TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.wisn.com/news/armed-agents-r ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Giggles the baby fawn was killed by the Department of Natural Resources SWAT team in Wisconsin, the baby fawn was going to be sent the next day to an appropriate Illinois wild life shelter. But the State of Wisconsin got there first.

This apparently capped an investigation by the DNR after they received a report from a citizen. It did not say if charges will be brought against anyone at the no kill animal shelter. Giggles was removed in a body bag.

Yes....SWAT teams for everyone....sigh...

Someone's tax returns reflected donations to the wrong party.

No where in that article did it say a swat team was used. One person was quoted at saying it was like a swat team. That doesn't mean it was one. If it is illegal to have the baby fawn, then don't have one and don't whine when fish and game does their job.

texanjoker wrote:No where in that article did it say a swat team was used. One person was quoted at saying it was like a swat team. That doesn't mean it was one. If it is illegal to have the baby fawn, then don't have one and don't whine when fish and game does their job.

Agree to a point... (mostly about there not really being a SWAT team on site)But really.. are No Kill shelters suspected of giving a fawn a place in the barn so historically threatening in that area that the DNR and sheriffs needed an overwhelming force in guns drawn mode to seize (and kill) the fawn? Saving it from nap time and a trip to a wildlife center.. Yes they saved it from that trip by killing it...


One would think,, a DNR guy and a local sheriff driving up, saying howdy,, and umm that there fawn you have in the barn,, can't have that wildlife... gonna have to take him with us..
Thanks, for caring.. but got to follow the rules..
Have a nice day.

You would think that approach would have worked somewhat better ...perhaps even resulting in said "victim" not being rescued... I assume that was the base intent in executing the warrant. .

So maybe we will here in a few weeks, that the folks were using the shelter to hide a Meth lab,, and THAT is why the LEO's went in so heavy

texanjoker wrote:No where in that article did it say a swat team was used. One person was quoted at saying it was like a swat team. That doesn't mean it was one. If it is illegal to have the baby fawn, then don't have one and don't whine when fish and game does their job.

I don't think anyone has a problem when fish and game "does their job".
I for one am glad when situations like this make the news. It is the only way many of these abuses and waste of taxpayer’s money will ever get cleaned up.

"(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed to the teeth," Schulze said.

Wow!!! Thirteen(13) armed men to take down a “no kill” animal shelter. The employees should be glad none of them were shot.

"I was thinking in my mind they were going to take the deer and take it to a wildlife shelter, and here they come carrying the baby deer over their shoulder. She was in a body bag," Schulze said. "I said, 'Why did you do that?' He said, 'That's our policy,' and I said, 'That's one hell of a policy.'"

“Policy” is made so no one has to think. “Policy” is made so no one has to take responsibility.


Supervisor Jennifer Niemeyer Department of Natural Resources:

"If a sheriff's department is going in to do a search warrant on a drug bust, they don't call them and ask them to voluntarily surrender their marijuana or whatever drug that they have before they show up," Niemeyer said,

Jennifer, just in case no one has ever told you, you are an idiot. Trying to justify these tactics by comparing this to “a sheriff's department doing a search warrant on a drug bust” is unbelievable. Sounds like the employees of the animal shelter were also lucky no “flash-bangs” were thrown through the door and windows.

I would imagine now that this has made the news, the Department of Natural Resources will re-evaluate their “policy”.

VoiceofReason wrote:I would imagine now that this has made the news, the Department of Natural Resources will re-evaluate their “policy”.

AndyC wrote:

"(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed to the teeth," Schulze said.

The focus of their search was a baby fawn brought there by an Illinois family worried she had been abandoned by her mother.

Sure sounds like massive overkill to me - 13 armed men to take down a fawn? Come on.

Especially considering my then 8 year old boy took down a buck...

So if a hunter shot a fawn there, would that be illegal?

I would have been very embarrassed had I been one of the four Deputy Sheriffs and I sure wouldn’t tell my kids.

texanjoker wrote:No where in that article did it say a swat team was used. One person was quoted at saying it was like a swat team. That doesn't mean it was one. If it is illegal to have the baby fawn, then don't have one and don't whine when fish and game does their job.

Are you saying this is just another day at the office and all is well with what went down?

mojo84 wrote: Are you saying this is just another day at the office and all is well with what went down?

You gotta practice some time...

mojo84 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:No where in that article did it say a swat team was used. One person was quoted at saying it was like a swat team. That doesn't mean it was one. If it is illegal to have the baby fawn, then don't have one and don't whine when fish and game does their job.

Are you saying this is just another day at the office and all is well with what went down?

Did I say that? There are many factors to consider on a warrant service. Were there people on premise with known violent history? We dont know. Just calling xx re the hype swat team.

texanjoker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:No where in that article did it say a swat team was used. One person was quoted at saying it was like a swat team. That doesn't mean it was one. If it is illegal to have the baby fawn, then don't have one and don't whine when fish and game does their job.

Are you saying this is just another day at the office and all is well with what went down?

Did I say that? There are many factors to consider on a warrant service. Were there people on premise with known violent history? We dont know. Just calling xx re the hype swat team.

You definitely alluded to it in you're second to last sentence. It was an animal shelter that was committing the high crime of harboring a fawn that they thought was abandoned. Based on what was report, they way overreacted.If or comes out that they expected more going on there such as a meth lab or other such serious crime, I would see more justification for how they approached it. But based on what the people said and the official spokesperson, they were way out of line.