Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
""(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed to the teeth," Schulze said.Apparently you didn't read the article, the sheriff's department actually defended using the SWAT team.
Want to try again?"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.
Four deputy sheriffs is a swat team?
What the worker said, which is exactly what I repeated.
""It was like a SWAT team," shelter employee Ray Schulze said."
Tell me again where the article said the SWAT team was involved? Do you know what a SWAT team is?
My ex brother in law was on the Sheriff swat team, and they would show up with more than four guys.
Which is why they have places for deer, that have permits. And they had two weeks to take the deer to one of these places.
Yes, and they found one, and they killed the deer anyway.
Why didn't they send it to one in those two weeks. Especially when they are only a cat and dog shelter, and would know they needed a permit to take a deer?
Do you know what the safety practices are for this shelter?
I assume they have a veterinarian on staff, feel free to prove me wrong.
You assume... You prove your assumptions and claims, not me.
Once again, what are their safety practices? And having a vet I am guessing wouldn't be the only part of Safety measures, just guessing.
Oh! And yeah! The deer wasn't killed at the sight. I wonder why it was later killed? Hmmm
"Schulze said the employees assumed the deer was dead, but they learned by watching the news that the deer had only been sedated and was later put to death."
Baby Deer, 'Giggles,' Killed After Raid On St. Francis Society Animal Shelter
"search warrant for the raid, obtained by The Huffington Post, lists a Wisconsin state law forbidding the possession of wildlife without proper permits as the reason for the raid. The warrant says the Department of Natural Resources had received two anonymous tips that the St. Francis shelter had a wild deer on its premises and that one of the callers said the shelter's staff would attempt to hide the animal if agents came to seize the it, according to the warrant."
"On its Facebook page, the department notes that its agents requested voluntary compliance from the shelter's employees, and when that didn't happen, its staff "took precautions to keep everyone safe" as they executed"
And the state gives you 24 hrs. Like I asked before, why didn't she transfer it?
"On its Facebook page, the department notes that its agents requested voluntary compliance from the shelter's employees, and when that didn't happen, its staff "took precautions to keep everyone safe" as they executed"
This is all from the link I posted before.
The woman had 24 hrs to follow state law, the volunteers did not cooperate according to DNR. And there is no mention that Cindy is a vet or that one is on site.
Next time QW, do your homework. The lady sounds like an idiot who has had a few problems in the past.
But yes it is the DNRs fault this lady who operates a shelter didn't follow state law.
Oh! And yeah! The deer wasn't killed at the sight. I wonder why it was later killed? Hmmm
"Schulze said the employees assumed the deer was dead, but they learned by watching the news that the deer had only been sedated and was later put to death."
Baby Deer, 'Giggles,' Killed After Raid On St. Francis Society Animal Shelter
No one ever said the deer was killed there, what they said was the deer was killed. The state admitted that up front, and said it was because the law required them to kill the deer without checking to see if it was diseased.
Next idiotic question in 5, 4...
"search warrant for the raid, obtained by The Huffington Post, lists a Wisconsin state law forbidding the possession of wildlife without proper permits as the reason for the raid. The warrant says the Department of Natural Resources had received two anonymous tips that the St. Francis shelter had a wild deer on its premises and that one of the callers said the shelter's staff would attempt to hide the animal if agents came to seize the it, according to the warrant."
"On its Facebook page, the department notes that its agents requested voluntary compliance from the shelter's employees, and when that didn't happen, its staff "took precautions to keep everyone safe" as they executed"
And the state gives you 24 hrs. Like I asked before, why didn't she transfer it?
"On its Facebook page, the department notes that its agents requested voluntary compliance from the shelter's employees, and when that didn't happen, its staff "took precautions to keep everyone safe" as they executed"
This is all from the link I posted before.
The woman had 24 hrs to follow state law, the volunteers did not cooperate according to DNR. And there is no mention that Cindy is a vet or that one is on site.
Next time QW, do your homework. The lady sounds like an idiot who has had a few problems in the past.
But yes it is the DNRs fault this lady who operates a shelter didn't follow state law.
Next time? The initial story, which I posted, asked about why they didn't call, and the reporter was told they didn't have to. Now they are claiming they called after the story blew up in their faces. Interesting.
It looks to me like somebody didn't do their homework, but thanks for mindlessly defending the government.
I assume they have a veterinarian on staff, feel free to prove me wrong.
You assume... You prove your assumptions and claims, not me.
Once again, what are their safety practices? And having a vet I am guessing wouldn't be the only part of Safety measures, just guessing.
It was a licensed animal shelter in Wisconsin, that would require them to have veterinary care. Feel free to prove they were in violation of the law, I will continue to assume they were in compliance with it. Guess which will go further in court.
I assume they have a veterinarian on staff, feel free to prove me wrong.
You assume... You prove your assumptions and claims, not me.
Once again, what are their safety practices? And having a vet I am guessing wouldn't be the only part of Safety measures, just guessing.
It was a licensed animal shelter in Wisconsin, that would require them to have veterinary care. Feel free to prove they were in violation of the law, I will continue to assume they were in compliance with it. Guess which will go further in court.
Oh! And yeah! The deer wasn't killed at the sight. I wonder why it was later killed? Hmmm
"Schulze said the employees assumed the deer was dead, but they learned by watching the news that the deer had only been sedated and was later put to death."
Baby Deer, 'Giggles,' Killed After Raid On St. Francis Society Animal Shelter
No one ever said the deer was killed there, what they said was the deer was killed. The state admitted that up front, and said it was because the law required them to kill the deer without checking to see if it was diseased.
Next idiotic question in 5, 4...
Your idiotic article made it seem like it was killed there.
""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.'"
The Department of Natural Resources spoke to WISN 12 News about the fawn.
Supervisor Jennifer Niemeyer said the law requires the DNR agents to euthanize animals like Giggles because of the potential for disease and danger to humans."
Are you that much of an idiot?
"search warrant for the raid, obtained by The Huffington Post, lists a Wisconsin state law forbidding the possession of wildlife without proper permits as the reason for the raid. The warrant says the Department of Natural Resources had received two anonymous tips that the St. Francis shelter had a wild deer on its premises and that one of the callers said the shelter's staff would attempt to hide the animal if agents came to seize the it, according to the warrant."
"On its Facebook page, the department notes that its agents requested voluntary compliance from the shelter's employees, and when that didn't happen, its staff "took precautions to keep everyone safe" as they executed"
And the state gives you 24 hrs. Like I asked before, why didn't she transfer it?
"On its Facebook page, the department notes that its agents requested voluntary compliance from the shelter's employees, and when that didn't happen, its staff "took precautions to keep everyone safe" as they executed"
This is all from the link I posted before.
The woman had 24 hrs to follow state law, the volunteers did not cooperate according to DNR. And there is no mention that Cindy is a vet or that one is on site.
Next time QW, do your homework. The lady sounds like an idiot who has had a few problems in the past.
But yes it is the DNRs fault this lady who operates a shelter didn't follow state law.
Next time? The initial story, which I posted, asked about why they didn't call, and the reporter was told they didn't have to. Now they are claiming they called after the story blew up in their faces. Interesting.
It looks to me like somebody didn't do their homework, but thanks for mindlessly defending the government.
I think the person who wrote the article your posted didn't do their homework.
You assume... You prove your assumptions and claims, not me.
Once again, what are their safety practices? And having a vet I am guessing wouldn't be the only part of Safety measures, just guessing.
It was a licensed animal shelter in Wisconsin, that would require them to have veterinary care. Feel free to prove they were in violation of the law, I will continue to assume they were in compliance with it. Guess which will go further in court.
You said a vet on staff. Please prove that an animal shelter has to have a vet on staff.
It was a licensed animal shelter in Wisconsin, that would require them to have veterinary care. Feel free to prove they were in violation of the law, I will continue to assume they were in compliance with it. Guess which will go further in court.
You said a vet on staff. Please prove that an animal shelter has to have a vet on staff.
Prove they don't.
You said a vet on staff. Please prove that an animal shelter has to have a vet on staff.
Prove they don't.
I am not the one who claimed they did. I asked you what safety practices they have in place. You claimed they have a vet. It's your job not mine.
Also in the two articles I posted there was never a vet mentioned or interviewed.
Wouldn't they interview a vet if they were on staff to determine the health of an animal? If I was a journalist I probably would.
Plus if I was a vet I wouldn't risk my license violating state law, especially if the shelter I was working at was already on the radar.
So once again, prove your original claim.
So what you are saying is.....You can't prove there was a vet on staff can you?Prove they don't.
I am not the one who claimed they did. I asked you what safety practices they have in place. You claimed they have a vet. It's your job not mine.
Also in the two articles I posted there was never a vet mentioned or interviewed.
Wouldn't they interview a vet if they were on staff to determine the health of an animal? If I was a journalist I probably would.
Plus if I was a vet I wouldn't risk my license violating state law, especially if the shelter I was working at was already on the radar.
So once again, prove your original claim.
No, you want to prove me wrong.
Feel free to do so.
So what you are saying is.....You can't prove there was a vet on staff can you?I am not the one who claimed they did. I asked you what safety practices they have in place. You claimed they have a vet. It's your job not mine.
Also in the two articles I posted there was never a vet mentioned or interviewed.
Wouldn't they interview a vet if they were on staff to determine the health of an animal? If I was a journalist I probably would.
Plus if I was a vet I wouldn't risk my license violating state law, especially if the shelter I was working at was already on the radar.
So once again, prove your original claim.
No, you want to prove me wrong.
Feel free to do so.
Its okay, I couldn't either.
So what you are saying is.....You can't prove there was a vet on staff can you?No, you want to prove me wrong.
Feel free to do so.
Its okay, I couldn't either.
No, what I am saying is that Wisconsin law requires shelters to have a vet. Feel free to prove me wrong.
So what you are saying is.....You can't prove there was a vet on staff can you?
Its okay, I couldn't either.
No, what I am saying is that Wisconsin law requires shelters to have a vet. Feel free to prove me wrong.
How about you try proving Wisconsin requires then to have a vet on staff.
You made the claim, back it up.
