IT IS MY BELEIF THAT ONCE A FAMILY RAISES A WILD ANIMAL AND THAT ANIMAL BECOMES TAME THEN SAID ANIMAL SHOULD BE LEFT WITH THE FAMILY THAT RAISED IT! AT LEAST THE ANIMAL HAS A LIFE THANKS TO THE FAMILY WHOM RESCUED IT...AND PROVIDED THAT SAID ANIMAL IS RELEASED TO THE WILD IT WILL MOST PROBABLY DIE FOR THE LACK OF IT'S "WILD INSTINCT" ABBILLITIES.........WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE "LAW" WISH TO DISRUPT A HUMAN----ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP AS SUCH? IT IS BEYOND MY KNOWLEDGE! FOR HEAVENS SAKE, LET THE FAMILY ALONE WITH THEIR PETS! ENOUGH SAID.................

Hi, Mary,

In the case of lucky, he was beginning to cause trouble in the neighborhood...the neighborhood where he was raised. I believe that is why that family either gave him up, or the reason officials had to respond. I'm not sure which, but I know for a fact that Lucky was just too large for that community, and had to be released into a larger habitat, suitable for an animal his size.

Joe M.

What would it take for the Molalla family to be granted permission to have an 'animal sanctuary' on their property, in order to continue to care for the deer? It looks like they are both healthy and happy. To release them (especially Snowball) back into the wild would be tragic. If they are to be sent to a "sanctuary", they may as well be allowed to stay at the Mollala's property. They are clearly capable to caring for the animals. Looks like a matter of paperwork to me.

This is a completly different circumstance compared to Snowball, size was a factor, health with lucy was another factor. Snowball will get no larger, she is crippled and is already 5 years old, she was being taken care of, she would have been put down had they called when they found the animal. At least the animal gets to be loved for the short time on this planet, and is not disrupting lives in her habitat

Why take a wild animal that was rescued and has now become part of the family, ESEPECIALLY, if releasing it back into the wild, the animal is not likely to survive? Aren't GAME AND FISH suppose to be kind to animals? Not endanger thier lives!

There is a reason why the fish and wildlife laws were created, so neophyte wannabe rescuers would not make these decisions into their own hands. Nearly all saviors lack the wisdom, skill, and responsibility to realistically help wildlife. Shame on them. We then try to anthropomorphize human qualities into the animal, as if they were human. HELLO, THEY ARE WILD ANIMALS and need to be rehab or in a sanctuary, not joining you for family dinner and to make you feel good.

Looks like the ODFW, as usual, is in "MisManagement Mode"
The deer would have died originally as it was, without intervention by these extremely kind individuals, and most assuredly would have NOT been rehabbed by ODFW. Thet would have killed her immediatly.
The only harm in letting the deer stay with the ones who saved her, is to saving face for ODFW who are at present trying to justify their actions.

These people should have taken her to the authorities when they found her. She needed help. If someone else did this and the animal died it would be a different story. As it happens (lucky for her) she lived. This family who is "taking" care of her let the poor animal BREED!?! One, if this animal is in a fenced area how did it breed without the help of it's captors. Two, why would they let the poor thing gain all that pregnancy weight on it's bad feet? or possibly give birth to a deformed offspring? If they had done the right thing years ago no one would be suffering.

Hey Sandy-
Obviously you have no compassion or love for anything. God's creatures taken care of by us is in my opinion SPECIAL.
Get a grip!

Hey Walter, if you want people to get your point, try to not use the whole dictionary at once. Besides, this is about a crippled animal that was being cared for by a caring family. IT DIDN'T sit at the dinner table! I do believe Fish & Game would have put the deer down but when someone's offering a second chance and the animal lives, no harm done.

As humans, our society has become so regimented that we'd never be able to fill the Ark with animals, even if God told us we must, to save the animal kingdom from certain death in the flood.

Noah would have been arrested and fined in today's world. The Mollala couple did the right thing; the State was wrong. It should issue them a special license as an animal sanctuary for Snowball and Bucky.

God expects individuals to care for helpless creatures in the animal kingdom. He didn't give the instruction to only a King or bureaucracy.

I am thankful so many Oregonians have good hearts and common sense.

Dona, Silverton

While I'm very sad for Snowball's adopted family, a line has to be drawn somewhere concerning animal welfare laws. This family should have turned the deer over to USFW from the start, where she could have been properly cared for by those who have been trained to handle such animals. This family seems to have done a good job in raising her, but it seems like this case is an exception. We can't have just anyone taking in wild animals because they feel they are qualified simply by having the compassion to do so. It would be nice if in this case the USFW service could make an exception and let the family remain guardians for Snowball, but how could they do this and effectively retain the integrity and intent of the law?

I don't know the whole circumstances that brought all of this on that family, but it sounds to me like it ended up being some jealous neighbor or something along them lines. Personally, I think people should mind their own business unless of course there is a substantial reason for them to be turned in, such as they were living in very poor standards, or being abused in any way, which is obviously not the case. My only hope is that Snowball gets returned to the family, and wherever Bucky ends up, I hope he can make it on his own. I am also glad that uthanization was taken off of the table right away.

Poor Lucky. Like duh.....why would anyone think he would have made it? Feel good about sentencing the poor guy to death?

Snowball: Neuter her son. Let them both stay with their owners who cared so much for them.

Are these no brainers? Too much brainers for government workers?

To all,

My wife and I have been involved actively as Wildlife Rehabilitators for the past five years. It all began when I found an orphaned raccoon baby in my warehouse and brought it home to my wife for her to take care of. As she made calls for help in caring for this, she discovered that it was illegal for us to have the animal, so we turned it over to a local rehabilitator and it was later released back into the wild. My wife became a volunteer, a much needed service in wildlife rehabilitation, for this rehabilitator, which eventually led to her acquiring her own license.

As someone who has found a very special place in my heart for each animal that we have rehabilitated and released back into the wild, and have endured many situations where we have euthanizied animals that were not releasable, I can definitely see both sides of the coin here.

I am truly grateful for all the people who have taken time to help the injured and/or orphaned wildlife and have also been finacially supportive to assist in the care of this animal. My wife and I have developed many relationships with these concerned individuals as they have followed up on the care of the animals. One of our favorites is to take a picture of our releases and send them to our newly found friends so that they can experience the same satisfaction as we do, knowing that they have played a very important role in the 'balance' of nature. I place the word balance in quotes because, due to the over development of land in this area and overpopulation of 'urban thinking'people who have no tolerance for suburban encounters with wildlife, greatly interferes with the natural balance in nature.

This does, however, place a large responsibility on local Fish and Wildlife agencies to protect both the people and the animals involved in these situations.

I would encourage anyone who finds an injured and/or orphaned wildlife to attempt to contact these departments for the location of licensed and knowledgable rehabilitators who, for the most part, do this voluntarily, with little to no assistance financially from the states that they provide this service to.

Also, my hat is off to the ODFW for their cooperation with these families, as my wife and I recently had our cages forced open by a local Conservation officer and all of our animals seized, three of them having been destroyed, and the others relocated to another location for 'observation' due to the mishandling of my wifes license renewal paperwork, which put us under jepardy of not being licensed. We did not find out about this until the following day when I went to care for them in the morning before I went to work.

Though this particular Conservation Officer is known to be unsupportive of the rehabilitators under his jurisdiction, for the most part, we have found many of the Conservation Officers to be concerned and cooperative, as is the case with the ODFW.

However, what would be a tragedy would be for a precident to be established in these situations that would cause anyone to feel that they are justified in attempting the care of a wild animal, which for the most part end up in cages for the rest of their lives, frustrated by not being able to carry out their natural instincts. Granted, I have seen some very nice cages, but still, no cage can replace the natural habitat for these animals.

Thanks for your time in reading this lengthy post.