonhuman animals in the U.S., Billy, Tina, and Jewel are considered legal “things” with no rights.

The commendable legal battle waged for Billy, Tina, and Jewel by Attorney David Casselman and colleagues shows just how difficult it is to get courts to consider the interests of nonhuman animals. Casselman argued that criminal mistreatment of the elephants on the part of the city-owned zoo constituted an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds — a human injury. Because the elephants are legal things, incapable of possessing any legal right, they are “invisible” to courts. While the Supreme Court’s ruling is unremarkable as a matter of law, since the enforcement of criminal laws is generally left to prosecutors, it nonetheless underscores the necessity of fundamental rights for elephants, without which they will remain invisible.

Science and human experience make clear that elephants are autonomous, empathic, and intelligent beings with strong social bonds. Some institutions, like the Detroit Zoo under Ron Kagan, long ago sent their elephants to sanctuaries in recognition of the fact that zoos can never meet elephants’ psychological and physical needs.

Elephants who have been forced into captivity deserve more than exercise on rototilled soil for two hours a day. They deserve the right to bodily liberty. As long as elephants and other nonhuman animals are considered legal things, they will suffer injustices that courts and legislatures can’t see or remedy.

Do we want to deprive self-aware, autonomous beings of their freedom so we can be entertained? Does our need to feel connected to this species by visiting zoos count more than ensuring they can live freely in an environment that approximates their natural habitat?

At the moment, apparently yes we do, and yes it does. But those days are ending. Cities around the country, including LA, are considering banning wild animal circuses. Ringling Brothers bowed to public pressure first to rid their shows of captive elephants, then to shutter entirely. And the Nonhuman Rights Project will soon file the first ever common law habeas corpus petition on behalf of captive elephants, demanding recognition of their legal personhood, their fundamental right to bodily liberty, and their immediate release to the Performing Animal Welfare Society sanctuary in San Andreas, CA (since these elephants never had the chance to live natural lives, they cannot simply be returned to the “wild”).

Decisions like the California Supreme Court’s illustrate the insufficiency of an animal welfare framework that leaves nonhuman animals vulnerable to changes in the political climate or to the self-interested decisions of human “owners.”

Until we recognize nonhuman rights, arguments over the sufficiency of care and conditions at zoos and other such institutions will persist, and rulings in these cases will continue to disappoint and frustrate.

3045507473_2ab4bdb9cb_z
 

 

It’s time to take the first step toward a new legal paradigm, one that recognizes that nonhuman animals possess fundamental rights derived from fundamental values including freedom, autonomy, dignity, and equality and that these rights, unlike mere protections, cannot be swept away. For the LA Zoo elephants and other nonhuman animals, there is no time to waste.

For ways to get involved in the fight to win legal rights for nonhuman animals, click here.

Lead image source: Jürgen Ritterbach/travel4pictures

Want to read more posts like this? Sign up for our newsletter below!​

Browse through some recent posts below:

What We Can Learn About Our Relationship With Animals From Classic Horror Movies

How to Help Your Adopted Puppy Mill Dog Adapt to Their New Life

Dog Who Was Deformed By Cruel Wire Muzzle Now Has a Home – And Look How Happy He Is

6 Cows Rescued From a Slaughterhouse Are Now Safe in a Sanctuary – What This Means for All Farm Animals


Disclosure: One Green Planet accepts advertising, sponsorship, affiliate links and other forms of compensation, which may or may not influence the advertising content, topics or articles written on this site. Click here for more information.

0 comments on “What We Can Learn From the Case of LA Zoo’s Elephants That Proves These Animals Deserve Rights”

Click to add comment
Carey
4 Months Ago

Agree the animal welfare laws that we all either work with or try to set in place is not doing the job, I agree that there should be major changes in how we see and treat animals, and I agree with the argument of non-human rights. I\'m going to support Non-human Rights Project - Unlocking the Cage doc presented a very moving argument.


Reply
Shauni
4 Months Ago

iI do believe in animal rights, but question how far they should go. What about the cows that we eat and get our milk from. Is the government going to start checking on animal farms to make sure the animals are being treated fairly? What about the calf that is being fed to be veal, and the small pens they are kept in so they hardly have room to turn around it. What about the cattle rancher that is fattening up his cows to go to market? Cows are social animals too, as a matter of fact most mammals are. The government can\'t keep up with puppy mills. Do we really think the government gives a rat\'s ___ about animal rights?


Reply
Carey
12 Jun 2017

It will take us time before even these key species with proven self awareness to get Non-human rights, I dont think the idea is to stop with them, but to start on species that there is so much research about that their status is already strong. I agree with you btw, and its not up to Government, but to law makers.



Subscribe to our Newsletter




Follow us on


Do Not Show This Again

×

Submit to OneGreenPlanet


Terms & Conditions ×
  GET FOOD MONSTER APPX