U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 10-11-2011, 02:47 PM
 
62 posts, read 45,968 times
Reputation: 90
How about the fact that there has not been one case of the alleged disease in the state of NC ever? With a permit he could have kept the deer. Why not leave them where they were and force him to either get the required permit or pay for the disposal of the deer. Do we not have zoos that could benefit from tame deer? This is why nothing in society can ever be an absolute.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2011, 02:52 PM
 
2,121 posts, read 2,774,393 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakeNtrail View Post
How about the fact that there has not been one case of the alleged disease in the state of NC ever? With a permit he could have kept the deer. Why not leave them where they were and force him to either get the required permit or pay for the disposal of the deer. Do we not have zoos that could benefit from tame deer? This is why nothing in society can ever be an absolute.

Maybe the reason we haven't had a case here is the diligence of wildlife officers in keeping it at bay?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
116 posts, read 209,479 times
Reputation: 78
Diligent wildlife officers you say? I've only the article to go from like most here, but the owner states he had these fallow deer since 2003 and the state new about it by repeatedly warning him? So I don't buy the fact the slaughter was an absolute must because of a disease.

If the state thought it had a potential epidemic on their hands had these deer escaped into the wild then they would of shot them 8 years ago...!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
116 posts, read 209,479 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakeNtrail View Post
How about the fact that there has not been one case of the alleged disease in the state of NC ever? With a permit he could have kept the deer. Why not leave them where they were and force him to either get the required permit or pay for the disposal of the deer. Do we not have zoos that could benefit from tame deer? This is why nothing in society can ever be an absolute.
Great point...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 03:50 PM
 
2,121 posts, read 2,774,393 times
Reputation: 2254
No, the article doesn't say the state "repeatedly" warned him. It says he was warned in 2003, implying he was warned only once. Further, the article says that he had deer up to 2003, but got rid of them "after going back and forth with the state". Sounds like he had the deer, he got rid of them in 2003, so the state had no way of knowing he had gotten more. The article doesn't say when he got the white-tails that were put down.

Look, I'm not saying the officers did the right thing here. Maybe they indeed erred, or maybe they're trigger-happy animal killers. But you can't determine that from the information in the article. All we know is they found unauthorized deer belonging to someone who knew better, they couldn't determine the origin of the deer, and they didn't want to risk introducing disease to wild populations. To infer otherwise merely from the article is a big "jump to conclusions" IMO.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
116 posts, read 209,479 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbyunc View Post
No, the article doesn't say the state "repeatedly" warned him. It says he was warned in 2003, implying he was warned only once. Further, the article says that he had deer up to 2003, but got rid of them "after going back and forth with the state". Sounds like he had the deer, he got rid of them in 2003, so the state had no way of knowing he had gotten more. The article doesn't say when he got the white-tails that were put down.

Look, I'm not saying the officers did the right thing here. Maybe they indeed erred, or maybe they're trigger-happy animal killers. But you can't determine that from the information in the article. All we know is they found unauthorized deer belonging to someone who knew better, they couldn't determine the origin of the deer, and they didn't want to risk introducing disease to wild populations. To infer otherwise merely from the article is a big "jump to conclusions" IMO.
Yup, my bad. It doesn't say repeatedly. I concede the point.

However it resonates with me that some officer(s) over stepped his/her boundaries while executing a warrant which ended in a senseless act of destruction, that much can be gleaned from the article. I still don't buy the disease angle at all, but we'll agree to disagree.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC
68 posts, read 36,560 times
Reputation: 66
Here's the same article basically, but there's more information. Apparently, he was also denied a license after 2003. More Than 5,000 Sign Petition After 9 Deer Killed in Randolph Co. | News | Asheboro News

Still, I don't see how it's OK to murder any animal in front of the owner. Euthanize is one thing...you should cart them away and put them down humanly. This was poorly handled.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:40 PM
 
2,121 posts, read 2,774,393 times
Reputation: 2254
Again, you both seem to be jumping to conclusions. UK, you make a broad leap when you say "senseless act of destruction". We don't know if it was senseless or not, but we do know there may be a solid reason for putting them down--disease.

And Cryren, as another poster stated, it could be dangerous to transport the deer if they were diseased, so your assumption that "it was poorly handled" could be dead wrong.

I assume the truth will come out at the trial referenced in the article cryren linked (thanks for linking), and if the officers overstepped their authority then we can all hope they are punished appropriately and/or procedures are changed to prevent future occurrences. But as I said earlier, I really doubt the wildlife officers killed the deer out of some twisted desire to harm defenseless animals. It's their job to protect wild animals, so in the absence of further information I would assume they had good reasons.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:13 PM
 
62 posts, read 45,968 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbyunc View Post
Maybe the reason we haven't had a case here is the diligence of wildlife officers in keeping it at bay?

Keeping it at bay? Bullsh1t! Not one case. Ever! It's just not found in the wild herds in the southeast. And, wild deer tend to roam and overlap territories. That in itself leaves one to infer that wild deer would be far more likely to contract the disease than deer kept in seclusion that can not co-mingle with the wild herds. They were teaching the owner a lesson for not respecting their authority. I wish you could have seen the poor guy on the local news break down in the middle of the story. Seems our wildlife officials are not very good shots so they used 12ga. shotguns and had to shoot some of the animals numerous times before they expired. Government incompetence at it's finest!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:55 PM
 
2,121 posts, read 2,774,393 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakeNtrail View Post
Keeping it at bay? Bullsh1t! Not one case. Ever! It's just not found in the wild herds in the southeast. And, wild deer tend to roam and overlap territories. That in itself leaves one to infer that wild deer would be far more likely to contract the disease than deer kept in seclusion that can not co-mingle with the wild herds. They were teaching the owner a lesson for not respecting their authority. I wish you could have seen the poor guy on the local news break down in the middle of the story. Seems our wildlife officials are not very good shots so they used 12ga. shotguns and had to shoot some of the animals numerous times before they expired. Government incompetence at it's finest!
rake, you may be right, but I'm sorry, the owner's tears aren't enough to convince me. Regardless of this guy's emotions, NC's regulations regarding cervids are clear (see Chronic Wasting Disease )--cervids may be brought into NC only from herds in which CWD has not been detected for at least 5 years. If this guy can't prove where his deer came from, then the officers have to assume that they could be from infected areas. To do otherwise would be foolhardy, would needlessly put our native populations at risk, and is clearly in direct opposition to the regulations.

Let's just wait for the truth to come out, then we can talk about whether the officers' actions were proper or not. Making assumptions based on sketchy articles and the owner's feelings is shaky at best.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top