Kevin1

I have stated that I don't condone high fence operations, so that should be understood.

You say the guy was licensed as a breeding operation. I guess you do know more. Whatever. I really don't care what he's licensed for. My philosophy (not to be confused with what is legal in Indiana) on this whole deal, is that once you own an animal and put it behind a fence it ceases to be a wild animal. It's no longer wildlife, and shooting it is not hunting. By definition, wildlife is public property. It becomes private property when you put your tag on it.

Speaking of wildlife, I have a degree in wildlife management, and I am quite familiar with the Lacey Act. It pertains to WILDLIFE. It does not pertain to animals that are private property. I have no knowledge of how this operation obtained it's animals, so it could be true that they were illegally obtaining wild animals for use inside the fence. I have no idea.

Would anybody give a rat's rearend if this guy was using red deer, sitka deer, fallow deer, or giraffes for that matter? I don't think so, aside from obtaining them legally. It's the whitetail angle that gets folks upset.

Pholisophically, I think a guy should be able to charge money for allowing people (not hunters) to shoot (not hunt) privately owned animals (not wildlife), as long as people are willing to pay. The DNR doesn't feel the same way, but I'll be darned if I can figure out why they even care. Aside from obtaining animals illegally.