ILNews

State to appeal ruling in fenced deer-hunting case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General announced Tuesday that it will appeal a recent Harrison County ruling that held the state couldn’t regulate a fenced deer-hunting operation.

The attorney general’s office filed notice with the Indiana Court of Appeals that it is appealing DNR, et al. v. Whitetail Bluff LLC, et al., 31C01-0508-PL-033. Plaintiffs Whitetail Bluff LLC and Rodney Bruce sought an injunction and declaratory judgment in 2005 prohibiting the Department of Natural Resources from regulating Whitetail Bluff’s guided deer-hunting business.

The deer on the 116-acre property in Harrison County were purchased by Whitetail Bluff and are unable to leave the property due to an eight-foot high fence. The company pays property taxes on the deer and they are subject to the Board of Animal Health. Deer hunters pay a fee to hunt on the property.

These types of enclosed hunting spaces were banned by the DNR in 2005, although some operations like Whitetail Bluff have filed lawsuits to stay open. An attempt to lift the ban failed in this year’s Indiana General Assembly.

Harrison Circuit Judge John Evans ruled that Whitetail Bluff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the animals are privately owned and not subject to regulation by DNR under state law.

“DNR’s actions seeking to regulate Whitetail Bluff’s guided hunting activities constitute an improper exercise by an executive agency of the authority of the Indiana legislature contrary to Indiana Constitution Article 3, Section 1,” Evans wrote in the Sept. 27 order.

AG spokesman Bryan Corbin said the attorney general’s office decided last week to appeal the ruling.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT