Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Indiana Hunting preserves Sen. Carlin Yoder Senate Bill 404 and Rep. William Friend House Bill 1154 DEAD IN THE WATER

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2014/02/indiana-hunting-preserves-sen-carlin.html


kind regards,
terry

explanation ? deceased/gone/no more canned hunts/no more high fence farmed hunts/Bellars place gone ?

good question. what will happen with the farms now operating legally, like the sperm mills, urine mills, or as they sometimes are called, breeding facilities, or to trophy buck pens, where they raise trophy bucks, but not hunt, to sell to other penned facilities ???

I suppose it will be up to the hunters and people of Indiana to shut them down as well, but it will take strong push by the people. ...


about Bellar's place ;


Canned Hunting Booming In Indiana
Despite Pseudo Ban By Hupfer

By Don Jordan

posted 10/22/07

A couple of weeks ago as Indiana hunters were starting to take the field for fall turkey and deer hunting seasons, scores of dealers in captive deer and canned hunting magnates gathered in Indianapolis to sell their wares.
Those wares generally include the sale of "shooter bucks" or sperm from whitetail bucks that have enormous antlers. A so-called shooter buck may sell for $1,000 to $7,000 or more. Shooting a buck with huge antlers can cost a customer $15,000 or more. A prize breeding buck can produce antlers worth half a million dollars, just for the antlers! (http://realindy.com/goliath.htm)

Canned "hunting" isn't actually hunting, because it involves the shooting of animals confined behind high fences where they eat at feeding stations. One Owen County supplier of deer for such shooting once called them his "pets." These animals have no chance of escape. These fake hunters don't have to scout their hunting ground, sit in tree stands for days on end, field dress the animals they kill or drag these animals out of the hunting ground. There is no actual "hunt" involved.

Canned hunting was supposedly banned in Indiana when former Ind. Dept. of Natural Resources director Kyle Hupfer issued an executive order banning it two years ago. Instead of disappearing from Indiana, however, canned hunting is booming here even though it has never been ruled legal.

Deer suppliers and the shooting "preserve" owners are so confident of their current status that they held their Indianapolis auction in the literal shadow of DNR's Indianapolis headquarters.

How can this be?

First, after banning the practice, former director Hupfer proposed a "settlement" which allows the canned hunting outfits 10 or more years to operate before closing. Second, one canned hunt operator filed a lawsuit in Corydon to stop the DNR from closing him. And, the DNR's attorneys have failed to oppose the operators vigorously in court. No attorney or DNR official will even talk about why the lawsuit continues to languish, using the old dodge about not being able to speak about a court case still underway.

The bottom line is that Indiana is rapidly becoming a major center for the trade. So what, you say? Here's what: besides being an abomination and an insult to traditional, ethical hunters, deer "farms" are known to be disease hot spots. Specifically, deer confined in shooting pens are known to have infected wild deer with Chronic Wasting Disease in several states, including Wisconsin. It is thought CWD reached Wisconsin via infected captive deer shipped from western states where CWD is rampant. Wisconsin has spent up to $40 million trying to combat the disease in its wild deer herds since CWD was discovered there.

How could such a set of businesses get a foothold in Indiana? Easy. The Indiana operators make maximum political donations to state legislators and to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. The DNR Commission, an appointed body that supposedly makes policy for the DNR, has also slept with the canned hunting industry.

Commission members actually held a meeting within the confines of Bellar's Place, a canned hunting business in northern Indiana. Commission members praised the operation as a "model" and gave the entire industry a wink and a nod.

One year later, owner Russ Bellar was arrested on 35 counts of violating the federal Lacey Act which protects wildlife. Among other things, hunters at Bellar's shot drugged deer, deer that were penned in tiny cages and had to be prodded by workers to stand up to be shot. Bellar got a minimal sentence and fine but kept his business and deer. His son operates Bellar's Place now.

You can email Don Jordan by clicking the email link at http://realindy.com


©Copyright 2007. Donald Lee Jordan.


http://donjordanoutdoors.com/pages/102207CANNEDHUNTING.htm


http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25575


http://www.hoosierhunting.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=006178


http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1011.html


http://www.qdma.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53096


kind regards,
terry

Like a zombie IT"S BAAAACK!!!!!

Dear IWF Members,

We spoke too soon--The canned Hunting bill (SB404) that did not pass out of the Senate earlier this week may not be dead!

It's our understanding that the language to legalize canned hunting will be amended into SB52 Criminal plenalties and DNR. SB52 was approved by the Senate and is now in the House.

See the attached Roll Call Vote from 2013 to learn how your State Representative voted on canned hunting last year. It was a close vote but the House did approve canned hunting. This year we have an opportunity to educate our State Representatives and let them know Hoosiers do not support canned hunting.

Canned hunting threatens wildlife health, is not fair chase ethical hunting, and threatens Indiana's $314 million wild deer hunting economy.

Please contact your Representative and ask them to vote NO on canned hunting if amended into SB52 or any other bill. Find your legislator here.

Canned hunting was stopped in the Senate--Now let's stop it in the House! Thanks for all you are doing for wildlife and hunting ethics.

It seems our friend Terry likes to shock everyone with his doom and gloom but lets look at some truth of cwd. These words are from the cwd case in court between Iowa deer farmer and the state of Iowa. Seems Terry can not read some facts!

Direct from DNR Court Case Testimony:

After feeding three deer "repeated 90 daily oral doses of urine and feces from CWD positive source deer" the deer did not test positive after 12 months!

By Dr. Miller: (Blood)

A. This particular piece of work showed that
1 infectivity was present both in salivary secretions
2 from the infected deer. In this case they were
3 using whitetail deer and also infectivity was
4 present in blood.
5 Q. Were you a co-author of this paper as
6 well?
7 A. I was. I had more of a minor goal on
8 this particular paper than I did in the paper that
9 we just discussed, the Tamguney paper.

By Dr. Miller: Crows

21 Q. I've seen some reference in the case to
22 transmission from crows who have ingested feces
23 from deer and that being a possible vector of
24 transmission. Are you familiar with any of that
25 research?

1 A. Unless there has been one that I have
2 missed, there was a paper that came out maybe a
3 year or so ago, plus one I believe, and it was
4 actually crows that were fed brain tissue from
5 mice, I think, mouse-adapted scrapie, which is,
6 again, another model and I believe they were
7 looking at the feces from the crows is what you are
8 thinking about in terms of transmission.
9 So it's kind of a pass-through
10 transmission. I don't believe in that paper that
11 there was any suggestion that the crows would
12 propagate infectivity but they could serve as kind
13 of a feathered vehicle for maybe physically moving
14 it around during the period of time that the
15 material was ingested.

them.

Dr. Waldrup - Feces and Urine Study

25 Q. If you look at his article a little bit
662
1 further down, he concludes that CWD is not highly
2 contagious, is that true?
3 A. In the context that he is using it, yes,
4 it would be true.
5 Q. What do you mean by that?
6 A. When -- just a second. Oftentimes when
7 we talk about a highly contagious disease this is a
8 disease which a large part of the population
9 becomes either antibody reactive or actually become
10 sick and any human influenza is a good example of
11 this. If only 10 percent of the population becomes
12 infected that's not really a highly contagious
13 disease. It is contagious.
14 And that's been shown. CWD is contagious
15 but I guess it comes down to a matter of
16 perspective when you say highly contagious and to
17 me the numbers compared to other diseases of deer
18 for CWD transmission is not highly contagious.
19 Q. Now, could you please turn to Exhibit
20 MMM. You've heard some testimony about the
21 transmission of CWD through the discharge of fecal
22 material. What does this study indicate about
23 that?
24 A. Well, if you will look at the figure on
25 page 6 of the article, when the researchers in this
663
1 tried to lead to urine and feces, PO.
2 JUDGE PALMER: PO?
3 A. And that stands for P-E-R-O-S, PEROS,
4 that's an oral administration. You can see very
5 clearly they could not transmit it at all.
6 Q. How long of a period of time had they
7 been trying to transmit it?
8 A. Well, back in the methods and materials
9 here. For urine and feces each of the three deer
10 received repeated 90 daily oral doses of urine and
11 feces from CWD positive source deer.
12 Q. How long were they measuring to see
13 whether or not the deer --
14 A. Up to 12 months, as I understand it.
15 Q. If you turn to Exhibit TT.
16 MR. GALLAGHER: Move for the admission of
17 Exhibit MMM at this point.
18 JUDGE PALMER: Any objection? MMM is
19 admitted.
20 Q. How does this study, Exhibit TT?
21 A. Yes, I have it.
22 MS. BROMMEL: Just TT, not TTT.
23 JUDGE PALMER: All right.
24 Q. And this study is by Tamguney, correct?
25 A. Yes.

Q. And how does this study's finding compare
2 with Exhibit MMM?
3 A. It has already been pointed out the
4 recipient animals in this study were transgenic
5 mice. The recipient animals in the Mathiason
6 article before were actually whitetail deer.
7 Q. Why was that significant?
8 A. We are concerned about this in deer.
9 Again, Dr. Miller stated very, very, well by the
10 use of transgenic mice is convenient but a
11 transgenic mouse is not a deer.
12 Q. So in the study that actually focused on
13 deer they couldn't transmit it or they found out it
14 was not transmitted over the course of 12 months?
15 A. Correct.

And a bit more testimony about cwd from someone that has a degree on the wall. Not a guy from Texas that has an agenda because of a cow years ago. Sad.


Dr. Miller:

Q. And didn't you testify in the prior
9 proceeding that, quote, over a large scale
10 population it's been difficult to demonstrate any
11 effect from CWD?
12 A. I did. ( Dr. Miller)
13 Q. And you also testified that we have not
14 seen any clear indications of dramatic declines in
15 deer or elk numbers on a large geographic scale as
16 a result of chronic wasting disease, didn't you?
17 A. That's correct, that is what I testified
18 to. ( Dr. Miller)

Q. Now, could you please turn to Exhibit
9 FFF. Now, is this a research article entitled
10 "Demographic Patterns and Harvest Vulnerability of
11 Chronic Wasting Disease Infected Whitetailed Deer
12 in Wisconsin?"
13 A. Yes. ( Miller)
14 Q. Again, if you look at the abstract, the
15 third sentence in, does it state, quote, We found
16 no difference in harvest rates between CWD infected
17 and noninfected deer?
18 A. That's what it says, yes. (Dr. Miller)
19 Q. And do you have any reason to disagree
20 with me that that's the finding of that study?
21 A. No. (Miller)
22 Q. If you could turn to GGG, please. (Attorney)
23 A. Yes. (Miller)
24 Q. And is this a journal article entitled,
25 "Estimating Chronic Wasting Disease Effects on
Mule Deer Recruitment and Population Growth?"
2 A. Correct. (Miller)
3 Q. Again, if you look at the abstract, the
4 final sentence just above the term "key words,"
5 does it state "We conclude that although CWD may
6 affect mule deer recruitment, these effects seem to
7 be sufficiently small that they can be omitted in
8 estimating the influences of CWD on population
9 growth rate?"
10 A. That's what it says. (Miller)

Dr. Waldrup:
11 Q. Now, in Wisconsin what is the prevalence
12 rate for that state? (Attorney)
13 A. Again, looking on the -- if I may, too,
14 just to point out the numbers that I used in my
15 report, this was done last summer. Wisconsin has
16 since updated their information that is on their
17 website and the update as of yesterday they
18 reported approximately 160,000 animals tested
19 statewide and it was over 1300 were founded.
20 So, again, divide the 1300 by the
21 168,000. That's a point -- 0.8 percent prevalence
22 and I would consider that low. (Waldrup)
23 JUDGE PALMER: That was from what day?
24 When was this information pulled?
25 THE WITNESS: I saw it yesterday, the
1 20th.
2 JUDGE PALMER: What period of time was
3 that 180,000 testing sample?
4 THE WITNESS (Waldrup): That was since 2002.
5 Q. JUDGE: So it's been in excess of 10 years?
6 A. Yes. (Waldrup)

(Directly from Colorado Division of Wildlife Website) CWD exposed game management units showed 24% reduction in population .... Non CWD game units showed 22% reduction .... with 10% margin of error . . . . . No difference in population for CWD units and non CWD units - WOW!

Dr. Waldrup:
20 A. The first five pages came directly off
21 the Colorado Wildlife and Parks website and these
22 are population estimates of deer and it simply says
23 deer. It does not differentiate between whitetail
24 and mule deer for the data analysis units. Each
25 of the data analysis units contain different game
1 management units.
2 Dr. Miller spoke about those this
3 morning.
4 Q. And if you turn to the 6th and 7th page,
5 have you separated the game management units
6 between those that have been found to have CWD and
7 those that have not?
8 A. According to information, again, given on
9 the Colorado Wildlife and Parks website, yes, I
10 did.
11 Q. (Attorney): What was the population change between
12 2007 and 2011 for herds that were not exposed but
13 did not have findings of CWD?
14 A. (Waldrup): Well, from the population, total
15 population estimates from 2007 to the total
16 population estimates of 2011 and, again, when I
17 prepared this this summer that was the last data,
18 most recent data, on the website. 22 percent
19 reduction on the population.
20 Q. If you can turn to the next page, what
21 does this page describe?
22 A. This, again, is exactly the same thing on
23 a previous page except these were data analysis
24 units that had game management units within them
25 that were CWD positive.
654
1 Q. What was the percentage of reduction?
2 A. 24 percent reduction in population from
3 2007 to 2011.
4 Q. What is the significance or do you find
5 any significance in the difference between 22 and
6 24 percent reduction?
7 A. If you had been able to line up each and
8 every deer from each of those data analysis units 2
9 percent might be significant. However, you have
10 to -- and if it says on there these are population
11 estimates, I'm very familiar with different
12 techniques for population estimates and it's very
13 acceptable within wildlife management to accept a 5
14 to 10 percent error in those estimates.
15 Given that there could be a 5 to 10
16 percent error in the population estimates, a 2
17 percent difference in that is not significant.
18 Q. So with respect to Colorado then these
19 game units, there was no aggregate impact of CWD?
20 A. There did not appear to be.

We have the exhibits showing the Colorado Website Game Management units if anyone is interested

So what STATE you from "Truth" ???


BTW...welcome to HH :rolleyes:

And your point is?

http://fourseasonwhitetails.com

New York it seems.

Don't feed the troll...

You are obviously in the wrong place….SEE YA!

Dont worry about a troll. How about you look at the facts and the truth. You can feel any way you wish but how about you live by the truth and not a bunch of smoke blown up your keester. I myself do not agree with alot that has gone on in the past but lets live by the truth. I hope your herd does not keep dwindling down from the real killer you should be worried about. Someday your state,like a few others my need your fellow deer farmer to help you repopulate your herd. Food for thought!

That be the same day **** freezes over :rolleyes: .....SMH

Simply no need now or in the future for deer farming or preserves.

I hope your right. I may need some adjustment on the 513 acres in your state i will sign on in the next few weeks.
Seems from the record keeping on the property that the numbers are dropping a bit and its not from cwd. We will see how this all plays out before we decide if its fenced or stays as is.

Just an fyi...You must have missed the news cast this winter showing that **** indeed did freeze over this winter!

Seriously, you call yourself "Truth" but don't have the balls to post under your own name. Until you do, you have no credibility with me.

Not on here much but had to respond.

Its Plosone.org. It was a research study to show that protien prions could have other forms of transmission than just direct contact. You are correct it was not CWD prion. It was same type of sub species. Its purpose was to show it can be carried by host and transported by other means. It proved its point like prion can be transported.
Cwd latency period is up to five years. Only true method with high accuracy to test for CWD is to harvest deer and perform neucropsy of brain matter. Contagious or highly is mute point to me. If it is contagious and can infect 1% 3% 30% or 100% then its a problem to me. Once it is here it persist in the environment. Some research says 15 years others say indefinately. Strong oxidizers like chlorine wont kill it Incineration at 1500 degrees wont render it harmless. Problem to me.

Mr. lobbiest or deer farmer any good lawyer can find research to discredit the opposition. I remember not to long ago we were told cigs didnt cause lung cancer. What i do know is that USGS has plotted on a map the regions of CWD in wild herds overlaid with existing and former High Fenced facilities. Its odd that they both show up in overwhelmingly same places.

I do know that where there is a high volume of import of cervids a host of disease follows. It effect wild population. That will effect the majority on this site. Thats what we care about. BTW i would guess that well over 90% on here are fair chase. I dont need a split tongue lawyer or scientist to show me that it comes with common sense.

If you do get your industry opened here then good for you bad for sportsman. Your message is falling on deaf ears here.

Thank you!

+1

Well said Bone

Yawn.... let's take CWD totally out of the equation for a moment.. although it is a serious and very disturbing thought it could show up here..

What about hunting? Not killing just hunting. Fair chase as it should be. Where did the ethics and morals of this great sport go? Now we bastardise our hunting heritage for the sake of money?.how one profits from this and sleeps with a clear conscious is beyond my ability to comprehend!

Well that is where the truth is. Its not cwd that is the problem its the high fence. The truth is any fool can see that cwd is not killing any deer. More deer are killed overnight in 1 state highway than is killed by cwd in the whole country, Thats a fact. I have no problem with someone not liking high fence but say it like it is and dont cop out with cwd as a reason.
You also know that this world is changing deer hunting is soon to be a rich mans sport. State land has no deer and will be ate up and any good land will be outfitted or under high dollar lease.
I know everybody that reads these words knows that a business cant run without customers and fact is high fence is big business in every state its in and growing in leaps and bounds. It may not be for you and thats fine but for the thousands that do support the industry is a true power. Hence the reason most dnr and dec of states are against it because they are losing hunters to high fence and losing money in tag sales. States like Minn that has more deer tags sold then there is total deer in that state to hunt. Times are a changing and its going to cost you money to be able to do any kind of real deer hunting. Reguardless of where you hunt!

That went away when hunting became commercialized. Watch tv now its all about antlers not just any antlers but big ones. The sport of harvesting an animal for food is gone. The appreciation for that animal is abscent in many now. Its all about the kill and its not successful unless you shoot a monster.

We as sportsmen and women should take a look at the high fenced hunting though. Think about it guys. No scouting required. Sleep in and head to lodge to look through pics and pick out ear tag # 27. The big nontypical and head to the stand. We wouldnt get lost, because there is a well worn path to the stand. No worries about camo or scent control, unless you wanted those for after pics to hide where you were actually at. You sit down and # 27 comes out. If you got nervous and made noise no worry cause these deer are studs they are not scared of us(taught this while bottle fed) Bang 20 yard shot. BBD!!!!!!!!!. You collect your head on way out and head to town to brag to buddies and post on facebook. Only half a day gone. It will give you 364 1/2 days to work overtime to save enough money to do it again. Plus no money spent on camo, stands, trail cams and scents.

Heritage of hunting was gone when the first Realtree or Mossy oak tv show appeared on TV

Truth.. with all due respect you don't have any truth.. you have been jaded by sheer greed..its all about the money now isn't it...

Troll on.

Agreed go spread your truth somewhere else. maybe the snake oil forum or the fu fu dust site.

Yes thats what most say for a response when their out of ammo to fight with. I will have to keep an eye on this site for a bit. Ya never know, those 513 acres could be in your neck of the woods and reguardless if i put a fence around it or not. Someone will be able to hunt it!

That is also an issue, the restricting of free movements of wildlife. Disease is frequently a futuristic issue. Early on people always say the disease is minimal. But then later, those same people will say that they"experts" back "then" didn't say the disease would be an issue. The truth is that biologists are concerned about CWD and the frequency of which it is associated with fenced cervix farming. The difficult thing about disease is once its there it is often impossible to get rid of. DNRs can simply put financial fees on fenced operations to recoup list revenue.

Truth,

Simple question, who pays for the clean up when the disease get outside the pens? h.h.

I guess i would have to ask you as i have so many others, how did cwd get in Maryland,The Virginia'a and the list goes on.Those 7 or 8 states have never had a deer farm!! How is it that Ill has cwd in their wild deer..36 i believe last year.. and never a case behind fence? just does not add up!
I understand if some do not like high fence hunting and thats fine. It will grow leaps and bounds in the future but lets not use something as a crutch like cwd because there has been no proof for half of what they say about it. The dnr's of the states will have to find another crutch here soon because a live test is not very far down the road. They say cwd prion can be passed in all these body fluids but yet they cant test these fluids in a tested cwd positive deer. Something wrong there. Funny they can test our hair and see if we have been smoking weed but cant find a a prion in a positive deer. Strange!

You make the statement that the dnr should put a financial fee on deer farms. Do you think the farmers in Ill will be paid when their positive wild deer give the farm deer cwd? Again!!

Nice evasive answer to the who pays question. Of course you won't answer it. And are these animals wildlife or livestock.

Whats there to clean up. As you read from one of the top cwd researchers in the world. What harm is there? These animals are private animals and not under control of the dnr but rather the Dept of Ag so they are considered livestock. Not owned by the public!

How about the USDA new CWD Program Standards???

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/cwd/downloads/cwd_program_standards.pdf

Brew did you ever try to have an intelligent conversation with a doorknob or your wife during that " special" time of the month? Same rule applies here..not worth the effort and too many have fed the troll.. self included....

Ya see this gang............even the high fence people are seeing Indiana's current deer reduction mess/regs as an opportunity to put a foothold here.

And the proponents that masterminded this mess out from under what our IDNR wanted just keep pounding there same old messy drum of destruction they backed..........and got us to where we are now.

But.........if Quality was great on the OUTSIDE of a fence, doesn't make a fence look that appealing.

This really is simple stuff.........

The standards are not a bad thing as a whole. The farm that is suing the state of Iowa and usda will have a huge effect on changing the law and wording of the cleanup part of the standards. As you read there again is no 100% proof that cwd can stay in the soil. Prions can yes but the cwd prion itself has not been found. How about the scrapies prion on the sheep farms in your state. They say it just changed animals from sheep to deer. To much unknown to lock down land and kill animals of private ownership and Iowa may be forced to pay millions in damage for what they did to the Iowa farm. You read just a small piece of the court trial. If this case is won by the farmer you will see this cwd smoke come to a head because states are not going to take a chance with taxpayers money. Again this is just politics and money. States losing money from tag sales. Why do you think they added in the tag fee,in the rules that started this whole thread? So the state can get more cash from the people. The farmer in this case. Do you realize how many people use these places across the country. The dnr's of most states have screwed up the numbers and the quality of the wild herds in about every state that now many are fed up with it.

keep going!!

You are only elucidating your total lack of biological knowledge.

I agree with the basis of this but human greed is always going to want more, larger racked bucks, etc.

If this is true, Ohio must be the anomaly then?

I see tons of fenced preserves and deer farms there (Holmes county area).

I dont need biological knowledge when i have the best in the business working on my side.
Do some research!

Thanks for the livestock comment. It's really not do much about quality but instead about being easy and in essence guaranteed. Generally I believe most who actually visit these facilities don't consider it hunting or see much sport in it. And you don't really see folks that go to these facilities out championing there existence much. Makes a person wonder why.

76Chevy And you nailed it.....

Whether we like it or not, or consider it hunting or not, there is a market for these types of places.

And as land continues to be gobbled up and there are fewer places to hunt, sadly I see places like this becoming more and more commonplace.

You just made my point.

why would the "best in the business" want to work for a deer pimp?

keep trolling...nobody here is looking for a canned hunt or believing your BS.