Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would remove statutory ‘‘physical contact’’ fencing requirement and penalties for deer farms; DNR warns of CWD risk
Summary
Representative Burkel introduced House File 40 to remove a statutory ‘‘physical contact’’ fencing requirement and the statutory penalty of revocation and destruction for deer-farm escapes or uncorrected fence deficiencies.
Representative Burkel introduced House File 40 to revise statutes that require secondary fencing to prevent physical contact between farmed cervids and wild deer and to remove statutory penalties including revocation of herd registration and seizure/destruction of animals after repeated escapes or uncorrected fence deficiencies.
Multiple deer- and elk-farm representatives testified in support. Brenda Hartkopf of the Minnesota Elk Breeders Association, Tim Spreck and Scott Fear of the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association said the double-fence or barrier requirement is costly, ambiguous in DNR guidance and, they said, in some cases infeasible because of brush, trees and long-standing perimeter fences. Fear told the committee the cheapest compliant option for his operation would be about $50,000 and said some estimates he had seen rose much higher. Farmers said some who cannot comply have been issued notices of violation and fines and that the requirement has driven producers out of the industry.
DNR enforcement official Lieutenant Colonel Robert Gorecki testified the agency opposes the bill. He warned that removing the prohibition on physical contact would "increase the chances of transmission of CWD both directions," and said removing penalties such as revocation would leave little incentive for producers to correct deficiencies. Gorecki told the committee escapes have fallen since the 2023 law, reporting "only 3 in 2023 and 2 in 2024," and that only 10 farms are currently not in compliance. The DNR said fence guidance is case-by-case because farms have different topography; the DNR encourages producers to submit proposals for approval.
Committee members asked questions about compliance efforts and enforcement. Representative Agmadge and others asked whether the DNR is working with the noncompliant farms; Gorecki said the agency continues to encourage compliance and that some producers are waiting on federal litigation. Producers asked for clearer, fixed standards and for state assistance with costs; representatives noted a Senate discussion about funding the barrier but no statewide program was reported by committee staff.
Representative Burkel moved to lay House File 40 over; the committee laid the bill over for continued work.
