Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
No Word From Professor Teabag
Six years ago, Mantei said, an ordinary morning took a turn for the exotic when Filipetti was driving some of their six children to catch a school bus. Lying on the roadside was a white fawn, dappled with brown spots. She was weak, with deformed back legs and hooves that curved inward, cutting her when she tried to walk.
Filipetti scooped her up and brought her home. He took her to a veterinarian in Woodburn, who fitted her deformed legs with tiny casts to straighten them, changing the casts every 10 days. At home, they put carpet scraps on the wood floors to keep Snowball from slipping. And come holiday season, they let Snowball nibble their Christmas tree.
The doe lived in the house for almost a year, Mantei said. She slept at their bedside and picked up mannerisms from the family dog -- Tasha, a cocker spaniel -- pawing at people with a hoof when she wanted attention.
You know what happens next:
In March, police received a tip from an anonymous source -- Mantei believes it was an estranged family member -- that the couple were keeping deer on their property. State troopers inspected the grounds in early April.
Then, about 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, Mantei went to the front door to find the police had returned.
[...]
For more than eight hours Wednesday, a Molalla family pleaded with police and wildlife officers to take away their trailer and dart gun and let them keep two deer they'd raised as pets.
"These deer wouldn't even be alive without us," said Jim Filipetti, 43, who was working in Bend Wednesday and negotiating by phone. "I brought that deer (Snowball) to the vet every 10 days. We raised it in our house. And they want to take her away. It's ridiculous."
But after a day of tears, frantic phone calls and failed compromises, officers darted Snowball, a mottled 6-year-old doe, and Bucky, her yearling buck, and prepared to haul them away. The animals will be evaluated, with three possible outcomes: transfer to a licensed wildlife facility, release into the wild or euthanasia.
After nearly the entire state of Oregon flooded state offices with calls in protest, state officials are now promising that neither animal with be euthanized, and they may even allow the family to take Snowball back. Bucky will stay in state custody, or be released into the wild (where he isn't likely to survive).
|9.18.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Mr. Balko must have been especially hungry for a "police enforce law" story. I guess it's been a few days.
|9.18.07 @ 11:16AM|#
I just can't feel sorry for this guy.Wild animals are not meant to be pets.Now dinner,that's another story.
|9.18.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Actually, this is more symptomatic of our insane regulatory system and distrust of human judgement than evil fish and wildlife officials. The problem is that because we live in a society obsessed with treating everyone equally and are incapable of making common sense distinctions, if the the State of Oregon lets these people keep their pets, they run risk of loosing their ability to prevent anyone from keeping wild animals as pets. The next jackass who is keeping a herd of deer or a couger as pets will be able to claim that he is being picked on and treated unfairly because these people were allowed to keep their deer. Some judge will probably buy it. In a sane world, the State of Oregon could say, look dumbass, there is a difference between keeping two disabled deer and you keeping a herd, so too bad you loose. But that is not how things work in our over legalized society.
|9.18.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Dan T,
Reread Balko's past posts even more slowlier. The unifying theme is
"Police Break Law with Impunity".
I don't know what's up with this one. Just for giggles I guess.
They made a pet out of the critter and I know how people get about
their pets. I just can't get misty eyed over a deer.
|9.18.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Dan T,
Reread Balko's past posts even more slowlier. The unifying theme is
"Police Break Law with Impunity".
Listen, I've said before that Radley does a lot of good work here
with his frequent illustrations of how the police are often out of
control.
But in this case, it appears they are properly enforcing the law.
If anybody is to "blame' here, it's the people of Oregon for not
allowing their fellow citizens to keep wild animals as pets.
Assuming that's actually a bad thing.
|9.18.07 @ 11:27AM|#
In a sane world, the State of Oregon could say, look
dumbass, there is a difference between keeping two disabled deer
and you keeping a herd, so too bad you loose. But that is not how
things work in our over legalized society.
According to the article, one reason it's not legal to keep does on
your property is because they will attract aggressive male deer
once breeding season starts. I really don't think calling them
"pets" changes this.
|9.18.07 @ 11:28AM|#
As usual, Dan T. is right. When a person is following orders, they cannot be condemned for their actions, no matter how insane or harmful their actions are.
Jennifer|9.18.07 @ 11:32AM|#
one reason it's not legal to keep does on your property is
because they will attract aggressive male deer once breeding season
starts
So? If the property owner is willing to take that risk, let him. If
a horny (ha!) buck damages their property, that's their loss.
And in certain areas at certain times of year, you're going to have
does on your property whether you want them there or not.
Mike Laursen|9.18.07 @ 11:33AM|#
The animals will be evaluated, with three possible outcomes:
transfer to a licensed wildlife facility, release into the wild or
euthanasia.
I guess they don't take wildlife in Gitmo.
Drawn Asunder|9.18.07 @ 11:33AM|#
What, no tasering?
The family, the deer, the cocker spaniel - somebody should
have been tasered. No taserin' just doesn't sit right with
me...
|9.18.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Reread Balko's past posts even more slowlier. The unifying
theme is "Police Break Law with Impunity".
Now re-read Radley's last post one more time. You'll note that it
starts with "Ah, bureaucrats." I'll let Radley speak for himself,
but what I'm taking away from this article is that the police
really should have better things to do than worry about who has a
sick deer in their house. Ergo, the blame rests not on the police
but on the government that charges them with such a duty. Just
because Radley focuses on police abuse doesn't mean that he can't
also post about unnecessary government regulation that just happens
to involve a police officer.
|9.18.07 @ 11:36AM|#
"What, no tasering?
The family, the deer, the cocker spaniel - somebody should have
been tasered. No taserin' just doesn't sit right with me..."
Clearly, these guys are slack and they need campus cops to give
them some remedial training.
http://www.local10.com/news/14138122/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news
|9.18.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Drawn Asunder - it's a long day, and Radley's probably got
another post yet to come. You'll get that tasering, just be
patient.
And if not, I say we just hunt down Dan T. and taser him. So long
as we all decide to do so democratically, I don't see that he can
complain.
rho|9.18.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Keeping a doe on your property will get you all the comeuppance
you deserve. They're cute as hell until, suddenly, they're a giant
pain in the ass and/or a menace.
They really don't want to keep a buck. When he gets older and
bigger they'll figure out why.
Not that I'm opposed to idiots getting mauled by a deer, but I
doubt they'll have a camera running when it happens and therefore
I'll be deprived of prime entertainment.
|9.18.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Ergo, the blame rests not on the police but on the
government that charges them with such a duty.
Take it a step farther and the "blame" really rests with the people
who democratically elected such a government.
So as is often the complaint here, the people of a state had the
gall to come up with their own rules instead of following the lead
of the enlightened posters of H&R.
|9.18.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Don VandeBergh, a state wildlife official at the scene, cited health and disease issues and said the deer "belong to everybody in the state of Oregon, not just a few people." As for confiscating them, he added, "It's not part of our job we enjoy doing."
As a resident of the state of Oregon (and don't blame me for the
laws here, Dan - I didn't vote for 'em), if the deer belong to
"everybody in the state of Oregon", Filipetti is welcome to my
share.
I'm curious, too -- do deer diseases have a greater chance of
infecting humans than, say, dog or cat or cow or pig or horse or
hamster or chicken diseases?
The real money quote is here:
In some circumstances, the state licenses residents to care for deer or elk, but that would be impossible in this case, said Larry Cooper, deputy administrator of the wildlife division of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The state limits the number of licenses to 16, and none is available.
Why only sixteen, you might ask? Well, it's because seventeen would
be clearly too many.
I also like how the wildlife officials point out that, in a
completely unrelated incident, some unrelated family once had a
bear living with them... which also apparently resulted in zero
problems. Well, zero problems until the state got involved.
Maybe Oregon needs a new initiative: in the absence of a compelling
reason to enforce a particular law (or "rule", or "policy"), the
law should not be enforced. "Compelling reason" can be determined
by asking me.
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Deer make great pets, at the moment you shoot them and have a freezer full of venison. In fact, I consider all deer in the woods during hunting season to be pets.
|9.18.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Dan, please knock off the whole "the people decided on those rules" schtick. We didn't. Bureaucrats did. I have no more say in the decisions of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife than you do.
SPD|9.18.07 @ 11:51AM|#
No word from Professor Teabag yet, but Reverend T-Bagg would love to share his thoughts with you.
|9.18.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Dan, please knock off the whole "the people decided on those
rules" schtick. We didn't. Bureaucrats did. I have no more say in
the decisions of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife than
you do.
Didn't you just say that you live in Oregon?
Are you not allowed to vote for some reason?
I have a feeling that if the majority of Oregonians strongly felt
that people should be allowed to keep wild animals in their houses,
it would happen.
Jennifer|9.18.07 @ 11:53AM|#
I have a feeling that if the majority of Oregonians strongly
felt that people should be allowed to keep wild animals in their
houses, it would happen.
Sho'nuff! That's also why our Iraq adventure is over, since the
majority of Americans disapprove.
Timothy|9.18.07 @ 11:57AM|#
The Oregon wildlife people are second only to OLCC in their zeal for fucking with the citizenry for basically no reason.
|9.18.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Didn't you just say that you live in Oregon?
Are you not allowed to vote for some reason?
I have a feeling that if the majority of Oregonians strongly felt
that people should be allowed to keep wild animals in their houses,
it would happen.
Gee Dan you live where you get to vote for Department of Fish and
Wildlife officials? Do you also get to vote for the douches at the
DMV?
group mentality goon|9.18.07 @ 11:58AM|#
I have a feeling that if the majority of Oregonians strongly
felt that people should be allowed to keep wild animals in their
houses, it would happen.
If a majority of Americans felt that (or more likely, were
convinced that) we should have prayer time in public schools (which
I'm pretty certain a majority does), does that also mean that we
should implement that policy?
|9.18.07 @ 12:02PM|#
"[I]f the majority of Oregonians strongly felt that people
should be allowed to keep wild animals in their houses, it would
happen."
The problem, Dan, is most people in Oregon and the rest of the
universe couldn't give a shit; but (unelected) busybodies rush in
to fill a "need" for regulation which only they can detect. Some
people are amused by the resulting spectacle.
|9.18.07 @ 12:14PM|#
The problem, Dan, is most people in Oregon and the rest of
the universe couldn't give a shit; but (unelected) busybodies rush
in to fill a "need" for regulation which only they can
detect.
It's hardly a problem, rather it's a feature. The advantage of a
representative government combined with bureaucracy is that it
means the average citizen doesn't have to be an expert in every
possible matter. It's a good thing that we can elect people who are
responsible for regulating such things as how we deal with
wildlife.
Only H&R posters, it seems, are experts in everything and can
instantly surmise why any regulation is unnecessary.
|9.18.07 @ 12:18PM|#
I think the OF&W are afraid of precedent. Not the first time government does something inane because they're afraid of something non-inane getting through the legal system.
carrick|9.18.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Only H&R posters, it seems, are experts in everything
and can instantly surmise why any regulation is
unnecessary.
Some non-libertarian writer (I can't remember who) one postulated
that if the US government could be overthrown, it would happen
through one of the federal agencies. These "regulators" have the
"authority" to write regulations that carry the weight of law and
get adjudicated in agency courts. They have little to no
legislative or judiciay oversight and any attempt to rein them in
tyically results in the agency "investigating" whomever is so bold
to challenge them.
|9.18.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Dan T.:
Exactly. And as Radley has shown, nowhere does that principle work
better than letting th epolice decide when and how to selectively
enforce laws. Good thing none of us try to tell them their
expertise is misplaced!
|9.18.07 @ 12:28PM|#
So as is often the complaint here, the people of a state had
the gall to come up with their own rules instead of following the
lead of the enlightened posters of H&R.
I'm sorry, Dan T. I didn't realize that rules established by
democratically-elected officials are immune from criticism. You
might want to pass that info on to MoveOn.org.
|9.18.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"Only H&R posters, it seems, are experts in
everything...."
No, Dan; it's not that "we" are experts, it's that we are still
willing to believe that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for
an "expert class" to decide what is permissible for the great
unwashed, unexpert, masses.
|9.18.07 @ 12:37PM|#
At this point I will fullfill Goodwin's Law with the following
observation:
If Dan T.'s rule were applied to the Holocaust, then the Holocaust
would not be mass murder. Rather, it would merely be the largest
case of mass suicide in human history.
After all, the final solution was devised by administrators who had
been given wide ranging regulatory, executive and judicial powers
by a democratically elected parliament.
Since many Jews could and did vote in the elections that produced
the Parliament which appointed those administrators, they were
bound to follow the rules laid down by those administrators to the
inevitable conclusion. It wasn't murder, see, because is was the
will of a public that included those Jews.
|9.18.07 @ 12:45PM|#
A good reporter might have referenced the law that prohibits
wild animal keeping - it no doubt directs the executive agencies,
including Oregon Fish and Game, to write 'necessary and
appropriate' requlations for its implementation.
As for prohibiting the keeping of wild animals as pets, the law
that does it would win super-majority Oregonian support. The Will
of the People doesn't believe in treating all animals the same, and
that should be clear from all the foo-fer-roo over Mike Vick's
dogs, among other things.
|9.18.07 @ 12:49PM|#
"Take it a step farther and the "blame" really rests with
the people who democratically elected such a
government."
I would venture to guess that 99% of all the laws under which you
live were passed by legislatures or regulatory bodies elected
before you were born.
Timothy|9.18.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Dear Everyone,
Please stop responding to Dan. He's a fuckwit and a noted troll,
just stop feeding him.
Love,
Tim
Dear Dan,
Fuck off dude, for reals, yo.
No Love,
Everyone.
|9.18.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Timothy - I don't know why the 'tasering Dan T.' idea wasn't more popular. Oh well.
|9.18.07 @ 1:09PM|#
If we let this guy keep a deer for a pet, next thing you know, people will have elephants in their apartments.
SPD|9.18.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Timothy,
Ad hominem attacks diminish us all; I speak from experience on that
one. Relax. If Dan T.'s views are not acceptable to you, then
defeat them with reasonable arguments, not lame "fuckwit"
remarks.
Robert|9.18.07 @ 1:32PM|#
How about a compromise between lawlessness and lack of att'n to precedent, and total rule of law? Let every jurisdiction install for life by lottery 3 wise men, who, if they're unanimous, can make, on application by an affected party, an exception to any law of that jurisdiction, if such exception be required by common sense. Wouldn't that do away with all these stories, and at the same time avoid the dangers of arbitrary rule? They have to be unanimous, so none of them can act as a tyrant. And you wouldn't have too many exceptions because everyone affected has to apply and there are only 3 of these guys.
|9.18.07 @ 1:34PM|#
My mother had a pet deer growing up. Then one day some hunter saw it driving by the ranch and shot it. My grandmother said she had to stop my mother from shooting back. My mom also had a pet quail.
Jennifer|9.18.07 @ 1:35PM|#
If Dan T.'s views are not acceptable to you, then defeat
them with reasonable arguments, not lame "fuckwit"
remarks.
Are you new here? Reasonable arguments only work on reasonable
people, not attention-whoring trolls who will say whatever it takes
to get a rise out of people.
|9.18.07 @ 1:43PM|#
"Then one day some hunter saw it driving by the ranch and shot
it."
And let that be a lesson to you; when your pet deer asks for the
car keys, tell him, firmly but gently, "No."
Minion of URKOBOLD|9.18.07 @ 1:50PM|#
YES, TIMOTHY. NO MORE LAME FUCKWIT REMARKS.
FROM NOW ON, MAKE SURE YOUR FUCKWIT REMARKS HAVE A FULL REGIMEN OF
HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE SO THEY'RE NO LONGER LAME, GIRLY-MAN FUCKWIT
REMARKS, BUT ARE HUMONGOUS, MANLY-MAN FUCKWIT
REMARKS.
LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU.
|9.18.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Yes, I know H&R has plenty of regular posters who think a
person should be able to do any damn thing on his or her property
he or she wants even if it means allowing someon to keep a herd of
elephants in the back yard of quarter-acre parcel. It's all well
and good until you live next door and the wind shifts.
The keeping of animals, domestic, farm or wild, is a tough thing to
regulate. Based on my experience (including seeing a home where a
woman kept over a hundred cats, some dead and rotting) suggests
that some regulation is reasonable. I don't think any property
owner should be allowed to keep animals in such a manner that
creates a public or private nuisance.
|9.18.07 @ 2:02PM|#
I was really expecting while reading this article that the
police would have shot the deer. I was happy that they merely
detained it and that the family might get it back.
The thing that angered me most here is that, even if the family
gets to keep the deer, it's because daddy allowed them to.
|9.18.07 @ 3:03PM|#
But then the question is: Where is the nuisance here? Did
neighbors complain? Nothing seems to indicate so. Were there
outside concerns of the animal's welfare? I'd wager "no" seeing as
they considered euthanasia, and the animal would've died without
the care is was being given, etc.
It's one thing to have a nuisance, but there's nothing here to
indicate that it was one.
|9.18.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Jose,
I don't give a shit if my neighbor has a pig farm or a rose garden.
Once their smells infringe my airspace, good or bad, then we have
an issue.
SIV|9.18.07 @ 3:44PM|#
There are rules for keeping domesticated deer as pets or on a
private(trophy) game reserve to keep them from interacting with the
local wild population.High impenetrable fences are required.
Deer from areas beyond their natural range can spread disease from
other populations and livestock to the local wild deer.Additionally
they don't want to mess with the gene pool by mixing in "foreign"
or modified genes. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for these
rules and laws-not just arbitrary bureaucratic ones.
SIV|9.18.07 @ 3:47PM|#
The deer were not their property just because they found them and nursed them back to health.
|9.18.07 @ 3:54PM|#
...or private nuisance.
Yeah, I've got a private nuisance. My pet hamster keeps making my
ass itch. Care to hop a plane courtesy of the taxpayers and come
scratch it for me?
Jennifer Emick|9.18.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Stupid...they can shoot and eat it, but not feed and clean up
after it?
PS- Kyle, or whoever you are, will you please knock it off? That's
quite distracting.
Mono|9.18.07 @ 4:42PM|#
If you carefully read the law, only a well-regulated militia is allowed to keep disabled fawns.
|9.18.07 @ 5:33PM|#
The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from mutant handicapped Bambi.
|9.18.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Let this be a lesson to you all:
DON'T FUCK WITH THE KING'S DEER!!!
(You only just think things have changed in the last three
or four hundred years.) :-)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245