E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Dani the deer and state government overreach

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM

Citizens of the state of Indiana need to obey the law and state government has an obligation to enforce the law. But many times, government officials need to use wisdom and discernment in how they deal with violations of the law and the intentions of those who have broken the law, and make a compassionate decision about what is the best way to proceed in a way that honors the law and is prudent policy.

Indiana's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has filed in every level to do this in the case of Dani the deer. (See stories from the Indianapolis Star here, here, here and here.)

It all started when a Connersville police officer and his wife rescued a young deer that had been attacked by a predator. Rather than "letting nature take its course) and allowing the deer to die a slow and agonizing death, they cleaned the deer's maggot-infested wound and nursed it back to health, intending to release it when it was strong enough to make it alone in the wild. For this, the DNR wants them put in jail for 60 days.

Two months in jail for having compassion on a dying animal? Really?

Look, I understand the DNR's position. We have laws against keeping wild animals for good reasons, both to protect human health against disease and parasites carried by wild animals and to protect the animals themselves as they are not meant to be domesticated. And as we hear many times, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Clearly, some sort of sanction is appropriate - perhaps a fine and a warning.

But two months in jail? That is excessive, extreme and insane.

Newly elected governor Mike Pence said in remarks to the media that "it appears our conservation officers acted appropriately and in a manner consistent with Indiana law."

No, Governor Pence, they did not. They could have simply got a warning and a fine. Instead, the DNR was overly aggressive and decided to "make an example" out of them. The DNR wants to put these people in jail for two months, wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars and creating a severe disruption for their lives and careers. The employees responsible should be fired. We do not need authoritarian ninnies like this working for state government.

1 Comments

Comments:

At February 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM , Blogger Jim49 said...  

In re: to Dani the Deer

This observation, attributed to Martin Luther King but never proven to be, never the less is a powerful message to the common Soul:
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way."

Something to give serious thought.



Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.