You guys hear about this? If it's accurate, it seems an extremely ridiculous reaction by the IN DNR. Can't Scott and Cecil make a call or something on behalf of this poor couple?

Jeff and Jennifer Counceller thought were doing the right thing when they saved the life of an injured baby deer they found near their home in Indiana. But because they didn't have a permit, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is prosecuting them and they could face up to 60 days in prison. The DNR should drop these charges now.

When they found the fawn on a neighbor’s porch in 2010, she was badly injured with puncture wounds that were infected and had maggots in them. Jennifer, a registered nurse and wound caretaker for the couple’s dogs and horses took the deer home and named it Dani and began nursing the deer back to health.

When they called the DNR they were told to return the deer to the wild and let nature take it’s course. That would have been a death sentence for the deer. Instead, they tried to find Dani a home at animal rescue operations, petting zoos and deer farms, but no one would take her. The Counceller's decided to keep caring for the deer until it was strong enough to make it on it’s own in the wild.

This past summer the DNR started an investigation into the situation and a DNR official recommended they get a permit to rehabilitate Dani. The DNR then denied the permit application and then said the deer would have to killed.

Just before DNR officials arrived at the Counceller's house to kill Dani she escaped through a gate that was left open. Now, the DNR has assigned a special prosecutor to the case and they're charging both Jeff and Jennifer with illegal possession of a white-tailed deer.

Jeff is a police officer and Jennifer is a nurse - these are good people who were just trying to the right thing by saving an injured animal. They don't deserve to go to jail and the DNR should drop all charges against them.

We're asking that you sign the petition and also join the fight on our facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/connersvillecharges

Didn't hear about this. Sounds like someone is going way overboard with enforcement.

Here's hoping they get a more open minded judge than the enforcement division.

Your state tax dollars at work! Brilliant.

I heard about this. It's kinda like jailing the California guy for collecting rain water.

Typical over enforcement of ridiculous laws while child molesters walk the street damn near freely..

I heard this on the news some time ago. "Stupid is as stupid does." It takes an individual or several individuals with no common sense to enforce rules that make no sense in a perticular case, but unfortunately common sense no longer seems to be common.

No common sense by the DNR. If they would have humanley "put the deer down" they probably would charge them with poaching. I have met some good DNR officers, but there are some always some in every group....

The Indiana DNR personel that I have met have all been great. I am hopeful that this will not proceed. I understand the need to start with trying to get the deer to an aproved wildlife rehabilitator, but if this fails, there should be some flexibility to find the next best option. If someone wants to try to help and they are not causing undue suffering by the animal (or other distructive action), it is misguided to prevent this. If folks would consider the objective of the law and then see if a particular prosecution of a case achieves this, then all this silliness would disappear. It should be criminal to punish well-meaning folks that are not causing harm to others. The DNR should be asking who they are protecting and what good will come from their actions?

I believe that mistakes were made on both sides. When this type of wounded animal situation happens in my part of Indiana, it doesn't make the evening news, or the hometown newspaper. It's not even fodder for discussion around the "regulars" table during breakfast at the restaurant.

I suppose that growing up in the fields and the woods may have afforded me a different perspective. Nature is non-discriminatory in this manner. She doesn't always differentiate, and the young, cuddly,and cute die right alongside older, infirmed animals.

Most folks I know just accept it as fact and go on. The three "S's" aren't always applied against troublesome animals....sometimes, it can be a matter of compassion, and ending suffering.

This is another case of trial by the media. I'm taking the other side of the courtroom - I think they should be fined and not let the law be selectively enforced. I don't believe that the infraction is severe enough to warrant the book being thrown at them tho. The guy is a police officer - I wonder if some professional misconduct charges are in order since the man is a sworn LEO and knew he was breaking the law. There's more to the story than what was in what TJ was able to find in that article.

I can see rehabbing the deer until it's healthy to survive on it's own, but to keep it for 2 years? If it was healthy enough to magically "escape" into the wild, why wasn't it set free earlier? There are rehab people in the state. I wonder how hard they tried to find one? A friends wife works for a vet, and was able to get a permit to keep a deer that was brought to them because it was injured.

They did get a warning. They were told keeping the deer was illeagal without FIRST having the proper rehab license. They applied for a permit to keep the deer as a pet after the fact and were denied. As a part of their warning they had to turn the deer over to the DNR. Fast forward 2 years. For some reason the DNR found out that they still had the deer. When the DNR came to pick uo the deer, it had "escaped". There is where the chargesd came in. They didn't comply with the deal, so got got charges.

My question is if the deer was healthy enough to "escape" why wasn't it set free earlier?

Here's an update:

From Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Phil Bloom, a spokesperson with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, issued this news release shortly after noon today:

"The Department of Natural Resources today will ask that the charges be dismissed against a Connersville couple for illegal taking of a deer.

"After reviewing the matter, Gov. Mike Pence asked the DNR to reevaluate the case. As a result of the governor’s request, the DNR has re-examined the case and is seeking dismissal of the charges.

"The case involves a Connersville couple – Jeff and Jennifer Counceller – who took in a fawn deer in 2010 they said was injured. The couple was told at that time by an Indiana Conservation Officer from the DNR that it is illegal to possess a wild animal without a permit and the best option was to return the fawn to a wooded location.

"They did not, and last summer they were found to still have the deer but no DNR permit authorizing them to possess it.


"The case was turned over to the Fayette County prosecutor."

From the Fayette County Prosecutor:
“This matter is still a pending prosecution, so we are limited on what we are able to discuss pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The allegations in this care are that Mr. and Mrs. Counceller kept a deer in captivity for 23 months, violating Indiana Code 14-22-38-4, which states that unlawful possession of deer is a class C misdemeanor. We hope that the Department of Natural Resources and the Indiana legislature will take this opportunity to review that statue and decide if matters like these allegations should be handled as crimes or infractions in the future.”

I fell for the media account. I should know better. Deer should have been released a year and a half earlier.

Ditto, Scott.

There are at least two sides to every story.

Thank you esshup for providing the other side of the story.

Too bad this article wasn't written objectively...guess I'll believe 99% of the media spin from this point forward.

Yep...that's why I was wondering what the fuss was all about. But then again, I already knew the other side of the story.

After 23 months it's no longer an injured animal....it's a pet. And that's a big no-no.

This became a 5 page thread on the Hunting Indiana forum very quickly once it hit the news. The media has a tremendous amount of power in this social media age, and it all is dependant on what side they focus on. I really believe that today's media is no longer an "objective" media, telling both sides of a story equally.

Well, that's why I posted this, as I figured some of you IN natives might know what is going on. I get these change.org emails and it's typically about someone somewhere being victimized. It's a pretty liberal organization, and leans heavily towards a subjective viewpoint.

I don't believe anything I read on the internet.

Unless Bill Cody wrote it.

Or Abraham Lincoln. :-)

I really have a gripe against no tolerance laws that don't allow the people involved administering justice the ability to access the situation depending on the circumstances. Case in point: There is a no tolerance law regarding firearms on school campuses here in Indiana. At the local high school a couple of boys had gone deer hunting one morning before school and drove right to school not thinking much of it. Apparently someone spotted the shotguns in their vehicles and and they were suspended for a year and not allowed to graduate with their class. Otherwise good kids just weren't thinking.

To me something is wrong with a law that severely punishes noncriminals and has no effectiveness whatsoever when it comes to preventing the very thing it chooses to prevent. Do you think the idiot at Newtown could have cared less there is a no tolerance law regarding firearms on campus? Or the idiot in the Virginia Tech shootings and so on?

Now a kid irresponsibly bringing a gun to school would be a difference story but in the above case I think common sense should have been allowed.

No law is "no tolerance". The state's attorney or in my state, the commonwealth's attorney has the power to drop any charge on a dime.

I know they've been running no tolerance campaign on not wearing seatbelts, but I wouldn't say the law is actually no tolerance..

Obviously you don't live in Indiana. Moving here from Massachusetts years ago was an education. However there are a lot of good things about this state vs. Mass.

The real mistake made by the IN couple was to challenge the DNR's power. Buearocratic power is to be protected at all costs. How much did all this cost the State and how much more wasted dollars on a prosecution. Oh - also what is the cost of incarceration to the taxpayers. How many poachers are lurking out there , how many road hunters and carcass dumpers ? A little common sense early on would have avoided the entire mess.

As Fred Thompson sez "Why do they call it common sense when it's so uncommon?".

Actually Dave it's, “Why do they call it ‘common sense’ when it’s so rare?” and George Carlin the comedian first said it.

Update: (taken from the Hunting Indiana forum)

This article came out yesterday. (click link) It is a much more detailed story that makes the distinction that this was a two year old deer (that had not been released), not a cute little brown eyed fawn as depicted in all the photo's and the media massacre that the DNR was exposed to. I agree that too much has been made over this, but our DNR is not to blame for the actions of the Councellors or the manipulation of the circumstances by the media.

You will note that the Coundellors who had jumped at every chance to be in front of a camera or be quoted in a news article were "not available" for this reporters questions.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-new....eer-rescue-case

Charges were dropped late Friday against an Indiana police officer and his wife in the “Bambigate” case, a moniker for the case of the Connersville, Ind., couple charged with illegally possessing a fawn they found and raised back to health in 2010.

Jeff Counceller, a Connersville, Ind., police officer, and his wife, Jennifer, faced a $500 fine and up to six months in jail had they been convicted of the Class C misdemeanor crime of unlawfully taking or possessing wildlife without a license or permit, according to Plil Bloom, Communications Director for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

The case garnered national attention earlier this year, and even reached the attention of Gov. Mike Pence a few weeks after he entered office. The Councellers have been portrayed as Good Samaritans and the DNR as over-reaching villains wanting to punish a good, caring couple for simply helping an injured fawn.

Thousands have been outraged by what most see as the DNR vilifying the well-intentioned couple for nursing a sick or injured fawn back to health, and they have come to the couple's defense. A Facebook page received more than 32,000 likes in a matter of a few days; an online petition netted more than 150,000 signatures; and a legal defense fund raised more than $2,600 to pay the couple’s legal fees in defending against the charges.

However, the case isn’t as clear-cut as most of the Counceller’s supporters and the public may believe.

According to court documents, the couple intentionally broke the law

According to the charges and case report filed by Indiana Conservation Officer Travis Wooley, the Councellers found an injured fawn they named “Dani” in mid-2010 and, despite being told not to, kept it for two years.

“Jeff Counceller contacted a state conservation officer and asked permission to keep the animal, at which time Counceller was advised to put the animal back. Counceller asked the conservation officer if he could obtain a permit to keep the animal and was told he would unlikely get one,” Bloom said.

Bloom added, “Now jump forward to 2012, based on a report from a citizen that the Councellers had the deer penned up, a different conservation officer -- Travis Wooley -- started a new investigation.”

According to Bloom, Wooley’s investigation established that the Councellers, despite being told in 2010 they could not keep the deer, had in fact done just that. “When Wooley went back to take possession of the deer, it had mysteriously disappeared – the gate was open,” said Bloom.

“Mr. Counceller admitted to the conservation officer he had kept the deer and was planning to release it when it became big enough,” Bloom said.

At that point, according to Bloom and court documents of Nov. 29, 2012 the case was submitted to a special prosecutor in a neighboring county due to Counceller being a police officer.

According to the special prosecutor's report obtained by this writer, “From July 2010 until June 2012, Jeff Counceller possessed a deer by keeping a deer on the property of his residence.” The report also included an offer that if Counceller agreed not to commit any crime for six months and pay a fine of $270 the case would be dismissed. Counceller never responded to the offer according to the report.

The couple’s actions could have jeopardized the public’s health and safety

Bloom said, “Mr. Counceller claims he had nowhere to take the fawn when he found it. This is simply not true,” referring to on easily accessible online list of state-licensed wildlife rehabilitators.

A review of the list, confirmed by Bloom, indicates there was a licensed rehabilitator in a neighboring county less than an hour’s drive from Councellor’s home.

That rehabilitator, John Wiggins from Greensburg who has 33 years experience said, “At the most I am only 45 minutes away from Connersville, and people over there know I’m here. I have gotten several calls and animals from Connersville residents.

“I have never known anyone who intended to release a deer they raised keep it for two years. At the most as a rehabilitator I keep them between three-six months,” Wiggins said.

“We run into this problem all the time; people becoming attached to wildlife they raise and trying to make pets out of them. It’s a big problem,” Wiggins said.

According to Wiggins, the way in which the deer was kept and possibly raised has caused the deer to associate people and possibly domestic animals with food, a process called “imprinting.”

He said, “a deer’s brain is about the size of a golf ball, therefore, deer easily associate food with people if they aren’t raised properly.”

“Any wild animal that has been improperly raised and imprinted on people has little chance of surviving in the wild. They can also become nuisance wildlife and with deer, especially males this can be dangerous to the public,” Wiggins added.

Wiggins said “from what I know about the way that deer was kept for two years, I give it at most a 30 percent chance of surviving in the wild.”

Cindy Calloway of Royal Center, Ind., who has rehabilitated wildlife for more than 25 years said, “People that attempt to raise or treat wildlife can cause the animal a lot of problems.” Calloway pointed to feeding the animal the improper food or formula, the wrong amount and even how it is given can “negatively affect the animal’s health and development.”

Both Wiggins and Calloway agree in this instance, the most significant problem and risk to both public safety and the deer is imprinting. Both say is has occured in this case.

Calloway said several years ago an adult male deer that that was raised and kept for an extended period of time by a non-rehabilitator was released in the Ttippecanoe River State Park in Winamac, Ind., and injured several people.

The charges against the couple were dropped after prosecutors received a letter from the DNR which Bloom said included the following passage: “(T)he statute in question accurately reflects the concerns of the public health and risk of bringing wild animals into captivity, and the conservation officer acted properly in bringing charges, (but) the costs associated with the prosecution did not further the interests of Indiana citizens."

Neither Jeff nor Jennifer Counceller could be reached for comment.