TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Protesters go to bat for 'Pete the moose'



JEB WALLACE-BRODEUR/TIMES ARGUS

Toolbox

By Thatcher Moats Times Argus Staff - Published: July 31, 2009

WATERBURY – Waving signs and shouting slogans, about 20 protestors gathered in Waterbury on Thursday evening to show their support for Pete the Moose, an animal many people believe is under threat from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

"These guys can't speak for themselves, so we need to speak for them," said Donna Underwood-Owens, a 64-year-old Essex resident.

The group gathered on the edge of Main Street in front of a big lawn that lies in front of a state office complex, which houses offices for Fish and Wildlife, and joining the active protesters were onlookers and people gathering signatures on petitions.

Pete was raised by 73-year-old David Lawrence of Albany, who nursed the then-newborn moose back to health after Pete had been injured by dogs.

Pete lives on property owned by Doug Nelson, where native white-tailed deer and moose live among imported elk on Nelson's elk farm and hunting preserve in Irasburg.

Fish and Wildlife is negotiating with Nelson about what steps to take to rid the property of the native animals, and Nelson said that Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Wayne Laroche told him his department would kill the animals, including Pete, in the coming weeks.

Wildlife officials worry that the imported elk might spread diseases, particularly chronic wasting disease, to Vermont's native deer and moose population, and having the native animals living there is against state regulations.

Laroche has disputed Nelson's assertions, saying he was open to further negotiation about the animals and even finding a solution that didn't result in the animals' extermination if that was possible.

A solution that keeps Pete alive and well is what Pete's supporters clearly want.

"Give Pete a Chance" and "For Pete's Sake," read two of the placards being waved toward the drivers on Main Street. Many drivers honked their horns and at least one person gave a thumbs-down out their window.

Lawrence, who has grown close Pete, was at the event and held a sign and spoke in front of news cameras.

Lawrence has been overwhelmed by the support for Pete, he said, but he also pointed out that he is fighting for all the native animals that accompany Pete in the preserve.

"It's not just all about Pete," he said.

Lawrence believes he's in a showdown with Fish and Wildlife, and he doesn't plan to flinch as he fights for what he wants.

"It's a ball game," he said, "and I say I'm going to pitch the last ball."








READER COMMENTS


..."why did they allow the import to begin with?"
Both game hunting operations have been around for years and chronic wasting disease danger is a recent development .Also the state has just introduced new regulations( on the two hunting preserves in the state should they wish to continue operation.The Douglas administration is giving them a "grace period" to meet the new requirements so as not to burden their captive hunting business.One of the requirements is the fence and no "wild " animals a provision the Irasburg owner has apparently ignored as evidenced by Pete and the white tail deer .A lot more back ground in the original Pete story was called for .
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 4:24 pm EST

report this comment



That's a good point Mel. Another one is, if the elk are a danger to the species of our state, why did they allow the import to begin with?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 1:25 pm EST

report this comment



I raised the question the other day, in one of my earlier posts, about the hypocrisy of rallying to say Pete or even Pete and the white-tailed deer while rasing elk to be hunted in a fenced in preserve. Something very, very disturbing about all of this. I say the state should never permit hunting preserves in the first place. I thought the point of hunting season was to manage the population of native deer, moose, turkeys and other wildlife. Now we have a hunting preserve where animals and bred and raised for the express purpose of being hunted and shot for profit? This is just wrong and very sick!
-- Posted by Mel Parker on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 12:19 pm EST

report this comment



I raised the question the other day, in one of my earlier posts, about the hypocrisy of rallying to say Pete or even Pete and the white-tailed deer while rasing elk to be hunted in a fenced in preserve. Something very, very disturbing about all of this. I say the state should never permit hunting preserves in the first place. I thought the point of hunting season was to manage the population of native deer, moose, turkeys and other wildlife. Now we have a hunting preserve where animals and bred and raised for the express purpose of being hunted and shot for profit? This is just wrong and very sick!
-- Posted by Mel Parker on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 12:18 pm EST

report this comment



Eddie Elk?
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 11:29 am EST

report this comment



What about the elk raised to be shot and killed for a fee inside the chain-link fence ?
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 11:28 am EST

report this comment



I love the fact that they are going to bat for Pete!
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 10:59 am EST

report this comment



What about the entire HUNTING preserve !
Do these protesters have no qualms about the hunting preserve that this moose resides on ? A state permitted chain link hunting preserve raising elk and deer to be shot for sport should be almost as troublesome as one moose .
At least for consistency sake.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 7:56 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout

Related Contents