Target: Department of Natural Resources, Wyoming
Goal: Allow wild animal possession to be more lenient and on a case-by-case basis
A baby fawn, affectionately named “Giggles,” under the care of good Samaritans who only wanted the baby to have a good life, was murdered due to a law that forbids possession of wildlife. The deer was being held at an animal shelter, and due to go to a wildlife reserve in a day’s time. The fawn was killed by over-cautious, armed and dangerous officers of the Department of Natural Resources who did not want to listen to reason.
The baby fawn was found by a well-meaning family; she was without a mother, so she did not have a great chance of survival on her own. The family took her into a local no-kill shelter, with the hope that the shelter workers would be able to care for her while arrangements were made for her to go to a wildlife reserve. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) caught wind of the fawns whereabouts, and without a phone call or attempt to gain all of the facts, sent nine agents and four deputy sheriffs to kill the deer. Had the DNR gained more knowledge of the situation, Giggles would still be alive at an appropriate, and legal wildlife reserve.
The issue lies within the details of this horrific happening. One of the shelter workers told the DNR that Giggles was supposed to be sent to a wildlife reserve the very next day. The killing of the deer is supposedly the “policy” of the Department, because the possession of wildlife is illegal in Wyoming. However, the family that originally brought in Giggles probably was not aware of this law and only wanted to best for the fawn. The shelter morally did the right thing taking in the fawn and making arrangements for her to go to a wildlife reserve as soon as possible. Had the DNR listened to the story and judged the validity of the righteous actions accordingly, they would have brought the fawn to the reserve for the workers and have not acted on “policy.” Killing the fawn may have been policy, but it was not the right thing to do. The shelter should be praised for doing the right thing, and Giggles should have been allowed a happy life at a wildlife reserve.
The Wyoming Department of Natural Resources needs to rethink and restate its policy procedures. If the actions were based on the situation rather than a blanket of laws that do not account for special circumstance, Giggles would still be alive. Urge the Department of Natural Resources, Wyoming to revamp its policies, as well as base actions on what will create the most good for all parties, rather than resort to killing an innocent animal.
Dear Department of Natural Resources, Wyoming,
Recently there was a baby fawn by the name of Giggles that was murdered by members of your Department at a no-kill shelter. A family found the baby deer, alone and without a mother in sight, and brought her to the shelter where they hoped Giggles would have a chance of survival without a mother. Giggles’ death is a result of ill planning and the failure to base action on facts of the situation.
Your team was allegedly told that Giggles was due to be transported to a wildlife reserve the following day, which would have been a legal place for the fawn to reside. Your team was acting on policy, because Wyoming does not allow keeping of wildlife. Giggles was at the no-kill shelter temporarily; your team could have just as easily brought the deer to the reserve for the workers instead of ending the fawn’s life. A phone call to the reserve, to confirm the statements of the workers that Giggles was going to be transported there, would have also been appropriate.
Issues of wildlife being kept illegally should be dealt with based on the circumstances of the situation, or case-by-case basis. I urge those that make up the Department of Natural Resources to rewrite policies to allow for case-by-case decisions, rather than advocate one blanket law when circumstances are often not simple enough for that type of policy. Please use the morally wrong death of Giggles to allow a second chance for wildlife and rewrite your policies to allow case-by-case decisions.
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: ForestWander via Wikimedia Commons