Post by Tim Rose on Feb 21, 2008 7:59:58 GMT -5
This document pertains to the FISCAL IMPACTS and to the COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED RULE OR AMENDMENT which were presented to the OMB by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Fish & Wildlife
LSA Document #07-749
A REBUTTAL BY THE TRAPPERS OF INDIANA:
A proposal has been made before the Indiana Natural Resources Commission by the Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish & Wildlife to outlaw any end use of coyotes captured or otherwise harvested between March 16 and October 14. This proposal is hereinafter referred to as the euthanasia proposal.
As stated in the DNR analysis of the euthanasia proposal, IC 14-22-6-12 allows coyotes to be legally taken or otherwise harvested year round by persons who possess land or by persons authorized in writing by someone who possesses land. Contrary to the DNR’s analysis document, the original purpose of the law (ca. 1987) was solely and entirely to reduce the coyote population in the state of Indiana. The purpose of the law was not to provide an opportunity to farmers and other landowners to take a few specific nuisance animals. Those two concepts, population reduction vs. specific nuisance animal control, are markedly different. The statement as to the original intent of the law has been verified by a trapper who attended every hearing associated with the development of the language of the law and by legislators who participated in the final adoption of the law. A person must study the law to understand that there are distinct harvest rules and regulations as well as distinct nuisance animal rules and regulations. This is not a discussion of nuisance animals but rather legally harvested furbearers.
The coyote population began to greatly expand in numbers and range throughout the mid-1980’s and landowners wanted fewer coyotes. The legislature obliged the interests of the landowners through passage of the law which allows year round coyote harvest. The current effort by the DNR to restrict the end use of legally harvested coyotes undermines the intent of that legislation. Senator Young of District 47 has stated that an investigation by the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee will occur if DNR’s coyote euthanasia proposal is adopted.
The euthanasia proposal would only prohibit the sale of live coyotes legally harvested between March 16 and October 14. Coyotes legally harvested between October 15 and March 15 of the following year would still be allowed to be sold alive. The logic involved in the proposal makes no sense. The end use of a legally harvested furbearer should not depend upon the calendar date of harvest. For example, a coyote harvested March 15 may be sold alive. If the euthanasia proposal is adopted, that same coyote, if it had been harvested instead a day later on March 16, would have to be destroyed and no economic benefit realized. The DNR has strict rules pertaining to wanton waste of harvested animals but those rules are seemingly being ignored with respect to the euthanasia proposal. The DNR continues to claim that the disposal requirements of the euthanasia proposal do not constitute wanton waste based upon the nuisance animal removal language of 312 IAC 9-10-11. The DNR’s claim is based on flawed logic because, as stated previously, IC 14-22-6-12 is a harvest or consumptive use law, not a nuisance animal removal law.
The definition of “take” provided at IC 14-8-2-278 does not prohibit the sale of live coyotes, as the DNR analysis erroneously states. The Indiana Administrative Code at 312 IAC 9-2-3 specifically allows for the sale of furbearers. Coyotes are furbearers and may be sold, dead or alive.
Live coyotes are predominantly sold to running or dog training pens. The coyotes are not routinely killed by the dogs at these facilities despite the DNR’s repeated claim to the contrary. There are indeed fair chase principles utilized at these facilities. The overall size of the enclosures often exceeds several hundred acres and escape cover is provided for the coyotes. The coyotes are routinely provided food and water. Escapes from the enclosures are extremely rare.
The fair chase principles utilized at the coyote running pens are certainly similar to other activities sanctioned and endorsed by the DNR, including shooting of put and take pen raised pheasants, trapping muskrats and beavers at den entrances, and hunting deer with telescopic sighted weapons. The difference between the running pens and the other aforementioned activities is that the goal of the running pens is not to kill the coyotes whereas the other activities have one goal which is the death of the pursued wildlife. A person must ask themselves which of the listed activities most promotes the welfare of wildlife. The obvious answer is coyote running pens.
A statement was made in the DNR analysis as follows: “The DNR believes that the sale of live coyotes promotes the commercialization and privatization of wild animals, which is contrary to the statutory mandate and the mission of the DNR.” This statement directly contradicts the aforementioned allowances of 312 IAC 9-2-3 wherein the sale of furbearing mammals or any parts thereof is specifically described as a legal pursuit. Monetary gain is, and always has been, the driving force behind the pursuit of furbearing mammals. That has been the case since this great nation was explored and founded and that monetary factor is still present today.
Once an animal is legally captured or otherwise legally harvested or taken, it is no longer the property of the citizens of the State of Indiana. This fact is outlined at IC 14-22-1-1. Live captured coyotes, once legally taken, are the sole property of the individual who harvested that animal, no longer the citizens of the State of Indiana. A direct correlation can be made in the following example. Legally harvested venison in the possession of the hunter is solely owned by that hunter. A legally harvested deer is no longer the property of the citizens of the State of Indiana just as a legally harvested coyote is no longer the property of the citizens of the State of Indiana.
A statement on the potential for the spread of disease has been disseminated in the DNR analysis. Domestic dogs and coyotes are susceptible to the same parasites and diseases, including all those listed in the analysis. Domestic dogs, in addition to coyotes, routinely cross state boundaries, both free ranging and captive animals alike. The only difference is that the number of domestic dogs that travel within this nation dwarfs the number of coyotes that are traded and transported during live market activities. The potential for the spread of disease by the transport of legally captured live coyotes is miniscule when compared to the potential for the spread of disease presented by the daily, immeasurable number of domestic dogs transported throughout the nation. Countless domestic dogs go unvaccinated despite the ease of acquiring the care of a licensed veterinarian. The threat of disease transmission resultant from live market coyote activities is statistically improbable. Animals utilized in these activities are healthy, robust, non-diseased animals. The disease transmission threat is little more than emotion-based rather than science-based rhetoric.
In the Evaluation of Benefits and Costs section of the analysis, many egregious errors and omissions exist. The cost-benefit analysis implies and the fiscal impact assessment specifically states that there is no live coyote market economic benefit to trappers. Nothing could be further from the truth than those ridiculous statements of no economic benefit. A Warrick County trapper has, over the last five years, sold a confirmed 550 live coyotes for an average of $90.00 per coyote. That equates to $49,500.00 of real income generated by that individual. A Parke County trapper has sold a confirmed 378 live coyotes for an average of $50.00 per coyote. That equates to $18,900.00 of real income generated by that individual. During the same time period, that Parke County trapper averaged $9.00 for 99 coyote pelts from animals that were unmarketable to the running pens for various reasons. The $50.00 to $90.00 average per coyote received by those trappers covered their production costs and generated real income for those individuals, a fact that is indisputable. It is similarly indisputable that the $9.00 average for pelted coyotes did not cover production costs. Without the potential for profitable live market coyote sales, there will be no effective, widespread coyote control provided to the citizens of Indiana. Live market coyote sales provide the economic incentive for trappers to pursue the animals. There will continue to be hobby hunting and hobby trapping but no real control will occur without the economic incentive provided to trappers by live market coyote sales. Coyote populations are predicted to swell to a point where frequent conflict based problems arise. A person only has to review the unfortunate events that have occurred in states like Massachusetts where trapping has been banned in one form or another. In those states, coyotes, beavers and other previously valuable and widely utilized furbearers have been reduced to the sad state of vermin due to their unrestricted population explosions and resultant damage to property.
A discussion of the guaranteed costs to landowners and the citizens of the State of Indiana has been completely omitted from the DNR analysis. Communication with licensed nuisance control trappers reveal the costs charged by these small businessmen during coyote control efforts. During recent trapping efforts, citizens and municipalities have been billed a $250 set up fee and up to $300 per coyote trapped. These animals could easily have been trapped at little or no fee had the DNR not aggressively pursued the elimination of live market coyote trapping. Livestock growers, pet owners, and other animal and wildlife enthusiasts will continue to see an increase in coyote predation from the ever burgeoning coyote population. Those livestock growers will realize higher production costs resultant from lost animals and previously unnecessary payments to licensed nuisance control trappers. Again, effective coyote control in the form of significant population harvest will not occur without the economic incentive provided to trappers by live market coyote sales. Newspaper articles which chronical the loss of animal property will become ever more prevalent as the coyote population grows and coyote habitation advances into more urban areas. One of the aforementioned nuisance control officers recently captured coyotes in the urban setting of Indianapolis near the intersection of Lafayette Avenue and 62nd Street as well as immediately northeast of the Broad Ripple McDonald’s, just off of the Monon Trail. It is indisputable that numbers of similar human/coyote conflicts will rise as the coyote population rises.
Page three of the DNR analysis makes a feigned effort to examine alternatives to the ban on live market sale of coyotes. An obvious alternative that has not been examined or considered includes embracing the live market coyote trapping process through establishment of regulations that encourage wise and humane use of a valuable, abundant and renewable resource. Rather, the DNR has sought to steamroll the effort to outlaw an activity that generates real income for trappers through the utilization of faulty logic, emotional mistruths, and misinterpretation or misquoting of laws and regulations.
Disgusting photos of inhumane coyote treatment were presented by the DNR’s Director of the Division of Law Enforcement, to the legislators participating on the Natural Resources Summer Study Committee. This type of emotional propaganda has become the DNR’s standard operating procedure during the discussion of this matter rather than discussing the facts associated with the current process. The scenes depicted in the presented photos do not represent normal activities that occur at the running pen facilities.
Page four of the DNR analysis mentions discussions with a single trapper as the DNR developed their analysis. There has been no outreach to the entire trapping community during the effort to develop regulations pertaining to live market coyote sales. Trapper/DNR meetings were arranged only after development of the Rule proposal. The meetings were arranged only through the diligent effort of the members of the Fur Takers of America. The meetings have been one sided with respect to a willingness to discuss the facts of live coyote harvest and live market sales. There was no willingness by DNR representatives to discuss any alternatives to the complete banning of live market sales of summer caught coyotes. The result of this lack of communication and lack of cooperation has resulted in the alienation of trappers and the development of mistrust for the DNR by trappers.
The euthanasia proposal as presented to and preliminarily adopted by the Natural Resources Commission in September 2007 must not be allowed to be adopted. The inherent negative economic impacts to the trappers and citizens of Indiana and the falsehoods utilized as rationale for the proposal demand that the euthanasia proposal be withdrawn.
LSA Document #07-749
A REBUTTAL BY THE TRAPPERS OF INDIANA:
A proposal has been made before the Indiana Natural Resources Commission by the Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish & Wildlife to outlaw any end use of coyotes captured or otherwise harvested between March 16 and October 14. This proposal is hereinafter referred to as the euthanasia proposal.
As stated in the DNR analysis of the euthanasia proposal, IC 14-22-6-12 allows coyotes to be legally taken or otherwise harvested year round by persons who possess land or by persons authorized in writing by someone who possesses land. Contrary to the DNR’s analysis document, the original purpose of the law (ca. 1987) was solely and entirely to reduce the coyote population in the state of Indiana. The purpose of the law was not to provide an opportunity to farmers and other landowners to take a few specific nuisance animals. Those two concepts, population reduction vs. specific nuisance animal control, are markedly different. The statement as to the original intent of the law has been verified by a trapper who attended every hearing associated with the development of the language of the law and by legislators who participated in the final adoption of the law. A person must study the law to understand that there are distinct harvest rules and regulations as well as distinct nuisance animal rules and regulations. This is not a discussion of nuisance animals but rather legally harvested furbearers.
The coyote population began to greatly expand in numbers and range throughout the mid-1980’s and landowners wanted fewer coyotes. The legislature obliged the interests of the landowners through passage of the law which allows year round coyote harvest. The current effort by the DNR to restrict the end use of legally harvested coyotes undermines the intent of that legislation. Senator Young of District 47 has stated that an investigation by the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee will occur if DNR’s coyote euthanasia proposal is adopted.
The euthanasia proposal would only prohibit the sale of live coyotes legally harvested between March 16 and October 14. Coyotes legally harvested between October 15 and March 15 of the following year would still be allowed to be sold alive. The logic involved in the proposal makes no sense. The end use of a legally harvested furbearer should not depend upon the calendar date of harvest. For example, a coyote harvested March 15 may be sold alive. If the euthanasia proposal is adopted, that same coyote, if it had been harvested instead a day later on March 16, would have to be destroyed and no economic benefit realized. The DNR has strict rules pertaining to wanton waste of harvested animals but those rules are seemingly being ignored with respect to the euthanasia proposal. The DNR continues to claim that the disposal requirements of the euthanasia proposal do not constitute wanton waste based upon the nuisance animal removal language of 312 IAC 9-10-11. The DNR’s claim is based on flawed logic because, as stated previously, IC 14-22-6-12 is a harvest or consumptive use law, not a nuisance animal removal law.
The definition of “take” provided at IC 14-8-2-278 does not prohibit the sale of live coyotes, as the DNR analysis erroneously states. The Indiana Administrative Code at 312 IAC 9-2-3 specifically allows for the sale of furbearers. Coyotes are furbearers and may be sold, dead or alive.
Live coyotes are predominantly sold to running or dog training pens. The coyotes are not routinely killed by the dogs at these facilities despite the DNR’s repeated claim to the contrary. There are indeed fair chase principles utilized at these facilities. The overall size of the enclosures often exceeds several hundred acres and escape cover is provided for the coyotes. The coyotes are routinely provided food and water. Escapes from the enclosures are extremely rare.
The fair chase principles utilized at the coyote running pens are certainly similar to other activities sanctioned and endorsed by the DNR, including shooting of put and take pen raised pheasants, trapping muskrats and beavers at den entrances, and hunting deer with telescopic sighted weapons. The difference between the running pens and the other aforementioned activities is that the goal of the running pens is not to kill the coyotes whereas the other activities have one goal which is the death of the pursued wildlife. A person must ask themselves which of the listed activities most promotes the welfare of wildlife. The obvious answer is coyote running pens.
A statement was made in the DNR analysis as follows: “The DNR believes that the sale of live coyotes promotes the commercialization and privatization of wild animals, which is contrary to the statutory mandate and the mission of the DNR.” This statement directly contradicts the aforementioned allowances of 312 IAC 9-2-3 wherein the sale of furbearing mammals or any parts thereof is specifically described as a legal pursuit. Monetary gain is, and always has been, the driving force behind the pursuit of furbearing mammals. That has been the case since this great nation was explored and founded and that monetary factor is still present today.
Once an animal is legally captured or otherwise legally harvested or taken, it is no longer the property of the citizens of the State of Indiana. This fact is outlined at IC 14-22-1-1. Live captured coyotes, once legally taken, are the sole property of the individual who harvested that animal, no longer the citizens of the State of Indiana. A direct correlation can be made in the following example. Legally harvested venison in the possession of the hunter is solely owned by that hunter. A legally harvested deer is no longer the property of the citizens of the State of Indiana just as a legally harvested coyote is no longer the property of the citizens of the State of Indiana.
A statement on the potential for the spread of disease has been disseminated in the DNR analysis. Domestic dogs and coyotes are susceptible to the same parasites and diseases, including all those listed in the analysis. Domestic dogs, in addition to coyotes, routinely cross state boundaries, both free ranging and captive animals alike. The only difference is that the number of domestic dogs that travel within this nation dwarfs the number of coyotes that are traded and transported during live market activities. The potential for the spread of disease by the transport of legally captured live coyotes is miniscule when compared to the potential for the spread of disease presented by the daily, immeasurable number of domestic dogs transported throughout the nation. Countless domestic dogs go unvaccinated despite the ease of acquiring the care of a licensed veterinarian. The threat of disease transmission resultant from live market coyote activities is statistically improbable. Animals utilized in these activities are healthy, robust, non-diseased animals. The disease transmission threat is little more than emotion-based rather than science-based rhetoric.
In the Evaluation of Benefits and Costs section of the analysis, many egregious errors and omissions exist. The cost-benefit analysis implies and the fiscal impact assessment specifically states that there is no live coyote market economic benefit to trappers. Nothing could be further from the truth than those ridiculous statements of no economic benefit. A Warrick County trapper has, over the last five years, sold a confirmed 550 live coyotes for an average of $90.00 per coyote. That equates to $49,500.00 of real income generated by that individual. A Parke County trapper has sold a confirmed 378 live coyotes for an average of $50.00 per coyote. That equates to $18,900.00 of real income generated by that individual. During the same time period, that Parke County trapper averaged $9.00 for 99 coyote pelts from animals that were unmarketable to the running pens for various reasons. The $50.00 to $90.00 average per coyote received by those trappers covered their production costs and generated real income for those individuals, a fact that is indisputable. It is similarly indisputable that the $9.00 average for pelted coyotes did not cover production costs. Without the potential for profitable live market coyote sales, there will be no effective, widespread coyote control provided to the citizens of Indiana. Live market coyote sales provide the economic incentive for trappers to pursue the animals. There will continue to be hobby hunting and hobby trapping but no real control will occur without the economic incentive provided to trappers by live market coyote sales. Coyote populations are predicted to swell to a point where frequent conflict based problems arise. A person only has to review the unfortunate events that have occurred in states like Massachusetts where trapping has been banned in one form or another. In those states, coyotes, beavers and other previously valuable and widely utilized furbearers have been reduced to the sad state of vermin due to their unrestricted population explosions and resultant damage to property.
A discussion of the guaranteed costs to landowners and the citizens of the State of Indiana has been completely omitted from the DNR analysis. Communication with licensed nuisance control trappers reveal the costs charged by these small businessmen during coyote control efforts. During recent trapping efforts, citizens and municipalities have been billed a $250 set up fee and up to $300 per coyote trapped. These animals could easily have been trapped at little or no fee had the DNR not aggressively pursued the elimination of live market coyote trapping. Livestock growers, pet owners, and other animal and wildlife enthusiasts will continue to see an increase in coyote predation from the ever burgeoning coyote population. Those livestock growers will realize higher production costs resultant from lost animals and previously unnecessary payments to licensed nuisance control trappers. Again, effective coyote control in the form of significant population harvest will not occur without the economic incentive provided to trappers by live market coyote sales. Newspaper articles which chronical the loss of animal property will become ever more prevalent as the coyote population grows and coyote habitation advances into more urban areas. One of the aforementioned nuisance control officers recently captured coyotes in the urban setting of Indianapolis near the intersection of Lafayette Avenue and 62nd Street as well as immediately northeast of the Broad Ripple McDonald’s, just off of the Monon Trail. It is indisputable that numbers of similar human/coyote conflicts will rise as the coyote population rises.
Page three of the DNR analysis makes a feigned effort to examine alternatives to the ban on live market sale of coyotes. An obvious alternative that has not been examined or considered includes embracing the live market coyote trapping process through establishment of regulations that encourage wise and humane use of a valuable, abundant and renewable resource. Rather, the DNR has sought to steamroll the effort to outlaw an activity that generates real income for trappers through the utilization of faulty logic, emotional mistruths, and misinterpretation or misquoting of laws and regulations.
Disgusting photos of inhumane coyote treatment were presented by the DNR’s Director of the Division of Law Enforcement, to the legislators participating on the Natural Resources Summer Study Committee. This type of emotional propaganda has become the DNR’s standard operating procedure during the discussion of this matter rather than discussing the facts associated with the current process. The scenes depicted in the presented photos do not represent normal activities that occur at the running pen facilities.
Page four of the DNR analysis mentions discussions with a single trapper as the DNR developed their analysis. There has been no outreach to the entire trapping community during the effort to develop regulations pertaining to live market coyote sales. Trapper/DNR meetings were arranged only after development of the Rule proposal. The meetings were arranged only through the diligent effort of the members of the Fur Takers of America. The meetings have been one sided with respect to a willingness to discuss the facts of live coyote harvest and live market sales. There was no willingness by DNR representatives to discuss any alternatives to the complete banning of live market sales of summer caught coyotes. The result of this lack of communication and lack of cooperation has resulted in the alienation of trappers and the development of mistrust for the DNR by trappers.
The euthanasia proposal as presented to and preliminarily adopted by the Natural Resources Commission in September 2007 must not be allowed to be adopted. The inherent negative economic impacts to the trappers and citizens of Indiana and the falsehoods utilized as rationale for the proposal demand that the euthanasia proposal be withdrawn.
