Tuffbroadhead

DNR NEWS

Indiana Department of Natural Resources 402 W. Washington St. W255 B Indianapolis, IN 46204-2748

For immediate release: August 11, 2005

DNR eliminates high-fenced hunting

Thursday, August 11, 2005 Department of Natural Resources Director Kyle Hupfer announced that the DNR will eliminate hunting of captive whitetail deer within an enclosure.

Indiana citizens wishing to possess whitetail deer for any purpose must obtain a Game Breeder’s License issued by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

The scope of the Game Breeder’s License is limited to the propagation of an animal in captivity or the possession, purchase or sale of an animal solely for the purpose of propagation. A Game Breeder’s License does not allow the hunting or purposeful killing of deer maintained under that license.

“The actions taken today and the enforcement of the Game Breeder’s License restrictions ensure that the strong Hoosier hunting heritage is protected for generations to come,” said Director Hupfer.

Also today it was announced that an emergency rule was signed stating that Hoosiers will no longer be able to hunt exotic species behind a high-fence. Among those species are wild boar, sheep, zebra and elk.

“In order to preserve the hunting tradition, we must ensure that all hunting in Indiana is done in an ethical manner and in a way that conforms with long-standing fair chase ethics,” said Director Hupfer.

Reporters Contact:

Kim Brant, Director of Communications, 317-232-4003, or by email at [email protected].

Tuffbroadhead

I did'nt make this post to start a pissing contest over how people hunt so PLEASE dont make it one, I'm just putting the info out there for ya'll to read... Thanks Dale

davidmil

Good deal. I know a couple folks that hunt and live in Indiana. They've been condeming and finding fault with the Indiana Wildlife folks for years. I bet they're happy to see something positive. Now if they could just catch half the poachers they have it'd be a good deal.

PABowhntr

Interesting. I don't seea problem with the change personally but I am sure it is going to tick some people off.

Trapper_Hunter

One word GOOD..... High fence huntings wrong[:'(]lOL

Cougar Mag

High fenced hunting in Indiana is not like high fence, huge acreage ranch hunting in Texas. Glad the Indiana DNR is getting tough.

justhuntitall

[/align]
[blockquote]


I dont like high fence hunting eitherbut a dont think its postive to them to banning any kind of hunting. It was to easy .
I would be very fearful of this .
Be careful what you ask for there are those that dont like gun hunting should they bann that next are how about the guys who dont like bow hunting?

People should not force therethoughts on other pepole simply ifthey dont like it. If you dont like itdont doit!


[/align] [/blockquote]

ringneck2

not my state but becarefull you just lost a form of hunting .the antis work on little bits at a time

kevin1

Speaking as a resident of Indiana let assure you that our hunting community is tickled pink by this news , and our new Director of the IDNR has received a record amount of e-mails , nearly all of whichwere both congratulatory and supportive of his courageous decision on the matter . As he points out , all he has done is clarify the existing legal position and enforced it . The practice was never actually legal here , so they had no right to exist in the first place . The vast majority of Hoosiers , both hunters and non-hunters , when surveyed revealed that they abhor the concept of high fenced hunting and wish it had never taken root here .

To say that we are happy to see those parasites go would be a crowning understatement . As demonstrated by their recently convicted poster boy Russell Bellar ,the ones that operate herehave been shown to be disreputable in general and have no qualms about "bending the regs" solely for the sake of profit . I have a videoof some promotional footage shot for Mr. Bellar's little abattoir that so sickened me that I was forced to pause it several times to compose myself before continuing to view it . My wife , a non-hunter , couldn't even get past the mid point of it before asking me to shut it off . I will gladly post a copy of it if somebody will show me how .

Those who live where such places are legal are freeto sanction them if they choose , but we have chosen to eradicate them as is our right .

Tim4Trout

This is a sad day for Indiana, and for hunting.

While I do not personally view the shooting a tame animal in say a 30 by 50 ft pen, or an animal that has been "drugged", etc., and having it called "hunting", legitimate high fence hunting operations could have been saved by implimenting reasonable regulations associated with facility size, number of animals, vegetation density, etc., and stiff penalties for use of drugs and other violations.

Sadly however, Indiana has lowered itself to the point where they are saying it is OK for all to be judged by the actions of a few or even just one.

First it is the high fence operation that gets ( no pun intended ) "canned" because not only radical anti hunting factions, but also certain hunters believe that hunting animals within an enclosure is somehow unethical regardless of how the facility is set up, soon to be followed by the use of bait, dogs, and who knows what else one can conjur up as supposedly being "unethical".

For those who believe this issue has nothing to do with " animal rights ", or is good for hunting. You are WRONG.

As was stated in Jim Beers' report on a 2001 animal rights conference(Hunters are already divided, keep dividing them. and Stress issues that divide hunters like "canned" hunts. )

The argument between hunters of " what is supposedly ethical and what is not " does little but divide us at a time when we need to unite against factions determined to end our interests regardless of what those interests are.

------

When a hunter enters the woods in search of game, he is confronted with numerous regulations pertaining to how he may proceed in his quest to fill a tag. Such regulations are usually set at the reccomendation of wildlife professionals to prevent over harvesting and help distribute the harvest fairly among those who are successful. However since the number of animals, terrain, and other conditions vary, so does the allowance of regulations, hence some states allow such practices as baiting, the use of dogs, etc. for hunting certain game animals.

Also variances occur within those regulations that are allowed. Bowhunters of today can attempt to take game with weapons such as longbows and recurves similar to bowhunters of the past. They also have the option of using modern equipment and numerous accessories that increase their effectiveness and chance of success over those who choose bowhunting weapons of the past.


Tell me.

Is it any more unethical to hunt an animal within an enclosed area ( legit that is ... not a 30 by 50 ft. pen ) versus hunting that same animal free range .... than it is to hunt an animal with a modern compound with all of its accoutrements versus a longbow or recurve?

And if yes, please tell me why because we are comparing apples to apples -- not apples to oranges here.

Those who oppose high fence hunting often do so with the adage that the enclosure gives that hunter an "advantage". Well guess what ? Replace a recurve bow with a compound and guess what you have ? ... " an advantage "


Unfortunately some hunters incur the false belief that if we set certain standards, ( i.e. eliminate those venues which commonly cause friction amongst the ranks ) that those outside the hunting community who often speak out against such will somehow accept whatever is left.

Those who fight against hunting do so on 2 fronts.

If the chosen method of hunting, amongst those allowed by law, increases the chances of ones ability to succeed, their cry is that it is unfair and enethical.

Which might incline some to think that of we get rid of those "advantage" methods, everything will be OK.

However such is not the case.

Why ? Because on the other side of the coin, the very same anti hunting factions that want baiting, hounding , and high fence operations banned based upon the unethical claim now change their tune and use the adage of cruelty and wounding.

Don't believe me ...

Read this and heed this ....

In all cases, sport hunting inflicts undeniable cruelty—pain, trauma, wounding, and death—on living, sentient creatures. The Humane Society of the United States believes that causing suffering and death is by definition inhumane, regardless of method.

So if you concur with anti hunting factions by invoking the conclusion that all hunting of animals within an enclosure equates to being unethical, unfair, nonsporting, etc., and should be banned, then IMO you are no better than those anti's who are pushing for such are are doing nothing short of providing them with inspiration to go after your venue ( whether it be another " ethical " argument or a " cruel and inhumane " argument ) not far down the road.


******

Whether it is hunting with a longbow or compound.
or

Whether it is hunting free range or enclosure.

It is called choice.

Simply because you choose not to engage in a particular form shouldn't be justification for you to spoil it for others.

Which is just what you do when you support goals of anti hunting factions, which include the banning of hunting within an enclosed area.

Some of you will say that hunting within an enclosure is not hunting. Don't get me wrong. There are supposed enclosed hunting operations that certainly should not be considered hunting.

But this action taken in Indiana doesn't address those facilities, rather it affects all enclosure facilities and rather than protect hunting , it places more and more aspects associated with hunting at risk.

Take a close look at the title of this thread. It doesn't simply say that "Russell Bellar" was shut down, or that certain facilities were shut down it says ALL were shut down.