Many of you know a Wisconsin woman in a hunting family rescued a fawn when its' mother and sister were killed by a car. She has it in a DNR approved pen on her farm, it comes to her when it hears its' name. "Bambi" eats from their hands and generally has become the family pet.

The DNR says no one in this state is allowed to relate to wild animals in any way except to kill them. The DNR is spending our tax dollars in a Court action so they can take the fawn and kill it. They found it impossible to find any exception in their rules to allow these taxpayers to befriend a wild animal.

Why hasn't there been a good informative newspaper article which fully explains the position of the state and the citizen taxpayer? I mean with summaries of the briefs and testimony, pictures of the fawn and family, and interviews with the attorneys?

We need to read the court briefs and transcripts to understand how our tax dollars are being used by the DNR and that can only be done by the WI State Journal because it is very expensive.

Don't you think this issue deserves that kind of attention? I think it is an important story and needs to be told. The DNR states they will take the deer to a rehabilitation facility but they have laws that no animal may stay in a rehabilitation facility but must be released to the wild. The DNR allows hunting in sanctuaries so that would be a death sentence also. This is a domesticated animal who is a companion to the Smith family. I believe the DNR will kill it and chop it's head off for testing to justify their killing.

All of us need to hear the story from Ilene Smith herself. This is a hunting family. They farm for a living. They jumped through all the hoops but the DNR killers cannot stand to see even one fawn treated as a beloved friend. If they allow it maybe a LOT of people will befriend the deer and that is their worst fear. It may lead to democracy.

Here is the actual sequence of events:

The Smith's sued for an Injunction preventing the DNR from taking Bambi when the DNR refused to allow them to keep the deer despite their DNR approved pen and application for a game farm permit.

The matter is before Judge Albert in a Dane County Court.

The DNR filed a Motion to Dismiss the Request for an Injunction with a brief in opposition. The Smiths filed a reply brief in support of their Request for an injunction.

Then there was a Hearing on the matter of whether the request for an injunction should be dismissed. At that hearing, Judge Albert asked both parties to submit additional briefs on the question of whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to the question of whether the request for an injunction should be dismissed. Equitable Estoppel is The doctrine by which a person may be precluded by act, silence, or conduct from asserting a right which he otherwise may have had.

The Smiths have submitted their brief on the question of equitable estoppel and the DNR must submit their reply brief by April 22, 2005.

Then the first decision the Court will make is whether the Smiths even have a right to be heard.

These are a small group of people who did everything the DNR told them to do:
Ilene Smith in Columbus, and Atty Gary Schmaus, Dale Schneider the VET, Scott Fitzgerald 1-888-291-3489 representative in support, Steve Fotti 1 608 266 2401 representative in support and Mary Bell, a wildlife rehabilitator.

The only newspaper stories I know of have no depth. I called Ilene Smith and talked to her personally as did a few other people I talked to - it is a horror story - they spent all this money on pens and permits and did everything they were told to do and they STILL are being dragged through an expensive court battle by the Dumb-No - Ridiculous DNR.

Worse yet, I have a bad feeling about the outcome.

I would like the Wis State Journal to interview the attorney and the family - go out to the farm and take pictures - I think all civil libertarians will be outraged. Something is SERIOUSLY WRONG at the DNR. I think it has to do with their staff composition. There is NO balance, they are all hunters and the mind set has become inbred.

I DID call the DNR to get their side of the story - first some woman PR person who was so evasive it got humorous - she pretended she did not understand the question for about 12 e-mails, then gave non-answers to repeated questions. Then, I called Mike Lutz in the legal dept. He was in a meeting and he did not return my call. But that is really not where the answers are.

I would like to read summaries of the trial brief justifications of the DNR. They allow baby bears and other animals to be kept in cages and savaged by dogs. This is done under the guise of training the dogs for bear hunts but it is really a cock fight for northern sadists.

In light of that, why can't this family be allowed to keep Bambi? Who do we have to pay off to find an exception like the one found to keep baby bears in cages?

I understand the baby bears are not considered wild life because they are bred to be torn apart by dogs. Well somewhere there was a wild bear they used to start this obscenity - they found an exception for her - why can't the DNR find one for Bambi; and all the other people who want to interact peacefully with animals, not use them for profit and for the pleasures sadists get from watching torture.


Links to this post:

Create a Link