UPDATED: Anyone seen my rhea? Stolen five foot, three stone bird reunited with owners

Large flightless bird stolen from pen

Large flightless bird stolen from pen

First published in News
Last updated

A RHEA has been found wandering five miles from home after thieves tried to steal him from his pen.

Police are appealing for information after the large flightless bird, similar to an ostrich, was taken sometime between 8.30pm on Friday, July 12 and 8.30am on Saturday, July 13.

He was spotted by a horse-rider and a farmer yesterday and re-united with owners Paul Inch and Joanna Hunt of Dorset Poultry in Wolfeton.

Mr Inch said: “This was definitely an attempt to take him.

“I think they must have tried to get him out of the gate and he kicked out and got away from them and ran away.

“Whoever did this must be black and blue. They definitely bit off more than they could chew.”

No arrests have been made.

Witnesses and anyone with information should call Dorset Police in confidence on 101, quoting crime number C:13:D:28189. Alternatively, call the free and anonymous Crimestoppers line on 0800 555 111 where mobile phone tariffs may apply.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:19pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Adrian XX says...

I read "three stoned birds". Must we continue to use measurements that went out with the ark?
I read "three stoned birds". Must we continue to use measurements that went out with the ark? Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Isosceles says...

Adrian XX
FYI, the bird weighs 41.99999999711635 pounds or about 19.050879538691998 Kg.
Happy now?
Adrian XX FYI, the bird weighs 41.99999999711635 pounds or about 19.050879538691998 Kg. Happy now? Isosceles
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Wed 17 Jul 13

nobbythesheep says...

Probably kicked them up the RHEA to get away...
Probably kicked them up the RHEA to get away... nobbythesheep
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 17 Jul 13

youngish grandma says...

Adrianxx

I am surprised that since you remember the ARK, you are not familiar with the fact that in historical terms it would have been impossible for the STONE to go out with the ARK by approximately two thousand years. Still, it seems a shame that you missed the point of the article which was to request information regarding the crime and the happy news that the "3 stone bird" had been reunited with it's owner.
Adrianxx I am surprised that since you remember the ARK, you are not familiar with the fact that in historical terms it would have been impossible for the STONE to go out with the ARK by approximately two thousand years. Still, it seems a shame that you missed the point of the article which was to request information regarding the crime and the happy news that the "3 stone bird" had been reunited with it's owner. youngish grandma
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Adrian XX says...

Isosceles wrote:
Adrian XX
FYI, the bird weighs 41.99999999711635 pounds or about 19.050879538691998 Kg.
Happy now?
Thanks. I am grateful for the picogram precision.
[quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: Adrian XX FYI, the bird weighs 41.99999999711635 pounds or about 19.050879538691998 Kg. Happy now?[/p][/quote]Thanks. I am grateful for the picogram precision. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Bob49 says...

Yes, it's not if anyone ever talks about someone's height in feet and inches or their weight in stones and pounds.

Or distances in miles, speed in miles per hour.

Or if anyone drinks pints in pubs, measures their vital statistics in inches or their shoes sizes in multiples of a barleycorn.

Clothes are not talked of as being so many inches round the waist and horses are not measured in such stuff that went out with the ark, hands.

However the reality is that decades after this barmy idea was introduced it hasn't caught on, much like the idea of everyone speaking Esperanto.

And come the winter snow and rain will be measured in inches and wind speed in mph - and those who don't make it will be buried six foot under.

Pretty much where that worthless and impractical fad should have gone.
Yes, it's not if anyone ever talks about someone's height in feet and inches or their weight in stones and pounds. Or distances in miles, speed in miles per hour. Or if anyone drinks pints in pubs, measures their vital statistics in inches or their shoes sizes in multiples of a barleycorn. Clothes are not talked of as being so many inches round the waist and horses are not measured in such stuff that went out with the ark, hands. However the reality is that decades after this barmy idea was introduced it hasn't caught on, much like the idea of everyone speaking Esperanto. And come the winter snow and rain will be measured in inches and wind speed in mph - and those who don't make it will be buried six foot under. Pretty much where that worthless and impractical fad should have gone. Bob49
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Isosceles says...

Bob49 says Clothes are not talked of as being so many inches round the waist'
When was the last time you bought a pair of trousers and were asked what your waist size was in centimetres?
Bob49 says Clothes are not talked of as being so many inches round the waist' When was the last time you bought a pair of trousers and were asked what your waist size was in centimetres? Isosceles
  • Score: 0

8:31am Thu 18 Jul 13

boardsandphotos says...

Isosceles wrote:
Bob49 says Clothes are not talked of as being so many inches round the waist'
When was the last time you bought a pair of trousers and were asked what your waist size was in centimetres?
If you read his comment from the begining you'll see it was tongue in cheek humour with a few inches of sarcasm thrown in for good measure.

His point was we still DO measure our trouser size in inches.
[quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: Bob49 says Clothes are not talked of as being so many inches round the waist' When was the last time you bought a pair of trousers and were asked what your waist size was in centimetres?[/p][/quote]If you read his comment from the begining you'll see it was tongue in cheek humour with a few inches of sarcasm thrown in for good measure. His point was we still DO measure our trouser size in inches. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree