|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 22, 2006 10:01:44 GMT -5
DNR votes to end fenced hunting By Niki Kelly The Journal Gazette INDIANAPOLIS – The Natural Resources Commission on Tuesday gave final approval to a rule that bans deer hunting in high-fenced operations. The proposal is intended to clarify ambiguities in current regulations and establish new ones regarding what is sometimes referred to as canned hunting – or paying to shoot deer behind fences. It could take another 60 days for the rule to go into effect as it has to be approved by Gov. Mitch Daniels and sit for 30 days in the Secretary of State’s Office, according to Kim Brant – spokeswoman for the Department of Natural Resources. DNR Director Kyle Hupfer pushed the rule after announcing last August that he believed the shooting preserves that had begun to proliferate are not authorized under Indiana law. “We need to make it very clear at a minimum that we’re putting a clear message out that this is illegal in Indiana so that we don’t get any new facilities started,” he told The Journal Gazette last week. “That’s got to be our top priority.” The members voted via a voice vote and the only “no” came from commission member Richard Mangus. The DNR issued 201 game breeder permits last year to people who possess white-tailed deer. No state agency requires information on high-fenced hunting operations, but reports estimate between 12 to 15 such operations exist in Indiana. Hupfer determined last August 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 deer maintained under that license. But because of past inconsistencies in applying the law, Hupfer chose to delay enforcement until the legislature had a chance to review the situation. Lawmakers tried to abate the problem through several different avenues during the recent short session – from a phase-out to compensating the owners for closure – but none passed. Meanwhile, several owners have sued the state. Proponents are still hoping that there will be some administrative relief, and Hupfer said he has no timetable for enforcement. He is open to a negotiated settlement.Daniels seems to want some sort of positive resolution, noting in a recent meeting with reporters that he has reviewed the record and there was evidence that owners of these preserves were told it was ok to operate in the past. “Their argument has I think some merit from a fairness standpoint,” he said. “I think there may well be a compromise in there and I hope we reach one.”www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/14153061.htmWW - This one ain't over until it's over..
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 22, 2006 12:18:45 GMT -5
I am curious as to what the "compromise" will be after the attorneys, judges, & politians are finished mucking things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Mar 22, 2006 12:37:22 GMT -5
"No state agency requires information on high-fenced hunting operations..."  Other than IDNR and BOAH...  "Several owners have sued the state..." What other lawsuits...? Rodney's is the only one I'm aware of...  |
|
|
|
Post by indianadan on Mar 22, 2006 14:52:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 22, 2006 15:29:57 GMT -5
Can you believe that he had the gall to call the people that go to these places as sportsmen.
Will carry on for years and years. Lawyers are going to make bunches of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Mar 22, 2006 17:57:54 GMT -5
He seems just as delusional on their site as he does here . ;D
I think a compromise will be reached , and they will probably win a temporary reprieve to amortize their investments , but in the end they will be gone .
"No new start-ups" sends a pretty clear message , and while Mitch is spinning he still backs Kyle . That's a good sign for us . I could live with a sunset agreement for them , as long as they're eventually eradicated I think we can all live with that . The lawsuit is nothing but a stall , even their pocket legislators can't save them and don't seem to be trying too hard to do so either .
|
|
|
|
Post by shinglemonkey on Mar 22, 2006 18:05:15 GMT -5
So is it just deer?
|
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Mar 22, 2006 19:34:20 GMT -5
Jack Hyden of Winona Lake reported that he was President of the Indiana Beaglers Alliance. He said he spoke for thousands of sportsmen in the state, and the overwhelming majority favored high-fence hunting. The “owner of private property should have the right to do with it what they want to do. There is absolutely nothing unethical about a hunting preserve. On behalf of the members and supporters of Indiana Beaglers Alliance, and the thousands of the sportsmen that I’ve talked to over the last year-and-a-half, we totally oppose any restrictions on the hunting preserves or the deer farming as it’s proposed in the rule change.”
|
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Mar 22, 2006 19:49:57 GMT -5
Jack Hyden wrote by email on February 22, 2006 from indianabeaglersalliance@yahoo.com
It has come to our attention that you are taking imput from the public regarding IDNR's rule change proposal on Deer breeders permits. The Indiana Beagler's Alliance now represents all the sporting dog venues at the Fish and Wildlife's Conservation Committee. We also represent many other sporting groups in the state. It is the opinion of the members and supporters of Indiana Beagler's Alliance that we oppose any attempts by IDNR to close the deer hunting preserves by disallowing hunting with use of the Deer breeders permit. The permits pecificaly states that a copy of the permit must be on them while in pursuit of Deer. Indiana Beagler's Alliance asks that the NRC NOT advance the Deer Breeder's permit rule change propasal, and that in fact the proposal should be denied. The Alliance is very active is sportsmens meetings and gatherings (annual meetings, field trials, hunt tests, night hunts, etc...) all across the state. and the opinion that is conveyed to us by the sportsmen is almost 90% in support of the Deer Hunting preserves. We hope that the NRC will refuse to advance IDNR's proposal to close Deer hunting preserves by changing the wording of the Deer Breeders permit.
Hyden commented further on February 27, 2006:
I attended the public comments meeting of the NRC on IDNR's administrative rule change on hunting by use of a Deer Breeders permit and several comments were either untrue or not based in fact at all.
One) Comment was made by John Goss of the Indiana Wildlife Federation that one of the groups opposed to Deer farming and Deer hunting preserves in Indiana was the Indiana branch of Pheasants Forever. I have an email from the state chairman of Pheasants Forever specifically stating that they have taken no stance opposing any type of hunting preserve, including Deer preserves, and that they in fact will not take a position opposing it.
Two) Dick Mercier of the Indiana Sportsman's Roundtable stood up and stated that they had taken a poll of their membership and 99% had voiced opposition to Deer farming and Deer hunting preserves. Fact is I was at the district meeting just a few months back when Mr. Merci! er specifically stated his disappointment that only a handful of Roundtable membership had even bothered to respond and he noted that some of the ones that did respond had voice support for the Deer preserves in the state.
Three) Glen Lange stated that the State of Wisconsin had spent over 20 million dollars fighting CWD as is reason for opposing Deer hunting preserves, While he told me he knew that Wisconsin a few months back passed DNR and state legislation protecting the Deer hunting preserves, making them legal, and then going back just a few months ago and lowering the size of legal preserves to 80 acres and grandfathering in those operations already in existence that were not that large.
As I stated in the public meeting, I have traveled all over the state of Indiana over the last year and half attending Field Trials, Hunt Tests, Night Hunts and sportsman's groups Annual meetings. I have talked to literly thousands of Indiana sportsmen and the vast majority ( over 90% ) have expressed their support for the Deer farms and Deer hunting preserves now in operation. While concern that guidelines be in place to insure a safe and healthy operation, there is resounding solid support for Deer farms and Deer preserves. Indiana Beaglers Alliance and its members, supporters, and several thousand individual sportsmen from all corners of Indiana ask that you deny IDNR this administrative rule and force them back to the table to make the compromise agreement that was supposed to materialize from the 5 open houses they held a few months back.
|
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Mar 22, 2006 20:03:56 GMT -5
ANYTHING Jack Hyden says needs to be metered........ Therefore I will loan mine out for the cause...  |
|
|
|
Post by 911 on Mar 22, 2006 21:48:21 GMT -5
90% are you freaking kidding me  |
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 23, 2006 7:22:32 GMT -5
ANYTHING Jack Hyden says needs to be metered........ Therefore I will loan mine out for the cause... I wondered if you would break-out the B.S. meter on this one. LOL!!!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Mar 23, 2006 10:22:40 GMT -5
90% are you freaking kidding me I sure would like to know where they get their figures, other than (DELETED) and some of their freinds, I know nobody in favor of allowing shooting kenneled deer. |
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 23, 2006 12:02:28 GMT -5
I believe I have seen a beagler place north and west of me. Used to be coal company property until they bought it and posted it to keep all others off. Since it is private posting and fencing is legal. Now they have a private place to run their dogs. So under these precepts they would be in favor after all it is how they seem to operate their club. Now do they pen raise the rabbits that they run if so then they would also agree with canned deer hunts.
Personally I am against canned/penned deer hunts.
Would I fence my property if I had any? Yes. 3 strands of nice barbed wire up to 4 foot high. To keep out those I do not want in. Those 14 million mushroom hunters that travel in vans and ignore no trespassing signs. Even been known to park right beside them. But then again I would not be selling hunts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Mar 23, 2006 12:28:04 GMT -5
Jack needs to seriously lay off the crack pipe... ;D His "website" at www.indianabeaglersalliance.org tells the real story.... - most recent post is Oct. 2005 - vast majority of original thread posts have NO replies - virtually all reply posts are by "jackrabbit", administrator, and signed at the end by Jack... i.e. Jack is talking to himself BTW - The state has no record of a non-profit or incorporation filing under "Indiana Beagler's Alliance"... Kyle and IDNR know the Paul Harvey on Jack and the "Alliance" and claims of thousands of members... that's why at the hearings on canned hunting last summer, speakers purporting to represent groups had to submit evidence (e.g. membership lists, tax statements, etc.) that they were bona fide prior to speaking, or otherwise were just speaking on their own behalf... The bit about "we also represent many other hunting groups..." is Jack's crack-filled brain's logic saying, "Because I joined the yada yada club, I can now speak as their representative..."  Jack needs to run, not walk, to the nearest mental health facility so that he and his other multiple personalities can get help... |
|
