Bison Populations Might Render the Grand Canyon Less Grand

Julie A. Barr, KLJ Staff Editor

Vacationers may soon be able to add beefalo hunting to their Grand Canyon National Park bucket list. These animals, a crossbreed of cattle and bison, have taken up residence in what has for years been a safe and protected home.  But recently, the large numbers of these animals have proven extremely detrimental to the land and other wildlife in the Park.[i] The deleterious impacts include overgrazing of the grass and overwhelming scarce and precious water sources.[ii] Some Native American groups have also reported that the animals have destroyed ancient ruins in the area.[iii] A lack of predators has allowed these animals to multiply in an area that is simply unable to accommodate them.[iv]One of the answers to combatting this growing population of animals might be to allow people to hunt the animals inside this federally-protected area.[v] As the formal owner of the bison population in the state, Arizona issues the permits required in order to hunt the animals outside the Park.[vi] Inside the boundaries of the Park, however, the National Park Service (NPS) maintains control.[vii] NPS’s primary directive is to protect the particular ecosystem of each national park.[viii] Because of the beefalo population’s negative impact on the ecosystem, hunting these animals could be one of the best options in order to preserve the grandeur of the Grand Canyon.[ix]There are plenty of people who oppose hunting these animals, however, including many Native American groups.[x] Hunting the beefalo is not the only available option, either.[xi] Less violent options include attempts to corral or enclose the population, or to somehow give the beefalo a form of contraception.[xii]If the hunting option should prevail, shooting one of these coveted, 2000 pound animals will come at a high price. Arizona residents might pay over $1000, and non-residents could pay over $5000, just to shoot one bison.[xiii] And, lest vacationers think otherwise, hunting bison is far from an easy task – these animals can clock in at forty miles per hour.[xiv] An ultimate decision as to the best solution is still looming. [xv] So for now, hunters might not want to book a flight to the Grand Canyon until they know for certain whether they will get a


[i] Anne-Marie Bullock, How do you solve a problem like the ‘Beefalo’?, BBC News (March 1, 2015), http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31661920
[ii] Laurel Morales, Grand Canyon Officials Want to Evict Bison From Park, NPR (May 27, 2014), http://www.npr.org/2014/05/27/316269168/grand-canyon-officials-want-to-evict-bison-from-park
[iii] Laura Clark, A Beefalo Invasion is Causing Trouble in the Grand Canyon, Smithsonian.com, (March 4, 2014), http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/beefalo-invasion-causing-trouble-grand-canyon-180954458/
[iv] Edmund DeMarche, Hunters seek entry to Grand Canyon National Park, where roaming buffalo cause havoc, Fox News, (March 8, 2015), http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/08/hunters-may-get-chance-at-bison-in-grand-canyon-national-park/
[v] Id.
[vi] Id.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Louis Russell, What Are the Parks For? Making Policy Explicit in the Park Service’s NEPA Decisions, 41 Ecology L.Q. 521, 525 (2014).
[ix] Supra note 2.
[x] Supra note 3.
[xi] Supra note 1.
[xii] Supra note 1.
[xiii] Supra note 4.
[xiv] Supra note 2.
[xv] Supra note 1.

Why You Gotta be So Rude? Don't You Know [a Chimp] Is Human, Too?: Tommy's Claim of Personhood

Andrea Reed, KLJ Staff Editor

A case for giving basic human rights to nonhuman primates is making its way through the New York court system.On December 18, 2014, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a motion for permission to appeal their case to New York’s Court of Appeals on the heels of the New York State Appellate Court, Third Judicial Department’s, ruling that Tommy the chimpanzee “is not a ‘person’ entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus.”[1]This case started last December, when four captive chimpanzees made history as the first nonhuman primates to sue their captors for the right to not be imprisoned illegally.[2] Previous advocates had worked rigorously to pass and enforce legislation protecting animal rights, such as the anti-cruelty statutes and the Endangered Species Act[3], but never before had a group brought a lawsuit seeking to apply legal human rights to nonhuman primates.The NhRP changed that with their representation of Tommy and three other primates in lawsuits against their New York captors, a research facility. As the first and only legal organization doing this type of work, the NhRP’s mission is to change the legal status of select nonhumans animals from “‘mere things,’ which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to ‘persons,’ who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them.”[4]So far their goal has been met with disappointment as all of New York’s lower courts have dismissed the case on the grounds that chimpanzees are not humans.[5]The NhRP argues that the New York Court of Appeals recognizes that ‘chimpanzees exhibit highly complex cognitive functions-such as autonomy, self-awareness, and self-determination, among others—similar to those possessed by human beings,’ and that it is thus time for the common law to recognize that these are sufficient to establish legal personhood.[6]While this case—and the very idea of animals as persons—is extremely controversial, “an ever-expanding body of observational, neurological, and genetic evidence about animal intelligence and behavior is forcing [the courts] to reconsider the age-old boundary between ourselves and other creatures.”[7]Tommy’s “owners” have until January 2nd to reply to NhRP’s motion for permission to appeal. And if the appellate court denies their appeal, NhRP will file a motion in the Court of Appeals directly, asking the court permission to appeal to it. Natalie Prosin, Executive Director of the NhRP, stated that "The issues in this ground-breaking case are novel ones that should be decided at the highest judicial level possible. We hope we are granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals so that we can give Tommy his day in court."[8]One wonders when one might file a similar lawsuit for horses.


[1]In “Tommy” Case, NhRP Seeks Appeal to New York’s Highest Court, Nonhuman Rights Project (Dec. 18, 2014), http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2014/12/18/in-tommy-case-nhrp-seeks-appeal-to-new-yorks-highest-court/.
[2] Charles Siebert, Animals Like Us, Popular Science, Jan. 2015, at 54.
[3] See generally, A BRIEF HISTORY OF ANIMAL LAW, PART II (1985 - 2011) Joyce Tischler, A Brief History of Animal Law, Part II (1985 - 2011), 5 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 27 (2012).
[4] Press Release re. NhRP Lawsuit, Dec. 2nd 2013, Nonhuman Rights Project (Nov. 30, 2013), http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/11/30/press-release-re-nhrp-lawsuit-dec-2nd-2013/.
[5] In “Tommy” Case, NhRP Seeks Appeal to New York’s Highest Court, supra note 1.
[6] Appellate Court Decision in Tommy Case, Nonhuman Rights Project (Dec. 4, 2014), http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2014/12/04/appellate-court-decision-in-tommy-case/.
[7] Sibert, supra note 2.
[8] In “Tommy” Case, NhRP Seeks Appeal to New York’s Highest Court, supra note 1.