Liddle Appeal Covered in Indiana Legal Publication

Click this thumbnail to view CWE Attorney Anne Benaroya's full oral argument 

This month, Center for Wildlife argued an appeal in its state park dog trapping case, Liddle v. Clark, before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The oral argument was well-attended, an indication that the legal issues of damages for the loss of a companion animal and public interest standing [challenging IDNR’s reckless policies] are matters of particular public importance.

CWE was pleased to learn that The Indiana Lawyer published an article about the appeal describing the critical issues raised in this case and the exchanges that occurred between the attorneys and judges in the courtroom. CWE is grateful for this coverage, but we feel compelled to note a few important clarifications.

CWE has consistently argued:

• Fair Market Value (“FMV”) analysis cannot apply in this case.
  • FMV analysis is “[un]fair” because it fails to make Ms. Liddle whole – i.e., it fails to satisfy the primary legal and policy directive guiding tort law.
  • No “market” exists for Copper – an elderly, mixed-breed, sterilized, family companion animal.
  • Copper’s “value” to Melodie is based entirely on their loving companionship and shared experiences. The lower court’s FMV damage award ignores this reality.  
• IDNR, as a steward of public lands, lacks the statutory authority to authorize commercial fur trappers to maintain traps and privately profit off the sale of the skins of animals captured on our public lands. This fact cannot be changed by a rule adoption.

CWE will continue to provide updates on the progress of this important litigation. The full oral argument in this appeal can be viewed here. 

Oral Argument In Dog Trapping Case To Be Held Next Week

We are pleased to announce that there has been an exciting development in the CWE’s ongoing litigation, Liddle v. Clark, et al. As you may be aware, Ms. Liddle filed a lawsuit against DNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources) when her dog, Copper, became ensnared and died in a raccoon trap hidden in Versailles State Park. This situation occurred as a result of DNR’s practice that allowed commercial fur trappers to use public lands for trapping without informing the public.

Photo: Massimo Catarinella/Wikipedia

Yes, this policy enabled trappers to scatter these deadly devices throughout Indiana State Parks without so much as a cautionary warning of the obvious danger to families (and pets).

On April 25th, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals’ Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik scheduled an oral argument that will enable CWE to further develop two important issues: 1) that the trial court improperly limited the value of Ms. Liddle’s beloved companion to the value of a replacement dog, and 2) that the trial court wrongfully rejected the argument that DNR’s policy that allows commercial fur trapping on state park properties is an improper use of these public lands.

This appeal will build on the success of CWE’s victory in 2017, in which the Marion County Superior Court #2 ruled that the State of Indiana was negligent for failing to make any effort to warn park patrons that their employee, a commercial fur trapper, had maintained hidden wildlife traps throughout Versailles State Park.

This appeal has great significance for animals and the public’s use of state parks.

As a public interest organization, CWE is both honored and grateful that the Appellate Court appreciates the significance of Ms. Liddle’s claims and welcomes further discussion surrounding these important issues.

On May 25, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals granted Liddle’s Verified Motion to Allow Appellant Thirty Minutes for Oral Argument. The oral argument will take place on June 8, 2018 at 1:30 (ET) and is scheduled for web-cast at: www.IN.gov/judiciary.

Indiana NRC Pushes Commercial Trapping on State Park Lands

Time is running out to submit public comments on the rule package proposed by the Indiana Natural Resources Commission (NRC). The Center for Wildlife Ethics (CWE) has already warned about the NRC’s proposed and misguided bobcat season and the agency’s intent to mandate wild animal control operators to kill every raccoon, opossum, and coyote they encounter.

If you haven’t already joined CWE in opposition to NRC’s rule proposals, please consider speaking out against the NRC’s reckless plan to open State Park Lands for commercial fur trapping.  

Current law rightfully prohibits hunting and trapping on State Park Lands (312 IAC 9-2-11). State Park properties are for the enjoyment of everyone and should not be used for violent pursuits that make the land less safe for park patrons or the parks’ wild inhabitants. Yet the NRC has proposed a rule change that betrays the public’s trust and turns the prohibition on its head by allowing numerous species to be trapped by private individuals as well as park employees.

NRC’s justification for this rule provision lacks any legitimacy.

IDNR employee’s already have the ability to manage “nuisance” animal concerns. (CWE’s members are already aware that this agency has launched a conflation campaign to disguise all trapping violence as “nuisance” animal control.)

The language of the rule purports to limit trapping to situations where an animal is “causing damage or threatening to cause damage or creating a public safety or health threat.” However, nothing in the rule requires substantial evidence of any “nuisance,” damage, or alleged health or safety threat. Trappers are not required to explore and exhaust nonlethal alternatives.

The rule’s conditions for trapping are too vague and open-ended to act as an effective or enforceable limitation. Permission to kill an animal that is “threatening to cause damage” will inevitably be interpreted as permission to trap any animal that is present in the park.

This rule provides ample monetary incentive for IDNR employees to contrive nonexistent nuisance or threat in order to create the conditions to justify commercial fur trapping.

The NRC doesn’t even bother pretending that opening public lands to trapping activities isn’t about commercial gain. If it were true that the agency was motivated by “nuisance” concerns, it would adhere to the current legal standard that prohibits trappers from selling, bartering, gifting, or trading the furs of “nuisance” animals they kill. The proposed rule includes no such prohibition, so trappers are absolutely free to trap for profit on public property.  

This proposed rule is ripe for nepotism and civil service abuses. IDNR—the agency tasked with serving as stewards and premises custodians of public lands and wildlife—cannot  simultaneously protect state properties and wild animals while profiteering as well. The ability to trap animals on public land and sell their furs for profit should not be a job perk for IDNR employees, nor should State Park Property Managers be able to do favors for their friends by extending them permission to trap on park properties.

The NRC/IDNR lacks the necessary statutory authority to permit commercial fur trappers to maintain lethal traps on state park and historic site properties and sell the pelts from animals killed. A rule revision cannot remedy this legal reality.

CWE is currently litigating the illegality of trapping on public lands in the Indiana Court of Appeals. CWE has also filed a lawsuit against the Indiana Office of Management and Budget, the agency tasked in Governor Pence’s 2013 Executive Order to approve all proposed rule-making packages.

Once again, please take a moment to submit a public comment opposing the use of our State Parks and other public properties for fur trapping. Comments on NRC’s rule package must be submitted by March 23, 2018.