|
|
Post by jkd on Jan 9, 2006 17:42:28 GMT -5
One to watch... www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/IN/IN1152.1.htmlA portion of this bill reads: SECTION 2. IC 14-22-6-15 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 15. (a) A person may not take an exotic mammal. (b) A person may not take a mammal that is enclosed by a fence, including a fence with only one (1) strand of wire.Although this seems aimed at the canned hunting operations, a concern has been raised about whether this would also prohibit hunting on private farm ground, e.g. in woods surrounded by old-style livestock fencing... I think this bears checking out with an eye toward possible amendment to make sure we're not getting a bill that ends up making most hunting areas illegal... See what you guys think....  |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 9, 2006 18:04:51 GMT -5
It sounds OK EXCEPT for that one strand of wire sentence.
That would kill a lot of hunting that is within a two strand barbed wire fence.
|
|
|
|
Post by genehopkins on Jan 9, 2006 19:47:48 GMT -5
This bill was not sponsored by any of the major sporting organizations (Sportsman's Roundtable, IBA, IDHA, IWF, etc.). The Author (Rep. Gutwein from Rennselear) is obviously up to something. He was a major supporter of the Shooting Preserve operators last year, so he is obviously attempting to begin some sort of game with the issue. More to come.
In the meantime, please keep your eyes and ears open and don't let anyone believe that any sporting organization is behind this, as one of the reasons this bill might have been submitted is to discredit org's who want to ban HIGH FENCE / GAME PROOF enclosures. If they can divide us, they can conquer I am sure would be another reason for the bill. A single strand of wire? Give me a break. Obviously not the true intent of the author.
|
|
|
|
Post by spike on Jan 10, 2006 7:50:56 GMT -5
This is what happens when sportsmen attempt to tell other sportsmen how they can hunt. We ALL lose. This bill better get killed and leave the preserves alone or we will all lose our right to hunt how we wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 10, 2006 8:55:33 GMT -5
This is what happens when sportsmen attempt to tell other sportsmen how they can hunt. We ALL lose. This bill better get killed and leave the preserves alone or we will all lose our right to hunt how we wish. Then you are saying that this bill is blackmail. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 10, 2006 8:58:38 GMT -5
If we sportmen can't hunt on property that happens to have a fence, then where can we hunt? Sure sound like a bunch of the anti-hunting crowd, have taken or is trying to take over the IDNR Division of Fish & Wildlife!  |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 10, 2006 9:02:57 GMT -5
If we sportmen can't hunt on property that happens to have a fence, then where can we hunt? Sure sound like a bunch of the anti-hunting crowd, have taken or is trying to take over the IDNR Division of Fish & Wildlife! The IDNR did NOT propose this bill, nor will they support it. It is a politican that is throwing some POO in the game. My guess it is in retribution for Kyle stopping "preserve hunting" for cervids and exotics. |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 10, 2006 10:01:40 GMT -5
If we sportmen can't hunt on property that happens to have a fence, then where can we hunt? Sure sound like a bunch of the anti-hunting crowd, have taken or is trying to take over the IDNR Division of Fish & Wildlife! The IDNR did NOT propose this bill, nor will they support it. It is a politican that is throwing some POO in the game. My guess it is in retribution for Kyle stopping "preserve hunting" for cervids and exotics. That's wecome news that the IDNR didn't propose or support this bill. It sounds like the politicicans are trying to screw-up our IDNR and our hunting. ~Typical~  |
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Jan 10, 2006 12:13:25 GMT -5
Gene,
Glad to see you on the board and that you're on top of this one...
I thought it was odd when I saw Gutwein's name on this, given our collective experiences with him and Friend last year.
If it was amended to read "... enclosed by a fence of specific design and height of eight (8) feet or more, intended to prevent the escape of the animal outside the fenced area." then that would eliminate the conflicts with standard farm/ag/livestock fence.
Otherwise, in it's present form it would eliminate not only deer hunting, but hunting any "mammal" including rabbit, coon, and other furbearers...
Kirk
|
|
|
|
Post by genehopkins on Jan 10, 2006 17:58:55 GMT -5
Trust me in that we are trying hard to keep an eye on this year's legislative session. With it being a short session (scheduled to be over at end of March) there will be a lot of very quick movements made by legislators with certain axes to grind. I will try to update as much as possible, but it probably won't be a blow-by-blow account. I ask everyone to keep watching here and the other sites in case (more likely "when") we need you to help out.
Happy Hunting,
Gene
|
|
