Bambi vs. the Bureaucrats
Unable to reach a compromise, the officers seized the deer and carted them off in a trailer. Filipetti called Duckler, the media was alerted and then everybody started calling the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Their big mistake—and I don't know why they did this—was to say they were going to euthanize both of them," Duckler says. "That obviously was not going to play too well."
Six hundred and fifty irate citizens flooded the agency's phone lines over the next several days, demanding clemency for Snowball and her offspring. Feeling the heat, Fish and Wildlife quickly backed down, calling a press conference the day after the pet deer's mugs hit the talk shows, the television circuit and the blogosphere with as much contemplative urgency as Britney Spears's putrid performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. Neither Snowball nor Bucky would be euthanized, promised Fish and Wildlife director Roy Elicker.
The phone calls didn't stop, however. A day after that, Elicker went back to the public to announce he was negotiating with Filipetti's attorney for the possible return of at least his beloved doe, if not her kin. The vast majority of the phone calls Oregon officials took were from all over the political spectrum: bleeding-heart Bambi lovers and government-out-of-my-business types alike, united in their call for the return of Filipetti's deer.
"I can legally blow the head off a deer during hunting season," wrote Hillsboro's Greg Ebert, in a letter to The Oregonian newspaper in Portland. "But God help me if I commit a humane act on its behalf."
At the outcry, state officials froze like, well, a doe in headlights. But they still insist Filipetti's kindness was misplaced. Approaching wild animals is a bad idea because the well-intentioned are likely to get hurt, says Rick Hargrave, a spokesman for Fish and Wildlife. "If they say 'Oh, gosh, the doe has gotten too big, we need to release it,' the doe will go to extremes to get fed. It'll break down fences and break into a house," Hargrave says. "A buck will grow antlers and attack." There's also a risk of catching diseases from wild animals, Hargrave adds.
This isn't the first time a kind-hearted, misguided Oregonian has tried to heed the call of the wild. Last year, an 11-year-old girl in the coastal city of Waldport suffered a bruised skull and jaw after the deer her family had adopted after it was hit by a car decided to turn on the child, pinning her against a fence. And in 2005, state officials discovered a black bear in the home of a Roseburg man. The bear had been living there for years, it turns out, eating people food, even sleeping in a bed made for humans. A dozen times in the past year and a half, Hargrave says, state officials have had to remove wild animals from people's homes.
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Brien Comerford @ 05/13/2008 9:02:13 PM
Comment: God created animals and humans do not have a right to kill innocent and hramless creatures. If a species overpopulates we can humanely control them via placing contraceptives in baited feed.
Posted By: lzrdlvr @ 03/03/2008 6:34:43 PM
Comment: Maybe people should take their heads out of their asses and realize that WE are the cause of the majority of these animals plights. If it were not for people who take it upon themselves to preserve the wildlife that is left there may be even more species becoming extinct. A life in captivity may not be the chosen one for an animal in this situation but is euthanasia really any better? Also people who take it upon themselve to care for wildlife are (hopefully) aware of the dangers that go along with it and accept that. If you get hurt its your own damn fault. BUT THE BIGGEST POINT IS WE (people) ARE THE CAUSE OF EVERY PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WILDLIFE, and WE should do everything we can to live with these animals and and protect them before they are ALL GONE.
Posted By: SStanleyVMD @ 02/25/2008 1:02:21 PM
Comment: As a veterinarian with an undergraduate degree in Natural Resources and Wildlife Science, I have to disagree with xara2's premise and conclusions. If this was a cougar in a backyard cage, I'd agree it should not have been kept, but it's a doe ---scarcely as dangerous as say an ornery horse, which nobody argues should be banned for an owners' protection. Keeping any kind of animal has attendant risks, which are generally understood and accepted by the keeper. The analogy of idiots treating actual wildlife in the wild as if it were domesticated is specious ---this is a completely different situation, involving a hand-raised orphan. And you can't legitimately apply a "let Nature be Nature" approach in an environment that has been profoundly altered by human habitation. The underlying ecological reality is that suburban populations of deer are often excessive, as many of the animals' normal predators have been eliminated, while the suburban environment offers a plethora of food in the summertime. As a result, each year sees an overabundance of young deer entering their first winter, when food supplies plummet, and as a result, many of those young deer starve (and often damage the habitat by overbrowsing it before they die). Isn't it more cruel to allow an orphaned or injured fawn starve to death, than to rehabilitate it and allow it to live a more limited life? Many wild animals take well to captive settings, and can accommodate enclosures much smaller than the ranges they inhabit in the wild ---for a deer, most of that range, after all, is the area necessary to find forage ---smaller in lusher regions, larger in sparse ones. Your argument would preclude the keeping of most zoo animals, and if you've ever worked in wildlife rehab, you know full well that many wild animals --- healthy but damaged in a way that they can not be released into the wild ---are kept as educational ambassadors. I know of many happy and healthy 'backyard' deer; neither they nor their species are adversely affected by their semi-domestic condition. Also, if the man spent thousands of dollars on vet bills, I would be astounded if he avoided a thorough education in providing proper nutrition for his deer (not rocket science, that), and indeed, the fact that the animal is capable of reproduction implies that its nutrition is, at a minimum, adequate. I think that people in this sort of situation should be given the option to be properly educated in in the husbandry requirements of the species in question, have their facilities inspected and approved, and be issued a permit. That way, everyone wins.
....Dr. S. Stanley, VMD Oakland, CA