Chicken alerts Wisconsin couple to house fire
MILWAUKEE — A Wisconsin couple said on Friday that they escaped a house fire, thanks to their Chicken Little.
Dennis Murawska, 59, said a pet chicken named Cluck Cluck woke his wife, Susan Cotey, 52, with loud — you guessed it — clucks from her cage in the basement about 6:15 a.m. Thursday.
Murawska said he had been half awake but did not know about the fire because the smoke alarms had not sounded. He realized something was wrong when his wife got up.
“The chicken gets quite vocal when she gets excited,” he said.
Cluck Cluck came from a nearby farm in Alma Center, about 135 miles east of Minneapolis, Murawska said. When the chicken began wandering over to his house, his neighbor said he could kill her because she was not producing any eggs.
Murawska felt sorry for Cluck Cluck because she has a mutated foot. He decided to keep her and built a coop; his wife let Cluck Cluck into the basement on cold nights.
“I spent way more money than I ever should've,” Murawska said by telephone. “I guess it paid off.”
The couple escaped the flames, and firefighters found the chicken in her cage and one of their two cats alive in the basement. The other cat is presumed dead, Murawska said.
Alma Center fire Chief Jeff Gaede said the blaze started in the attic of the attached garage and was not suspicious.
The house was a total loss, but it could have been worse — if not for the chicken.
“We are used to hearing about a dog or cat or something, but we never heard of a chicken waking up a resident for a fire,” Gaede said. “That's pretty amazing.”
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.