View Single Post
Old 07-05-2008, 01:04 PM   #11
Imigo Jones
Tornado Ali
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Used to be woods in town on prairie; now Emerald City
Posts: 82
The Bear Dancer (pic)

"Rani, thrown into an isolated enclosure by forest officials, refusing to receive food and lying dejected, in a fraction of a second danced in delight as Munda knocked at the wire walls of the enclosure, and the moment was so emotionally surcharged that the officer in-charge present on the spot could not know that he was defying the rules of the zoo as he ordered his men to open the gate and allow Munda the pleasure of the bear’s grateful hugs [pic linked above]. It was a rare reunion of a father (the man) and a daughter (the bear) the like of which the world has never seen so far in real life."



50-year-old American precedent:
Mr. Green Jeans, Dancing Bear, and Captain Kangaroo


Dear Subhas Chandra Pattanayak,
Thank you for writing this wonderful story, which moved me so deeply that I need to know where to send that surcharge.
Please, however, see the enclosed black-and-white photo and the following:
*
Lion Whisperer
* Siegfried & Roy
* Tippi Hendren ranch
* Oh yeah: that dude in Alaska
* That chimpanzee whisperer a couple years ago


If only Mr./Ms. Pattanayak were an American citizen, in order to be named to the Supreme Court:

"When Sec.39 shows wild animals as government property, sub-sect.3 thereof at cl. (a) discourages a man to 'acquire or keep in his possession, custody, or control' a wild animal sans prior permission of the Chief Wildlife Warden or his authorized officer. . . .

"Secondly, he has not 'acquired' Rani. He has 'adopted' Rani as his child. Adopting an animal is not illegal within the mischief of terms used in Sections from 39 to 42 as shown above.

["Mischief of terms"? We may be about to find out what this means.]

"Thirdly, Rani is not a 'wild animal' and hence sections 39, 40 and 42 are of no force in the instant case.

"The term 'wild animal' is defined under Sub-Section 36 of Section 2 of the Act. Accordingly 'wild animal' means 'any animal found wild in nature.' If the animal is not 'wild in nature', the words 'any animal specified in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule, IV or Schedule V, wherever found' added thereto would not apply as the same is a mere qualifying extension of the concept centering around the term 'wild in nature.' Rani is never 'wild in nature' and hence, these sections are not applicable against Ram Singh Munda.

[Rather, "was never"?]

"That Rani is never 'wild in nature' is proved by the very fact that when the forest officers who are prosecuting Ram Singh Munda transported her to Nandankanan zoo, they had never administered any tranquilizer on her. In full public gaze, she had accompanied them like a very good-natured human being assuming that those two-legged animals might be as good and noble as Ram Singh Munda.
[ "No, I've never found Rani 'wild in nature.' In fact, I find her rather civilized."] . . .

"However, if the law enforcers do not believe their own agents who took Rani from Ram Singh Munda’s house to the zoo at Nandankanan without experiencing in her any 'wild nature' [now sliding the rest of the way from 'wild in nature' to 'wild nature'], they may peruse this much-circulated pictures afresh.

The Munda family in happier times (pic)

"Do they find this bear rescued from death and adopted as a daughter by the kind-hearted tribal as an animal 'wild in nature'?"
Case dismissed!



In Keeshan v. Columbia Broadcasting System (1958) the State of New York Court of Appeals, First Appellate Division, ruled that Captain Kangaroo be allowed to raise Dancing Bear from a cub in his marsupial pouch.
Speaking for the majority, however, Justice Abe Fortas appended this qualification:
"Plaintiff's parental privileges shall not extend beyond such point that Dancing Bear becomes so large as to present a clear and present danger to the health and structural integrity of said marsupial pouch, at which time the Court will remand Dancing Bear to the custodianship of the Bronx Zoo."

When that day did come two years later, Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo) resisted giving up his parental privileges--or rights, as he called them--and had Dancing Bear continue to perform on the television show Keeshan hosted. Keeshan repeatedly pointed out that Dancing Bear was of the species Ursus checkerus, known among ursaphiles as being relatively "not wild in nature. . . . It should not be confused with other species of dancing bears, such as Ursus ballardus." Furthermore, claimed Keeshan, Dancing Bear had consistently demonstrated it was not "wild in nature," as seen in its amicable, nonpredatory interactions with all other actors on the show, including Mr. Moose and Bunny Rabbit.

Nevertheless, when gentle persuasion from representatives of the New York Zoological Society failed to make Keeshan give up Dancing Bear, charges were filed, and Keeshan fought. State of New York v. Keeshan eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where in his last opinion written before his untimely stroke and retirement after 23 years on the Court, Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote,
"The State has a vital, compelling interest in the welfare of Dancing Bear, who, under the pretense of being part of a 'family business,' has been forced into virtual slavery by the defendant, including being made to dance without pay on two limbs--in a manner clearly uncomfortable and most unnatural to one of his kind--merely for the amusement of the defendant, the unindicted coconspirator Hugh 'Lumpy' Brannum, and the defendant's juvenile coterie of followers."
Imigo Jones is offline   Reply With Quote