Indiana: High Fence Hunting Judicial Decision

[joelhunter]

This past February, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that our legislature had not given the DNR the authority to regulate high fenced deer hunting--or the hunting of any privately owned animals for that matter. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to accept the case in a split decision, leaving the COA decision as the final judicial interpretation. Things are starting to gear up for the upcoming legislative session, and I will be working with some of our legislators on other issues. I would like to also work with some of our local organizations to help persuade our legislature to address this matter.

I thought I would put out this solicitation for suggestions as to what is the best way to legislate such an industry. Of course the first impulse is to promote an outright prohibition of such operations, but just in case that is deemed not appropriate by our legislators, are there any state's that permit such operations but require significant fees/insurance to internalize the costs associated with the risks of disease spread? Also, any states that prohibit these industries from claiming to be a form of hunting?

 

[Gr8bawana]

The best way to discourage high fence "hunting" would be for people not to go there. Perhaps they should be called "game farm shooting ranges" because it certainly is not hunting.

 

[mtmander]

I don't think hunting in a fenced area should be regulated

 

[pointingdogsrule]

In Iowa.... "I BELIEVE" these operations, such as elk and deer farms come under the regulation of the Iowa dept of Agriculture.

good luck to all
the dog

 

[Gellar]

In Iowa.... "I BELIEVE" these operations, such as elk and deer farms come under the regulation of the Iowa dept of Agriculture.

good luck to all
the dog

That is correct, and the DNR has tried to get it changed, much to the demise of the high fence crowd who want it to stay with the Dept of Ag.

 

[Ben Long]

It's a tough issue, as it pits the well-being of wildlife and hunting against ideas of property rights and the always potent agriculture industry. In Montana, we banned shooting operations by citizen's ballot initiative in 2000. Wyoming Legislature banned game farms long before they got established. Nowadays, there is a lot of money on the table. Best advice I can offer is to organize!

 

[joelhunter]

Update

The high fence "hunting" bill is Senate Bill 109 which passed out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee today. I spoke in opposition because it shifts regulation of high fence captive cervids and sheep away from the Department of Natural Resources to the Board of Animal Health, defines the animals as livestock, but identifies the operations as "hunting preserves."

For my Indiana friends who may be willing to write their State Reps and Senators, I have some suggestions for amendments:

I think the most prudent plan is to request the DNR be in control as opposed to the BOAH, because the DNR will have to deal with whatever disease spread problems that may result and they have the biologists who have been monitoring and protecting our natural deer heard for the past several decades, require insurance, require double fencing with a gap of at least 3 feet between the fences, increase the minimum acreage from the now 80 acres to 3 times that, and by all means--remove the label "hunting preserve" from the bill. If we are going to be stuck with this industry, at least we don't have to have a statute that calls this practice of shooting livestock "hunting."

If anyone needs some help with drafting a letter, or has any questions, please feel free to contact me via private message.

 

[Big Fin]

The high fence "hunting" bill is Senate Bill 109 which passed out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee today. I spoke in opposition because it shifts regulation of high fence captive cervids and sheep away from the Department of Natural Resources to the Board of Animal Health, defines the animals as livestock, but identifies the operations as "hunting preserves."

The irony of that line above hopefully doesn't go unnoticed. They want to be called a hunting operation, but they want to be governed by the livestock agency. Next time one of them claim you are "splitting the hunting community," remind them that they are not hunting; they are farming/ranching. If you want to be considered hunting, maybe you shouldn't spend all this energy being classified as livestock operations.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Good point Big Fin! I'll have to keep that in mind next time this argument comes up. What's surprising to me is how many hunters support this so called "hunting" of domesticated game animals (livestock) because they don't want to infringe on someone's property rights. Thankfully, game farms are already illegal here in Washington, just as they are in Montana and Wyoming.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I don't think hunting in a fenced area should be regulated

You have got to be kidding me!

 

[JDH]

I sent emails against this...even though one of my reps was the sponsor of the bill. I bet that went real far.

 

[blb078]

This has come up a few times in MO in the past. I don't think they should be banned because I think everyone should have a right to run a business and spend their money how they want. Although I do think there should be something in place to keep them from interacting w/free ranging animals. Double fencing seems to be a good idea, ,maybe even some gps type collar to track one easier if it gets out. I'm sure they would talk about costs but the people buying these high fence hunts usually aren't worried about price so raising the cost on those probably wont effect anything.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Yes, I agree that double fencing should be required and shooting pens of domesticated wildlife should be allowed. After all, no diseases will be able to be transmitted through a double fence.

 

[twodot]

joelhunter, good to see some Hoosier's posting these days.

Now, going back to your original post. Here';s my take as one who hunted hard in IN from the mid sixtys until two seasons ago.

First and foremost, why in the world would anyone want the State to Legislate a private business on private property? This ex Hoosier voter and land owner is very much against such actions.

You comment that, "Of course the first response is to promote an outright prohibition of such operations." Yikes! Yikes, why? Why would anyone care what someone does on their property with their livestock?

Speaking as one who watched Indiana grow into one of the undisputed big buck, and healthy deer herd states in the 80s and into the early 90s. Then to be poorly managed via open wanton slaughter of does and button bucks. I would love to see where the biologists are that were supposedly nurturing, and monitoring the herd? In all my years of checking in deer, I only one time saw anyone from the state working a check station. I would also love to know who gave the auto insurance companies so much clout over the DNR back then.

Requiring these business to have three times the land to operate? Once again yikes. You are a deer hunter in Ind. you should know by now that you can have a fantastic deer or turkey hunt on as property as so small you could shoot an arrow from one side to the other. Give me a ten acre multiflora rose thicket in corn and hardwood country and I will have a good season. Just because someone else thinks it would not be sporting to hunt on 80 acres should be of no concern to a business set up to serve people who can or will have fun on a small place.

I have no use for pay to shoot type places, but will defend the property owners right to do business as he wants on his ground without unreasonable state burden.

As far as not letting them call their businesses Hunting Preserves? Once again, none of our, or the states business. That is the commonly used name for that kind of business and everybody knows just what it means. I would never think of trying to restrict any name you choose to use on your legal practice and would in fact defend your right to call it what you want.

From one who owned farms in Ripley, Jefferson. and Switzerland counties, I would have no problem with a High Fence shooting / hunting place for a neighbor.
twodot

 

[blb078]

First and foremost, why in the world would anyone want the State to Legislate a private business on private property?

This exactly, there is a lot of, "I don't agree with it so it shouldn't be allowed" in this thread. It's a touchy subject I know, but no one should have their business shut down because people or gov't don't agree with it. Proper regulation yes but all out ban of someone's livelihood is a bit...well un American. I've never hunted one of these but as a business owner I wouldn't want someone to come in and try to shut me down because they don't agree with it or it conflicts w/their own agenda's.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

This exactly, there is a lot of, "I don't agree with it so it shouldn't be allowed" in this thread. It's a touchy subject I know, but no one should have their business shut down because people or gov't don't agree with it. Proper regulation yes but all out ban of someone's livelihood is a bit...well un American. I've never hunted one of these but as a business owner I wouldn't want someone to come in and try to shut me down because they don't agree with it or it conflicts w/their own agenda's.

We're not talking about shutting any of them down because there aren't any in IN at the present time as far as I can find out. If IN looks into all the disease problems these places have caused throughout the country and especially now throughout the midwest they will not allow any to get started.

 

[shoots-straight]

This has come up a few times in MO in the past. I don't think they should be banned because I think everyone should have a right to run a business and spend their money how they want. Although I do think there should be something in place to keep them from interacting w/free ranging animals. Double fencing seems to be a good idea, ,maybe even some gps type collar to track one easier if it gets out. I'm sure they would talk about costs but the people buying these high fence hunts usually aren't worried about price so raising the cost on those probably wont effect anything.

Yea, I don't get it either. I'm putting in a nuclear dump site on my property here and people are getting all up in the air over it. Regulate? How about get over it, and buy yourself a lead coat.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Basically what should be done, in my opinion, is that the private ownership of native big game animals should be illegal, period. If someone wants to have a hunting preserve, let them have domestic pigs, horses, goats, cattle, whatever. As long as they're not using whitetail deer, elk, mule deer.

 

[blb078]

Yea, I don't get it either. I'm putting in a nuclear dump site on my property here and people are getting all up in the air over it. Regulate? How about get over it, and buy yourself a lead coat.

Not exactly the same comparison, a little dramatic don't you think, like I stated, there is a lot of "I don't like it so it shouldn't be allowed", and you just proved my point, and even more of it keeps showing up. I agree that proper regulation and safeguards should be put in place. There was just a post about a train hitting a bunch of elk and killing them at once, should we not allow trains or any ground transportation anymore? Should we not allow guns anymore because there's a lot of people that don't like them either, should we not allow hunting? Get over yourself. Here's a news flash for you or anyone, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad or should be banned. There is already enough gov't saying we can't do something, we don't need more of it.

And just so you know, proper regulations and safeguards wouldn't allow you to have you nuclear dump....see how that works!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not exactly the same comparison, a little dramatic don't you think, like I stated, there is a lot of "I don't like it so it shouldn't be allowed", and you just proved my point, and even more of it keeps showing up. I agree that proper regulation and safeguards should be put in place. There was just a post about a train hitting a bunch of elk and killing them at once, should we not allow trains or any ground transportation anymore? Should we not allow guns anymore because there's a lot of people that don't like them either, should we not allow hunting? Get over yourself. Here's a news flash for you or anyone, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad or should be banned. There is already enough gov't saying we can't do something, we don't need more of it.

And just so you know, proper regulations and safeguards wouldn't allow you to have you nuclear dump....see how that works!

This would be a much more compelling argument if it weren't for the fact that much of the spread of CWD can be traced back to game farms/shooting preserves. It's much deeper than merely not agreeing with shooting animals behind a high fence. If there was no threat to native wildlife populations, I couldn't care less about what "hunts" were sold.

There are many laws that limit what can be done on private land out of concern for wildlife populations.