Post by Woody Williams on Jul 21, 2005 18:13:09 GMT -5
Indiana could learn from court rulings in Montana
Michael Koryta, Hoosier Times, July 17, 2005
If the debate over fenced hunting preserves in Indiana has boiled down to fair chase advocates against property rights advocates - and those involved
say it has - then a Montana conservationist says the state needs to look toward the recent rulings of a federal appeals court.
Four years ago, captive shooting preserves were banned in Montana by a ballot initiative that has subsequently been the target of numerous lawsuits
from preserve owners. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently announced that private property rights do not supercede the state's interest in protecting elements of fair chase and hunting ethics.
Jim Posewitz, a well-known conservationist from Montana, was a key player in that effort, and July 8 he spoke about it to a gathering of sportsmen in
Huntington.
The issue is a timely one for Hoosiers, as the early part of this summer has featured a series of public meetings for comment on the issue of fenced hunting. According to Doug Allman, a member of the Indiana Captive Cervid
Council, the hunting preserve owners and deer farmers have based most of their argument on the issue of property rights.
"Their tactics changed after the Republicans were elected, and now they are playing more toward property rights," Allman said. "Fair chase isn't an
issue to them anymore. They are saying there's no difference between raising a hog and butchering it and raising a deer and letting someone shoot it."
The ruling of a Montana court, later upheld by the federal appeals court, suggests there is a difference, however.
"We banned captive shooting, prohibited the expansion of game farms and the transfer of licenses by ballot initiative four years ago," Posewitz said of
the effort in Montana.
The preserve owners and deer farmers in Montana then sued over the ballot initiative, claiming that it represented a taking of private property and therefore was unconstitutional.
"It has gone as high as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the purposes of the initiative," Posewitz said. "The court decided it doesn't
represent a taking because the owners can do so many things with that property - all we prohibited was the captive shooting, expansion of game farms and transfer of licenses."
Posewtiz said he remembered one key line of the court's ruling almost verbatim:
"The judge said fair chase, hunting ethics and hunting heritage are legitimate state concerns, whether mandated by popular vote or otherwise," he said. "That is judicial license to say this is a genuinely important
issue for the state to be paying attention to."
The state of Indiana has been forced to pay attention this year, after Bellar's Place, a Hoosier game preserve, was shut down and cited with 36 violations of federal wildlife protection laws. Then Indiana Rep. Bill
Friend attempted to pass a bill that would have legalized many of those same practices, making the debate even more prophetic.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was among the political candidates to receive thousands in campaign contributions from the captive hunting and deer
farming industry, and Kyle Hupfer is his appointed director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, an act that has raised the concern of some
fenced hunting opponents.
Allman said he has heard the decision should come by the end of this summer.
"(Hupfer) had indicated earlier that he was going to create an emergency rule, which would last one year," Allman said. "Then it has to go back through a set of hearings and rule-making processes, unless something
changes legislatively."
Allman said he has no idea what to expect from Hupfer.
"If he does this all by himself - and he can for a year - that'll be interesting," he said. "We're all kind of curious."
Michael Koryta, Hoosier Times, July 17, 2005
If the debate over fenced hunting preserves in Indiana has boiled down to fair chase advocates against property rights advocates - and those involved
say it has - then a Montana conservationist says the state needs to look toward the recent rulings of a federal appeals court.
Four years ago, captive shooting preserves were banned in Montana by a ballot initiative that has subsequently been the target of numerous lawsuits
from preserve owners. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently announced that private property rights do not supercede the state's interest in protecting elements of fair chase and hunting ethics.
Jim Posewitz, a well-known conservationist from Montana, was a key player in that effort, and July 8 he spoke about it to a gathering of sportsmen in
Huntington.
The issue is a timely one for Hoosiers, as the early part of this summer has featured a series of public meetings for comment on the issue of fenced hunting. According to Doug Allman, a member of the Indiana Captive Cervid
Council, the hunting preserve owners and deer farmers have based most of their argument on the issue of property rights.
"Their tactics changed after the Republicans were elected, and now they are playing more toward property rights," Allman said. "Fair chase isn't an
issue to them anymore. They are saying there's no difference between raising a hog and butchering it and raising a deer and letting someone shoot it."
The ruling of a Montana court, later upheld by the federal appeals court, suggests there is a difference, however.
"We banned captive shooting, prohibited the expansion of game farms and the transfer of licenses by ballot initiative four years ago," Posewitz said of
the effort in Montana.
The preserve owners and deer farmers in Montana then sued over the ballot initiative, claiming that it represented a taking of private property and therefore was unconstitutional.
"It has gone as high as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the purposes of the initiative," Posewitz said. "The court decided it doesn't
represent a taking because the owners can do so many things with that property - all we prohibited was the captive shooting, expansion of game farms and transfer of licenses."
Posewtiz said he remembered one key line of the court's ruling almost verbatim:
"The judge said fair chase, hunting ethics and hunting heritage are legitimate state concerns, whether mandated by popular vote or otherwise," he said. "That is judicial license to say this is a genuinely important
issue for the state to be paying attention to."
The state of Indiana has been forced to pay attention this year, after Bellar's Place, a Hoosier game preserve, was shut down and cited with 36 violations of federal wildlife protection laws. Then Indiana Rep. Bill
Friend attempted to pass a bill that would have legalized many of those same practices, making the debate even more prophetic.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was among the political candidates to receive thousands in campaign contributions from the captive hunting and deer
farming industry, and Kyle Hupfer is his appointed director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, an act that has raised the concern of some
fenced hunting opponents.
Allman said he has heard the decision should come by the end of this summer.
"(Hupfer) had indicated earlier that he was going to create an emergency rule, which would last one year," Allman said. "Then it has to go back through a set of hearings and rule-making processes, unless something
changes legislatively."
Allman said he has no idea what to expect from Hupfer.
"If he does this all by himself - and he can for a year - that'll be interesting," he said. "We're all kind of curious."
