I do not criticize the responding party for any unethical conduct. It is an appropriate and recognized effort to examine and test legislation that governs the conduct of a particular enterprise. Where there is apparent conflict between the enterprise and the governing legislation, it is common place and not inappropriate to attempt to bring the enterprise into compliance with the legislation. Frequently this involves creative, out-of-the-box thinking by entrepreneurs and their legal advisors. The present effort was genuine and inventive, but ultimately the plaintiff relies on a distinction without a difference.
The activity is one that many would enjoy and it is not unethical for an individual to create a business that would meet the demands of those who enjoy the activity. This court makes no comment whether hunting animals in captivity should be permitted or not.
However, the legislators enacted the FWCA which is remedial legislation with a purpose. It was the legislators' purpose to prohibit the hunting of elk et al. in captivity. I have found, on the facts put forward by the responding party, that the activity whatever it is called and whether or not it is proceeded by the sale of the animal in advance of its "harvest", the activity remains a "hunt". That is why people want to do it. That is why they pay to do it rather than being paid for harvesting on behalf of a farmer.