|
Post by cambygsp on Mar 29, 2006 15:03:11 GMT -5
www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/NEWS01/603290505/1006/NEWS01March 29, 2006 Deer preserve owner wins ruling Associated Press CORYDON, Ind. -- A judge has blocked state officials from taking any action to stop deer hunts at a southern Indiana fenced hunting preserve. The temporary injunction issued Tuesday by Harrison Circuit Court Judge H. Lloyd Whitis prevents the state Department of Natural Resources from shutting down Whitetail Bluff as a lawsuit filed by its owner makes its way through court. The ruling, which does not cover any other high-fenced hunting preserves in the state, comes a week after the state's Natural Resources Commission approved new rules aimed at ending the so-called "canned" hunts of deer, elk and exotic animals such as wild boar, zebras and red deer. Whitetail Bluff's owner, Rodney Bruce, filed his lawsuit last year challenging the agency's authority to ban the hunts. "We were legal in 1998 (in opening the business). I see no reason to think anything's changed," Bruce said. DNR Director Kyle Hupfer said that despite the legal challenge he believed the agency would prevail. "I have no doubt (high-fence hunting preserves) will be shut down," he said Tuesday. "It's just a matter of time." The judge's order said that Bruce would suffer irreparable harm from lost bookings if he was forced to shut down before his lawsuit was resolved. Whitis observed that it was a "reasonable interpretation" that the animals Bruce buys for his preserve about 20 miles west of Louisville, Ky., were not the property of the people of Indiana and therefore not subject to state regulations. Hupfer, appointed last year by Gov. Mitch Daniels to head the DNR, had sought the new rules after announcing in August that he believed preserves that hold such hunts for deer or elk were not authorized under Indiana law. No state agency compiles information on high-fenced hunting operations, but there are believed to be between 12 to 15 in Indiana. Daniels has said he hoped for a resolution between the DNR and the preserves as there was evidence that owners had been told in the past that they could hold their hunts. The state's move to ban the hunts followed the conviction last year of a Miami County deer farmer on charges he violated federal wildlife protection laws by allowing unlicensed hunters to use illegal weapons and bait to hunt bucks on his land.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Lyon on Mar 30, 2006 8:13:44 GMT -5
"We were legal in 1998 (in opening the business). I see no reason to think anything's changed," Bruce said.
So I guess this is the first time in history that something was legal, then the law changed to prohibit that activity.
Gee officer, I know the speed limit is 60, but it was 75 yesterday and I just figured I could continue to drive 75!
|
|
|
Post by dec on Mar 30, 2006 8:45:59 GMT -5
Anymore I could care less about the ethics of the high fenced debate. However, from a pure business stand point I can see the high fenced owners' arguement. They had a legal business that they have invested a lot of money and now the government steps in and says they have to close their doors.
Rick, your example is complete apple/oranges. If you change the speed limit and someone uses your arguement, it is completely their fault. How have they invested money in the fact that it was 75 yesterday?
From a business prerspective, I see it as no different than if the government came into my engineering/fabrication shop and said "you can no longer provide engineering & fabrication services. shut down!" B.S. I've got a lot invested here in a business that was legal and was hurting no one. The same I feel applies to the high fenced owners. If you don't agree with the ethics of it, great. If you (or the government) want them shut down, great. But you can't shut them down over night. You have to let them phase themselves out and address the financial commitment that they have in the business, especially when the same State of Indiana government that is telling them to shut down also gave them their license to open that business.
Think about it a little. What if the State came into your place of business and said "Shut Down! We've made what you are doing illegal." Regardless of what type of business you are in.
You have to separate the business side of this from the ethics or beliefs that you may have for the industry.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Mar 30, 2006 10:17:39 GMT -5
he won an injunction...hardly= wins the battle or ruling
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Mar 30, 2006 10:48:03 GMT -5
he won an injunction...hardly= wins the battle or ruling No, but lawsuits can be very long, and as long as the lawsuit is active, he will be selling deer. DEC, I agree 110% I have been very quite on this subject for some time now. I would NEVER hunt deer behind a fence......maybe hogs, but not deer.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Lyon on Mar 30, 2006 12:15:15 GMT -5
Yes, I know it was an apples/oranges comparison. Point was, the goverment does in fact shut businesses down every day at the stroke of a pen. Just because someone wants to operate a business doesn't mean they can. If that were the case, there would be toxic / hazardous waste sites everywhere. And that is how I feel about these High Fence operations. It's not an emotional thing for me, I couldn't care less if someone wants to go shoot there. It is the PROVEN health hazards to native animals that decided it for me.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Mar 30, 2006 12:58:24 GMT -5
Rick, you are right. You can't just operate a business because you feel like it. HOWEVER, every single legitimate business within the state must register with the State of Indiana for an I.D. that basically gives them the authority to be in business in the state. I know, I own a business and have my documents laying in front of me as I type this. So that means that if a high fenced operator has registered in the state as a legal business, he's been authorized to conduct his business.
Now, this does not mean that there are not guys out there that have fenced their property and are letting guys "hunt" these and have never established themselves as a business. I'm sure there are a few of those. Just like there are guys in my business who will weld up some steel for a guy in their shed out back for a few bucks. That does not make them a legal business in the state.
Let me give you this real world situation. My neighbor and friend owns a high fenced operation up here near Angola. He is a stand up guy and does this high fenced operation as kind of a side business, not his main business, but it is a legitimate business regestered as such with the State of Indiana. He plays by the DRN rules. I'm sure that Greendeem on here has visited him many times. If not him, then the other C.O. up here has.
My neighbor is more than willing to close down his high fenced operation. He's not happy about it, does not agree with it, but he's willing to do it. His only argument is from a business perspective. Look at the money that he has invested in fencing, animals, feeders, habitat, etc. The investment is huge. The investment was made under a legal business license for the State of Indiana. Now 4 years later, the state says "shut down, sorry about your luck".
There has to be a way for these businesses that were completely legal and regestered as such to shut down without having to eat these huge losses. Let them phase themselves out so that they can spread these costs out over time. Buy them out to a percentage. There has to be a way.
Think what you want about has gone on inside the fences. Again, I'm not going to argue the ethical point of it, I could care less. I just think this goes beyond "hunting". This is strictly a business issue. Again, I ask what would you do if the State walked into your business tomorrow and said "shut down".
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Mar 30, 2006 14:11:05 GMT -5
Rick, I believe your "Proven Health Hazards" were debunked by all of the experts on animal health, both state officials and private vets that testified in the trial saying there was no threat from captive animals and that WILD animals were in fact the threat. The anti-fence movement has become one of pure "Supreme Ethics" and that doesn't hold much weight in the general public or court of law.
It's fun to talk hypothetically and react like a school of phirana over a topic on the internet but when the real facts hit the courtroom the verdict was very different than we see here daily. Same goes with legislature, same with public input meetings. Sometime the internet experts lose track of what the real world is like.... this ruling was just a small dose of reality.
|
|
|
Post by joen on Mar 30, 2006 14:26:37 GMT -5
What is the difference between shooting hogs to deer behind fences. If someone wants to hunt behind a fence and all rules and regulations are followed what is the harm?
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Mar 30, 2006 15:01:19 GMT -5
Plenty of deer in Indiana.....I don't worship antlers, so no need in me paying someone to shoot one
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Mar 30, 2006 23:30:39 GMT -5
Dec, One important issue on the history of high fence in Indiana... the statutes and IDNR regs NEVER said these types of operations were LEGAL... the laws were silent on the issue, i.e. there was no law/reg in place at the time that said they were ILLEGAL, which is what the IDNR letter to Rodney said, and is also Kyle's point.... the original high fence guys jumped and set up shop because they saw guys in Texas and other states making big money off shooter bucks, and that's how we got to where we're at... big difference!!! jrbhunter said: Rick, I believe your "Proven Health Hazards" were debunked by all of the experts on animal health, both state officials and private vets that testified in the trial saying there was no threat from captive animals and that WILD animals were in fact the threat. The anti-fence movement has become one of pure "Supreme Ethics" and that doesn't hold much weight in the general public or court of law.What "trial" are you talking about... ? What "science" are you quoting...? The threat is CWD, and I for one don't care which deer on which side of the fence gets it first... but deer can sure travel farther and faster in a trailer than they can on foot, now .... Funny how CWD was endemic in Colorado and Wyoming for decades and never made much of a spread... until about the time high fence operations got going, and suddenly it's in Wisconsin... bypassed most of the central US didn't it.... now why is that...? By the way... you need to get your scale calibrated when you start talking about the weight of opinion in the general public on high fence... it's not in favor in case you missed the umpteen articles and editorials that have appeared on the subject... Nice try on the spin though.... kinda reverse english with a right twist.. ;D
|
|