When I read the news story “Getting back Gizmo: Owner of Youngwood parakeet sues state” (Sept. 10 and TribLIVE.com), I was saddened. Now, I am angry, too.
I understand that Monk parakeets are prohibited because they are a threat to native species and the environment. But what were the chances the bird could breed in captivity in a cage?
The fact that the parakeet was a beloved pet for 26 years should have some weight in allowing its owner, Faith Good, to keep the bird as long as he lives. She more than proved she was a responsible pet owner, as the bird never escaped during her ownership.
The Game Commission is abusing its power and being a heartless tyrant. The bird, Gizmo, can talk. I am sure he has a new word in his vocabulary: “Meanies, meanies” — that's what those who seized him are. Shame on them for being so cruel.
I hope this woman gets Gizmo back. Apparently, birds have more feelings than the Game Commission.
Show commenting policy
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 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.