This past week, Senate Bill 964 was brought up in the Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources Committee — which I chair. In the end, the committee voted for its passage, but this bill has stirred up a debate that I would like to discuss with you in this week’s column.

Senate Bill 964 and House Bill 2031 would add “captive cervids,” or deer, to the definition of livestock in Missouri state statute. This change would not only allow for deer breeders to be treated like all other livestock producers in Missouri, but also place their oversight under the jurisdiction of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Currently, captive cervid producers deal with both the MDA and the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for regulation. While Missouri’s deer breeders are extremely supportive of this change, other agencies and citizens have some concerns.

The topic of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in captive deer herds has been brought up again and again in the discussion of this legislation. In 2010, a case of CWD was discovered on a hunting preserve in north central Missouri. This discovery caused alarm all across the state and Midwest. CWD is a 100 percent fatal disease known to affect elk and deer species. It stems from a neurological prion that causes a degeneration of the brains of affected animals causing emaciation, abnormal behavior, loss of bodily functions, and death. While this disease is extremely detrimental to deer herds, it does not present any threat to humans. However, the effect of the disease’s presence has had on captive deer breeders has been disastrous.

Because CWD has an incubation period that can last up to 18 months, tracing the source of the disease has proven impossible. There have been no concrete conclusions made as to how the disease first came to Missouri in 2010 when we were previously a CWD-free state. But, since the first case was discovered on a captive preserve, all captive cervid facilities have been blamed for its progression. People are blaming the shipment of infected deer from breeder to breeder across state lines for its introduction in Missouri. However, wild deer are free to cross state lines as well. It is equally possible that an infected wild deer herd made its way to the preserve and infected the captives.

Senator Dan Brown, R-Rolla, said in committee, “As a veterinarian, I was more concerned about the ones on the outside of the fence.”
Brown had dealt firsthand with captive cervid facilities during his time as veterinarian and brought up the point that captive facilities are monitored more closely than wild herds, so it is possible that the CWD was found there first because of the increased observation of the deer. 

Even though the cause is disputed, the reaction of the MDC to the situation was clear. MDC issued a complete moratorium on deer breeders which essentially forbid any further business for the industry. The Secretary of State’s office quickly nullified that rule for being excessive and harmful to the industry. There have been rumors of MDC plans of implementing a double-fence initiative that would mandate expensive and higher fencing standards for cervid producers. Many worry their business could not handle the cost and it could end their business entirely. Even though the moratorium was stopped, the possibility for other burdensome and costly regulations weigh on the minds of many deer breeders.

Charles S. James, president of the Missouri Whitetail Breeders and Hunting Ranch Association, urges legislators to pass this bill because he is confident that the MDA will protect their interests and have the best resources to handle the industry; whereas MDC seems to only consider the interests of the wild deer and shrug off the concerns of the producers.

Many deer breeders like James are confident in the MDA’s competence in taking in deer regulation because of the success it has had with Missouri’s elk breeders. Tony Benz, MDA’s legislative liaison, talked in committee about how they have had no problems with treating elk as livestock and have maintained a “positive working relationship” with Missouri elk breeders. With wild elk now reintroduced in Missouri, what are the grounds for differentiating between elk and deer as livestock and wildlife?

Deer breeders are also outraged at the classification of their deer as wildlife because they pay the same costs for supplies and production as other livestock producers. Captive cervids are purchased like any other livestock, fed like any other livestock, and put on land like any other livestock, which is taxed.

“If you take a step back and really understand how this works, you’ll see these people own these deer,” said Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, in committee.

Even though all of the costs and taxes incurred by deer producers are identical to beef producers down to the very tax form they fill out, they are still considered public property by the MDC. However, when testing has to be done — which has been increased exponentially since the onset of CWD — the individual producer has to pay for the tests to be administered by MDA. If the animals are state property, then why doesn’t MDC use state dollars to administer those tests? To further complicate the situation, state and federal courts have already begun protecting deer as “domestic animals,” like other livestock, in civil disputes.

I think that the passage of this legislation would streamline the process for regulation for all captive cervid producers and also place them under the jurisdiction of MDA, an agency that has their best interests in mind.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact my office.