No Word From Professor Teabag

Ah, bureaucrats:

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).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Mr. Balko must have been especially hungry for a "police enforce law" story. I guess it's been a few days.

  • ||

    If the Molalla family doesn't like the laws there, they can just move.

    NDT

  • ||

    I just can't feel sorry for this guy.Wild animals are not meant to be pets.Now dinner,that's another story.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    er.that should have read "people should not be condemned ..."

  • Jennifer||

    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||

    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||

    What, no tasering?

    The family, the deer, the cocker spaniel - somebody should have been tasered. No taserin' just doesn't sit right with me...

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Who's the bigger nuisance, Dan T. or a domesticated and disabled deer?

  • SPD||

    No word from Professor Teabag yet, but Reverend T-Bagg would love to share his thoughts with you.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Jake, Bambi - tasering. I'm just saying.

  • Timothy||

    The Oregon wildlife people are second only to OLCC in their zeal for fucking with the citizenry for basically no reason.

  • ||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    that should be my post just above

  • ||

    "[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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Plus, if the Jews didn't like it, they could have just moved.

  • ||

    "it" = being treated like chattel, imprisoned, and killed.

  • ||

    "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.

  • Doctor Duck||

    So, this happened in Bend, O'er?

  • Timothy||

    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.

  • ||

    They did it for the children, and we are the children it was done for.

  • ||

    Timothy - I don't know why the 'tasering Dan T.' idea wasn't more popular. Oh well.

  • rho||

    I agree with Timothy.

  • ||

    If we let this guy keep a deer for a pet, next thing you know, people will have elephants in their apartments.

  • ||

    What, no tasering?



    Does this help?

  • SPD||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    "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||

    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.

  • K.||

    Where was the harm in them keeping the animal?

  • ||

    I agree with SPD

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    The deer were not their property just because they found them and nursed them back to health.

  • ||

    ...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||

    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||

    If you carefully read the law, only a well-regulated militia is allowed to keep disabled fawns.

  • ||

    The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from mutant handicapped Bambi.

  • ||

    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.) :-)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement