Captive orangutan has human right to freedom

This doesn't set a good precedent... animal rights groups continue their work to make it so other animals cannot be kept in captivity.

story from: http://news.yahoo.com/captive-orangu...203651528.html

"BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - An orangutan held in an Argentine zoo can be freed and transferred to a sanctuary after a court recognized the ape as a "non-human person" unlawfully deprived of its freedom, local media reported on Sunday.

Animal rights campaigners filed a habeas corpus petition - a document more typically used to challenge the legality of a person's detention or imprisonment - in November on behalf of Sandra, a 29-year-old Sumatran orangutan at the Buenos Aires zoo.

In a landmark ruling that could pave the way for more lawsuits, the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA) argued the ape had sufficient cognitive functions and should not be treated as an object.

The court agreed Sandra, born into captivity in Germany before being transferred to Argentina two decades ago, deserved the basic rights of a "non-human person."

"This opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses, water parks and scientific laboratories," the daily La Nacion newspaper quoted AFADA lawyer Paul Buompadre as saying.

Orangutan is a word from the Malay and Indonesian languages that means "forest man."

Sandra's case is not the first time activists have sought to use the habeas corpus writ to secure the release of wild animals from captivity.

A U.S. court this month tossed out a similar bid for the freedom of 'Tommy' the chimpanzee, privately owned in New York state, ruling the chimp was not a "person" entitled to the rights and protections afforded by habeas corpus.

In 2011, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against marine park operator SeaWorld, alleging five wild-captured orca whales were treated like slaves. A San Diego court dismissed the case.

The Buenos Aires zoo has 10 working days to seek an appeal.

A spokesman for the zoo declined to comment to Reuters. The zoo's head of biology, Adrian Sestelo, told La Nacion that orangutans were by nature calm, solitary animals which come together only to mate and care for their young.

"When you don't know the biology of a species, to unjustifiably claim it suffers abuse, is stressed or depressed, is to make one of man's most common mistakes, which is to humanize animal behavior," Sestelo told the daily."

It may be interesting to see how this plays out in the end. I hadn't realized the Orangutan was born in captivity until I read this update.

source:http://news.yahoo.com/argentine-oran...015328986.html

Buenos Aires (AFP) - Sandra the orangutan took her newfound fame in stride after an Argentine court upheld her right to be freed from a zoo, munching a melon and putting the rind on her head for the cameras.

In a world first, a court ruled that Sandra was entitled to some of the basic rights of a human being and as such was being subjected to unjust confinement at the Buenos Aires Zoo, where she has lived for the past 20 years.

But Sandra appeared unfazed by all the attention as journalists gathered outside her enclosure Monday.

The 29-year-old orangutan lazily picked the seeds from a green melon as she ate it, then donned the rind as a hat atop her long reddish hair.

Zoo officials said they were still scratching their heads at the court's decision.

"This is how she's lived for the past 20 years. It's a large space, there are specialists who take care of her diet, monitor her health, and in general she lives in very good conditions," said Adrian Sestelo, chief biologist at the zoo.

But that is not the way everyone sees it.

Argentina's Association of Professionals and Lawyers for Animal Rights filed a "habeas corpus" writ -- a form of legal redress against unlawful imprisonment -- arguing that Sandra was a "non-human being" with thoughts, feelings and rights.

Sandra -- who was born in a German zoo in 1986 and moved to Argentina in 1994 -- is known for her shyness at the zoo, where she often hides from sight.

Animal activists had said that was a sign of depression, but Sestelo disagreed.

"It's not true. That shows ignorance of the species' basic biology," he told AFP.

"Orangutans live solitary lives. Their behavior is very relaxed, very calm," he said, as Sandra tugged on a green rope inside her enclosure

Sandra weighs about 50 kilograms (110 pounds) and is almost 1.5 meters (five feet) tall.

She is a cross between the two species of orangutan, one from the Southeast Asian island of Borneo and the other from the nearby island of Sumatra.

Born after her mother was artificially inseminated at the Zoo Rostock in Germany, she has never lived in the wild.

Wild apes have a life expectancy of about 30 to 40 years. Captives can live longer.

Zoo officials said that even before the court decision, they had been exploring two new homes for Sandra: a nature reserve in Brazil or a zoo in the United States with a specialized orangutan shelter.

But Sestelo questioned the wisdom of taking the matter to court.

"Speaking from a technical point of view, all animals have the right to life and animal rights. What you can't do is humanize animal behavior," said the biologist.

"It's very characteristic of humans," he said. "We want to liken their behavior to ourselves, but that's a natural error of humankind."

A similar case was thrown out earlier this month by a New York court, when an animal rights group petitioned for a privately-owned chimpanzee to be considered a "person" for legal purposes.

Sandra looked uninterested in all the legal wrangling.

Approaching the photographers' lenses, she sized them up from behind her glass wall, then went to play under some leafy trees.

More from the US: Bid in New York to extend legal rights to chimps fails, again
http://news.yahoo.com/bid-york-exten...215943098.html

(Reuters) - Less than a month after a New York state appeals court ruled that chimpanzees do not have legal rights and cannot be released from captivity, a case involving a second chimp has been dismissed.

Attorney and animal rights activist Steven Wise in 2013 filed a habeas corpus petition - traditionally employed by prison inmates who claim they have been illegally detained - on behalf of a chimp named Kiko.

Wise has said that Kiko, who is owned by primate expert Carmen Presti, is deaf from abuse suffered during the making of a Tarzan film and lives tied to a chain in a cement cage in Niagara Falls. He asked for Kiko to be released to a sanctuary in Florida, saying that private captivity is unsuitable for chimps because they are autonomous creatures.

The court in Rochester said Friday that habeas corpus may only be used when a person seeks immediate release from unlawful imprisonment, and not where a petitioner wants only to change the conditions of confinement rather than the confinement itself.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, the group founded by Wise that brought the lawsuit, said in a statement that it would ask New York's top court to review the decision.

"For 200 years, New York courts have used (habeas corpus) to move an individual from a place of less freedom to more freedom," the group said.

Presti, Kiko's owner, did not make an appearance in the case and could not be reached for comment.

In an earlier case brought by Wise, over a chimp named Tommy, an Albany appeals court ruled on Dec. 4 that primates cannot be afforded legal rights because they do not understand the responsibilities that follow.

The cases are among the first in the world to seek legal personhood for animals. While Wise has not been victorious, a judge in Argentina on Dec. 21 ruled that an orangutan living at a zoo was a "non-human person" unlawfully deprived of its freedom and ordered it released to a sanctuary.

Wise has not claimed that Kiko and Tommy were mistreated by their owners but said the cases challenge the very idea that chimps can be held in captivity.

He has said he will bring similar cases on behalf of elephants, dolphins, orcas and other intelligent animals.

The case is Nonhuman Rights Project v. Presti, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, No. 14-357.

Personhood appeal denied but they plan to try and re-file:

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-court-refus...171749072.html

NY court refuses to hear appeals in chimp personhood case

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — An animal rights group seeking legal personhood for chimpanzees won't get a hearing in the state's highest court.

The Court of Appeals, without comment Tuesday, declined to hear the appeals by The Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Kiko and Tommy.

Lower courts had rejected the organization's argument that scientific evidence of chimps' emotional and cognitive abilities should qualify them for basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment.

In December, a midlevel court unanimously denied human legal rights to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage. The three justices said chimps "cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
Tommy's owner said he's cared for under strict state and federal license rules and inspections.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, a nonprofit, was founded in 2007 by Massachusetts lawyer Steven Wise.

When Wise filed the lawsuits two years ago, he told The Associated Press: "These are the first in a long series of suits that will chip away at the legal thinghood of such non-human animals as chimpanzees." If the lawsuits succeed, he said, similar ones could eventually be filed on behalf of other species considered autonomous, such as gorillas, orangutans, whales, dolphins and elephants.

Tommy, an adult male chimp, was kept by his owner in a cage in a shed in a used trailer lot in Gloversville, 35 miles northwest of Albany. The lawsuit said Tommy mainly had a television to keep him company.

Kiko was living in a cage in a brick building of the nonprofit Primate Sanctuary in Niagara Falls.

Wise said they've already begun discussing refiling the cases in New York in other courts, noting briefs filed in support by some legal scholars citing errors and conflicts in the lower court rulings. They also plan to sue on behalf of elephants in another state, he said.

According to the project, it also sued for rights on behalf of Hercules and Leo, chimpanzees in captivity at Stony Brook University. A judge in July wrote that she was bound to follow the rulings of the midlevel court in Tommy's case.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteApril

Lower courts had rejected the organization's argument that scientific evidence of chimps' emotional and cognitive abilities should qualify them for basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment.

In December, a midlevel court unanimously denied human legal rights to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage. The three justices said chimps "cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.
If (for instance) a critter becomes mentally ill, and harms his own kind or humans, but has thoughtlessly been granted rights without also having responsibilities and accountability, there could be a real problem.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteApril

This doesn't set a good precedent... animal rights groups continue their work to make it so other animals cannot be kept in captivity.

I agree.

Court has ruled dog is a 'living being' and not 'property'

This Oregon court cast just majorly changed the rights of pets — yes, pets
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-co...200050228.html

"There are plenty of pet owners out there who love their furry friends more than they love most (if not all) humans. However, pets have always been considered mere “property” in the eyes of the law. . . until recently, that is.

Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling that viewed an emaciated dog named Juno as a living being, rather than just a “thing.” Of course, any human with a heart knows that dogs are more than just “things,” but under the law, they were considered to be property just as much as a bookcase or a car. Oregon law cared more about who *owned* an animal rather than the animal’s rights. However, in the case last week, the court unanimously ruled that Juno’s negligent and abusive owner is guilty, despite a vet’s gathering evidence via medical exams and treatments without a warrant.

The case began six years ago, when the Oregon Humane Society found that a Portland resident, Amanda Newcomb, was beating and starving Juno. Juno had “no fat on his body” and “was kind of eating at random things in the yard, and trying to vomit,” according to Oregon Live.

When Juno was brought to the Humane Society, he was given a body condition score of 1.5 on a scale of 1 (emaciated) to 9 (overweight). The Humane Society vet also drew blood from Juno to make sure he didn’t have a condition that would have caused a low body weight. Finding nothing, Newcomb was charged with second-degree animal neglect.

During the trial, the defense tried to argue that because the vet had obtained evidence without a warrant, it was like searching through a chest of drawers — it was illegally obtained, because Juno was Newcomb’s property. However, the prosecutor argued in response that it was rather like drawing blood from a child suspected of abuse, which is legal. Luckily and awesomely, the court agreed.

“It is really a landmark ruling,” Attorney Lora Dunn of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, told BarkPost. “In this specific context, the animal sentience matters.”
Oregon’s animal cruelty deputy district attorney, Jacob Kamins, added to Oregon Times that the ruling is the third to boost animal protection efforts in the past two years. “There’s a feeling that the issue of animal welfare is really coming into its own in the criminal justice world,” he said.

We could not be happier about this landmark decision. Pets are so, so much more than just “property” — they’re living, breathing beings who feel pain and love. Hopefully, with this decision, we can lessen the former and increase the latter."