# Why did the DNR kill this deer?



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Why did the DNR kill this deer?
Shooting outrages family that nursed fawn back to life

A happy story ended this spring when the deer named Trillium was shot at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources' Gaylord service center. It had been impounded by DNR biologists.

Glen Matthews, who, with fellow biologist Brian Mastenbrook, impounded the deer March 17 (the day it was shot), said Friday he regrets the deer was killed before more information had been obtained, but that he was following DNR protocol. Mastenbrook did not return Detroit News calls, nor did the DNR respond to a series of Detroit News questions.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060612/METRO/606120389


----------



## lakergrad (Aug 2, 2002)

I read this story this morning. Even considering that this is going to be tainted as a media event, the story does provide yet another example of poor DNR protocol. I'm a hunter and I've killed my share of deer over the years. BUT, this one strikes at my heart too. There's a right way and a wrong way of following policies that may have a controversial ending. In a case like this, the animal apparently suffered a couple of agonzing hours prior to meeting its end. 

This is yet another example of DNR actions gone wrong!

Patrick


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

A no win for the DNR here if the deer was found to be infected with something from a game ranch there would be outrage as well that the animal as not setroyed immediately. Sorry DNR you will never win with some of this state.

AW


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Adam Waszak said:


> A no win for the DNR here if the deer was found to be infected with something from a game ranch there would be outrage as well that the animal as not setroyed immediately. Sorry DNR you will never win with some of this state.
> 
> AW


You are exactly right Adam as to the public's opinion.

In my opinion they did exactly the right thing. Been there, done that many times. One of my biggest pet peeves where people removing wild animals from the wild. If possible at all, after the animal was removed, taken away and destroyed, they would be ticketed. Don't know if the people that had the deer were criminally charged but if not, they should have been! Those people are the ones that killed that deer by removing it from the environment it was suppose to live in. I support the policy of destroying animals taken from the wild and kept by people 110%!


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

New policy introduced to protect injured deer
Shooting death of 2-year-old whitetail is impetus for change

T he Michigan Department of Natural Resources has adopted a new policy designed to prevent a rehabilitated deer from being "euthanized," as was the case March 17 when DNR biologists shot a 2-year-old whitetail at the DNR field office in Gaylord.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060808/SPORTS08/608080311/1050/SPORTS06


----------



## walleyechaser (Jan 12, 2001)

Just read the newspaper article and what a lopsided story !
Those do gooders haven't a clue.
First, any new born fawn is gonna look pretty shakey foe awhile after birth.
The fact that it was found that early in life might lead me to wonder if they weren't out looking for a fawn to "RESCUE"!
Secondly, they violated the law by removing the fawn from the wild. They sould have been prosecuted for that !
How did they know the fawn was birthed by the dead doe they found ?
Bottom Line is they caused the deer to be killed by their selfish actions, not the DNR as the article would lead one to think !
If any DNR changes were forthcoming it should have been mandatory prosecution and restitution.
The DNR has a responsibility to prevent and control disease. They had no other option!
Just my rant !:rant:


----------

