Bobcat Hunting/Trapping Season Discussion Continues: Purported Closed Door Meetings and Pro-Hunting Workshop

As many subscribers will recall, IDNR proposed a bobcat hunting and trapping season earlier this year in its rule package (LSA #17-436). Following strong opposition during the public comment phase of the rule-making process - including your efforts - the provisions implementing a bobcat season were withdrawn by the agency.

sciencemag.org

Despite IDNR’s public claims that it had no immediate plan to reintroduce another proposal, its recent actions directly and deliberately contradict this claim in two important ways.

First, on October 2nd, 2018, IDNR hosted a meeting of more than 50 hunters and trappers who gathered in Velpen, Indiana specifically to renew the discussion about implementing a bobcat hunting/trapping season. This meeting was co-hosted by Indiana State Representatives Bartels, Bacon and Landauer.

Apparently, Indiana citizens who value these animals alive never received an invitation or notice about this event.

 Second, IDNR is conducting a communication workshop* on October 30th, 2018 entitled: "Communicating Your Message – Workshop for Wildlife Professionals." Topics include “Working with the Media about Controversial Topics” and “The Science of how People Interpret Messaging”, including, more specifically, “harvesting bobcat”.

Workshop attendees will be tasked with preparing a message for specific audiences, ostensibly, the non-hunting public, to apparently assist IDNR in reframing the message to manipulate the public with its misguided ideas about the alleged need for a hunting season.

Click the letter to expand

Another meeting between hunters, trappers, and IDNR is tentatively planned in Ferdinand, Indiana. No further details are available as IDNR is allegedly keeping this meeting quiet to limit attendance to local citizens – presumably code for the recreational killing crowd. It is anticipated that Indiana legislators will also be in attendance so backroom lobbying can continue without any distraction or noise from attendees with opposing viewpoints.

Since it is unclear if organizations finding a bobcat hunting and trapping season scientifically unfounded or individuals morally opposed to the expansion of recreational killing will ever be informed of and/or welcomed at these upcoming events, such gatherings strongly infer an "us" vs. "them" mentality. These meetings highlight the agency’s preference to ignore the input of 96% of the Indiana citizens who do not hunt.

* “This event is part of a series of formal Continuing Educational Workshops presented by the Indiana Chapter of the Wildlife Society and Indiana Society of American Foresters in conjunction with Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources.”

CWE Files Reply Brief in Liddle Appeal

On September 23, 2018, the Center for Wildlife Ethics filed a Reply in Support of the Petition Seeking Transfer of Liddle v. Clark, et al., to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Reply brief, limited to 1,000 words by the IN Appellate Trial Rules, focuses on the companion animal damages issue, specifically, the Indiana Appellate Court’s unprincipled distinction of animate/living versus inanimate property.

Liddle’s Reply can be found here.

CWE Urges Indiana’s Highest Court to Recognize Companion Animals’ True Value

Center for Wildlife Ethics has petitioned Indiana’s highest court to hear an appeal in Liddle v. Clark, a case involving the death of a park patron’s dog in a body-gripping trap at Versailles State Park. The trial court found the Indiana Department of Natural Resources negligent for failing to warn the public about the hidden, deadly devices. However, the court failed to acknowledge that the property negligently destroyed in this case was unique and irreplaceable – a beloved, senior, family dog – the value of which cannot be measured by some fictitious “market”.

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s unprincipled distinction between living/animate and inanimate property. And while the law allows plaintiffs to recover sentimental damages for nonliving property that has no “market” value (e.g., family heirlooms, etc.), the courts failed to extend that same valuation to companion animals.

The absurd result of this ruling is that an irreplaceable photo of our plaintiff’s dog, Copper, could be valued higher than the actual dog herself in the State of Indiana.

CWE petitions the Indiana Supreme Court to reconcile this untenable legal position and recognize that the actual value of a companion animal is often sentimental in nature and stems entirely from the shared bond between the guardian and his or her beloved dog.

You can learn more about the appeal in our latest video: