By now, we’ve all heard about P’nut and Fred and, yes, the actions of the authorities appear absolutely brutal — effectively losing the respect of people throughout the world. (No small feat for a governmental agency that, typically, operates in the background.)
The finger-pointing is well underway and unlikely to stop anytime soon.
What right, after all, does the government have to confiscate and then to kill an innocent animal? Suddenly, the accusations of those warning of endless government overreach can’t be accused of doing so without merit: and evil, wickedness, deception, cruelty seem to be the accepted ‘norm’.
So, what happened? Why were these two ‘wild’ animals — one of which was with their adopted family for over 7 years — targeted? Who reported them and for what?
Here are the rules for becoming a licensed wildlife rehabber in New York.
Rarely do issues like this come to bear — but there are extenuating circumstances at every turn in the stories of P’nut and Fred.
How did they come to be in the hands of Longo and his wife? What elevated them to come to the attention of state officials? Who reported them and why? What ‘decisions’ were made — and by whom — to bring about the situation where murdering them seemed the likeliest outcome?
Was there the slightest doubt that the ‘caregivers’ in this case would not bring their case before the world? In fact, if ever there was a ‘case’ to be made for rescinding the powers of government officials in the interest of preventing cruelty, this one would certainly qualify.
No one is likely to forget the mistreatment of P’nut and Fred anytime soon. The lawsuit that is certain to follow will cost the State of New York a great deal of time, energy and funds in an attempt to defend what the public is primed to see as ‘indefensible’ — one that saw helpless animals mercilessly destroyed at the hands of ineffective and even inept leadership.
Who, after all, what qualified individual would make such an abrupt and wrongheaded decision? Reportedly, P’nut bit one of the ‘investigators’. Did this ‘investigator’ actually fail to wear gloves as they went into a home, uninvited and without the caretakers present, to capture the ‘wildlife’ in question?
It almost sounds like a joke. Unfortunately, if it is true and did occur this way — instead, as many suspect, these ‘authorities’ were simply in need of an excuse for having prematurely destroyed both P’nut and Fred before anyone could question their actions — then some proof must be required to ascertain exactly what happened to these animals.
These people are (supposedly) trained investigators. Surely they would have ‘evidence’ to substantiate their claims of suspected rabies — and of wrongdoing on the part of P’nut — not to mention Fred?
And for what reason was Fred destroyed?
The more one looks at this incident, the more questions arise.
Perhaps as the case wends its way through the courts, those questions will be answered. In the meantime: Anyone ‘caring for’ wildlife should make sure to discover and abide by the laws pertaining to ‘their neck of the woods’ and suitable, protective housing (to prevent bites) for such critters should be provided.
More Stories
Do Animals Actually ‘Rescue’ People? See for yourself.
The NO KILL Solution to Animal Overpopulation
Adopting the Wild Ones