|
Your
right
to
hunt
in
Indiana
is
under
fire
again.
This
time,
instead
of
challenging
hunting
itself,
anti-hunters
are
going
after
some
of
the
rules
that
allow
us
to
hunt.
Two
separate
attempts
to
change
laws
in
Porter
and
Marion
Counties
started
out
as
local
challenges.
As
both
cases
gain
momentum,
however,
both
have
potentially
damaging
implications
for
hunters
statewide.
Frederick
and
Rosanne
Shuger
were
convicted
in
July
2005
of
violating
the
state’s
hunter
harassment
law.
The
Beverly
shores
couple
was
caught
interfering
with
a
town-sanctioned
deer
hunt
four
years
earlier.
Like
almost
every
other
increasingly
urban
area
in
the
country,
Beverly
Shores
was,
and
is,
overrun
with
deer.
After
considering
proposals
such
as
giving
all
the
local
does
contraceptives,
town
administrators
in
Beverly
Shores
quickly
learned
the
only
feasible
way
to
control
deer
was
through
legal
hunting.
As
we
often
do,
hunters
stepped
up
to
help
the
town
with
their
problem.
Instead
of
watching
the
deer
get
plowed
on
the
adjacent
highway
or
starve
to
death,
hunters
agreed
to
cull
the
herd
and
to
use
the
deer
to
feed
their
families.
The
Shugers
took
exception
to
this
and
did
all
they
could
to
temporarily
save
the
lives
of
the
starving
deer.
Essentially,
they
thought
it
was
more
humane
to
prolong
the
starving
deer’s
agony.
Despite
being
found
guilty
in a
local
court,
and
an
Indiana
Court
of
Appeals
decision
to
uphold
the
hunter
protection
law
as
constitutional,
the
Shugers
appealed
their
case
all
the
way
to
the
Indiana
Supreme
Court.
That
court
recently
opted
not
to
consider
the
Shuger’s
claims
that
the
wording
in
the
Indiana
hunter
harassment
law
was
both
overbroad
and
vague.
Despite
consistent
defeats
to
their
challenges,
the
Shugers
and
their
Chicago
attorney,
James
Morsch,
intend
to
press
on.
Now,
they
want
to
take
their
case
to
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court.
The
Shugers
compared
Indiana’s
Hunter
Harassment
Act
to a
law
against
flag
burning
that
was
struck
down
by
the
federal
courts.
The
appeals
court
ruled
that
the
comparison
did
not
apply
because
the
hunter
harassment
law
does
not
restrict
the
content
of
speech.
While
that
may
be
accurate,
I
believe
it
does
not
entirely
explain
why
comparing
flag
burning
is
different
from
harassing
hunters.
Burning
a
flag
is a
political
statement
that
does
not
physically
interfere
with
any
single
individual’s
right
to
engage
in a
lawful
activity.
Harassing
a
hunter
in
the
field
is a
personal
act
against
a
private
individual,
not
an
entire
nation
or
concept.
Though
the
hunter
harassment
law
does
cover
the
rights
of
an
entire
class
of
people,
when
it
is
applied,
it
protects
individuals.
The
hunter
harassment
law
is
more
like
an
assault
law
than
the
law
that
allows
flag
burning.
Another
challenge
The
other
case
that
has
statewide
implications
is
Proposal
174
in
Marion
County.
It
would
make
discharging
a
firearm
illegal
in
the
entire
county.
Though
most
of
Marion
County
is
covered
by
the
city
of
Indianapolis,
there
are
still
a
lot
of
rural
areas
outside
of
town.
When
the
proposal
was
presented
at a
city/county
council
meeting,
over
300
constituents
attended
to
voice
their
displeasure
with
the
proposal.
The
crowd
included
former
Department
of
Natural
Resources
director
Kyle
Hupfer
and
a
DNR
law
enforcement
representative.
Along
with
everyone
else
in
the
crowd,
they
questioned
the
need
for
the
proposal,
and
revealed
the
flawed
logic
that
went
into
drafting
the
rule.
The
councilwoman
who
wrote
the
proposal
said
the
law
was
needed
because
her
neighbor’s
home
in a
subdivision
was
hit
by a
stray
bullet.
In a
televised
interview,
I
explained
that
the
small
hole
in
her
neighbor’s
vinyl
siding
in a
densely
packed
housing
development
was
not
likely
caused
by a
hunter’s
bullet.
The
councilwoman
refused
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
deer,
ducks,
geese
and
other
game
animals
were
still
safely
hunted
with
firearms
in
some
parts
of
Marion
County.
She
stood
her
ground,
and
refused
to
amend
the
proposal
to
exclude
rural
areas
where
legal
and
safe
hunting
was
still
part
of
the
culture.
While
this
case
may
seem
local,
it
has
implications
for
every
other
urban
area
in
Indiana.
Anti-hunting
politicians
in
Allen
County,
St
Joseph
County
and
about
a
dozen
other
counties
with
urban
centers
could
easily
use
this
rule
as
precedence.
If
the
proposal
is
enacted
into
law
in
Marion
County
despite
overwhelming
opposition,
the
winning
strategy
could
be a
template
for
additional
proposals
elsewhere.
In
these
and
others
cases,
hunters
need
to
be
vigilant
and
ready
to
fight
for
their
right
to
hunt.
Taking
the
outdoors
for
granted
is
no
longer
an
option.
|
