Just Because it's a Cute Deer w/ a Fluffy White Tail Doesn't Make it Okay to Break the Law

[dballance]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but here it is anyway.

The law that prohibits people from having that deer and other wild animals is there to protect the animals. It was the right, kind and humane thing for the couple to do to get the fawn out of immediate harm's way as the initially did. It was the wrong thing for them to do raise a wild animal in a pen on their property. They should have turned it over to the IN Dept. of Natural Resources.

Wild animals raised by humans become domesticated and dependent upon humans. They don't have a chance to learn the survival skills they need in the wild from their mothers. Humans can't teach them that. This couple apparently intended to turn the deer back out into the wild. They were spending less time with it to prepare it one article reported. When I was growing up on a farm my dad told us in these sorts of cases that if we took in an orphaned wild animal we were going to take care of it for it's life. Because animals raised temporarily by people like this couple rarely survive long when put back into the wild.

If they are predator animals they never learned to hunt because they were fed by humans. An animal like this deer never learned from its mother the smells of the predators and when to hide or how to forage for food.

People are all up in arms about euthanizing the deer. Well turning it back into the wild was likely a death sentence in its own right. It is just as likely that the deer has already been killed by a predator it never learned to avoid. Or that it's starving to death because it didn't learn to forage for food properly. It could not have possibly learned those skills living in a pen and being fed by humans.

It's a further insult that the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources wants the charges dropped against this couple now. The only reason they're doing this is all the crap on the Internet. Well that's a fair and equal application of the law. How about all the other people who have been or will be charged under this law? I guess they still have to go to court and actually defend themselves if they can't muster an Internet outrage.

[former9thward]

1. Just because someone else may have been charged is no excuse.

BTW who are these people who have been charged with this crime? Anyone? According to you it would have been better to let this deer die in agony. This was typical power overreach by people who don't have any common sense. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

[dballance]

7. Re-Read My Post. I Said they did the right thing saving it. Not "let it die in agony."

I did not say they should have let it die in agony. I said they should not have kept it. They should have turned it over to the states wildlife resources dept.

[former9thward]

11. Yes, I missed that but the state said they were going to kill the deer.

It had too much "contact with humans". So same result. A total lack of common sense.

[LiberalFighter]

29. It only had too much human contact because the humans kept it.

If they had reported the deer to DNR immediately they would have the better tools and environment available to treat and then release at the right time.

When it involves wild game the public need to report incidents to DNR immediately. I did something similar but with an severely injured doe. I believe it's back was broke and it was struggling. I was in the woods and then walked out walking along the edge before coming across her on the ground unable to get away. I had my grandmother call them to take the appropriate action. It's been a while but in that instance I think my uncle got approval to take possession.

[dballance]

13. Well as a Matter of Fact, It Actually Is. If You Believe in the Equal Application of Justice

Either we charge everyone or no one. That's fair and equal justice. People should not get a pass on being charged just because of a crap-storm on the internet.

[former9thward]

16. As I said -- who else has been charged with this crime???

And no one ever should be charged. It is just a power trip.

[randome]

2. I didn't realize they kept it in a pen. That does change my view of the situation. Slightly.

OTOH, maybe the deer will be okay. No one KNOWS it's going to die in the wild.

[bluedigger]

10. Deer are supposed to die in the wild.

Just a question of timing, really.

[joeybee12]

3. Sounds like you haven't really read about the case...

The people in question clearly knew how to deal with a wild animal and to give it a chance once released...nuts to you.

[dballance]

4. Then enlighten me with links to the stories that detail their qualifications /eom

[joeybee12]

6. Plenty of stories about this posted here the past day or two...

Haven't you read them? Or are you just responding to people wanting the charges dropped?

[dballance]

8. I Haven't Seen a Single Story Linked To That Said These People

Were educated and trained to be wild life resources officers or that they spent any time at zoos or universities get experience on how to care for wild animals.

[Enrique]

5. why do you hate baby deer?

just kidding, you make good points.

The only problem I would have had with the story is if the police had some bad reason for charging them. I didn't see anything like that, they seemed just to be following the spirit of the law.

[bluedigger]

9. And the punishment should fit the "crime".

It is in the prosecutor's discretion to use their resources wisely, and pursue those cases that are most likely to benefit society. The publicity that has surrounded the case thus far is more likely to dissuade future scofflaw animal rescuers than ceasing further prosecution is likely to encourage them.

[Doremus]

12. Wildlife rehabbers exist to transition wildlife back into their habitat.

You aren't really a proponent of the argument that it's better to kill the animal for fear it might be killed? That brilliant nugget is a favorite of deer killers.

Anyway, as I was saying, the purpose of rehabbers is to train animals for the purpose of transitioning them back into their natural habitats. Before being released, they are taught all necessary survival skills. I for one am appreciative of rehabbers' efforts, as they are a much preferable, and logical, alternative to pre-emptive killing.

[auburngrad82]

14. Another thing to consider

One of my cousins was a wildlife officer for years. They had to euthanize a deer that had been kept as a pet and then released because the deer had no fear of people and was hanging around an elementary school. Deer get quite large and can present a risk to people, especially kids. People have been killed by deer.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15692141/ns/us_news-life/t/deer-kills-man-who-kept-it-penned/#.UQwYpWckSdo

http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=13492232

You're right. They should have notified IN Dept. of Natural Resources. In many states, unless you're a licensed animal rehabilitator, it's illegal to keep a wild animal, no matter how good your intentions may have been.

[CBGLuthier]

15. what bugs me is it is a cop saying obey what laws you wish

people are very foolish about wildlife.

[Myrina]

17. Ok, how 'bout "Because it's a stupid law" ??

I'm sorry, but stupid laws deserve to be broken. And then repealed.

And this is one of many here in Indiana.

[hamsterjill]

21. Exactly!

And isn't that, initially at least, how laws are changed through the court system?

Someone is charged and then fights and wins, thereby changing the laws through the courts.

The prosecutors must not think they have a chance of winning since they now want the case dropped. If the public outcry over this case has caused the prosecutors to rethink their case, then I am happy that the story gained national...no, it actually was GLOBAL coverage!



Good heavens - let the deer live. If it's killed by a predator, at least it was given a chance, rather than being dragged off somewhere in a trailer and euthanized.

[dballance]

23. No That's Not How Laws are Changed.

Laws are predominately changed by the respective legislatures or by the US Congress.

Groups like the ACLU bring suits that challenge the constitutionality of laws all the time. But this is typically a direct challenge to the law. Not a by-product of someone being charged with the law and the prosecution losing it's case.

[hamsterjill]

30. They use case law in their arguments.

Case law is used to substantiate arguments when the ACLU et al bring these lawsuits. So case law is the origin to changes in state and federal laws.

Look, the police officer and his wife are not going to be charged. I'm sorry that you disagree, but in this case, this is ONE time where the majority thought it was a travesty to pursue the case, both because of the circumstances AND because there are better uses of taxpayer dollars (i.e., murder trials, etc.). In this case I happen to believe the right decision was reached.

I hope you have a great evening.

[dballance]

22. How About NO. You Don't Get to Decide Which Laws are Stupid So They Should be Broken.

Neither you nor law enforcement officers get to decide a law is stupid so it should be broken or not enforced. Just like all those sheriffs who think they can decide anything Obama does is unconstitutional so they won't enforce his executive orders or maybe even laws passed by congress can't decide to do that. They don't have the authority to make that determination and neither do you.

If you think it's a stupid law then go to your legislators and get it changed. Otherwise obey it just like you obey the law not to murder someone because YOU don't get to pick and choose.

[FarCenter]

18. Raising a wild animal doesn't domesticate it; it is just a captive wild animal

Domestication is a process that takes many generations to alter the genetic makeup of the animals.

A captive wild animal may be tame and unable to fend for itself in its natural habitat, but it is not domesticated.

[dballance]

24. Thanks for Nit-Picking. However, according to Webster's

One of the definitions of domesticate is:

2 : to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans

I think this definition covers what these people actually did even if that was not their intention.

Dictionary.com provides us this definition:

2 to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.

Notice is says "especially by generations of breeding" not exclusively by generations of breeding.

So I think these definitions cover what the couple actually did even if they didn't intend to and therefore justifies my use of the term in my post.

[KamaAina]

19. If it couldn't be released into the wild

could they not have found a petting zoo somewhere??

[dballance]

25. I Think That Would Have Been a Great Solution to the Problem /eom

[OldDem2012]

26. So, there weren't enough threads already about this subject? Sigh....

....You seem to have a problem with other people expressing their outrage on this issue, but isn't that what you're doing now? And to top it off, you had to start another thread?

Whatever.

[dballance]

27. You are perfectly free to use the ignore button and to not waste your time reading the thread

and posting to it.

In no way did I disparage anyone for expressing their outrage or question their right to express their outrage. So I don't see how you get that I have a problem with them expressing their outrage. I questioned their logic on the subject and why so many people think it's okay to break this particular law. I questioned how would it be fair and equal justice to all the other people charged with violating this law (some of whom have presumably been found guilty and paid fines and/or served time) if this couple gets off because of an Internet campaign. I questioned the actions of the couple who saved the deer after they saved it and made arguments for why what they did was wrong in addition to being illegal.

I also don't see anything in my original post that rises to the level of "outrage." I didn't make any suggestions that people should break the law "because it's a stupid law" nor did I post exasperated comments about "how wrong" this all is.

[OldDem2012]

28. Like I stated, just another thread on the same subject....

...beat dead horses much?