Fox rescued, kept as "pet", then euthanized...

[SpokaneCY]

I'm against taking wild animals and making them pets, but this story has a different feel... Long story short, lady found injured baby fox (a kit?) then took it home and nursed it back to health. Animal was fed, vaccinated, treated with love blahblahblah... Someone turned her in, so animal control took showed up, took the animal - and killed it...

Their reasoning - the fox had been kept for over 2 years thus they deemed it was unable to live in the wild. So they put it to death. Love free or die I guess... The animal control head said wild animals are not meant to live in captivity which I basically agree with. But now I'm confused by zoos.

https://krdo.com/news/2020/08/02/wildlife-officials-confiscate-pet-fox-in-colorado-springs/

 

[bos]

That’s some dumb ****. Either let her keep it or release far away.

 

[CloneGuy8]

 

[mywayorcyway]

If they had released it and it were killed, why is that different than putting it down? Is there something I'm missing?

Or, you know, let the woman keep it who had been taking care of it.

(I have read the smell of fox urine is enough to make no one ever want one as a pet, but if she was okay with it, why mess with it?)

 

[isucy86]

Not sure they wouldn't have released into the wild with hope that it would survive.

My guess is that since it was a round humans it might gravitate back toward humans.

Or it wouldn't hunt for food and would starve to death. Which wouldn't be humane.

 

[isutrevman]

That’s some dumb ****. Either let her keep it or release far away.

Yeah. "We can't release it because it probably wont survive in the wild. Instead we're just gonna kill it."

 

[isutrevman]

Not sure they wouldn't have released into the wild with hope that it would survive.

My guess is that since it was a round humans it might gravitate back toward humans.

Or it wouldn't hunt for food and would starve to death. Which wouldn't be humane.

Humane? Animals starve to death all the time in the wild. I mean, the life cycle for pretty much all animals ends with either being killed and eaten, or dying of thirst/starvation and the occasional disease.

 

[NorthCyd]

If they had released it and it were killed, why is that different than putting it down? Is there something I'm missing?

Or, you know, let the woman keep it who had been taking care of it.

(I have read the smell of fox urine is enough to make no one ever want one as a pet, but if she was okay with it, why mess with it?)

You think there is no difference between an animal starving to death vs going to sleep and never waking up? And the law is the law. You cant selectively apply it and allow someone who broke the law in the first place to just go ahead and keep breaking it. No zoo is going to want a fox. Its not exactly a rare animal. Spend some time outside and you will see them.

It's a fox. According to the law its legal to harvest them by trapping which is an absolutely brutal way for an animal to die. If you have a problem with this you should be losing your mind over that.

This does remind me of a Dennis Leary bit.