Tazman

I will be honest and say I have, but the one who lives under my deck the wife calls her pet and I can't hunt it! I only hunt big foots with wooden kegs though, I am a trad hunter, I would never resort to aluminum kegs!

adams

Cases like this is why I am against high fences. I don't see how killing an animal in this fashion could be graifying.
It makes me sick as well[:'(]

TXhighrack

Adams, like I posted earlier, this place is not a good representative of what most high fenced hunts are like. In this case the animals, according to the report, where drugged and still under the medication when they were shot.

t roy

all fenced hunts are alike in the fact that they restirct the animals movements to a certain area, making it easier for the "hunters" to locate and harvest the animals. it's called manipulation and it has no place in hunting.

trophyhuntr

T-Roy

don't start the high fence are wrong thing here

t roy

had to say it. its true. and the only people who do it (put up high fences) are only interested in one thing, profit.

UncleNorby

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.

kevin1

Unk ,
whether owned and put behind a fence or not deer aren't livestock here by law , so the Lacey Act applies in this case . The deer pimps are trying to get them classified as livestock for this reason , and so they can sell them all year instead of just our hunting seasons . The charges against these slobs are a direct result of them breaking numerous game laws , not just because whitetails were involved .

Yes , I would be just as angry if they were shooting drugged exotics in small pens , just as the majority of Indiana residents would . We don't condone such operations no matter how they're run , which is why we're fighting to get them closed . My biggest concern personally is the reaction of the non-hunting public when they see articles like this , it relects badly on us too . The non-hunters could easily get ALL hunting shut down if they got outraged enough .

UncleNorby

I see it differently. Forget about Bellar in particular.

I guess the law here won't allow it, but I would rather it be made clear that these are not wild animals, and shooting them is not hunting. They should be regulated by Agricultural agencies, not DNR. Separate them from hunting as much as possible.

If the PETA folks get pissed, fine. It's no different than a slaughter yard, except you can "shoot your own".

Do you get all torqued up about the operations that raise and stock pheasant, grouse, ducks, etc.?

TXhighrack

No they couldnt.


UncleNorby:

Not all states consider animals behind a high fence as private property. Down here, deer that are behind a high fence are still considered public property and all the state game&fish laws still apply to them. And just because a high fence is erected around a piece of property does not automatically make all the animals "livestock". Now I dont agree with the "Put and Take" hunting operations that exist. In which animals are brought into the enclosure periodically during the year to ensure there is a huntable population of animals. This is normally only found with "day hunting" ranches.

But when you high fence an untouched ranch that has never introduced any animals and the only animals on the ranch are native, then you cant say the animals have "turned tame" overnight just because the ranch now has an 8 foot fence unstead of a 4 foot fence.