House subcommittee hears testimony alleging Michigan DNR overreach enforcing feral-pig invasive species order

The Oversight Subcommittee on Weaponized Initiative of State Government convened a hearing in Lansing to examine complaints that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has overreached in enforcing a 2010 Invasive Species Order (ISO) and subsequent rules governing feral or wild pigs.

Senator McBroom, who opened the witnesses' testimony, told the committee that "The DNR has waged a heavy handed campaign against farmers through its 2010 invasive species order amendment and the 2011 feral pig ban," and said the agency had at times treated heritage and domesticated breeds as illegal, placing producers at legal and financial risk.

The testimony focused on three themes: the legal authority the DNR used to assert control over pigs raised or sold on farms, the scientific basis for a genetic test the DNR has used in enforcement, and specific enforcement tactics witnesses described as undercover operations that harvested animals and later fed evidence into litigation.

Why this matters: witnesses said the agency's actions have put game-ranch businesses and associated rural economies at risk, forced some producers to slaughter or liquidate stock, and pushed small operations out of the state. Committee members signaled intent to demand documents and to pursue legislative changes if necessary.

Witnesses and key claims

Senator McBroom (witness) traced the dispute to a shift in the early 2010s when state authority over certain animals moved from the Department of Agriculture to the DNR through executive reassignments. He told the subcommittee the DNR issued an ISO that treated a broad set of physical traits as indicia of "wild" pigs and later used those criteria in enforcement. He said courts later found parts of the DNR's rule-making or guidance arbitrary (a "declaratory ruling" was struck down), but that enforcement under the ISO continued.

Dr. Barry Weiner, identified as a veterinarian with decades in food-animal medicine, testified about the limits of phenotype- and genetics-based classification. "Phenotypes are what an animal looks like," he said, and described how breeders can change appearance traits in one generation; he questioned the statistical validity and sample size behind the DNR genetic test, saying the agency's geneticist relied on a small, uncontrolled set of reference samples.

Roger Turnitin (game-ranch operator) and Buddy Wainer (owner/manager of Superior Wildlife Adventures) described operational impacts. Turnitin recounted years of litigation and a 2021 ruling in his favor on several counts; Wainer said DNR agents had booked hunts under false names, shot animals on his property and only informed him later that the animals had been harvested for testing. "They came, they shot their pigs, they took it, and then over two years later they told us that we were being sued," Wainer told the panel.

Witnesses provided specific figures during testimony: they said about 70 game-hunting operations once existed in Michigan and that only roughly five remain; one witness said his operation purchased 635 pigs between 2020 and early 2024 and harvested just over 600; another witness reported $12,165 in legal fees paid in roughly 18 months related to defense against DNR actions.

Scientific and legal concerns

Experts and ranchers criticized the DNR's genetic testing methodology. Dr. Weiner testified that developing a valid genomic test requires large, well-controlled sample sets and peer review; he said the DNR’s sample set was "minuscule" and that the department did not publicly disclose methods that could be reproduced or peer-reviewed. He and others also noted that different domestic breeds have variable counts of coccygeal (tail) vertebrae and that simple morphological markers are not definitive species indicators.

Several witnesses and legislators said the fundamental policy question is allocation of authority: under existing law, feral animals previously fell under the Department of Agriculture’s domain, while the DNR regulates wildlife. Witnesses told the committee they sought statutory regulation under Agriculture rather than enforcement through the DNR's invasive-species authority.

Committee reaction and next steps

Members of the subcommittee expressed concern over the DNR’s tactics and said they planned to pursue documents and further hearings. Representative Shriver—who moved to adopt minutes from an earlier meeting at the hearing’s start—told witnesses the panel would examine changes to guardrails on agency power and consider remedies for small parties defending long legal battles. Vice Chair Pawlowski and other members said they intend to demand documents about DNR coordination and about the alleged undercover hunts.

Formal committee actions recorded in the hearing were limited and procedural: Representative Shriver moved to adopt the minutes of the May 14 meeting; hearing no objection, the minutes were adopted. At the end of the session Representative Pawlowski moved to excuse absent members; the motion "prevails" on voice assent and the committee adjourned.

The subcommittee did not receive testimony from DNR officials at this hearing. Members said they would call additional witnesses, request internal DNR records and seek clarification of legal authority and testing methodologies in follow-up sessions.