ShareThis Page

Youngwood woman files to reclaim monk parakeet from state

Rich Cholodofsky
| Thursday, Jan. 30, 2014, 10:49 a.m.

A Youngwood woman contends her monk parakeet, Gizmo, should be returned to her because it is too old to reproduce.

In written arguments filed on Wednesday, the attorney for Faith Good said the 27-year-old bird is a family pet, has never lived in the wild and cannot mate.

State game commission officials confiscated Gizmo last year once Good, 63, pleaded guilty to eight summary offenses of keeping illegal birds at her home.

“Petitioner's bird being a lone monk parakeet poses no threat to the Pennsylvania ecosystem as petitioner's bird will not be mating, will not be set free and petitioner has no intention of losing possession of her bird,” attorney Anthony Rosner wrote.

Gizmo's fate is up to Westmoreland County Judge Gary Caruso, who last week said he would rule soon on Good's request.

Monk parakeets are considered agricultural pests that could ruin crops and cause power outages by building nests on electrical lines, according to the game commission.

Good pleaded guilty to the summary offenses and paid $500 in fines in an effort to have Gizmo returned to her custody, Rosner said.

Good applied for state certification to run a menagerie at her home as a way to have Gizmo returned to her. That application was denied because Good was cited for violating game laws, Rosner wrote.

Gizmo is being cared for in a state-run menagerie.

Assistant District Attorney Kelly Hammers has opposed returning Gizmo to Good, saying the bird is illegal contraband that was confiscated after the commission of a crime.

“Even if she obtained a menagerie permit, the status of the seized monk parakeet is still contraband. Arguably, the permit would give her her right to obtain a monk parakeet for display to the public, but the permit would not authorize the return of this specific bird,” Hammers argued.

Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6293 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me