Mitch & Top DNR Legal Beagle
Take A Spin on the Canned Hunt Dance Floor
As promised, here is the latest on the “Dances with Mitch” series – come along with us as we spin across the Hoosier Dance Floor. And such really FINE spinning and weaving it is!
Not only can our Great Governor spin, weave, dodge, and slide - he can flip-flop with the best of them.
Watch as the story of how canned hunting of exotics and other hapless mammals - a practice which was never legally authorized by the Hoosier legislature:
1. becomes definitely illegal (abhorent, too)
2. becomes legal again (maybe)
3. becomes ENDORSED, expanded and turned into a millionaire enhancing monopoly for twelve very, very special Hoosiers.
4. becomes legal while still being illegal on paper
All by the same Governor
All in the same term.
All with a straight face.
All while signing an administrative rule on May 12, 2006 prohibiting these operations
All while negotiating an out of court (read: off the record) agreement with those very same previously illegal operators.
All that is some mighty, mighty fine dancing.
Watch for the next dance: The Emergency Rule Side Step .... coming very soon to you in a press release from the DNR.
Begin with reading this editorial and over the next few days we will post the agreements, the stories, and what to expect from the
Washington DC Insider (MMM) currently
ruling in Indianapolis when he joins forces with a brilliant, sweet talking, head spinning (exorcist-type), former (and future to be again), Corporate
Mergers and
Acquisitions Attorney. The combination is guaranteed to outmaneuver and flumux the best of Hoosiers ..... or maybe not.
Elections do tell.
The following piece is from the August 27th
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:
Canned hunt settlement unacceptable
What looked like a satisfying end to a despicable business now appears to be a diversion to benefit high-fenced hunting preserve owners. A proposed settlement allowing the illegal operations to continue for another decade is an unacceptable resolution.
Kyle Hupfer, director of the Department of Natural Resources, announced a year ago that the state would no longer tolerate the “canned hunting” operations that cater to wealthy hunters who pay to shoot animals within confined areas.
“This is something that is just extremely unethical,” Hupfer said at the time, winning accolades from hunting and conservation groups alike.
But the DNR director told The Journal Gazette’s Niki Kelly last week that the hunts will likely continue for another 10 years – the result of a settlement negotiated with Rodney Bruce, a southern Indiana hunting preserve owner who had sued to remain in business. The agreement also extends to five other canned hunting operations. Hupfer insists the agreement is fair to the preserve owners, who have much invested in their businesses and who are entitled to property rights.
He also suggests that an unfavorable ruling in the lawsuit could prove costly to the DNR, although that point is unclear. What seems more likely is that Hupfer has been pressured by legislators sympathetic to the canned-hunting operators to allow them plenty of time to recoup their interests.
There’s good reason the preserve operators are celebrating the settlement – it’s a clear victory for them. The fact that they are enthusiastically promoting the upcoming hunting season is an affront to all those who have worked to preserve sportsmanlike behavior in hunting. And the settlement is a clear loss for anyone who supports time-honored concepts regarding wildlife and the doctrine of fair chase – giving animals a sporting chance to escape.
Doug Allman, an advocate with the Indiana Deer Hunters Association, is right when he says the settlement is the wrong approach.
“It’s bogus for us to say it’s wrong and unethical but then look the other way for 10 years,” Allman told The Journal Gazette.
As for lawmakers, he suggests that if they approve of the practice of canned hunting, they should vote to legalize it and make themselves accountable to voters.
The proposed settlement goes far beyond fair in offering protection for this illegal business. It should be scrapped and the lawsuit allowed to proceed. A case in Montana ended with a federal court ruling that the state not only had a right to shut down high-fence hunting operations, but also a responsibility to do so.
In Indiana, the preserve owners had fair warning. The DNR should stick with its early intentions to enforce the law and shut down these businesses.
Niki Kelly of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette turns her 
Grown adults shooting animals in a confined environment.
How pathetic can you get?
Posted by: | Aug 27, 2006 at 11:01 AM
It is hard to say something is unethical and should be stopped, but then let the practice continue for a time so business owners get their profits.
Perhaps Kyle Hupfer is trying to craft a Missouri compromise on this one, but we'll see if this compromise works...
Posted by: Tallmadge | Aug 27, 2006 at 11:13 AM
But how else will our nation's brave country music stars keep their bloated egos properly puffed up?
This is hunting for rich guys, that's why its being allowed to continue.
Posted by: | Aug 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM
This isn't hunting, it's target practice. No self-respecting outdoor person would participate.
It appears Kupfer lost his cojones.
Posted by: | Aug 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM
ranks right up there with poaching.
Posted by: bob reid | Aug 27, 2006 at 01:19 PM
Kyle Hupfer (in his public face) supported the NRC Rule prohibiting this type of "hunting" in Indiana. The Rule was passed by the Natural Resource Committrr on March 21, 2006. It was approved by the Attorney General Steve Carter on April 28, 2006 and SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR (that would be Mitch Daniels) on May 12, 2006. The amendment went into effect on June 11, 2006. Or so it seemed - there was no enforcement, there were not even plans for enforcement. As a matter of fact, the good Governor and Mr. Kyle Hupfer were actually writing out an out of court settlement that would give these operators 12 more years to operate with EXPANDED and extra liberal rules - now you could even "hunt" elk in Indiana and rams! The agreement is long and in print. It just missed getting signed and the public would never have known about it. So - we need to ask legislators to ENFORCE the rule that the Governor so cleverly signed to lull the public into apathy and then we need to demand that the DNR make no private agreements out of court which effect the natural resources of this state - they want this out of court, of course, so that the public can never get records. As a matter of fact, Director Hupfer has denied a look at the agreement to reporters - even though it is available to the public if they are top notch legal sleuths! The duplicity is breathtaking ..... Please call your legislator and ask that the state rule be enforced and that Director Hupfer and the Governor not be allowed to cut million dollar (Yes, that is MILLION dollar deals) with 12 Hoosier citizens over the will of the rest of us. How sneaky can you get? Sign an law and then do backroom deals so it never gets enforced? And - still take credit publicly for STOPPING these canned hunts while secretly writing up a goody bag of special deals for 12 citizens. All of this can be documented.
Posted by: karin mckenna | Aug 27, 2006 at 03:25 PM
There's just something wrong about shooting something that can't get away. Whatcha wanna bet that our Harley ridin', tenderloin eatin', flannel shirt wearin' guv would secretly like to participate in this huntin' charade.
Posted by: | Aug 27, 2006 at 03:54 PM
Why is this even an issue? I am sick of the instant gratification message that this type of killing animals sends to children and would be hunters. The "quick fix"! Surely, no one would call this method of killing "hunting"? Stick with the wishes of the majority who are against canned killing!
Posted by: John Davies | Aug 27, 2006 at 05:28 PM
This is unbelievable! How can the DNR pass a law and then fail to enforce it?
Posted by: | Aug 27, 2006 at 07:41 PM
This is disgusting and in no way what I want my grandchildren to think is acceptable. Kyle Hupfer is a snake!
Posted by: Joe Nirenberg | Aug 27, 2006 at 08:47 PM
This entire thing sickens me. I was astonished when I learned of the number of canned hunt "farms" in Indiana. Killing a creature so helpless must make a tiny man feel huge, why else would he do it? Pathetic! To top it off, our legislators and others with authority are allowing this to happen.
Posted by: | Aug 27, 2006 at 09:57 PM
I am appalled to read of the lack of enforcement to stop canned hunting and the possibility of an "expanded" amendment that would allow canned hunting for an extended period of time. I write to strongly urge our Indiana Governor and legislators to enforce the law to prohibit canned hunting and, more importantly, to enforce this law. There are many Hoosiers who agree with my belief that hunting a trapped animal is not only cowardly, but inhumane. I will be calling the offices of Governor Daniels and our Senators and Representatives to reiterate my view and will look certainly remember how they respond to this issue.
Posted by: Christine Watt | Aug 27, 2006 at 10:29 PM
I am totally opposed to this type of "hunt", it is unethical and immoral, no better than cock fighting or dog fighting. It's only purpose is for the amusement of individuals too inept or lazy to hunt fairly. Put a stop to it once and for all!
Posted by: Martina Rukavina | Aug 27, 2006 at 11:31 PM
This shouldn't even be an issue... the majority have spoken... let it rule.
What SHOULD be the issue is a full blown investigation into deal-making activities at the DNR and their lack of enforcement of laws on the books. I, for one, would like to know if this type of corruption runs throughout the system, or is this the brainchild of Hupfer?
Since when is government "for the government" and not "for the people?" Is it majority rule until a small minority with limited power ingore the rule? I will be calling and writing to Daniels, Senators, and Reps.
All Hoosiers should be sickened by the possibility that they might get away with this.
Posted by: Connie Szawara | Aug 27, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Some of you are directing too much of your venom at Hupfer because he is the obvious target. That's probably because you have no idea how obnoxious the canned hunt operators are and to what lengths they will go to influence legislators who are too easily influenced. Don't forget, folks, the legislature holds most of the cards. If you all would put as much energy and effort into contacting the legislators in the districts where these loud-mouthed asses live who promote this disgusting practice, you might get something done. It needs to be REAL uncomfortable for those folks, otherwise, they are going to just ride it out, let it pass and let them go on shooting animals like targets because the legislators AND the canned operators don't think you all are that much of a force to be reckoned with. They are claiming lost business and revenue and a few jobs and that this is hypocrisy when we are trying to grow the economy. Now we have state government taking away their livelihoods. Sure it's hogwash. But if there is no public outcry, you may as well figure them hogs is gonna' get washed. Pick the right target, aim well, and don't let up.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 12:02 AM
I can’t find the words to express the viciousness and stupidity of canned hunts!
Posted by: James Schueler | Aug 28, 2006 at 12:33 AM
At first, canned hunting does seem pretty horrible. I personally can never call the killing of animals in a fenced area "hunting."
Can anyone answer this question: What happens to the meat? If a person pays of a canned hunt and they pay to get the deer meat processed, how is that any different than buying meat at the store? Just because you don't kill the cow doesn't mean someone else did not. If we are going to stop canned hunting, shouldn't we be shutting down pay fishing lakes as well...or do fish have less rights than deer, elk, etc.?
If canned hunting is killing the animals and leaving them lay (which I am sure has happened), the I would want it totally banned. If it's just a way for a person to go shopping for some venison, what is the big deal? Did the animals being served at resturants all die of natural deaths?
Posted by: Ravekid | Aug 28, 2006 at 06:26 AM
If you are wealthy enough to afford to go on a canned hunt, you can afford to buy the meat in specialty food stores. These are trophy hunts for the inept.
Posted by: Manfred | Aug 28, 2006 at 06:52 AM
"If canned hunting is killing the animals and leaving them lay (which I am sure has happened), the I would want it totally banned. If it's just a way for a person to go shopping for some venison, what is the big deal?"
Canned hunting is all about the trophy rack or head or pelt or animal, so the shooter can display his success to buds without having experienced any of the discomfort or challenges of real hunting.
It is such a phony experience that it speaks complete books about the character of canned hunt clients- wealthy, lazy, self-absorbed, indifferent to or ignorant of the challenges of real hunting, where you often go home empty handed.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 07:06 AM
12:02 a.m. is correct.
On the other hand, it is very frustrating to listen to people like Kupfer wring their hands over their own unwillingness to do the right thing because somebody somewhere might sue them. Has a drug dealer ever considered suing the state over "illegal taking" of his God-given right to sell crack or meth?
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 08:30 AM
This is an Indiana example of the new Republican way of governing -- pass a law, sign it into law and then ignore it. If that sounds familiar, it's because the president has written several hundred "messages" saying that, even tho he signed something into law, he had no intention of foloing it. For all their ridiculous talk about patriotism, these are the very people most responsible for subverting our democratic form of government.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 08:44 AM
Once again I feel like an idiot for having trusted my elected officials to be true to their word. This is so incredibly disappointing. Another 12 years of canned hunting?? For what reason?? This is just so shameful.
Posted by: Kathleen Allspaw | Aug 28, 2006 at 09:32 AM
I'm all for hunting, fishing, etc. but this isn't sporting. This is like fishing in a barrel.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 09:43 AM
If the reasoning stands that canned hunting preserves should be allowed to continue (in violation of the law) because the owners have made a capital investment, or threaten lawsuits, then I would expect owners of hot car chop shops--or any other criminal enterprise that requires capital-- to present the same defense in court. Poor Ken Lay should have had some Hoosier legislators/lobbyist/attorneys, and perhaps he could have got off based on The Hupfer Defense.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Unlike other activities cited above--this hunting activity behind fence has been allowed under existing laws and actively watched by prior DNR administrations. That is often a taking situation or one where folks are grandfathered in. Not sure this is different.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 11:26 AM
It's not/wouldn't be a "taking". Taking under the constitution has nothing to do with regulation of business, even if that means the business becomes unprofitable. It has to do with government use/seizure of property. That ain't the case here. It's just a bunch of gun nuts getting their undies in a bunch.
Posted by: | Aug 28, 2006 at 01:22 PM
I am ashamed of the State of Indiana! What kind of "sport" is this? It is like shooting fish in a barrel! A REAL man's sport, sure!!!
This entire industry (and that is what it is) should be banned in the entire nation!!
Come on Indiana!
D.J. Benson LaPorte, Indiana
Posted by: D.J. Benson | Aug 28, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Ok, so something is perfectly legal for decades until a bunch of bleeding hearts decide it's horrid and has to stop . It's ok to simply say "sorry, it was ok yesterday, today you're unpopular so bye-bye". I guess the answer to that is yes, eh?
Don't confuse the different types of reserves that are all piled together as "canned". A hunt on a several hundred acre preserve is not the same as shooting a buck standing in a 20 foot square fenced yard. Yet the bleeding hearts continues blur them together for best political effect.
Personally, I find the small pen hunting distasteful. But, somewhere I heard a rumor we lived in a free country. And not that there is a shortage of deer in this state, but most of these reserves are farm raised deer.
Lastly, I can look around during deer season and see why some might choose to hunt on a private reserve. Much the same people who started the "canned hunting is horrible" drive number among those who have been pushing to restrict the number of places were the public can hunt in this state. It seems only natural that hunters should seek other hunting grounds.
The State and the DNR could do many things to make hunting the public lands not only more profitable but also more accessible for hunters. That would drive the worst of the "canned" operations out of business.
The problem is that, simply speaking, many behind the push to ban "canned" hunting and reserves want NO HUNTING allowed in this state.
Posted by: pointman | Aug 28, 2006 at 03:07 PM
This is barbaric and there should be no question in Indiana that it should be stopped! I'm against hunting period but I cannot understand what type of sport hunting an animal that can't escape is-that's for chickens!
Posted by: Polly Liebig | Aug 28, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Pointman, animals raised and fed by humans have lost their instinctive fear of humans and thus are nothing but targets. They are no longer game. And even on a 200 acre hunting preserve, if they do not have free range and cover capabilities, and are acustomed to seeing and being fed by their keepers, they aren't the same thing as "wild" animals.
Canned hunt shooters just want a trophy, and they want it with the least possible discomfort, and with guaranteed odds in their favor. On my farm, sometimes my hunter friends take a deer and sometimes they get nothing but wet, cold feet for their troubles. But at least they are "hunters" and not mere target shooter scum who prefer live targets and wall decorations. One has to wonder how canned hunt or "preserve" (isn't that a contradiction in terms?)clients explain how they took the trophy, and I will bet it doesn't involve the truth.
Posted by: | Aug 29, 2006 at 08:18 AM
Quote: "Pointman, animals raised and fed by humans have lost their instinctive fear of humans and thus are nothing but targets."
Sort of like cattle or pigs or chickens or any other crop? You can certainly raise stock without it being tame! Used to people? Sure, the deer in my woods are, but I still can't get within a hundred yards without a lot of skill. And with what Indiana allows hunters to pack into the woods 150yards is about out of range.
I don't defend the penned hunts. And, having grown up on 168 acres in Vincennes, to say a deer can't loose him/herself on that is not true on a typical Hoosier farm.
Though, I will say some of the East and North East farms can tend to lack "features". ;)
Posted by: pointman | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Pointman, when property is surrounded by an 8-foot fence and much of the undergrowth has been cleared, this is not natural cover for a deer nor is there means of flight.
I have a couple hundred acres. Last year a couple of my friends were warming themselves in my kitchen after a cold and fruitless morning hunting deer in my woods, when they spied a buck not 40 yards from the kitchen window. They crept out of the house and took from my dog run it with a muzzle loader. Such are the uncertainties of hunting.
Without discussing whether or not a deer can find sanctuary in a large game reserve, or will retain its natural fear of humans after being fed by and exposed to them, how do you account for the completely repugnant practice of taking reserve or canned hunt game solely for the trophy? People who do this are bent human beings. There is no sport involved. It is like pheasant hunting using teathered birds.
Posted by: | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:15 PM
I do find "trophy" hunting distasteful but acceptable in reasonable circumstances. So, I guess we have reached an impass and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Or, is it OK to enforce your own "moral" view on others when it does not directly effect you? Now that would be, shall we say... ironic.
Posted by: pointman | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:39 PM
Canned shooting of confined animals is not hunting. For pointman, the Indiana Deer Hunters Assn. and the Indiana Wildlife Federation and every outdoor writer in the state are not trying to end hunting in Indiana. Au contraire, we want to ensure that hunting survives. Canned shooting dirties the water for real hunters and creates an undesirable image of all hunters and hunting in general.
Among the many problems with canned shooting of penned animals is the fact that most cases of Chronic Wasting Disease have been traced to these so-called "deer farms" in other states.
Aside from this, there is no fair chase of an captive animal that cannot escape the hunter no matter how long or how far it runs.
And, the most salient point has been broached in Texas in a lawsuit filed against deer "farms" there. That is, the Doctrine of Public Trust...wild animals belong to the people and it is government's duty to conserve and protect them. All white-tailed deer are wild animals, even if they are raised as pets.
It is a sad truth that passsing a law, then not enforcing or funding it is the current method of governing Amerika. Gov. Daniels is straight out of this Bush School of Government. Remember that when Daniels took office, he emailed every employee in the DNR saying that if they were not pro-business, they would not be working for the DNR under his term.
And, so it goes. The DNR is pro-business now, even more than it has been in the past, and Indiana's natural resources, including white-tailed deer, are at risk.
Posted by: indy | Aug 30, 2006 at 05:58 AM
Operators of high fenced hunting preserves (canned hunts in which captive animals are killed for a large fee) must be gloating over the proposed settlement by Kyle Hupfer, a Mitch Daniels appointee and Director of the IN Dept. of Natural Resources, allowing such operations to stay in business for 12 more years.
Despite hundreds of letters from Hoosiers condemning this practice, public hearings and disapproval of ethical hunting organizations, Hupfer has reneged on his avowed and spproved ruling announced a year ago...a vow to eliminate these abominations from the atate. Apparently, assured of the outcome of a lawsuit fizzled by preserve owner Rodney Bruce, game farmers have been "hunts" for the fall season confident that the Natural Resources Commission's ruling for closure would fizzle out. One might question the adminstrative and legislative pressure at work in nullifying Hupfer's much touted plan to ban canned hunts OR was the NRC's ruling just a ruse to pacify the public?
Clients will be allowed to kill fallow and whitetail deer, elk, buffalo, wild boar and rams under provisions of a settlement. For all except whitetails, any legal weapon may be used with no bag limit. Under new rules, animals may not be shot from above feeders, but may be killed at 50 yards away from regularly used food sources.
Owners of small deer farms lobbied and won the right to reclassify whitetails as livestock under authorization of the Board of Animal Health. Thus, they said, deer would provide income from the sale of venison, semen, urine and antler velvet. No mention was made of the fact that primary revenue for these farms would be from stock raised as targets for fenced hunting preserves. %0
Posted by: Kathleen Bauer | Aug 30, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Operators of high fenced hunting preserves (canned hunts in which captive animals are killed for a large fee) must be gloating over the proposed settlement by Kyle Hupfer, a Mitch Daniels appointee and Director of the IN Dept. of Natural Resources, allowing such operations to stay in business for 12 more years.
Despite hundreds of letters from Hoosiers condemning this practice, public hearings and disapproval of ethical hunting organizations, Hupfer has reneged on his avowed and spproved ruling announced a year ago...a vow to eliminate these abominations from the atate. Apparently, assured of the outcome of a lawsuit fizzled by preserve owner Rodney Bruce, game farmers have been "hunts" for the fall season confident that the Natural Resources Commission's ruling for closure would fizzle out. One might question the adminstrative and legislative pressure at work in nullifying Hupfer's much touted plan to ban canned hunts OR was the NRC's ruling just a ruse to pacify the public?
Clients will be allowed to kill fallow and whitetail deer, elk, buffalo, wild boar and rams under provisions of a settlement. For all except whitetails, any legal weapon may be used with no bag limit. Under new rules, animals may not be shot from above feeders, but may be killed at 50 yards away from regularly used food sources.
Owners of small deer farms lobbied and won the right to reclassify whitetails as livestock under authorization of the Board of Animal Health. Thus, they said, deer would provide income from the sale of venison, semen, urine and antler velvet. No mention was made of the fact that primary revenue for these farms would be from stock raised as targets for fenced hunting preserves.
The excuse that preserve owners have large financial investments in stock and equipment should be of no consequence in this decision as these businesses have derived huge profits at the expense of animals raised specifically to be mounted trophies.
It is hoped that Hupfer will stand by his conviction that fenced hunts should be eliminated and that he will not settle for 12 more years of barbarity.
Hupfer may be reached by e-mail at khupfer@dnr.in.gov and Governor Daniels at Office of the Governor, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204-2797.
Posted by: Kathleen Bauer | Aug 30, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Why have we giving into the impulse of the almighty dollar?? it's not all about money, nature is ours to respect and enjoy, not exploit. We have lost our state parks as sanctuarys for nature. The great hunters need an easier place to bag the big ones?? what is this, they must be on a time schedule, and canned hunting is even easiler than hunting in the state parks!!!!!
Posted by: KImberly Hoover | Sep 02, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Canned hunting and managing deer herds in a state park are a far cry from one another, and if you do not or cannot see the difference, you are in need of natural resources/wildlife management education. Every year the DNR puts out a report of the deer taken from the state parks and you won't find trophy specimens. Furthermore, they've documented a healthier ecosystem in the parks and healthier deer as a result of the very limited and controlled hunts. The canned hunts, fenced hunts, whatever name you want to call them are vile, and their contribution to the economy is miniscule. Let the handful of operators do what thousands of other Hoosiers who have lost their jobs have done--find a new job. In their case, one that is honorable and legitimate. Blast away, write letters and send e-mails to the Governor, DNR and anyone who has the power and authority to stop this abomination and regain state credibility, but don't pop off with statements that have no scientific or otherwise basis in fact. You damage your own credibility and become nothing but an emotional, annoying noise when you make comments that state park hunts and canned hunts are essentially the same. Fight it, but do it right and do it smart.
Posted by: | Sep 02, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Even the thought of supporting canned hunts makes Hoosiers look like dim-witted yahoos. I wrote to Mitch Daniels - he calls hunting a Hoosier "value." What is the value of slaughtering caged animals? Anyway, it is NOT a Hoosier value, for I am a Hoosier, albeit less and less proud. The DNR needs an overhaul. What is their purpose anymore? Kickbacks? When will people see animals as more than "natural resources" but instead as fellow creatures with whom we fail to live well and honestly?
Posted by: Beth Rudnick | Sep 07, 2006 at 08:16 PM
To Pointman: inflict our morals on you? Excuse me - I'm defending the life of other beings. I would think anyone who is moral would see that point, man.
Posted by: Beth Rudnick | Sep 07, 2006 at 08:22 PM
Well, Director Hupfer and the Governor are running out of time. This week of Sept. 9 - they will have to either quietly sign a backroom, out of court settlement (not on the public record) with their special operators - allowing them guaranteed operation for a minimum of 10 plus years - (and now they can even hunt fenced BUFFALO in the state with the Governor's blessing) - or Director Hupfer will announce an Emergency Rule overruling his own NRC Rule ...... what hubris! The Mitchman rules in Indy. His signature on the rule prohibiting these operations - which he signed on May 12, 2006 - means nothing. Boy, can these guys play the game. They left the rule on the books just long enough to lull the public into thinking they would abide by their own rules - and then - right before hunting season - GOTCHA! We were only kidding ...... some smart Dems should look into this ..... but probably not the Dems that are knoodling with the twelve operators. Like, maybe .... some FRESH Dems that haven't been tainted yet?