More complete stupidity from the Feds-Woman fined for helping bird

riverrat10k · Aug 2, 2011

Why are we funding the Federal Governmnet? They are not our friends.

"But two weeks later, that same woman from the Department of Fish and Wildlife showed up at the Capo's front door. This time, Capo says she was accompanied by a state trooper. Alison Capo was cited for unlawfully taking a migratory bird and now she's been slapped with a $535 fine.

9NEWS NOW has tried repeatedly to contact the Department of Fish and Wildlife. So far, they have not returned any of our calls. If convicted, Capo could face up to a year behind bars."

http://wusa9.com/news/article/161065/158/Woodpecker-Saving-Daughter-Costs-Mom-500

Also, ran across this the other day. Ominously sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqoGORXAv2o&feature=player_embedded

thebigsd · Aug 2, 2011

Wow, can things get any more ridiculous? A little girl helping a bird and her mom gets fined. This os a bad as those stories of kids lemonade stands getting shut down because they didn't have $500 permits. I hope there is enough public outrage that her charge gets dropped.

Good video, btw

MKEgal · Aug 2, 2011

If the woman hadn't given her name to the "nervous, shaking" woman with a badge who happened to be shopping at the same store, she couldn't have gotten a ticket, even in error.
(Or perhaps she was coerced into giving info when she called to say that the bird had been released.)

And getting a letter explaining the error doesn't do much good - I'd want confirmation from both the dep't & the court that it had been cancelled, there was no fine due, I didn't have to appear in court, there are no charges pending, etc.

I think it's hilarious, in a sad way, that the "nervous, shaking" F&W employee felt the need to have a VSP officer with her to hand over a ticket.

1245A Defender · Aug 2, 2011

Wow!!!

the good lady could have told the wildlife lady that she stood by and watched as her cat swallowed the poor helpless bird!!!
no law would be broken..
instead she saved to bird, to live another day, no harm? no foul?!?!

she was ticketed for TAKING a bird,,, that means killing!!!
she didnt TAKE the bird!!! she saved it!

Venator · Aug 2, 2011

Nothing to see here it was just a clerical error....ya right.

On June 13, a special agent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service observed a woman carrying a cage that contained a woodpecker at a home improvement store in Fredericksburg Virg.

As possession of a bird may potentially violate the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the agent initiated an inquiry to determine whether a potential violation had occurred.

Upon speaking with the subject, later identified as Alison Capo, on June 27, the agent determined that no further action was warranted. A citation that had been previously drafted by the agent was cancelled on June 28.

Unfortunately, the citation was processed unintentionally despite our office's request to cancel the ticket. The Service has contacted Ms. Capo to express our regret. The Service is also sending Ms. Capo a formal letter explain the clerical error and confirming that ticket should never have been issued.

This misunderstanding was the result of a Service inquiry into possible violations of federal wildlife law. In particular the Service is responsible for the protection of all federally listed migratory birds. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries did not participate in the inquiry."

riverrat10k · Aug 2, 2011

Nice find Venator.

Technology is just amazing. The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife issues a ticket, and the internet makes it go away!

Hey! My next post will be number 1000!

sudden valley gunner · Aug 2, 2011

riverrat10k said:
Nice find Venator.

Technology is just amazing. The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife issues a ticket, and the internet makes it go away!

Hey! My next post will be number 1000!

I was going to say something similar. Their statement means to me, we were going to try to wring as much money out of the public with horrible enforced prosecution, but somehow when it became public knowledge we decided to change our tactic.

Citizen · Aug 2, 2011

1245A Defender said:
SNIP...the good lady could have told the wildlife lady that she stood by and watched as her cat swallowed the poor helpless bird!!!
no law would be broken...

Oh, no. You see, we have to understand the thug mentality of government employees.

If her cat had eaten the bird, the thugs would get a warrant to search the house, seize every pet (because any given pet might have shared in the contraband meal), then kill the pets and cut them open to secure the evidence.

Then fined her $1000's for letting her pet(s) kill a protected species, and for trying to dispose of the evidence (letting the pet eat the bird). And the underlying reason for this vicious prosecution would be the thug would view the report about the pet eating the bird as a taunt that the evidence of the crime had been disposed.

That's how these Stalinist thugs think.

JoeSparky · Aug 3, 2011

JTHunter said:
Does this boil down to yet another case of a "government agent" over-stepping their authority?

I think it boils down to a Federal Bureaucrat with a feeling of OMNIPOTENCE who decided to attempt to prosecute someone for a "technical" violation and failing to see the BIG picture that bird's life was spared and the bird released! Basically, IMO, once her co-workers found out what she had done they teased her and laughed at her much like the co-workers of the DEA agent who was the "ONLY ONE SMART ENOUGH TO HANDLE A FIREARM" and then he shot himself in the foot!

jbone · Aug 3, 2011

MKEgal said:
Snip...And getting a letter explaining the error doesn't do much good...

Sure it will, it''ll make a nice conversation piece on her jail cell wall.

since9 · Aug 5, 2011

Lesson learned: The next time you see an animal in need, pretend you didn't see it and let it suffer whatever fate it would have suffered if you hadn't been there to intervene.

My concern is why our government has organized itself in such a way that these are the sorts of lessons it's structure seems hell-bent on teaching.

JoeSparky · Aug 5, 2011

since9 said:
Lesson learned: The next time you see an animal in need, pretend you didn't see it and let it suffer whatever fate it would have suffered if you hadn't been there to intervene.

My concern is why our government has organized itself in such a way that these are the sorts of lessons it's structure seems hell-bent on teaching.

And THEN they complain about the lack of VOLUNTEERISM! (continued SARCASM)!

DWCook · Aug 5, 2011

lady helps bird out.....then releases it. Then gets a fine! Wow I would love to ask face to face questions to these people, even though the only time they come around is when they have a LEO backing them up.

okboomer · Aug 6, 2011

Even if they issue her a citation, she can still contest it and go in front of the judge to plead her case ... sounds like she has a good case of 'where's the common sense' :banghead:

SouthernBoy · Aug 6, 2011

There was a time, according to a law professor I had in college, that parents were not responsible for the torts of their children. Clearly that concept died many years ago.

donny · Aug 6, 2011

"The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes"

http://tinyurl.com/3txrmqe

SouthernBoy · Aug 6, 2011

donny said:
"The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes"

http://tinyurl.com/3txrmqe

Truly a sad state of affairs.

jbone · Aug 6, 2011

SouthernBoy said:
There was a time, according to a law professor I had in college, that parents were not responsible for the torts of their children. Clearly that concept died many years ago.

Not defending the obsolete despicable course of action taken by the feds here, but wasn't the mother (not the kid) the one in possession of the pecker when viewed by the officer.

SouthernBoy · Aug 6, 2011

jbone said:
Not defending the obsolete despicable course of action taken by the feds here, but wasn't the mother (not the kid) the one in possession of the pecker when viewed by the officer.

Now that's a funny post. Had me laughing.

JoeSparky · Aug 6, 2011

jbone said:
Not defending the obsolete despicable course of action taken by the feds here, but wasn't the mother (not the kid) the one in possession of the pecker when viewed by the officer.

BUT it was a BABY pecker!

More complete stupidity from the Feds-Woman fined for helping bird

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Centurion

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Centurion

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion