Two wetsuit-clad Gilroyans are heroes
– at least in the eyes of a shivering bunny rabbit.
Scott Adams, 25, and Gregory Adams, 14,
”
intermittently
”
hop in Uvas Creek when water levels rise, then scope the scene
for animals that might be stranded.
Two wetsuit-clad Gilroyans are heroes – at least in the eyes of a rabbit who cheated a watery death.
Scott Adams, 25, and Gregory Adams, 14, “intermittently” hop in Uvas Creek if water levels rise, then scope the scene for animals that might be stranded.
“Only when it gets high,” said Scott, a graduate of Whitworth University in Spokane, Wash., who lettered on the swim team all four years.
Of course, he and his brother were outfitted for the occasion: Thick wetsuits, booties, helmets, boogie boards with ropes, life vests, fins and gloves.
The brothers entered Uvas Creek about 3 p.m. Friday near Santa Teresa Boulevard, then made their way downstream before spotting a stranded wild rabbit clinging to an island of twigs and bushes.
They rescued the furry victim and brought it onshore about 3:45 p.m. near the intersection of Miller Avenue and Uvas Parkway, where a large group of passers-by had gathered to take in the swelling creek that had been rising steadily since Friday morning.
As Scott cradled the towel-wrapped bunny, which was shivering but appeared to be all right, he said it was probably hypothermic.
“Is it OK?” asked Scott after Gregory returned from releasing the lucky creature in a grassy knoll.
“I put him down and he just started munching on grass,” Gregory said.
The good deed didn’t go unnoticed: An officer from the Gilroy Police Department ticketed each brother for entering the creek; a rule the two asserted they were not aware of.
Was it worth the consequences?
Neither of the brothers seemed too ruffled.
“I’m not sure … it doesn’t say,” said Scott, attempting to unfold the two tickets to see if there was a specified fee. The task proved difficult since his hands were still in neoprene gloves.
About 20 minutes later the rabbit reappeared and was hopping around the bike trail, much to the amusement of some children who were standing nearby.
The rescue and ensuing response from the GPD certainly hit a nerve with readers when it was posted online Friday evening, garnering more than 82 responses by Monday morning.
Some readers applauded the brothers, and wrote the GPD’s energy was misplaced. Others felt the legal action was necessary for enforcing public safety.
“So GPD has an officer handing out tickets for stupid stuff like this all the way out at Uvas … but we have no money for an officer to patrol downtown Gilroy or its surrounding ghettos in order to protect downtown businesses and clean up the downtown image,” one commenter wrote.
“I can honestly understand why the police chose to write that ticket,” said another reader who saw things from the GPD’s point of view.
“What these young men were doing is technically illegal, and it’s never 100 percent safe in these recent weather conditions no matter how well prepared these boys may of been.”
On Monday, Scott was respectful and civil regarding the various viewpoints, but was frustrated by one commenter’s accusation he and his brother “were just playing in the water” without “a rescue in mind.”
“I think people should know that the plan was always to check for animals dogs, cats – never just to play around in the creek … it’s kind of insulting,” he said. “That’s not at all what the intention was. I know some people interpreted it that way, but that’s not what we were doing at all.”
Scott, who grew up in Gilroy and graduated from the Vine Academy in Morgan Hill – the school his brother currently attends – said his parents played in Uvas Creek when they were young, too. He asserted he had never seen any signs indicating the creek was off limits.
“All the time when we were younger, anyone could go in there in the summertime and you’d see 10 people in the creek swimming,” he said.
Scott Barron, Gilroy code enforcement officer, confirmed Monday morning the city municipal code – listed in part E of Section 18.5 – states “no person in a park shall swim or wade except in pools or areas designated for that purpose without prior written permission from the director.”
Barron wasn’t able to confirm exactly how long the code had been in effect, but said it appeared to have been in place for at least 10 years. He gave a possible estimate of what the fee could be, based on the Section 1.7 general penalty of the municipal code.
“My guess is it could be a $100 fine if it’s the first offense,” he said.
According to GPD Sgt. Amanda Stanford, “if the males are found guilty of the crime, they face a fine of $25 plus penalties for each of them.”
Scott Adams noted people’s sense of danger is varied, and that no one should enter a risky situation unprepared.
“It’s weird that a story like this would spark such a different note in people’s responses; obviously this issue has been around a long time if people are commenting the way they did,” he said. “I did not disrespect the law at all, or the officers who uphold it.”
