Louisiana Wildlife Officials Killed a Blind Deer After a Family Nursed It Back to Health
The family also faced over $1,600 in fines, which were ultimately dropped.

When a Louisiana family agreed to nurse a blind deer back to health, they were looking to do the right thing and didn't want any trouble. But that's exactly what they got last December.
In 2018, a woman in Baton Rouge found a blind fawn that had been abandoned by its mother. The woman contacted Jen Sibley, who agreed to take care of the deer at her expansive property in Livingston Parish, reports WAFB, a local CBS affiliate.
The deer, which the family affectionately named "Little Buck," eventually regained its health and lived with the Sibleys for seven years. Although Little Buck had a pen on the property, he was free to leave at any point but never did.
On December 22, 2024, officials from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries showed up at the Sibleys' door after receiving an anonymous tip that Little Buck was living on the property. Louisiana law only allows individuals to possess in captivity "certain sick, injured, or orphaned wildlife"—which does not include deer—for up to 90 days.
After finding the deer on the property, agents "seized the animal and euthanized it," according to WAFB. "My son's in tears," Sibley told WAFB. "I got him off the couch watching cartoons right before our family Christmas party to come tell his deer goodbye. They came and darted him. He was laying in his bedding area for 20 minutes. They shot him with a dart and then had to shoot him again."
The family was then fined over $1,600. Trevor, Jaci's husband, was criminally charged with possessing the deer. Prosecutors ultimately declined to move the case forward and dropped the fine and criminal charge.
The incident has outraged many, including Louisiana state Rep. Lauren Ventrella (R–Greenwell Spring). Ventrella tells Reason she can list countless reports of animals being confiscated in the area, including one case last week where a fawn was killed after being seized by a good Samaritan.
"I think we can find a better use of government resources than kicking down someone's door for raising a deer," she says.
Last year, Ventrella introduced legislation—which ultimately passed—that legalized wildlife rehabilitation for certain animals like rabbits and chipmunks. Ventrella plans to introduce new legislation to better protect animals like Little Buck by adding deer to the list of legal wildlife rehabilitation animals and shrinking the size of Louisiana's Wildlife and Fisheries Department.
"It comes down to a matter of common sense, right? If this deer is free to come and go as it pleases, is that really even possessing wildlife in the first place?" she told WAFB.
Ventrella says she believes the incident is about more than just a deer; it represents freedom from an overreaching government. "You can call myself a little country Braveheart," she says.
The Sibleys' experience with government overreach is unfortunately not uncommon. Peanut the squirrel was captured and murdered by New York wildlife officials last year, sparking a wave of backlash online. (The squirrel's owners are suing the state of New York for $10 million because of the incident.) Earlier this summer, New York City officials tried to separate Lucy, an aging pygmy pig with numerous health issues, from her Staten Island family (owning a pig is illegal within city limits). Mass public outcry caused Democratic Mayor Eric Adams to pardon the pig, allowing Lucy to stay with her family if they left town.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They still ate the tenderloins though, right?
Either that, or they sold them to make a quick buck.
Oh dear.
Folks would sell their venison only if they were in a rut.
When you're hard up and have skin in the game, you hunt for whatever solutions you can find.
The rub on some is they are barely able to scrape by.
Maybe their parents should have tanned their hides a little more often.
A little grilling when they get home is in order.
Probably not looking forward to that lick of salt.
They were fawning all over that wild animal for nothing..
This why anonymous complaints should not be allowed.
In theory, there is a constitutional right to confront your accuser, but no one bothers with the constitution any more.
Or allow only victims (or their kin, heirs, guardians, etc) to file complaints.
So, after you watch a Venezuelan border jumper rape and kill a nursing co-ed, you either have to identify yourself to the police to report it or go track down her mom?
What if you just want to tell them where to find the body, without getting any further involved than that? Witnesses get killed over that sort of thing. That's WHY we embraced anonymous reporting.
Don't be stupid, Stupid.
I might try to be less stupid, per your instructions, if your instructions made any sense.
It's not rocket science, Stupid. There's value in anonymous reporting. And whistleblowing, for that matter.
If tattletale Karen wants to tattle without outing herself as a tattling Karen, that's a price we pay for a law enforcement system that depends on public cooperation to enforce the law.
*pinches nose* I can't even with you retards sometimes.
That's not what 6A says and it's not even remotely what it means.
The exact wording of the clause is: "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
Not accusers. WITNESSES. Specifically, a witness disclosed by the prosecution that they intend to call to provide testimony in support of their case against you. You get to confront THEM. Because they are testifying against you and you have the right to cross-examine them. If they're not, then you DON'T have a right to confront them because they're not accusing you of anything.
Maybe you make an anonymous complaint - aka hearsay - about having seen a illegal Venezuelan border jumper rape and kill a nursing co-ed. You made the accusation and told them where to find the body. The cops then find said body - which is itself evidence of a crime with or without your reporting it - and start looking real closely at said illegal Venezuelan border jumper. They compile plenty of physical evidence against him, and thus your anonymous hearsay report isn't necessary for the prosecution to make their case against the illegal Venezuelan border jumping rapist/murderer.
You're not called as a witness because they don't NEED your testimony to make their case. They're not relying on your hearsay statement AT ALL. Therefore, the Venezuelan border jumping rapist/murderer has NO right to "confront" you.
FFS. Learn how the Constitution of the country you allegedly want to be a citizen of works, would you people?
When a Louisiana family agreed
Agreed with whom? Was it with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife? I mean, it's not like they don't have a very valid argument:
I mean, that makes sense. And Ms. Well-Intentioned (what's the road to hell paved with again?) - both the one from Baton Rouge and Expansive Property Karen - just ignored it. Which effectively made them poachers.
"I think we can find a better use of government resources than kicking down someone's door for raising a deer," she says.
Sure, but until you do... oh, and when the source material has you openly admitting that you've taken it as a pet, you can't pretend that you haven't in fact taken illegal possession of the animal.
And, spare us the hyperbole. They didn't "kick down the door" and execute the deer right there in front of the family. But let's talk about euthanizing it - because there's room for dissent there.
I suppose there's two approaches: dart the deer and painlessly euthanize it; or capture the deer and release it into the wild after it's been effectively domesticated over the last seven years. I mean, maybe leaving it helpless - after having lived unnaturally in captivity basically its whole life - to understand, fight off, or flee only to be torn apart by predators is more humane?
I don't know, YMMV.
Chumby up there was being tongue-in-cheek - but honestly, that might be the most appropriate third option. I'm sure a couple hundred pounds of venison would be appreciated by the local homeless shelters. Or give it to a zoo.
Can't really release it back to the wild, don't really want to kill it for sake of killing it. At least get some utility out of the thing.
Ventrella says she believes the incident is about more than just a deer; it represents freedom from an overreaching government.
Yea, but out of the other side of their mouth they then lose their bowels all over the internet whenever you post a picture of having legally hunted and shot one. They sure want the government involved in dealing with that particular liberty, don't they.
Jesus Fucking Christ. We're not talking about a Venezuelan rapist. It's a blind fucking deer. In the broad continuum of the universe it's inconsequential. But so are you. I grew up in a world where helpless critters showed up on occasion and sometimes they got a bite to eat and sometimes they stayed around until they were ready to go do something else. Sometimes we dug a hole in the backyard and laid them to rest. Not a single one ever posed a threat to anyone or anything. It's the natural course of events. The only threat this blind deer posed was to state actors with too much time and too much taxpayer money. But you will defend the state every time because you are a statist which is the opposite of libertarian.
*raises hand*
Getting past the blind dead deer that I don't care about, when we pass "The Little Country Braveheart Law" will we be sending people around to make sure the animals actually get rehabilitated or no?
Because deer sure as hell aren't livestock and, while I'm not 100% up to date on my Venezuelan rape stats, I do know cows trample, crush, or gore about 25 people to death every year.
None of this is necessarily to defend LA Fish and Wildlife Officers (my initial question being somewhat opposite the idea) but the anthropomorphizing and appeals to emotion isn't helpful.
And, yeah, owned more adopted stray dogs than bred-and-bought dogs and shot more wild (or rabid) dogs, coyotes, and stray cats growing up than I could possibly count growing up (to say nothing of all the chickens, pigs, and cattle sent to market or otherwise dispatched).
If LA Conservation officers dispatching a blind deer on a complaint call is the top shelf libertarian concern of the week, fuck this broken, stupid ideology. At least Peta has focus.
Well I agree it's not a top shelf libertarian issue but live and let live is first principles. Nothing these people did violates the NAP no matter how many people get killed by livestock somewhere else.
live and let live is first principles
Across species, not even remotely true, ever. Dumber than manna falling from Heaven.
Nothing these people did violates the NAP
Who brought them the deer? Where did that person get it? NAP is, at best, half of libertarianism.
More critically; I didn't get an answer to my question, once "The Little Country Braveheart Law" is passed are we going to hire more officers to make sure people aren't poaching deer or just killing them for their antlers or are we just going to change the law to make us feel better regardless of any and all consequences? Again, I don't give a shit about the deer any more than I do a cow, I'm just interested in your specific motivation or telos here.
Added note: Even AT's cite of "The unseen doe likely is watching you and will soon be back to nurse and check on the fawn." is a bit of a "virtuous lie". Deer no shit leave their fawns for hours or days at a time with no line of sight. The Mom isn't in the woods keeping an eye on you. Nowhere near all of nature helicopter parents the same way humans do. Unless you camped out and watched the fawn for a day or more, you almost certainly poached the fawn.
This is the same retarded hyper-empathy that makes Karen call the police because children are walking by her house unsupervised. You are not the deer's mom. You never will be. You want the cycle of overprotective anonymous tipsters and do gooders to cease? It's. A. Fucking. Deer.
Language. (Also, don't blaspheme.)
The only threat this blind deer posed was to state actors with too much time and too much taxpayer money.
Listen GG, it'd be one thing if you (or Reason) were making an argument as to the legitimacy of a Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. If you say they shouldn't exist, then go ahead and make that argument. If you think their rules are dumb, then go ahead and make that argument.
But you didn't.
And, in this particular case, the Department offered a pretty good rationale for their actions. This wasn't "critters showing up" in a "natural course of events." This was two women poaching a deer, one keeping it as a pet, in clear violation of a law that ACTUALLY HAS a clearly stated and legitimate reason for its existence.
The comparison to illegals was to counter the stupid arguments of two stupid feebs whining about anonymous reporting. Had nothing to do with poaching the deer. Maybe you think it's a waste of resources for the State to deal with something arguably trivial and ultimately harmless as deer poaching, especially when it's such sympathetic poaching.
BUT YOU'RE NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, ARE YOU.
And neither was Reason.
Because you're not libertarian. You're anarchists.
This was two women poaching a deer, one keeping it as a pet, in clear violation of a law that ACTUALLY HAS a clearly stated and legitimate reason for its existence.
And again, I'm certainly no "return it to all to nature" whacko environmentalist but the endless do-good dopamine hit cycles of situation/nature-unaware low-IQ morons is the exact wrong motivation to change laws. Every inch the same short bus thinking as Named-After-A-Child Laws except, in this case, because of a deer.
AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian has NEVER met ANY Government Almighty spy-program or punishment-program that Shit does SNOT like... So long ass the people being spied upon or punished... Are SNOT the same ass the One True High and Mighty AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian!!!
I met your mom, and the punishment-program was her idea.
You probably didn't know she was into that kind of thing.
I met Your PervFected Dad, and Shit's Unholy Name was-is... The Evil One!!! Pervfectly ADDICTED to endless and senseless PUNISHMENT, shit is!!!
Well, yeah.
That's what governments do: Kill.
The bigger the government, the bigger the kill numbers.
What do you call a blind doe? I have no eye deer. What do you call a blind doe with no legs? Still, I have no eye deer.
Ugh.
I have an eye deer!!!
My eye-deer is that Governments Almighty have snot ANYTHING better to do, than to make the animal-lovers and animal-care-takers CRY FOR THEIR SINS of caring for animals without PhDs and endless degrees and licensing for PROPERLY APPROVED animal care-taking!!! Governments Almighty LOVE the animals SOOOO much more than YOU do, that they will KILL the animals, to make YOU cry!
(Cumming soon to a day care close to YOU, your baby-sitters and baby-shitters and diaper-changers swill SNOT be allowed to practice their craft, w/o 7 or 8 child-development PhDs!!!)
"As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis."
Jeeeeeeeeeeeez this temporary basis is surprisingly lengthy!
The temporary commenter privileges are like temporary visas - good for 25 years.