March 1, 2015
Our Deer Are Not For Sale – the politics of deer farming in North Carolina
RH: Deer farming politics in North Carolina
ROBERT D. BROWN, North Carolina Wildlife Federation, 109 Cape Cod Drive, Cary,
NC 27511 USA
Email: bob_brown@ncsu.edu
KEY WORDS Deer, Politics, Conflict, North Carolina.
ABSTRACT White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgininanis) are currently allowed to be
raised but not hunted behind high fences in North Carolina. Since the proliferation of
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in other states, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has delayed a decision on approving increasing the size of
current deer farms, licensing new deer farms, or allowing importation of deer from other
states. This has led to a conflict among the deer farmer, hunting and conservation groups,
the NCWRC, and the state legislature. Efforts for the two camps to find a compromise
have not been successful. At present a final decision has not been made, but opponents to
expansion of the captive cervid business in NC have drawn battle lines over the issue.
The recent history of this conflict should be of interest to all wildlifers.
Wildlife Society Bulletin: 00(0): 000-000, 201X
As this article is being written in February, 2015, the future of native white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk (Cervus canadenses) farming in
North Carolina (NC) has not been decided. Rumors abound of strategy meetings of
activists on both sides of the issue, lining up supporters for their causes in the state
Legislature and the NCWRC. Meetings between the pro- and anti-deer farming groups
have not been productive, and it is believed that both sides will be introducing competing
2
legislation any day now. Even by the time this article is published, new attempts,
including possible legal challenges, may be made to change this year’s legislative
decisions.
RECENT HISTORY
Deer farming became an issue in North Carolina in 2002. Prior to that, deer farms
were not regulated. Hunting deer behind high fences has never been allowed in our state,
with one exception. This exception to the NC law was granted by a federal court over
fishing license requirements and found that the NC
Cherokee Nation was not bound by state fish and wildlife rules and could manage
its own hunting and fishing programs (US Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Case No. 762161, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. NCWRC, 1978). Prior to 2001, the NCWRC
donated orphaned fawns to private individuals to rehabilitate and raise in pens. Within
this unregulated environment, some individuals began raising both native and exotic deer
for the purpose of selling them. Most sales were to out-of-state hunting facilities,
whereas some were sold to the Cherokee White-tail Hunting Preserve in Robbinsville,
NC. In 2002 the NCWRC Director, Dick Hamilton, asked the NC General Assembly for
authority for the NCWRC to regulate captive cervid facilities. That authority was granted
on July 27, 2003 by ratification of Session Law 2003-344 (D. Hamilton, personal
commun, North Carolina General Assembly, 2015c).
Facility owners were allowed to purchase licenses at a cost of $ 50 per facility per
year, and a protocol for operation of the facilities, with semi-annual state inspections was
instituted. Deer owners who had deer in captivity were also given the opportunity to sell
their deer to the state for a fair market value, and about $ 250,000 was spent purchasing
3
and euthanizing these deer, with some instances of negative public relations for the
NCWRC. At the time there were about 100 such facilities in the state, and between the
purchases and other factors, the number of deer facilities was reduced to 36 by 2015.
(Cobb, 2014).
At the time of this initial regulatory effort, commercial facility owners were told
that if they had no disease issues, especially Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) for 5 years,
their herds would be certified by the state for transfer among facilities within the state
and outside the state. Importation of deer from outside the state has not been legal since
2003. Licensed cervid owners were allowed to continue to sell their deer to out-of-state
buyers. By the time that initial 5 years had expired, however, CWD had become a more
serious national issue, and the NCWRC decided to delay decisions regarding expanding
the existing captive cervid facilities. In 2010 CWD was detected in wild deer in the
neighboring state of Virginia. With pressure from the deer farming community, in 2011
Governor Beverly Perdue appointed a Captive Cervid Task Force, which never met. She
was defeated in the 2012 election by current Governor Pat McCory. In that year the
NCWRC, having worked with the deer farmers, was ready to issue new rules allowing
the issuance of new licenses for facilities, licenses for expansion of current facilities,
importation of all cervids, and reduced CWD testing requirements for cervids not
susceptible to the disease. But in 2012 CWD was detected in farmed, and eventually
wild deer in Pennsylvania, a state that had previously adopted the captive cervid rules
proposed for NC. The WRC postponed the decision on the new rules and formed the
Cervid Disease Task Force in 2014 (Cobb, 2014). I served on that Task Force.
4
The Task Force included a number of NCWRC staff members, including the
Director, Assistant Director, Big Game Leader, Veterinarian, and others. The deer
farmers were represented by the Director of the North American Deer Farmers
Association (NADFA), the Director of the North Carolina Deer and Elk Farmers
Association, and some deer farmers. Others on the Task Force included representatives
of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA), the North Carolina Wildlife
Federation (NCWF), the Wake County Wildlife Club, the NC State Director of USDA
APHIS Wildlife Services, and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. The
meetings were not closed, and most often the NC State Veterinarian, a representative of
the NC Farm Bureau, and a representative of the Southeast Wildlife Cooperative Disease
Study Group from the University of Georgia were in attendance. Others were invited for
specific meetings, such as a representative of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, to
speak on their experiences.
The Task Force was given a charge to examine the safeguards and vulnerabilities
of North Carolina with respect to cervid diseases, not just in captive facilities, but also in
the wild, and to include especially CWD and tuberculosis. It should be noted that this
Task Force was only charged to discuss cervid diseases, not the ethical, ecological or
economic concerns of farming deer. Three all-day meetings were held. At the first
meeting the NCWRC staff provided extensive documentation and power point
presentations on the status of CWD and other cervid diseases nationally, the extent of
deer farming in the state, and details about the USDA Federal Herd Certification Program
(NCWRC, 2014a). The Task Force members submitted many questions and requests for
additional information. In the second meeting a plethora of additional information was
5
provided by the NCWRC staff, as well as by some of the Task Force members (NCWRC,
2014b).
In a nutshell, the information presented and discussed included a timeline and
maps of states with CWD, current NC rules regarding captive facilities and the proposed
rule changes, rules of other states, the NC CWD Response Plan, and details of the USDA
APHIS CWD Herd Certification Program. Additional information was provided on the
economic impact of hunting in North Carolina (277,357 hunters, supporting 8,332 jobs,
generating $ 46 million in taxes and $ 818 million in economic output in 2006), the
results of CWD testing of hunter-killed deer in the state (3,881 in 2013, all negative), the
number and size of captive cervid facilities in the state (37, of which 24 had less than 10
deer and only 2 had over 50 deer), the cost of inspecting NC deer farms (about
$ 72,000 in 2013), the cost of CWD testing in NC ($ 125,535 in 2013), and literature
concerning CWD and the development of live animal tests (Cobb, 2014; USDA, 2014;
USFWS, 2011). It was pointed out that the Constitution of North Carolina and other
statutes mandate the Public Trust Doctrine regarding wildlife in the state, designates the
NCWRC as the regulatory authority, and forbids the private ownership or sale of native
wildlife and hunting behind high fences (NC General Assembly, 2015a and b) The
NCWRC presumed authority to allow sale and ownership of deer has come into question
by this recent attention. Over the years, pheasants (Phasianidae), quail (Colinus
virginianus) and some waterfowl were approved to be raised for sale to restaurants and
release for hunting, and foxes (V. vulpes) and coyotes (Canus latrans) could also be
raised and sold for hunting and dog training (Cobb, 2014). The point often argued is
6
whether the deer in captive facilities are actually owned by the licensee who has the
animals in captivity, though he or she has been allowed to sell the deer with a permit.
The third meeting of the Task Force was largely discussion, but after another full
day, dozens of presentations, and hundreds of pages of documents reviewed, the Task
Force developed a limited common statement. The Task Force agreed to recommend
increased fines for non-compliance with NCWRC regulations, prohibiting the
importation of at-risk deer parts from states with CWD, and ceasing the fawn
rehabilitation program (NCWRC, 2014c). As a result, each participant was asked to
submit his or her recommendations in writing to the Director of the NCWRC. Those
documents were never released to the public nor shared with the Task Force members.
MOST RECENT HISTORY
In late fall, 2014, the NCWRC held two public hearings concerning the captive
deer issue. Many of the Task Force members attended these meetings and testified as to
their previous recommendations. Some cited the position statements of the Wildlife
Society, the Quality Deer Management Association, the Boone and Crockett Club, the
North Carolina Wildlife Federation and the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Minutes were taken at these hearings, but none were ever promulgated. The
meetings did, however, raise public interest, and newspaper articles abounded (Brown,
2014; Marsh, 2014). The NCWRC also asked for input on their web site. They had
2,008 responses, only 8 of which favored deer farming (Allison Nolker, NCWRC Captive
Cervid Biologist, personal commun.).
Simultaneously, the state House Appropriations Committee was in the process of
developing the state budget for 2015. It was discovered that the new budget would
7
contain items relating to the deer farming issue as riders. One of those was the plan to
transfer regulation of and jurisdiction over captive cervids from the NCWRC to the NC
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, thus classifying captive cervids as
farmed cervids. As a result, pro-hunting groups such as the Camouflage Coalition
(CAMO) of the NCWF sent out notices to their members, and the legislature was deluged
with emails and phone calls complaining about the rider. That specific rider was
withdrawn, but six other provisions remained.
Those provisions included delaying importation of cervids from out-of-state until
July 1, 2017; informed the NCWRC that it may issue licenses for new cervid facilities;
instructed the NCWC not to have standards more stringent than those of the USDA;
allowed for the current sale of antlers, antler velvet, and hides from captive cervids; and
instructed the NCWRC to report to the Agriculture and Forestry Awareness Study
Commission regarding differences between USDA standards and rules of the NCWRC
prior to the enactment of the budget act. Upon passage of the State Budget and approval
by the Governor on August 8, 2014, these provisions became law (North Carolina
General Assembly, 2015d)
Subsequently there was discussion within the NCWRC and by the pro- and antideer farming communities as to whether the legislature intended the wording to mean the
Commission had been instructed to issue new licenses or whether they had simply been
given permission to issue new licenses. Although there were applications for new
captivity licenses, the NCWRC did not issue any, and the House constituted the ad hoc
House Select Committee on Regulatory Authority and Operations of the NCWRC. At
those hearings, legislators and private citizens lambasted the Director and those
8
Commissioners present over a variety of issues, including both captive and wild animal
regulation and law enforcement. No other speakers were allowed, and neither the
NCWRC Director nor the Commissioners were allowed to respond. The Committee
disbanded at the end of the 2014 legislative session.
In October, 2014 the NCWRC adopted temporary rules to implement statutory
provisions of the budget act directed at issuance of the new captive cervid facility
licenses. They decided to limit new licenses to only those farmed cervids that are not
highly susceptible to CWD. New licenses to hold white-tailed deer and elk in captivity
will not be issued. This action is viewed as detrimental to the interests of deer farmers
and has stimulated the renewed activity on their part by the NC General Assembly.
DISCUSSION
In January, 2015, the NC Legislature entered its new session. It is believed that
both sides of the deer farming issue will submit competing legislation to support their
concerns. The pro-deer farming groups are expected to ask that the NCWRC be required
to issue permits to establish new captive cervid facilities and to expand existing captive
cervid facilities, that the state not have facility or disease testing requirements greater
than those of the USDA, that deer farms be allowed to transport and sell deer and deer
products both inside and outside of the state, and that the regulation of captive cervids be
transferred from the NCWRC to the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. Some believe the deer farmers may also ask that hunting within high-fenced
preserves also be allowed.
Many within the anti-deer farming groups would no doubt like to see all captive
deer farms depopulated, with compensation to the farmers for their losses. Others within
9
those groups fear that since the facilities and sale of the animals out of state has been
permitted since 2002, elimination of the industry could be legally challenged. Some
suggest compromises, such as allowing transport of deer among NC deer farms; the
expansion of existing farms by sale of deer from other NC farms, thus allowing
depopulation of some farms; another buy-out of willing sellers with compensation by the
state; and even continuing to allow sale of deer to out-of-state buyers. Still others want
the permit fees to be increased on a per animal basis to cover the cost of inspecting the
facilities.
As of the date of this publication, the issue has not been officially discussed in the
NC General Assembly. Hunters and conservationists see the NCWRC caught between
the two sides. Both sides have friends on the NCWRC and, more importantly, in the NC
General Assembly. The members of the NCWRC know that the General Assembly also
controls their agency’s budget, and has the ability to weaken the agency’s ability to
enforce regulations, if not their authority as well. It remains to be seen if this will be a
win or a loss for NC’s and thus the nation’s wildlife resources.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank D. Hamilton, T. Gestwiki and R. M.
Brown for their review of this article and their helpful comments, and A. Severance for
help in researching court cases.
LITERATURE CITED
Cobb, D. T. 2014. Cervid disease task force informational materials. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Wildlife Management, Raleigh.
10
Brown, B. 2014. Deer farmers scorn N.C. regulators. Raleigh News & Observer, 19
November, 2014, pgs. 1 and 10.
Marsh, M. 2014. Diluted deer-farm rules pose potential disease risk to wild whitetails.
Raleigh News and Observer, 8 October 2014, www.newsobserver.com. Accessed
February 25, 2015.
North Carolina General Assembly. 2015a. General statutes. 1-45.1. No adverse
possession of public property subject to public trust rights. www.ncleg.net. Accessed 25
February 2015.
North Carolina General Assembly, 2015b. Jurisdiction of conservation agencies. Article
13, para. 113-131. www.ncleg.net. Accessed 25 February 2015.
North Carolina General Assembly. 2015c. Captivity license. Chapter 4, para. 113-272.5
through 113-129, Definitions of resources. www.ncleg.net. Accessed 25 February 2015.
North Carolina General Assembly 2015d. Appropriations act of 2015. Oversight of
cervids, Section 14.26(a-f). www.ncleg.net. Accessed 25 February 2015.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014a. Minutes from the April 10,
2014 NC Cervid Disease Task Force meeting. NCWRC, Raleigh, 9pp.
11
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014b. Minutes from the April 22, 2014
NC Cervid Disease Task Force Meeting, NCWRC, Raleigh, 4pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014c. Minutes from the May 8, 2014
meeting of the NC Cervid Disease Task Force meeting. NCWRC, Raleigh, 3pp.
US Department of Agriculture APHIS. 2014. Chronic Wasting Disease Herd
Certification Program and Interstate Movement of Farmed or captive Deer, Elk and
Moose. Final Rule. Federal Register (79)82: Doc. 2014-09714, 6pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. (revised January 2014). National survey of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. North Carolina. Washington D.C., USA.
82pp.