Post by bullwinkle on Mar 22, 2006 22:36:51 GMT -5
Please note the contridictions
1) The resolution calls for a proactive campaign to refute and condemn as unacceptable the use of the term "Canned Hunting". KYSCI recognizes acceptable definitions of Hunting as; the pursuit of game and game defined as "wild animals hunted for sport or food."
2)*IDNR should not have authority over non-wild animals of any species and that by legislation, animals owned as private property should not be considered as wildlife.
3)Hunters: as those persons pursuing wild game.
THEY ARE NOT WILD!!!!!!
Ohlmann sent the following to the DNR
Mike Ohlmann wrote by email on February 28, 2006 from mike@mikescustomtaxidermy.com
Kentuckiana Chapter SCI board unanimously passes resolution on Indiana High Fence Issue:
After reviewing the extensive findings of the chapters committee to review the high fence issue and hunting ban in Indiana the Kentuckiana Chapter board unanimously passed a resolution to support the position of Indiana Deer and Elk Farmers, and the Indiana Farm Bureau.
SCI is a conservation and hunter organization with a stated goal of being "First for Hunters". SCI works worldwide for wildlife conservation, to promote hunting and defend hunter’s rights. The Kentuckiana Chapter serves members in both Indiana and KY and is extremely concerned with the language and actions of IDNR recently related to Deer, exotic ranchers and high fenced facilities that harvest and offer opportunities to harvest animals under circumstances that closely resemble hunting.
The resolution calls for a proactive campaign to refute and condemn as unacceptable the use of the term "Canned Hunting". KYSCI recognizes acceptable definitions of Hunting as; the pursuit of game and game defined as "wild animals hunted for sport or food." It was determined that individual, governmental or public rhetoric to equate slaughter to hunting is misleading much the same as calling poachers, "Hunters" or labeling all automatic weapons as "assault weapons" or certain weapons as "Saturday Night Specials" in order to deceive the general public and advance anti positions.
The board discussed and agreed that:
*IDNR should not have authority over non-wild animals of any species and that by legislation, animals owned as private property should not be considered as wildlife.
*That such alternative livestock should be the responsibility of its owner and that the owner should control and care for those animals under acceptable farming and animal management practices relative to the species.
*That these farmers should be directed solely by the authority of the USDA and Indiana Dept. of Agriculture to insure public safety, proper animal care and serve the best interests of farmers and agricultural commerce.
It was noted that such legislation more closely resembles acceptable practices worldwide with respect to private property rights, and economic incentive to raising and preserving species whose habitat loss, disease and political climate has diminished their numbers and chances in the wild. As well as creates additional resources and a broader incentive base, to study and resolve potential disease issues for wild species currently only supported by diminishing hunters numbers and dollars.
The resolution supports legislation that clearly define and delineate;
Farmers being all those individuals that own manage animals for agricultural and economic purposes.
Game breeders: being those licensed by IDNR to hold, rehab, propagate or otherwise defined by IDNR, wild native or feral species in the public domain.
Hunters: as those persons pursuing wild game.
Animals of any species privately owned as livestock.
Wild native or feral species in the public domain as game.
KYSCI requests similar consideration among regional organizations similarly affected and by Safari Club International via the EC and appropriate committees.
The committee report noted that: Such estates or preserves have existed worldwide for centuries, serving as reserves for restocking wild populations devastated by disease, famine and natural disaster. Preserves and commercially raised stock offer a wide variety of legitimate recreational opportunities at various levels including introductory level situations for those interested in experiencing some of the basic situations related to ethical animal harvest. They also serve as opportunities for animal viewing, education and research, as well as economically sound use of land that might not be suited for more traditional grazing or crop production thereby bringing more public understanding and support for wildlife management.
Committee chairman Mike Ohlmann stated “We feel that SCI taking an active role in this process falls directly in line with our sincere interest in uniting conservation and farming interests. As well as SCI's dedication to preserve and promote hunting and acceptable herd and animal management through commercially acceptable and worldwide successfully used practices.”
Indiana Farm Bureau Policy statement: Exotic Animals and Non-traditional Livestock 208.08
Non traditional livestock - cervids, camelidea, tatites and other exotic animals raised as livestock should be subject to the same Board of Animal Health Regulations as traditional livestock. We support privately owned captive cervidae be individually identified as domestic livestock to differentiate them from wildlife. We recognize a property owner’s right to conduct hunts on his property. We support accredited captive cervidae (white-tail deer, elk, etc.) farming and hunting.
SCI Policy on Fenced Wildlife (Estate Hunting) Operations
May, 2005
SCI supports all legal forms of hunting. It is up to each jurisdiction to determine for itself what standards and practices define legal hunting. SCI will support that determination, country-by-country and state-by-state. Any taking of wildlife that is not within the definition of legal hunting as determined by each jurisdiction is not supported by SCI.
The management of non-domesticated wildlife within high fences has been practiced for many years. The use of high fences to contain wildlife can be a tool for wildlife management, wildlife conservation and for hunting programs worldwide when applied under appropriate conditions.
High fence hunting operations worldwide can offer unique hunting experiences to many types of hunters, including beginning hunters, advanced trophy hunters, elderly hunters, and special needs hunters.
In order to optimize the positive benefits derived and minimize any potential liabilities from high fence hunting operations, SCI advocates the following standards:
1. The high fence hunting industry should develop and adopt industry approved operating standards for high fence hunting operations. Differences in the environment, habitat, species, hunting cultures and current regulations should be considered in developing the standards.
2. The standards must include management practices to effectively address disease issues including a testing program, record keeping of animals that have been moved and any other preventative practices that are considered appropriate for the region and species involved;
3. The hunts conducted must be done under fair chase principles. While it is recognized that there is difficulty in defining fair chase principles for different regions, hunting cultures, species and habitat conditions, these difficulties should not prevent reasonable standards. At a minimum, these standards should provide that all hunted animals have an opportunity to escape into adequate cover and to retain a natural flight response;
4. The standards must include management practices to address the well-being of the animals involved during all phases of the program. This includes the provision of adequate food, water and cover within the fenced area;
5. The standards must include measures to assure the adequacy of the fence itself, including the need for high quality material, adequate maintenance, with regular checks to maintain the integrity of the fences, and a process to deal effectively with escaped animals.
1) The resolution calls for a proactive campaign to refute and condemn as unacceptable the use of the term "Canned Hunting". KYSCI recognizes acceptable definitions of Hunting as; the pursuit of game and game defined as "wild animals hunted for sport or food."
2)*IDNR should not have authority over non-wild animals of any species and that by legislation, animals owned as private property should not be considered as wildlife.
3)Hunters: as those persons pursuing wild game.
THEY ARE NOT WILD!!!!!!
Ohlmann sent the following to the DNR
Mike Ohlmann wrote by email on February 28, 2006 from mike@mikescustomtaxidermy.com
Kentuckiana Chapter SCI board unanimously passes resolution on Indiana High Fence Issue:
After reviewing the extensive findings of the chapters committee to review the high fence issue and hunting ban in Indiana the Kentuckiana Chapter board unanimously passed a resolution to support the position of Indiana Deer and Elk Farmers, and the Indiana Farm Bureau.
SCI is a conservation and hunter organization with a stated goal of being "First for Hunters". SCI works worldwide for wildlife conservation, to promote hunting and defend hunter’s rights. The Kentuckiana Chapter serves members in both Indiana and KY and is extremely concerned with the language and actions of IDNR recently related to Deer, exotic ranchers and high fenced facilities that harvest and offer opportunities to harvest animals under circumstances that closely resemble hunting.
The resolution calls for a proactive campaign to refute and condemn as unacceptable the use of the term "Canned Hunting". KYSCI recognizes acceptable definitions of Hunting as; the pursuit of game and game defined as "wild animals hunted for sport or food." It was determined that individual, governmental or public rhetoric to equate slaughter to hunting is misleading much the same as calling poachers, "Hunters" or labeling all automatic weapons as "assault weapons" or certain weapons as "Saturday Night Specials" in order to deceive the general public and advance anti positions.
The board discussed and agreed that:
*IDNR should not have authority over non-wild animals of any species and that by legislation, animals owned as private property should not be considered as wildlife.
*That such alternative livestock should be the responsibility of its owner and that the owner should control and care for those animals under acceptable farming and animal management practices relative to the species.
*That these farmers should be directed solely by the authority of the USDA and Indiana Dept. of Agriculture to insure public safety, proper animal care and serve the best interests of farmers and agricultural commerce.
It was noted that such legislation more closely resembles acceptable practices worldwide with respect to private property rights, and economic incentive to raising and preserving species whose habitat loss, disease and political climate has diminished their numbers and chances in the wild. As well as creates additional resources and a broader incentive base, to study and resolve potential disease issues for wild species currently only supported by diminishing hunters numbers and dollars.
The resolution supports legislation that clearly define and delineate;
Farmers being all those individuals that own manage animals for agricultural and economic purposes.
Game breeders: being those licensed by IDNR to hold, rehab, propagate or otherwise defined by IDNR, wild native or feral species in the public domain.
Hunters: as those persons pursuing wild game.
Animals of any species privately owned as livestock.
Wild native or feral species in the public domain as game.
KYSCI requests similar consideration among regional organizations similarly affected and by Safari Club International via the EC and appropriate committees.
The committee report noted that: Such estates or preserves have existed worldwide for centuries, serving as reserves for restocking wild populations devastated by disease, famine and natural disaster. Preserves and commercially raised stock offer a wide variety of legitimate recreational opportunities at various levels including introductory level situations for those interested in experiencing some of the basic situations related to ethical animal harvest. They also serve as opportunities for animal viewing, education and research, as well as economically sound use of land that might not be suited for more traditional grazing or crop production thereby bringing more public understanding and support for wildlife management.
Committee chairman Mike Ohlmann stated “We feel that SCI taking an active role in this process falls directly in line with our sincere interest in uniting conservation and farming interests. As well as SCI's dedication to preserve and promote hunting and acceptable herd and animal management through commercially acceptable and worldwide successfully used practices.”
Indiana Farm Bureau Policy statement: Exotic Animals and Non-traditional Livestock 208.08
Non traditional livestock - cervids, camelidea, tatites and other exotic animals raised as livestock should be subject to the same Board of Animal Health Regulations as traditional livestock. We support privately owned captive cervidae be individually identified as domestic livestock to differentiate them from wildlife. We recognize a property owner’s right to conduct hunts on his property. We support accredited captive cervidae (white-tail deer, elk, etc.) farming and hunting.
SCI Policy on Fenced Wildlife (Estate Hunting) Operations
May, 2005
SCI supports all legal forms of hunting. It is up to each jurisdiction to determine for itself what standards and practices define legal hunting. SCI will support that determination, country-by-country and state-by-state. Any taking of wildlife that is not within the definition of legal hunting as determined by each jurisdiction is not supported by SCI.
The management of non-domesticated wildlife within high fences has been practiced for many years. The use of high fences to contain wildlife can be a tool for wildlife management, wildlife conservation and for hunting programs worldwide when applied under appropriate conditions.
High fence hunting operations worldwide can offer unique hunting experiences to many types of hunters, including beginning hunters, advanced trophy hunters, elderly hunters, and special needs hunters.
In order to optimize the positive benefits derived and minimize any potential liabilities from high fence hunting operations, SCI advocates the following standards:
1. The high fence hunting industry should develop and adopt industry approved operating standards for high fence hunting operations. Differences in the environment, habitat, species, hunting cultures and current regulations should be considered in developing the standards.
2. The standards must include management practices to effectively address disease issues including a testing program, record keeping of animals that have been moved and any other preventative practices that are considered appropriate for the region and species involved;
3. The hunts conducted must be done under fair chase principles. While it is recognized that there is difficulty in defining fair chase principles for different regions, hunting cultures, species and habitat conditions, these difficulties should not prevent reasonable standards. At a minimum, these standards should provide that all hunted animals have an opportunity to escape into adequate cover and to retain a natural flight response;
4. The standards must include management practices to address the well-being of the animals involved during all phases of the program. This includes the provision of adequate food, water and cover within the fenced area;
5. The standards must include measures to assure the adequacy of the fence itself, including the need for high quality material, adequate maintenance, with regular checks to maintain the integrity of the fences, and a process to deal effectively with escaped animals.
