Not since I came upon a band of seagulls attacking the remains of Chinese takeout have I heard the kind of squawking raised in response to one recent story: The case of the confiscated dead gull.

Here's the Cliff Notes version for those who missed it: Acting on a tip from a customer, federal fish and wildlife agents seized a dead Greater Black-Backed Gull that hung in a frame in Cappy's Chowder House in Camden.

The dead gull is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, passed in 1918. No matter that, according to a tag on the back of the framed piece, the bird had probably been killed some time around 1854 or earlier. Off it went, its fate not entirely clear. One thing that was clear was that MaineToday.com users found the whole thing asinine.

Don was one of many users wondering (OK, they really weren't wondering at all) whether there weren't more important matters for the federal government to pursue: "We don't bother to enforce our immigration laws, but boy, just have a dead seagull. What a set of priorities! Is our federal government working?"

It's true that there are approximately one trillion things that are more important than confiscating long-dead gulls from Maine restaurants. For example, making lids for coffee cups that don't leak. (Someone get on that. I'll even name the bill: An Act To Protect Freshly Laundered Shirts From Coffee Stains.) However, the agents were enforcing the law. The law - more specifically the rigid enforcement of it - John pointed out, was the problem:

"Will all historical artifacts now have to be examined to make sure that they do not have traces of prohibited items in them? Isn't there such a thing as the statute of limitations? The lady did, after all, come into possession of it more than 20 years ago."

Some of you questioned why there was a need to protect the gulls at all. I mean, you can barely swing a dead koi fish without hitting a seagull; cars spattered with their telltale white gifts are a testament to that. Of course, the offending gulls people were referencing aren't the same as the gull in the frame, but most people didn't make the distinction.

MH was one user who expressed the sentiment that more gulls should be in frames, saying, "Doesn't the government have any real birds they have to protect? Too bad they can't take the seagulls that live in dumpsters as well!"

Users weren't only upset with the law and its enforcers: They had a few words for whomever the tipster was. One theorized that it was a high-level official who wanted the gull for themselves.

(Someone check Donald Rumsfeld's office; I overheard on a wiretap somewhere that he's got a thing for gulls.) Another guessed it was probably someone from away. But whoever it was, everyone agreed that they must have too much time on their hands. Brenda had suggestions for how such time might be better spent:

"To the person who reported it - you may want to check with local nursing homes, schools, meals-on-wheels and other organizations that need volunteers to see if you can fill your time doing something that REALLY matters."

Others wondered what other obscure laws might be on the books that could prompt agents to bust down doors and confiscate property. Dawn was one person who feared she might be on the wrong side of the law:

"Oh crap, what about all the things hidden in people's homes under glass?! Good heavens, I have an 80-year-old photo of my grandfather lurking under a piece of bubble glass in my computer room at this very moment! SOMEONE CALL THE FEDS QUICK! And É gasp É he's dead to boot!"

Dawn, I think so long as he wasn't protected by the Migratory Grandparent Act, the photo is probably OK. Let me get back to you on that, though. Meantime, hide the photo under the tank you keep your illegal koi in.

Still others were upset that the restaurant and gull's owner, Johanna Tutone, had to be party to such strong-arm tactics. Couldn't a discussion have resolved this? Couldn't an exception be made?

Gerard urged her to fight the good fight: "Don't give up so fast. Get a court order to prevent the government from taking your property until this can be heard in court. The cost? You'll make it up in publicity."

After all, there's nothing about a bad law a lawyer can't fix, right?

In the meantime, Charlie had a suggestion for what to do with that new real estate the wall in her restaurant suddenly had:

"I know what Tutone can fill the gap with: koi."