|
Post by 10point on Oct 18, 2007 13:52:19 GMT -5
State decides to fight lawsuit over hunting preserves By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
FORT WAYNE - State officials have decided to fight a lawsuit challenging a rule banning high-fenced hunting preserves in Indiana.
The Department of Natural Resources had entered into settlement negotiations in August 2006, but more than a year later, the legal wrangling continues, The Journal Gazette reported in a story today.
The issue started festering in the late 1990s when several facilities sprang up under the guise of a game breeder's license. The owners charged thousands of dollars for hunters to come in and shoot deer bred specifically for large antlers.
In 2005, then-DNR Director Kyle Hupfer said he would implement an emergency - and later permanent - rule banning the operations. The intent was to clarify current regulations and establish new ones regarding what some call canned hunting - paying to shoot deer behind fences.
Hundreds of deer farms in Indiana have white-tailed deer and other animals under a game breeder's permit, but only a few allow hunting.
Hupfer determined that while the permit allows for the possession, breeding and sale of white-tailed deer, it does not authorize the hunting or purposeful killing of them.
Preserve owners disagreed, saying former DNR officials gave them permission to open up.
Rodney Bruce, the owner of Whitetail Bluff near the southern Indiana town of Corydon, sued in 2005 and obtained a court injunction preventing the DNR from enforcing the ban on his property.
The General Assembly tried to intervene in 2006 but failed, which prompted negotiations to start in earnest.
The idea was to allow existing preserves to continue operating for about 10 more years so they could recoup their investment. Various versions of the settlement required the owners to admit the activity is illegal and to cease at the end of the established window.
Nine more preserves or owners were added to the lawsuit as plaintiffs so they could sign onto any agreement reached. They now have the protection of the same initial injunction against enforcement that Bruce received.
Settlement negotiations ceased after Robert Carter became the new DNR director when Hupfer left the position in December.
Adam Warnke, the DNR's deputy director and chief counsel, told The Journal Gazette that the talks were stopped as "we determined that an acceptable settlement wasn't possible, so we elected to fight the lawsuit."
Doug Allman of the Indiana Deer Hunters Association is pleased about the agency's changed stance on the hunting preserves.
"They just aren't popular, and the Michael Vick thing isn't helping," he said, referring to dogfighting charges against the NFL star. "People just aren't willing to accept these preserves."
Preserve owners have filed a motion in Harrison Circuit Court asking the judge to enforce the proposed settlement agreement even though it was not officially signed. The state is seeking to have that motion dismissed.
Arguments on the issue were scheduled for Nov. 7.
"I think our chances are pretty darn good," said William Moyer, an attorney for Bruce. "I have cited several state and federal cases all that approved the enforcement of oral settlements. The fact that this was never signed, in my opinion, really doesn't matter much."
Hupfer disagrees, saying the two sides never came close to making the agreement official. He said one of the reasons the DNR backed off was research finding the state is not allowed to enter into an agreement not to enforce a state rule or law.
Warnke said that while the DNR is prohibited from enforcing the preserve restrictions on those involved in the lawsuit, the agency has stopped at least two startups of similar preserves in the past year.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Oct 18, 2007 14:19:08 GMT -5
While i have no dog in this fight I find it very odd that Doug Allman would compare shooting preserves to the dog fighting that Michael Vick promoted. Sounds to me hes trying to get the anti's on his side. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Oct 18, 2007 15:01:32 GMT -5
I thought that statement was a reach also.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 18, 2007 19:30:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sgtwal on Oct 18, 2007 21:30:15 GMT -5
Indiana and the DNR are controled by Indianapolis and Gary. Get the right Govenor and you will see hunting on the F&WA's stopped for some kind of study and more restrictions than you ever dreamed of. The Deer Hunters are in bed with the enemy on this one.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 19, 2007 6:59:07 GMT -5
Politics @ play since November is just around the corner!
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Oct 19, 2007 7:01:01 GMT -5
Agreed deertracks.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 19, 2007 8:12:48 GMT -5
While i have no dog in this fight I find it very odd that Doug Allman would compare shooting preserves to the dog fighting that Michael Vick promoted. Sounds to me hes trying to get the anti's on his side. h.h. It wouldn't be the first time and probably won't be the last. Apparently the end justifies any means.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Oct 19, 2007 10:23:08 GMT -5
I have no objection to joining forces with the anti's in a matter where we share the same goal. As long as there is no debt or promise of future joint ventures, it would be silly to not accept their help in defeating the Pic-N-Shoot operations that are a prostitution of hunting and a blight on the reputation of legal hunting.
I think we almost all have some areas where we agree with some folks who we would disagree with on most other issues. We have to make the decision on the basis of each case whether to support those on the other side of the issue by joining them in that particular battle. It doesn't mean we've enlisted in the enemy's army, only that we will voice our agreement with them on the particular issue at hand.
I still think Playlike Saving Time is stupid, wasteful, harmful, and a general pain in the rear, and the Tollroad to Nowhere is, too. I'll most likely vote for the guy who's shoving them both down our throats this November, though, because he's right about other more important issues, like the application of the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Oct 19, 2007 10:52:19 GMT -5
I have no objection to joining forces with the anti's in a matter where we share the same goal. As long as there is no debt or promise of future joint ventures, it would be silly to not accept their help in defeating the Pic-N-Shoot operations that are a prostitution of hunting and a blight on the reputation of legal hunting. I think we almost all have some areas where we agree with some folks who we would disagree with on most other issues. We have to make the decision on the basis of each case whether to support those on the other side of the issue by joining them in that particular battle. It doesn't mean we've enlisted in the enemy's army, only that we will voice our agreement with them on the particular issue at hand. I still think Playlike Saving Time is stupid, wasteful, harmful, and a general pain in the rear, and the Tollroad to Nowhere is, too. I'll most likely vote for the guy who's shoving them both down our throats this November, though, because he's right about other more important issues, like the application of the 2nd Amendment. I totally disagree! Anti hunting organizations want all hunting stopped and to get in bed with them on issues that should be decided by the IDNR and law makers is going against the same principal I send money to join hunting organizations for. Where do you draw the line for what agenda of theirs you wont support? Any anti hunting organization are not friends or partners with any hunter no matter what issue is being decided. To partner up with them is nothing more than a slap in the face for your fellow sportsman. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Oct 19, 2007 11:26:24 GMT -5
The sooner this cancer is eliminated the sooner we can get back to things that really matter. The NRA needs to quit calling the wealthy "Johns" who frequent these places as hunters. Just another case where an organization is pandering to the almighty dollar. ![>:(](https://www.indianagunowners.com/images/smilies/woot.gif) OK Woody I know I am not supposed to comment (Self imposed) on this subject and this will be the only post I will make.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Oct 19, 2007 12:15:09 GMT -5
I read the Vick comment differently, I read it as making it more difficult to attain their desired goal. Good. I hope their goal falls flat on its face. HH-How about instead of getting in bed with the anti's we stand against certain issues as hunters. As a hunter I stand against high fence killing pens. I also stand against the killing of Raptors and Condors. I do not believe that those stances align me with anti's. If they want to raise deer, sell urine, antlers, hides, and get the appropriate licenses butcher deer and sell the meat, frozen sperm; I have no problem with that. I actually believe that they can make quite a bit of money doing that. I guess that the next step is to start emailing the DNR with our feelings about this blight on hunting.
|
|
|
Post by nodog on Oct 19, 2007 16:16:38 GMT -5
I'm just waiting for the day when there's no longer any need for these places and the fences come down.
Things change. Kind of the saqme way when a new public land opens up.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Oct 19, 2007 18:00:11 GMT -5
Great thread.... I think Doug is SPOT ON with his comments and I'll have more to say concerning that later. Right now Im getting my gear ready for tomorrow.... FAIR CHASE!
Think about the bigger picture here guys before you post... I'll be back later........... ( Im sure you cant wait for that!)...lol
HUNT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!......... or kill on if your inside the fence!
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 19, 2007 20:58:51 GMT -5
dude - bring the popcorn this time!!!!
Jack
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 19, 2007 21:35:41 GMT -5
I'm going to be very careful here.
#1. After the things Allman said in the imbroglio around PCRs, I wouldn't trust his veracity or intent as far as I could throw an F150.
#2. Indiana is a very different State than elsewhere, but I still do not appreciate the all inclusive "fences = pens" kind of comments. I've been on (though not hunted) fenced ranches that are bigger than Dunes State Park. OTOH, I totally agree that Pick & Shoot is noxious and NOT hunting.
#3. Question for those who might know: RE Crane, Atterbury & other Mil Res areas: Aren't they surrounded by fences? I know most of the US Mil training posts I've ever been assigned to were...
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Oct 20, 2007 11:51:48 GMT -5
hornharvester,
Are you sure we disagree?
I specifically said "as long as there is no debt or promise of future joint ventures" in agreeing on the one issue at hand.
I certainly am not advocating membership in PETA. And I send my money to organizations that fully support hunting, and fight PETA. Getting ready to send another check to USSA, probably the most important way to spend a buck for hunting that there is. However, I agree with PETA and with most others in the case of Michael Vick. I'm not about to defend his actions or those of other involved in dogfighting simply because PETA is against them.
Hardly any group is wrong ALL the time, even PETA. A stopped clock is right twice a day!
Maybe even more often in some Indiana counties...can't be sure because noone knows what time it is there 8^)
Seriously, we join our voices all the time with those of folks we differ with on other issues. Our country has become so polarized lately that the ability to choose our own stance on various issues, regardless of the stance of our party or interest groups, seems to be greatly diminished for our legislators, but it is still the prerogative of the private citizen.
Join PETA or send them money.....NO!! Make a pact with them that we will help them in any other issues in exchange for their help in this one....nope, don't trust them that far. But agree with them, even publicly, when they take a stand against dogfighting, or against the killing zoos where the likes of Jimmy Houston can shoot a drugged purebred antler-carrier to show his audience how great a hunter he is and gain more sponsors......yes, I'll agree with them out loud and in public, on those issues.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 20, 2007 21:32:57 GMT -5
I have no objection to joining forces with the anti's in a matter where we share the same goal. As long as there is no debt or promise of future joint ventures, it would be silly to not accept their help in defeating the Pic-N-Shoot operations that are a prostitution of hunting and a blight on the reputation of legal hunting. I think we almost all have some areas where we agree with some folks who we would disagree with on most other issues. We have to make the decision on the basis of each case whether to support those on the other side of the issue by joining them in that particular battle. It doesn't mean we've enlisted in the enemy's army, only that we will voice our agreement with them on the particular issue at hand. I still think Playlike Saving Time is stupid, wasteful, harmful, and a general pain in the rear, and the Tollroad to Nowhere is, too. I'll most likely vote for the guy who's shoving them both down our throats this November, though, because he's right about other more important issues, like the application of the 2nd Amendment. Extremely well said Russ-I believe YOU are the one who is "spot on" here, (man I HATE those silly corporate catch phrases). And Keith, I really do hate to disagree with you, but you`re the only one I trust from that other group as far as you could throw me. And if anyone cares, I agree, where the heck did the Michael Vick comment come from? Why not throw in a mention of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Wow. But yep, so what if the anti`s want to help blot out a black eye on hunters in the state by helping to get rid of the play pens? Russ is exactly right, nothing is being conceded here in regards to fair chase hunting-why not let the anti`s spend their money, time and energy helping here? Because as you all know, at the end of the day.............
|
|
|
Post by duff on Oct 21, 2007 7:14:11 GMT -5
Why do these places exist? Cause they are a garuntee for a person to shoot a huge deer if they have enough money. The person will proudly display this trophy and brag about how it was hunted. If they feel comfortable about that then more power to you.
I agree with raporter here, the problem isn't the farms themselves it's the marketing of big anlters that make a person want them so bad they will do anything or pay anything to get some.
No one can convince me these so called "professionals" are getting all these trophies in fair chase hunting. Or all these products are not paying gross money to have a guy pimp their products is any better.
I say it's the American way, If there is a market someone will prosper from it. Getting rid of deer farm hunts is only one piece and will likely do nothing to cure anything. Make the anlters distinguisable from wild deer and the value will go down, and the farms will still be able to hunt if they can survive.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Oct 21, 2007 11:02:37 GMT -5
Well I said I would post on this subject and so I will. I’ll try to offend everyone that is pro HIGH FENCE to the best of my ability. (Relax, I’m just kidding!) I would first like to say thanks to Doug Allman and his work on this issue. Now Doug will be the first to tell you that I don’t agree with everything he says or does by any means at all. BUT Doug has put in a lot of time and effort for sportsmen in general and he has been one of the main leaders on this issue as well. I disagreed with some of the tactics used in the past but at least somebody was doing something which is more than we can say about the majority of hunters in this State. Oh sure there are tons of us that “talk” about doing something but how many really back up what they say? Doug’s comparison to Michael Vic raised some eyebrows for sure and that’s not a bad thing at all. I don’t believe for one second that he was trying to get the Anti- hunting crew on board. Heck they are already on board without our help on this on. Doug’s comment I think was directed toward another segment of our society. (I’m not speaking for Doug here at all, this is just my opinion. Doug is more than capable of explaining his comments himself.) You see there are a lot of people out there that don’t feel one way or the other on hunting yet when they hear or see news stories about “ SO CALLED HUNTERS” shooting pen raised deer behind a fence then their position about hunting could be swayed against us. HECK for all they know that’s what we call hunting. Doug’s comment makes it clear that the REAL hunting community holds itself to a higher moral and ethical standard and that majority of the hunters find the practice of pen shoots disgusting. Just as we find putting two beautiful dogs in a pit and watch them fight to the death! That’s not what we are all about as hunters. All real hunters are not all that obsessed with “kill” anyway. Some of you need to cut Doug a little slack here. Hey I know he is with the IDHA and yea I know about the whole OBR and PCR thing but look beyond that and give credit where credit is due. Let’s protect what we have and agree to disagree from time to time but at least be man and or woman enough to say when someone is right and is doing the right thing on a bigger scale. This isn’t Texas and I can tell you there is no way there is a fenced preserve in Indiana that could be considered fair chase! These deer are trained and fed and specific times over feeders for lords sake. Now how much time does it take to scout out where you are going hunt.uh I mean kill! That’s what it is folks it’s just killing! Now if these places continue then I propose that a law be passed preventing the owners of ever use the word “HUNTING” because as a REAL hunter I don’t want to be thought of that way by the community at large. I want to sway more people over to my side and see that we are protectors and defenders of the resource and that yes we harvest from time to time but we would do it in an ethical manner and by doing it we are ensuring that everyone hunters and non hunters alike will be able to enjoy it for years to come. Ironsights you are correct about Crane and other places around the State they are fenced. Most of the fences are six foot or less and I watched as many as 15 jump the fence at Crane at one time. These Deer are not Bred for genetics nor or they trained to come to timed feeders twice a day. OK I’m done …………. For now anyway.lol I had a great morning hunt and can’t wait to get back out there tonight! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|