I think the what's more seriously wrong is the people in this thread who are suspicious and want them to be fined.
The environmentalist must first abandon all common sense in order to warp their mind as they do.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Woodpecker-Saving Daughter Costs Mom $500, Possible Jail Time
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think the what's more seriously wrong is the people in this thread who are suspicious and want them to be fined.
The environmentalist must first abandon all common sense in order to warp their mind as they do.
PottedMeat
Lifer
i dunno, drive home maybe with the AC cranked or the window down?
zinfamous
No Lifer
it's a protected species, so it's not unusual or misplaced.
I think they game warden in this case came down a bit heavy-handed. I've never dealt with one that would have acted this way--unless there truly is more to the story.
A warning + suggestion on how to get the bird back into the wild would have been more appropriate. Though I'm more surprised that the warden didn't offer to take custody the bird herself, unless, of course--the story is not what the mother/daughter say it was.
darkswordsman17
Lifer
The fine is bullshit. Maybe if it were a $25-50 first offense type of thing, but really that even seems kinda excessive. How many people honestly have any clue that a woodpecker is protected? Plus, there's a huge difference between this and them trying to kill it. Now that would warrant a $500 fine. Not this.
zinfamous
No Lifer
ftfy.
environmentalism requires no insanity to embrace it. but there are nuts in all fields, all corners of belief and practice, of course.
like teabaggers, for example.
zinfamous
No Lifer
with birds, taking them in seriously jeopardizes their ability to be re-released. The fines are structured to keep people the hell away.
Best thing is to probably put it in a box and then call animal services. Of course, no random person would probably understand that a particular woodpecker is a protected species.
the story just sounds a bit ridiculous to me; so I think there is more going on here.
HumblePie
Lifer
So let me get this straight....
Little girl finds a "baby" woodpecker in the Dad's backyard. She thinks a cat is about to "eat" the bird so she feels obligated to save it some how. Since she doesn't want Dad to take care of it, she wants to take it to her Mom's house. Guessing Mom and Dad are separated hence the different houses. On the way to Mom's house they stop at Lowe's and get caught by a shopper who's official job it is to protect woodpeckers.
The official does not take the bird at Lowe's and let's the people leave. The girl and Mom goes back to Mom's house and the bird "flies" away. Official shows up 2 weeks later at Mom's house with a trooper and citation.
Something smells fishy in this article. First off, what made her think the cat was going to eat the bird? Obviously the bird can fly since they claimed it did so once they took it from the father's house to the mother's house. So there was no need to "save" it was there? A bird that can fly and is healthy can elude a cat. And how did this girl know the cat was about to eat this bird? And why not just take care of the bird at the father's place instead of taking it to a completely different address?
Too many un-answered questions leaving too many holes in the story.
So what's my take and opinion? Little girl found a baby wood pecker and wanted to keep it. Dad didn't want to keep it at his place so girl called mom and convinced the mom to keep it. They were taking it to Mom's place and got caught by official agent who job it is to protect the birds. They concocted some story to the agent to make it seem more innocent that it was and the agent initially let them go. Agent still took their private info though. Agent later thought it through and realized what they said was probably bullshit and did her job.
Ignorance of the law does not make you innocent and this proves it. The mother and daughter broke the law. Kind of sucks. They claim the bird flew away, which is convenient, so the agency protecting these birds can't prove whether the bird is safe or not now. Still we have to go on the word of the mother and daughter, who seemed to have fabricated some parts of the story which is why there are a bunch of holes, that the bird is safe.
Personally I'm fine with a citation for their actions. I do not think they should get jail time at all though. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean they are innocent, but it doesn't mean there was malicious intent either. A fine is nothing more than a slap on the wrist for screwing up and not doing due diligence before taking actions. Nothing more to this story.
Little girl finds a "baby" woodpecker in the Dad's backyard. She thinks a cat is about to "eat" the bird so she feels obligated to save it some how. Since she doesn't want Dad to take care of it, she wants to take it to her Mom's house. Guessing Mom and Dad are separated hence the different houses. On the way to Mom's house they stop at Lowe's and get caught by a shopper who's official job it is to protect woodpeckers.
The official does not take the bird at Lowe's and let's the people leave. The girl and Mom goes back to Mom's house and the bird "flies" away. Official shows up 2 weeks later at Mom's house with a trooper and citation.
Something smells fishy in this article. First off, what made her think the cat was going to eat the bird? Obviously the bird can fly since they claimed it did so once they took it from the father's house to the mother's house. So there was no need to "save" it was there? A bird that can fly and is healthy can elude a cat. And how did this girl know the cat was about to eat this bird? And why not just take care of the bird at the father's place instead of taking it to a completely different address?
Too many un-answered questions leaving too many holes in the story.
So what's my take and opinion? Little girl found a baby wood pecker and wanted to keep it. Dad didn't want to keep it at his place so girl called mom and convinced the mom to keep it. They were taking it to Mom's place and got caught by official agent who job it is to protect the birds. They concocted some story to the agent to make it seem more innocent that it was and the agent initially let them go. Agent still took their private info though. Agent later thought it through and realized what they said was probably bullshit and did her job.
Ignorance of the law does not make you innocent and this proves it. The mother and daughter broke the law. Kind of sucks. They claim the bird flew away, which is convenient, so the agency protecting these birds can't prove whether the bird is safe or not now. Still we have to go on the word of the mother and daughter, who seemed to have fabricated some parts of the story which is why there are a bunch of holes, that the bird is safe.
Personally I'm fine with a citation for their actions. I do not think they should get jail time at all though. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean they are innocent, but it doesn't mean there was malicious intent either. A fine is nothing more than a slap on the wrist for screwing up and not doing due diligence before taking actions. Nothing more to this story.
silverpig
Lifer
They needed a cage...
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
This story reeks of more to it.
mugs
Lifer
Can you identify a single person prior to this post that you made who said they should be fined?
To automatically side with the warden and raise blame and suspicion on the mother/daughter is to tacitly approve of the department's actions.
There is nothing more to this story and absolutely there are plenty of enviro-whackos working for the department that would pull just such a stunt for somebody innocently trying to save a bird.
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
lxskllr
No Lifer
It doesn't have anything to do with "enviro-whackos", but more to do with overreaching government. This is a byproduct of paying someone else to do your thinking for you.
To protect a species such as a wood pecker that weakens ash trees so they succumb to the ash borer beetle is chopping off your nose to spite your face.
Environmentalism MUST force one to abandon common sense.
darkswordsman17
Lifer
I get that, but its still too much. Overt malice would deserve that fine, general ignorance/carelessness would not. Even them intending to keep it as a pet I think that's too much. That's why, I think a first time kinda thing a light fine or written warning would suffice.
Certainly it might not be as it seems, so it really might warrant the fine, but the situation as depicted does not, I think.
Hah. I was actually thinking about Family Guy when Peter grew the beard.
Aharami
Lifer
let me spell it out for you
I don't buy the mother/daughter's story. I think there are too many holes in it. But I dont think they should be fined either
lxskllr
No Lifer
If a tree has woodpeckers, it's already damaged ;^)
Somehow ash trees made it through eons, with a far greater quantity of woodpeckers than we have now....
zinfamous
No Lifer
zinfamous
No Lifer
you don't find it odd that the warden lets them go right there, only to return 2 weeks later with a fine?
all I see from you, spidey, is an assumption that the government will always do something evil, so the slightest suggestion of such, in any half-baked story, is enough to convince you of the veracity of anything that confirms your suspicions.
at what point in your life did you decide that you no longer needed the ability to think for yourself?
my suspicion, here, is that the situation is completely ridiculous. saying that this story makes no sense, in no way supports the fine.
Beev
Diamond Member
Are wildlife wardens allowed to detain people like that?
Anyway, I wish I had a job where I got to fine people. I would totally fine everyone that broke the rules, regardless of intent. Sounds like fun 😛
zinfamous
No Lifer
:hmm:
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
(if you believe that your example somehow represents that you have common sense)
zinfamous
No Lifer
As long as it's in their jurisdiction, I believe so. Have you ever been fined while out fishing without a license?
Depending on the offense, I do believe they can haul you into the station. Not sure about that, though.
Turin39789
Lifer
What kind of idiot parent would let their child take a woodpecker home?
It's going to survive better with it's own parents(provided it is a stable two parent opposite sex nest) than on whatever you're going to find in your fridge to feed it.
Why not take the cat inside?
It's going to survive better with it's own parents(provided it is a stable two parent opposite sex nest) than on whatever you're going to find in your fridge to feed it.
Why not take the cat inside?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
