the thin line between optimism and delusion…

(This is a very old post and I’m not sure why my linking to it made it new again. Originally published in march 2005.)

I finally got a new computer, and I have had a chance to go back through some of my comments, and I came across a comment from Starr regarding my father’s reckless irresponsibility regarding the bantam trio.

If you missed the story originally, here it is. I thought it was rather stupid of my dad, but everyone makes mistakes and I had no idea that it would upset anyone. Apparently I was wrong.

This is what Starr has to say about it: How could you just leave show chickens, in fact, how could you just dump any animal off. That isn’t exactly legal you know. Once you take responsibility for a critter, you are obligated to it. I guess it’s lucky they didn’t think you were too much trouble when you were a young toddler…maybe they could have dumped you at the river. You want to be a lawyer, yet you let your own opinions color your decisions. You hate birds. Tough. It is still wrong to dump an animal off. And if you are any kind of lawyer you know it. It’s a big problem, especially in rural areas. I’m an ol’ farmgirl born and raised and wild dog packs and wild cats terrorizing our livestock was common. Where do you think they came from? People dumping off animals. Sure you just dumped chickens, harmless, right? Wrong! Do you know the sort of bacteria and infectious diseases that chickens can transmit or pick up? Look it up sometime. Young kids and old people are likely to wind up hospitalized or even dead from contact with poltry waste. If those birds “made it” to another flock who knows what they could have transmitted to the other birds. True, maybe nothing happened but you fattening up a fox. Hopefully, it doesn’t decided it likes chicken and go raid some farmer’s chicken coop. This may sound like I’m making a mountain outta an anthill. But being a lawyer in training, you would think that you’d “think” before breaking the law. Unless you want to be one of “those kind” of lawyers. Guess if you don’t “like the look” of a client, you’ll just “let it slide” rather than defend him properly. You may want to think about “why” you want to be a lawyer…it may not be for the right reasons. But then this is a blog, these are my opinions to what you write. Freedom of speech and all that. So you may not like what I say, but then you can ignore it and go on your way. But I hope that you will think next time before you just dump something cause you don’t like it or care either way. Starr | 03.31.05 – 12:21 pm | # 

Now, in the tradition of fairness found in legal practice (according to my evidence teacher) I get a chance to give my side of the argument if I am going to be attacked so. So this is what I have to say to Starr: First of all, I never took responsibility for anything. They weren’t my birds, and I didn’t dump them anywhere. I didn’t buy them, they weren’t entrusted to me, I was never in legal possession of them. In addition, I thought they were a terrible idea, like I said, I don’t like being around birds, the very last thing I would ever do is pay money for a bird. The only reason I was even present for this event is that I like to spend time with my parents when I have the chance, because they are important to me – and I like to think maybe I am important to them, since they didn’t dump me in the river when I was a child. 

My feelings about the birds did not play into the course of events in any fashion other than my refusal to sit near the birds and my refusal to touch them. Like you said, they could have diseases. My presence had zero impact on the situation. Also, the land on which the chickens were “abandoned” is not farmland, it is hunting land on the river that is mostly wetlands and woods with the occasional house and dock on the river. It is directly below Clarks Hill Lake and the entire area is used primarily for timber and recreation. As for abandoning the chickens, my dad did not intend to abandon the chickens. 

He wanted to build them a house and feed them, but he is a little impulsive sometimes and it didn’t occur to him that something might get the chickens before he had a chance to make sure they were safe until it was too late. 

Sure, it was a stupid thing to do, but it was not done maliciously. It isn’t like he bought a litter of kittens and put them in a bag, tied a rock to it and threw it in the river. The only logical part of your argument is the possibility of upsetting the ecosystem of the area by introducing animals that don’t belong. I get that, I understand that it can be a problem, and spreading disease is never a good idea. My dad should have thought about that. But I must reiterate that I had zero control of the situation. Now, everything else in the comment, about how I should think before I break the law, etc., is really a moot point because I didn’t break the law. If you want to argue that my dad broke the law, I think this is something that is up for interpretation. 

I read the South Carolina Code, and I don’t think that my dad abandoned the chickens. Fowl is excluded from a couple of the cruelty to animal sections, but I think the most applicable statute is section 47-1-70 of the South Carolina Code, which is the Abandonment of Animals; penalties; hunting dog exception (and does not exclude fowl). It says: (A) A person may not abandon an animal. As used in this section “abandonment” is defined as deserting, forsaking, or intending to give up absolutely an animal without securing another owner or without providing the necessities of life. The code requires food, water, and shelter from “exposure to the elements or adverse weather” as “necessities of life.” SC ST 47-1-70 (A). 

He fed them, there was plenty of water and although they weren’t given the best shelter, they were afforded temporary shelter by the pump house that my dad opened for the chickens to sleep in until he was able to build them a more appropriate shelter. It isn’t illegal to let chickens roam your property. My dad was really hoping the chickens could live on our property, nothing would have made him happier. Turns out he was wrong. You totally have a right to your opinion that maybe I don’t want to an attorney for the right reasons, but I have a hard time understanding how my behavior in this particular situation is any indication of my reasons for being an attorney. 

I’m not always sure my reasons for wanting to be an attorney, but they have nothing to do with the exciting opportunities to half way defend a client or my uncontrollable desire to discriminate against people because they are different or my strong inclination to break the law. Hell, I don’t have to be an attorney to do any of those things. But I do promise in the future to never purchase a bird and to never abandon it. I would never have an animal for which I couldn’t provide adequate care. This is why I don’t have a dog. I would love to have a dog. But you know what? Right now I couldn’ttake care of a dog. So I don’t have one. If it will make you feel any better I can lay down and you can kick me. Sincerely – Charlsie See old Comments | See old Trackbacks