This is a controversy I've never quite understood:
The state is challenging a southern Indiana judge’s decision to throw out its ban on enclosed deer hunting farms and limit its authority to police private deer-hunting preserves.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office announced Tuesday that it would appeal the ruling that the Indiana Department of Natural Resources overstepped its authority by issuing an emergency order banning deer-hunting farms in 2005, The Indianapolis Star reported (http://indy.st/GX2Bp6 ).
The decision came in a lawsuit filed by Corydon-area preserve owner Rodney Bruce in 2005. The DNR tried to shut down his operation and the 11 other high-fence hunting preserves then operating in the state.
Is a deer somehow less dead if it is shot in the wild instead of a hunting preserve? Since the hunter is always the only one with a gun, how much more "unfair" is it that the deer has less space to maneuver in? I think most of the preserves are actually pretty big -- it's not like the deer are chained to a post with targets printed on their sides.
This seems like a manufacture controversy in which hunting supporters and hunting foes can trade their same old arguments in a seeminly fresh setting. Kind of an argument preserve.
