The decision of the Department of Natural Resources to deny Thom Shuck's application for a wild animal rehabilitation permit 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. The DNR is the state agency charged with the responsibility of managing and regulating the wild animal resources of the state of Indiana.
3. IC 4-21.5, IC 14-2, and 310 IAC 3.1 apply to these proceedings.
4. All wild animals, except those held in captivity pursuant to a valid permit, are the property of the people of the state of Indiana and managed by the DNR. See IC 14-2-1-2.
5. During the spring of 1992, Thom Shuck ("Shuck") discovered a very young male fawn while mowing a field in Tipton County owned by Shuck.
6. Shuck avoided the fawn and waited the balance of the day for the doe to reappear.
7. When the doe did not return, shuck took the fawn to his house and contacted a friend of his who he knew cared for injured animals.[FOOTNOTE 1]
8. Shuck placed the fawn on a leash tied to a ground screw in order to keep him out of the roadway. The deer could graze and continued to grow.
9. Shuck provided exercise for the deer and kept him in the house at night.
10. During the late spring, the fawn was taken to Shuck's wife's school classroom in order to show the deer to the students.
11. Shuck was unaware that a permit from the DNR was needed to possess a deer.
12. On July 15, 1992, Conservation officer ("CO") assigned to duty in Tipton County went to the Shuck residence in response to a report that there was a deer tied up at the residence.
13. While the CO had known Shuck for several years, he did not know Shuck's wife or where Shuck's residence was located. He did not know the residence named in the information was Shuck's residence.
14. Upon arrival, the CO noticed the deer tethered in the back yard. He notified Mrs. Shuck that the present situation was a violation of state law and that the deer would have to be taken to a "rehabber".[FOOTNOTE 2]
15. Mrs. Shuck became emotional and the CO decided it would be best to wait at the end of the driveway for the rehabber.
16. Shuck arrived at the house before the rehabber did.
17. Shuck picked up the deer and began carrying it to the house.
18. The CO blocked the door and told Shuck he could not keep the deer.
19. Shuck refused to give up the deer and walked to the front porch.
20. Shuck's wife let Shuck (and the deer) into the house.
21. The CO forcibly followed Shuck into the house and again attempted to explain that the deer belonged to the state and would have to be turned over to someone with a rehabilitation permit.
22. Shuck then placed his hands on a shotgun and the CO told Mrs. Shuck that he would leave and to try and calm Shuck down.
23. The CO went to the end of the driveway to await back up.
24. After the Sheriff's department arrived, Shuck was contacted by telephone and again told to bring the deer out to the officers.
25. Shuck refused to do so until the rehabilitator arrived and asked a number of questions about rehabilitation and release which the CO attempted to answer.
26. The rehabilitator arrived and took possession of the deer.
27. The deer in question continued to grow, but its close association with people and dogs made it a poor candidate to survive in the wild.
28. The ultimate disposition of the deer by the DNR was to place the young buck in the Frankfort City Park Zoo,
[VOLUEM 6, PAGE 179]
a facility with a USDA permit.
29. On July 31, 1992, 16 days after the incident at Shuck's residence, Shuck applied for a wild animal rehabilitation permit.
30. On August 20, 1992, the DNR denied the permit application.
31. Shuck has a sincere interest in the welfare of wild animals and is trying to turn much of his acreage into wildlife preserve.
32. Shuck wanted to keep the deer with the hope that the deer could be released on his property and join other deer running wild on his property.[FOOTNOTE 3]
33. Shuck also indicated he would like to care for another injured deer if the opportunity arises.
[FINDING 34 OMITTED FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENT]
35. Prior to the day the CO answered the complaint about the deer at the Shuck residence, the evidence strongly indicates Shuck was unaware he needed a permit to care for an injured (or abandoned) young wild animal.
36. The requirements for a wild animal rehabilitation permit are found in 310 IAC 3.1-10-9.
37. Shuck meets, or with very little rearrangement or construction of facilities would meet many of the criteria listed including the help of a veterinarian and other, adequate space and grazing area, and a sincere interest in aiding wildlife.
38. 310 IAC 3.1-10-9(b)(i) requires that the applicant have rehabilitation experience and knowledge as shown by a B.S. in Wildlife Management or related area, a year experience with a veterinarian clinic, shelter, etc., possession of another wildlife permit for two years, or other knowledge and background including seminar attendance which the director (of DNR) feels qualifies the applicant. Shuck's background does not appear to meet the criteria.
39. Further, 310 IAC 3.1-10-9(f) forbids the display or the allowance of public contact with an animal possessed for rehabilitation purposes unless a separate permit is given by the director.
40. More importantly, a possessor of a rehabilitation permit must work closely with conservation officers, keep required records and make reports to the DNR, and finally, release the animal into the wild as directed by the CO. See 310 IAC 3.1-10-9(h), (i), and (j). There is considerable evidence in the record to indicate serious doubt as to whether or not the applicant would fully cooperate with the DNR and local CO in these matters.
FOOTNOTES
1. A doe was involved in an auto accident about that time in Tipton County. While no one knows for sure, it is certainly possible the fawn belonged to the doe that was killed.
2. "Rehabber" is a slang term for a person who possesses a wildlife rehabilitation permit from the DNR pursuant to 310 IAC 3.1-10-9.
3. At the hearing, Shuck indicated agreement with the decision to place the deer in a small zoo because of its lack of protective instincts.