The Supreme Court of Canada will not be getting involved in a fight over a 36-year-old Asian elephant in an Edmonton zoo.
The high court has decided it won't hear an animal rights group's appeal in
an ongoing campaign to have Lucy moved to a warm-weather wildlife sanctuary in
the U.S.
"While the Edmonton Valley Zoo’s long term goal is not to house elephants, the City of Edmonton will continue to make decisions in the best interest of Lucy — an individual animal with individual needs," said city solicitor Steven Phipps.
"Given Lucy’s complex and unique respiratory condition, an internationally respected elephant expert has clearly stated the best course of action is for Lucy to remain in Edmonton," he said in a press release Thursday.
City officials have said Lucy has manageable health issues, but a breathing problem could be life-threatening during the stress of a move.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Zoocheck wanted to sue the City of Edmonton over its refusal to move Lucy.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action in 2010. That decision was upheld in a split decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal last August.
One of the appeal court justices wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the groups should have public standing in the matter and it should go to trial.
"While the Edmonton Valley Zoo’s long term goal is not to house elephants, the City of Edmonton will continue to make decisions in the best interest of Lucy — an individual animal with individual needs," said city solicitor Steven Phipps.
"Given Lucy’s complex and unique respiratory condition, an internationally respected elephant expert has clearly stated the best course of action is for Lucy to remain in Edmonton," he said in a press release Thursday.
City officials have said Lucy has manageable health issues, but a breathing problem could be life-threatening during the stress of a move.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Zoocheck wanted to sue the City of Edmonton over its refusal to move Lucy.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action in 2010. That decision was upheld in a split decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal last August.
One of the appeal court justices wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the groups should have public standing in the matter and it should go to trial.
The Supreme Court, which does not provide reasons behind its decisions,
rejected hearing the appeal.
Courtesy of John Goodall, Ken Kawata, and Gary Payne. Literally withing seconds of each other.
'I see where another " internationally respected elephant expert" has surfaced. Is there a stud farm somewhere that is producing " internationally respected elephant experts?" They sure keep popping up lately. Surprisingly many of them do not have name's yet. I wonder why they don't have one of those goofy "name the baby" contest's, before they are allowed out of the foaling pen, and into the world of "internationally respected expert's." In the world of elephants I have found that an "internationally respected elephant expert" is the person agreeing with your position...........
'I see where another " internationally respected elephant expert" has surfaced. Is there a stud farm somewhere that is producing " internationally respected elephant experts?" They sure keep popping up lately. Surprisingly many of them do not have name's yet. I wonder why they don't have one of those goofy "name the baby" contest's, before they are allowed out of the foaling pen, and into the world of "internationally respected expert's." In the world of elephants I have found that an "internationally respected elephant expert" is the person agreeing with your position...........
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment