Woman looking at $500 fine and jail time because 11 year old daughter saved a woodpecker

reply to post by tjack


Its been proven several times on ATS that people don't read the links. They shouldn't have to. Don't you know its your responsibility to inform us every important, relevant fact?

Thread killer !!!!

It's what happens when people hold to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Did that fish and wildlife person really think they were just "transporting" a protected species for fun? Or they were going to sell it like drugs or something? So silly. And bizarre there just happened to be a fish and wildlife person hanging around in the Lowes store at that time. Murphy's Law?


After reading the article on the link, it appears that someone had reviewed the case and the citation was issued accidentally. Left hand does not know what the right hand doing maybe.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Not withstanding that the girl should have been commended for her actions, it likely cost more than $500 to get the paperwork drawn up, coordinate with Fish and Wildlife and visit this home to harrass the woman and her daughter.

No kidding! I've got a similar story, we found a very tiny cottontail bunny in our backyard. It would fit in the palm of my hand it was so small. We have a dog as does just about everyone in the neighborhood and there are a lot of cats as well. We put it in a shoebox and contacted a "wildlife rehabilitator" hoping they could take it and raise it in an appropriate environment until it was big enough to turn loose. She asked me several questions about it's size, etc. and then told me it was probably weened and to turn it loose. I told her that it would surely get killed by one of the many dogs or cats in the area, or would end up in our pool. She said that that's the way it is, "survival of the fittest" and all that. So we turn it loose out back and found it dead in the pool the next day. Apparently "doing the right thing" is just abandoning animals in the wild even when you know darned well they're going to end up dead.

.wusa9.com...

This is your government at work and an example of one of the critical functions that exist that we can ill afford to cut or reform.




No.

This is not "my" government at work. This is an idiot with a badge and no brain doing what they do. Don't try to make anyone believe that "government" is responsible for what happened.

reply to post by SavedOne


It always amazed me that the government and all of the associated agencies treat animal life with that "survival of the fittest" attitude to a point then all the stops are pulled to half-assed protect the species.

I wonder why if a sort of "prime directive" is so important to wildlife we feel obligated to interfere with and manipulate the lives of human beings so much? Suddenly "survival of the fittest" is not applicable and every human must be treated like a half retarded yet wholly worth endangered status ape? At home anyway. Not the ones abroad we carpet bomb.

There's no consistency even among the human. Some are coddled and cared for while other in identical situations are left out to rot. Some who succeed are punished relentlessly and others who succeed are given open road to run amok on.

None of it seems to make any sense. Like it's all being run on some arbitrary whim that changes more often than Lady Gaga's wig.

What are you all complaining about? That there are laws protecting animals that would be extinct by now? The family should've taken the bird to the vet. What if it was a bird that required a very specific diet? Most families have no idea how to correctly raise a baby bird. Seriously, you people complain about regulations like this one, but do you realize what this country would be like without some regulations? That oil company would be drilling right next to your neighborhood spraying all types of chemicals into the air that you breathe. They already spray some chemicals; it would be so much worse and you'd probably be dead if there were no regulations.
Do you think hunters shouldn't be regulated? Because all our precious wildlife would be dead and extinct so fast if there were absolutely no regulations.

The lady could've just accepted the citation and moved on. Seriously, it's just a $500 fine. 5x more than a speeding ticket. I think the punishment fits the crime in this case. If she got sentenced to a year in jail, you'd have reason to be upset, but c'mon it's $500.

I applaud the girl and her family for doing the right thing - saving the bird from their cat.
This story did have a happy ending if you had read to the end of the source story.
NO CHARGES FILED.

Please stop bashing the Virginia Fish and Wildlife service. I know many very good, dedicated people who work there. They do amazing work and make very little pay for it. Most do it because they love nature.

These are the people that protect the wildlife you claim to love. Not every government agency is full of imbeciles and thieves..

Leaving animals in their natural state is not "abandonment" (provided its not your family pet trying to kill them). The mortality rate among young birds and small mammals like rodents is well over 50% just in the first year. It is, however the way nature works. A baby animal death means life to some other creature that takes advantage of a windfall food source.

It's hard to just let things be, especially when it appears that an animal may be suffering. Our meddling to save one creature may well lead to the demise of another we aren't seeing.

This child is learning some very important lessons. Never trust the government, no good deed goes unpunished, and that our justice system is a joke. That's probably worth $500 dollars right there. Hell if this didn't happen the poor girl might grow up thinking fallacies like "people with badges are your friend", "the government is there to help people", and "only criminals are charged with crimes". This fish and wildlife officer just provided a life lesson of great value to this girl.

reply to post by tjack


And that was an edit to the original article that the OP posted about this morning.

OP posted at 10:50am
Articled edited at 2:34pm

Re-read above the statement you quoted.

Virginia State Police just released the following statement: "We have confirmed that the US Fish and Wildlife agent requested our presence when they served their federal summons. The trooper stood on the porch and said nothing. We had nothing to do with the charge."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued this statement at around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 2nd:

Maybe the OP should ask a mod to let them edit. Would help clarify things.

I think the charges were abit much but i dont encourage my 11 year old to take wild animals from the wild.Birds are one of the hardest to care for.I have raised several different species of wild birds from the UK,crows,thrushs,tits,robins.Its a full time job.

Thing is when a bird is a fledgling it will spend alot of time on the ground and in the lower trees and fledglings should be left well alone but i have delt with many people who thought they were doing the right thing because to them it seems as if the bird is abandoned but rarely that is the case.Sorry but i feel this young lady should have left the bird alone.

Whilst i have no qualifications in rearing young birds or any animal for that matter i do have 12 years experience and the support of my community.

Regards to all

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
It's hard to just let things be, especially when it appears that an animal may be suffering. Our meddling to save one creature may well lead to the demise of another we aren't seeing.

Just to clarify, if a wild animal is injured the proper procedure is not to just leave it alone to wait for something to eat it, the proper procedure is to contact a wildlife rehabilitator, describe the situation and get direction from them. What they tell you to do will depend on what the animal is and what the injury is. We've found injured birds and have been directed to a nearby sanctuary before, so the answer is not necessarily to just leave it in the wild.

Unless it was the infamous "Woody Woodpecker" I don't see how a 500 dollar fine and jail time justifies a girl trying to save a bird. Don't you just love how our government operates, common sense just flew out the window!

Growing up, there were the annual news stories about dumb people who captured wild animals to make into pets and the coons, possums, or squirrels invariably bit a bunch of people who then had to get rabies shots. Everyone would say how stupid they were for trying to make a pet of a wild animal. Fast forward thirty years and some girl wants to make a pet of a woodpecker and a wildlife agent won't allow it and everyone calls the agent a commie for doing her job. LOL! Off with her head. Didn't the article also say the charges were a mistake?

reply to post by tjack


You may want to take a look at the time of the post and the time of the "correction" by the government. The correction was clearly put out after the story hit the news which made them look like total fools. Not a surprise that they issued a statement. Most sane folks who had accountability for the government in an area where they had armed state troopers show up at the home of a young girl over anything to do with a woodpecker would certainly attempt to explain the matter.

Another martyr then?

Enough will be enough, patienve is ending.

The karmic boomarang is going to bite us no matter the price we paid.

Hate to say it but time for a repeal.

Is there a second?

Here we go, wheeeeeeeee

Originally posted by mjfromga
Of course, like a lot of the news, we only get one side of the story. Perhaps they stopped at Lowe's to get a cage and the warden overheard the woman/girl talk about keeping it as a pet and were rude to the warden when confronted about caging a wild animal. The media always makes the officials (police, teachers, judges, etc.) out to be the bad guys. They get more ratings when the stories are sensationalized, and they know the officials can't talk about cases. If the girl was really interested in being a vet, she would know to keep her cat inside and to leave the bird alone.

Yes, of course, you are right. Damn that media for not speculating as you have! Or better yet, damn that media for not using investigative journalism to dig deeper and discover that the little girl was very, very, very, rude to a police state agent. Gasp! Do you think that stupid little girl was rude to a police state agent? If that's the case, then $500 is not nearly enough of a fine. Dear God, if we must speculate, what if that little girl was so damned rude she actually spat on the agent? Both the mother and daughter belong in prison for assault in this speculative world!

You and your very thoughtful speculations are heroic! Thank you so much for pointing out how foolish and reactionary we people can be, and how wonderfully benign government really is. You're a genuine hero.

Originally posted by mjfromga
Growing up, there were the annual news stories about dumb people who captured wild animals to make into pets and the coons, possums, or squirrels invariably bit a bunch of people who then had to get rabies shots. Everyone would say how stupid they were for trying to make a pet of a wild animal. Fast forward thirty years and some girl wants to make a pet of a woodpecker and a wildlife agent won't allow it and everyone calls the agent a commie for doing her job. LOL! Off with her head. Didn't the article also say the charges were a mistake?

Yep, there you go! Let's pretend as if the little girl did not plainly say she intended to set the woodpecker free after being sure the bird was all right, and let's instead pretend that she is lying about this and really wanted to keep the woodpecker as a pet. Hell, since we are pretending, why not go all the way and pretend she was the one who set the cat on the woodpecker so she could jump in and claim that woodpecker as her pet?

Look at all the pretense you have to rely upon in order to justify this gross police state. Good on you, sport! Keep it up.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
It's hard to just let things be, especially when it appears that an animal may be suffering. Our meddling to save one creature may well lead to the demise of another we aren't seeing.

Just to clarify, if a wild animal is injured the proper procedure is not to just leave it alone to wait for something to eat it, the proper procedure is to contact a wildlife rehabilitator, describe the situation and get direction from them. What they tell you to do will depend on what the animal is and what the injury is. We've found injured birds and have been directed to a nearby sanctuary before, so the answer is not necessarily to just leave it in the wild.

Where can I get this book of injured animal procedures you speak of?

Does it only address the procedures in your state or is this the Federal Injured Animal Procedures Handbook?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apologized on their website to the family.....

Service Apologizes for Citation

Posted At : August 2, 2011 11:20 AM | Posted By : Davidson, Michael
Related Categories: news_blog



We’ve been getting a lot of questions and comments about a recent incident where the Service inadvertently issued a citation in Fredericksburg, Virginia. For more information about what happened, head to our Northeast Region website.

We apologize to the Capo family for the actions of our law enforcement agents. We appreciate the family's efforts to do the right thing for the woodpecker and commend them for releasing the bird once contacted by our law enforcement agents. We recognize that caring individuals like the Capos want to help injured and abandoned wildlife.

Source

If our species does not start applying common sense to situations such as this
we are surely doomed.

Not all rules and laws work or should be applied in all situations.

We have become a world of robotic idiots, ruled by utter nonsense;
living in a pretend land of reactionary laws and rules made by those who count on others to
abandon their frontal lobe activity and critical thinking skills.

This is not who we really are.
This is only who we have become.