It started innocently enough.

Officials announced on Facebook last week that a gray fox in Auburn had tested positive for rabies.

It was just one fox, people, nothing to get overly excited about.

Back in my day, this information would have warranted a news brief, at best: where the fox was found, whether or not area people and pets were at risk and maybe some words from wildlife officials on the nature of rabies itself to round things out.

Boom. You’re in and out in 10 minutes. Slap a byline on that sucker and move on to something more interesting.

But this one got weird. In particular, the townsfolk were irked — and getting more irked by the minute — that the city of Auburn had failed to disclose precisely where that diseased fox had been found.

It turns out that city officials didn’t reveal the location where the rabid fox was found because they had no idea. They hadn’t a clue, in fact.

The police had no idea, either, because the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks cases of rabies, refused to tell them.

“…We (do not) usually provide that information,” the CDC wrote, in response to questions about the location where the sick fox was recovered, “in order to protect the identity of anyone who may need to seek treatment for themselves or a companion animal.”

I’ve written dozens and perhaps hundreds of stories about rabies over my long years, and I don’t recall a single instance where information about location of this type was withheld. If it’s a policy of the CDC to withhold that info, it’s a new one to me.

The masses on Facebook found it odd, as well. And they didn’t seem to be buying the explanation either.

“I was told they don’t give out location for people’s privacy,” said one Nancy Callahan, who called the CDC herself for answers, “but since no one was harmed, it makes no sense. We should at least be told what part of town.”

She wasn’t the only one.

“In my opinion,” wrote a woman named Celina on Facebook, “the location is more helpful to the community than safeguarding the information of people who may seek treatment.”

Dozens weighed in on the matter in just such a way and you could see their point.

When a rabid animal is found, the locals like to know where so that they can decide whether to keep their pets inside at night, or whether it’s safe to let their children play in the woods.

But as it turns out, the rabid fox wasn’t just roaming through Auburn at large, free to terrorize the populace like some frothing, narrow-faced reincarnation of Cujo.

The animal was a rescue, meaning it was in somebody’s possession when it proved to rabid. It’s a detail that changed the very nature of the whole strange saga, which makes many wonder why that detail wasn’t disclosed in the first place.

But not everybody has faulted the CDC for being terse with their information.

Wildlife rehabilitator Jennifer Marchigiani, for one, has seen what the general population can do with detailed information about even a single case of rabies.

“Disclosing exact location of where a rabid animal was found,” she said, “often results in the public overreacting and slaughtering animals that are perfectly healthy.”

Rich Burton, the legendary animal control officer and owner of Specialized Wild Animal Trapping, agrees. The CDC would not withhold information, he insists, without a valid reason.

Burton is a man who knows a whole lot about rabies. Like Marchigiani, he is quick to point out that the rabid fox found in Auburn does not indicate that a rabies epidemic is on the way.

In fact, according to state records, rabies may be at an all-time low in Maine.

“We are not seeing any more rabid animals than usual,” Burton said. “I’ve had a couple of Lewiston raccoons come back positive in the last nine months. That’s out of a lot of animals tested. People always think it’s an epidemic.”

Lewiston Animal Control Officer Wendell Strout, too, said there’s no indication that rabies is going to be an above-normal problem this year.

So, why all the hubbub, bub? Did the CDC err by releasing limited information about a rabid fox found somewhere in Auburn?

Some say yes, some say no. Me, I have no strong opinion on the matter either way. I allotted myself 10 minutes to write a 3-inch brief about a rabid fox and instead got sucked into a strange, philosophical debate over the public’s right to know versus a government agency’s duty of protection.

Or something. What I do know is I don’t want rabies and it’s clear others strongly feel the same. Other than that, I’m just going to slap a byline on this sucker and move on to something more interesting.