Alabama Wildlife Chief Seizes Woman’s Pet Deer In Public Safety Move

December 20, 2013
Deer

  • December 20, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    CSP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Another “government official knows better than you” situation.

  • December 21, 2013 at 11:15 am
    J H Russell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    MISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION !!! The picture show bucks with antlers. These were 2 tiny, gentle fawns–DOES, ‘ not bucks,who had never hurt anyone, they loved all islanders. You would be much more likely to get bitten by one of the many island dogs than hurt by a gentle little doe, so should the island dogs have done to them what the wildlife “storm troopers ” did to the island’s I 2 little fawns? Sneak onto the island with no forewarning to all the islanders who loved Daisy and Darby, in an UNMARKED vehicle, and shoot the babies with tranquilizer guns, on an elderly islander ‘s private property, and then haul them off like so much trash. One 75 year old neighborhood lady was crying and hugging Daisy, one of these 2 “dangerous ” (NOT IN A MILLION YEARS) and begging the sneaky officer to let her be but he snatched her away from the old lady ‘s arms , dumper her in the back of his vehicle. anyway. they let none of all the islanders, who loved our only 2 deer know they were coming- we all loved those deer and TO TRY SPIN and justifyTHEIR STORM TROOPER TACTICS On our island and to our 2 deer , trying to justify what they did, but the above article is complete BS and doesn’t hold even one DROP of water. The island IS an appropriate place for the baby deer, being that it is aWILDLIFE SANCTUARY, no hunting allowed, small, no traffic lights, speed 45 mph, so collision unlikely. You are more likely to get hit by a vacationing teenage driver than by a doe, so should they ban teenage driviers from the island because of the hypothetical reason they MIGHT hit your car? Also, our mayor did NOT say that it either needed to be done, or “had to be done “–in a town meeting following this where outraged citizens protested! he explained that there IS NO LAW on the island against deer being here, that he told the wildlife people he preferred that the deer be allowed to stay, but that state authority was above his authority as Mayor and that if THEY said it had to be done he would not stand in their way–@ since their authority supercede his. So it comes down to– WHY did the state decide it ” had to be done” .? they were NOT “pets”
    - they belonged to no-one- they were brought to the island because they were baby orphaned deer on the side of the road where their mother had been killed by a car — and were rescued and saved and brought to this island
    , a wildlife sanctuary , by the rescuers, who live here, nursed to health, then released to roam the island ( again, which is a wildlife sanctuary) at will. And all islanders loved them .It seems however , that one unhappy malcontent busybody complained that the does were eating leaves off one of their trees, reported that to a police officer, who notified the wildlife people , who then came and shot them with tranquilizer darts and hauled them off, completely disrespecting and disregarding the feelings of most islanders who treasured and loved our baby does. THEN , in order to try and justify what they did and the storm trooper tactics used, they spin it and say that the reason they did it is because the folks who rescued the babies from the side of their dead mother on a busy highway broke the law by taking them to our island, a wildlife sanctuary. Now how did they expect the innocent folks who were just trying to save baby animal’s lives to know that law? I didn’t-how many of you did? And now , they are even threatening to press charges against her for UNKNOWINGLY breaking one of their laws by saving these babies from certain death? THAT obscure law–(“transporting”a to use their lingo)– is the ONLY LAW broken in this case, and broken unknowingly at that. They cannot say the deer were being kept as ” pets” for the simple reason that they were NOT, they were saved from death and then set free to roam our wildlife sanctuary island at will. Which they did, and were loved by the island children, and by all except the one busybody who cared more about the fate of leaves on a tree than the fate of 2 precious little deer. They were not a disease risk either- islanders take care of their own, and these deer had been vet checked and were healthy, the island children are heartbroken- one even wrote Santa that all she wanted was for Santa to ” bring Daisy and Darby home for Christmas”. Other barrier islands have many more deer than us, even including bucks, which freely roam and coexist and interact with citizens and tourists without danger— Fripp Island, St. Simon ‘s island, Big Pine Key, among others, and Key West, and on on none of these islands have THEIR deer been removed witthe “for public safety” reasons– so why remove ours ? (when our island has only 2 does, not dangerous one bit, and beloved by islanders and children,)—- and now they won’t even tell us WHERE or HOw they are. Makes suspicious that Alabama Wildlife officials might have even “euthanized” ( translation- killed a) our beloved Daisy and Darby , and are trying to get out of admitting it by spinning the facts with excuses for what they did that complete BS. They have done NO GOOD for anybody- but instead have broken the hearts of island children, showed them that loving and helping animals can turn around to bite you in the rear, and that what their mission statement says ” to protect, conserve, and enhance” is a complete farce. We want our baby deer back so that WE ISLANDERS can do the job of PROPERLY ” protecting, conserving, and enhancing” the lives of Daisy and Darby–that is, if the Alabama Wildlife Officials haven’t killed them yet. Governor Bentley, can’t you do something?

  • December 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    evelyn vandeberghe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    This article is not factual! There are many misstatements about their situation at Dauphin Island. Mr. Dodd is covering for his department’s heavy-handed handling of this situation. The deer were NOT a threat to anything or anyone. Thanks a lot AWFF. You deserve all the bad press and reputation that can be heaped upon you.

  • December 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    Sherri Rogers says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    Your picture is misleading! I live on Dauphin Island and I can tell you that Daisy and Darby were two of the sweetest gentlest DOE’S and they would not hurt a flea. Maybe you should ask AWFFD, why they darted Daisy in front of a 75 yr. old woman that hugging Daisy and pleading with them not to take Daisy! Why are they not telling anyone where they released Daisy and Darby? The citizens of Dauphin Island just want video proof that they are OK. Why is the media not asking that? I have an email from their attorney telling me he will give me the information, but it will probably be after the 1st of the year because most of them are out for the holiday. It may be too late for Daisy & Darby by then. Why are you not asking about that!?

  • December 21, 2013 at 11:47 pm
    Bev says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    These deer where NOT pets. They roamed Dauphin Island at FREELY. They were loved by the islanders and the tourists, and I am one of those tourists. It is absolutely insane that AL Fish and Wildlife doesn’t have something better to do than remove/harm these two precious little does that were so loved by so many people. I would think in this day of unpopular government that just maybe someone would stand up for the people that elected you. Once again our tax dollars hard at work! I absolutely can’t believe you don’t have something more important to do than remove these two beautiful animals from their home and break the hearts of thousands of people. It tells me your positions aren’t really that important and maybe should be eliminated if work is that slow. I am writing this comment because people need to stand up for what is right. This action of removing these two harmless does is absolutely insane. The name of the person who gave the thumbs up to remove these two deer and stayed that decision after all of this opposition should be made public so they are not re-elect. It is obvious they are not working for the people.

  • December 24, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    FarmerJohn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    Uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh, really? This is a great example of people with no knowledge of biology attempting to be wildlife biologists. There’s reasons why you don’t keep wild animals as pets, or get them habituated to humans.

  • December 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    RT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not from this area, and there isn’t enough information in the article for me to pick a side, but I do agree it’s misleading to show a photo of deer that are not at all similar to the two deer in this situation.

    That said, I’m confused about the perception that does (female deer) are somehow less dangerous than bucks (male deer). Really? If a wild animal is startled and runs over/into you, their hooves hurt just as much whether male or female. Bucks are aggressive towards other bucks, but that doesn’t mean increased danger for humans. We are deer hunters in this area, and have had many opportunities to watch and observe deer in their natural habitat. They are all peaceful creatures, not just the females.

    These “babies” (again, no info on how old they were or how long they had been cared for by humans) were losing their ability to survive in the wild and would likely have been hit by a vehicle before long. That’s not an opinion, it is fact. A 45mph speed limit doesn’t guarantee anyone’s safety.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features