INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Two bills introduced last month in the Indiana General Assembly have opposing takes on hunting preserves, or fenced hunting – one seeks to regulate the practice in the state, while the other proposes to end it.

State House Bill 1453 would place regulations, including on size of the facility, on the four hunting preserves already in the state, according to the bill’s author, Rep. Sean Eberhart (R-District 57). The legislation would allow former preserves to reopen if they were in operation before the end of last year and meet other requirements, but would not allow for the creation of new facilities. The bill also establishes licensing and inspection requirements and fees.

“Indiana has no regulations (on hunting preserves), so we have a choice,” Eberhart said. “We can continue with no regulations or we can come up with reasonable regulations for the industry.”

The bill was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee after it was introduced. Eberhart, the committee chair, expected it to vote on the bill Feb. 9. If passed, it will go to the full House for consideration.

Senate Bill 442 would outlaw the practice of confined hunting, said its author, Sen. Pete Miller (R-District 24). The bill was sent to the Senate Natural Resources Committee after its introduction in January. Miller said he’s been told his bill won’t receive a hearing in this session of the General Assembly.

Under the House bill, a preserve would be required to have a minimum hunting area of 100 acres and an 8-foot-tall fence. The preserves would be under the oversight of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Indiana State Board of Animal Health.

Hunters in the preserves would use the same firearms as they would in the wild and would follow the same rules. Hunting licenses wouldn’t be required and there would be no bag limits. Use of remote control devices to aide in hunting would be prohibited.

Deer needed to stock the hunting preserves would be considered livestock and come from deer farms, of which the state has more than 400, Eberhart said. Deer farms are a nearly $50 million industry in the state, he added.

Preserve operators would be breaking the law if they attempted to bring wild deer – considered wildlife – onto their property to be hunted. “The preserves want to be regulated,” he explained. “We’re trying to have legitimate, common-sense regulations. We’re trying to reach the sweet spot in regard to that.”

With his legislation, Eberhart said he’s trying to correct a wrong that began 15 years ago when hunting preserve owners invested money to establish their operations. At the time, he said, they were told by the Indiana DNR such preserves were legal.

Five years later, DNR officials changed their minds and said the activity wasn’t legal, he added. Four preserves have remained opened as the issue worked its way through the court system.

“(DNR) changed the laws in midstream,” he stated. “If we didn’t have hunting preserves already, I wouldn’t be pushing to put this in place.” Attempts to reach DNR officials for comment were unsuccessful.

A decision announced Feb. 2 by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which ruled the state DNR didn’t have the authority to ban hunting preserves, has an impact on his legislation, Eberhart said.

“This tells (the General Assembly) we do need to make a choice and come up with common-sense regulations, or shut them down, but I don’t consider that an option,” he said.

“They’re now considered a legal operation and we need to be proactive and come up with a sensible set of guidelines. (The ruling) says the General Assembly needs to decide. We are the policymakers.”

Under the Senate bill, the practice of placing deer and other cervidae in a confined area for hunting would be made illegal in Indiana.

“My understanding is that for someone who hunts all the time, this is not something they would find entertaining,” Miller said. “For someone who does this occasionally, it’s not the thrill of the hunt, it’s the rack of a deer they can put on the wall. If that’s what you want to do, then go to a deer farm and say, ‘That’s the one I want.’”

Traditional hunters are concerned the transport of deer across state lines could increase the potential for chronic wasting disease and decimate the state’s deer population, he noted.

Even if his bill doesn’t get a hearing, Miller said the legislation sends a message to his colleagues.

“I’m motivated by the fact that I don’t think this is a sport,” he explained. “These deer farms and deer hunters sometimes want to be regulated as agriculture and sometimes as natural resources. I don’t care which one they choose, but they should pick one.”