Clarification sought on parakeet order from Youngwood
The long-awaited homecoming for Gizmo, the banned monk parakeet seized from Youngwood, will have to wait until at least later this week.
Lawyers are expected to appear before Westmoreland County Judge Gary Caruso on Monday to ask that he clarify an order issued earlier this month that directed the 27-year-old bird be returned to its owner, Faith Good of Youngwood.
Good, 63, pleaded guilty last year to several summary offenses and was fined $500 for having illegal birds, including Gizmo, in her home.
Gizmo was confiscated by the game commission and is living in a state-run menagerie in an undisclosed location, where he has been held since last March.
“We're having trouble enforcing the order. We cannot enforce the order as it is written. The game commission needs clarification. We fully intend to comply with the order,” said Assistant District Attorney Kelly Hammers.
On Friday, Hammers filed a court document officially asking Caruso to amend his order that will allow the bird to be reunited with its owner.
Last week, Caruso ruled that, although the bird was contraband, the former family pet should be returned to Good.
Game officials in Pennsylvania said monk parakeets cannot be housed by private owners because the birds are agricultural pests that could ruin crops and cause power outages by building nests on electrical lines.
Caruso did not overrule the game commission's contention that it was illegal for Good to own Gizmo.
But he ruled that the bird should be returned to Good because she purchased the bird as a family pet two decades ago and did not know it was a species that was prohibited for private ownership.
The judge ordered that Gizmo must be kept indoors, must remain in Good's possession and could not be mated.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writerfor Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.