The decision of the Department of Natural Resources to deny the application for a dog training ground is affirmed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") is an agency within the meaning of IC 4-21.5.
2. IC 4-21.5, IC 14-2 and 310 IAC 3.1 apply to these proceedings.
3. The DNR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating activities involving fish and wildlife.
4. The Natural Resources Commission ("NRC") is the ultimate authority within the meaning of IC 4-21.5 over DNR decisions to grant or deny fish and wildlife permits.
5. On November 13, 1992, the DNR, through the Division of Fish and wildlife, denied an application for a dog training ground permit in Pike County filed by Richard Poehlein ("Poehlein").
6. On November 24, 1992, Poehlein filed a timely request for administrative review pursuant to IC 4-21.5.
7. On January 8, the DNR, pursuant to IC 4-21.5-3-23, filed a motion for summary judgment.
8. Poehlein was given until February 15, 1993, to file a response. To date, no response has been received.
9. 310 IAC 3-1-10-17(b) requires that an application for a dog training ground permit must involve land that "shall not be located within five (5) miles of a state owned or controlled public hunting area. . . ."
10. In his request for review, Poehlein admits his property is 4.3 miles from one section of Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area and 4.1 miles from another-section of the same fish and wildlife area.
11. The administrative law judge takes official notice pursuant to IC 4-21.5-3-26(f) of the fact that Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area (formerly Patoka Fish and Wildlife Area) is a state owned area of 7,300 acres which allows hunting.
12. The DNR had no choice but to deny the permit.