Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Sf 59

ElkHunter

Life Member
Very long bill see complete bill at link below

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=sf59

Senate File 59 - Introduced SENATE FILE 59 BY DEARDEN
ABILLFOR An Act relating to the keeping of farm deer and preserve 1 whitetail and including penalties and applicability 2 provisions. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA



EXPLANATION
This bill relates to the keeping of farm deer and preserve
whitetail and includes penalties and applicability provisions.
DIVISION I. Division I of the bill relates to regulation
of the keeping of farm deer, which is principally under the
purview of the department of agriculture and land stewardship
(DALS). DALS is required to adopt rules providing for the
importation, transportation, and disease control of farm deer
and for fencing certification and registration requirements
under the Code chapter.
Farm deer that die or are sent for slaughter must be tested
for chronic wasting disease pursuant to rules adopted by DALS,
and the landowner must pay the full cost of the testing.
A landowner who keeps farm deer must register with DALS by
June 30 each year. In order to register, the landowner must
meet the fencing certification requirements, show proof of
financial responsibility via a surety or cash performance bond,
and pay a registration fee of $5,000 per year. The surety or
cash performance bond must be in a minimum amount of $100,000,
payable to indemnify the state in the event that a confirmed
case of chronic wasting disease is found in farm deer kept by
the landowner. Registration fees are placed in the farm deer
administration fund and appropriated to DALS for the purpose of
administering the chronic wasting disease control program.
2 The bill requires that fencing enclosing land on which
whitetail are kept as farm deer must include a perimeter
fence around the enclosed area and a secondary fence that is

35 -10- LSB1249XS(9)85av/sc10/12
S.F. 59 a minimum of 30 feet inside the perimeter fence, must be 10
feet tall instead of eight feet tall, and must be inspected
and approved prior to certification of the fencing. The
new requirements are applicable to fencing that is newly
constructed on or after July 1, 2013, when the bill takes
effect, and are applicable on or after July 1, 2014, to fences
existing before July 1, 2013.
A landowner who keeps farm deer shall notify DALS within 48
hours of discovering that a farm deer has escaped or is missing
from enclosed land. A farm deer that has escaped or is missing
for more than 10 days is subject to the jurisdiction of the
department of natural resources.
A landowner’s registration may be suspended or revoked for
failure to maintain proof of financial responsibility, or
for falsely claiming that a farm deer died or was sent for
slaughter when the farm deer escaped or was otherwise sold. A
person who makes such a false claim is also subject to a civil
penalty of $5,000, which will be deposited in the farm deer
administration fund.
DIVISION II. Division II of the bill relates to regulation
of the keeping of preserve whitetail on a hunting preserve,
which is principally under the purview of the department of
natural resources (department).
The bill requires that a landowner cannot keep whitetail on
a hunting preserve unless the preserve is enclosed by double
fencing that includes a perimeter fence around the enclosed
area and a secondary fence that is a minimum of 30 feet inside
the perimeter fence. The fence must be at least 10 feet in
height. The fencing requirements are applicable to fences
that are newly constructed on or after July 1, 2013, when the
bill takes effect, and is applicable on or after July 1, 2014,
to fences existing before July 1, 2013. The department must
inspect and approve the fencing prior to certification.
Whitetail kept on a hunting preserve must also bear an
ear tag, tattoo, or other identification as specified in
-11- LSB1249XS(9)85av/sc11/12

S.F. 59 the bill. Preserve whitetail previously kept as farm deer
that are released on a hunting preserve shall maintain the
identification affixed on them pursuant to the requirements
applicable to farm deer under Code chapter 170 and rules
adopted to implement that Code chapter.
A landowner who keeps whitetail on a hunting preserve must
register each year and pay the registration fee of $5,000. A
landowner cannot be registered unless the landowner meets the
applicable fencing certification and other requirements of Code
chapter 484C. The initial application for registration must
include proof of financial responsibility via a surety or cash
performance bond. The surety or cash performance bond must be
in a minimum amount of $100,000, payable to indemnify the state
in the event that a confirmed case of chronic wasting disease
is found in preserve whitetail kept by the landowner.
Preserve whitetail that die or are taken by persons hunting
on the hunting preserve shall be tested for chronic wasting
disease as set forth in rules adopted by the department. The
landowner or the hunter taking the preserve whitetail shall pay
the full cost of the testing.
A person who removes the required identification from a
preserve whitetail, prior to the taking of the whitetail, is
subject to a civil penalty of $500. 23 -12- LSB1249XS(9)85av/sc12/12
 
Interesting I wonder if it will grandfather in the current preserves or they have to bring there farms up to code.
 
Interesting I wonder if it will grandfather in the current preserves or they have to bring there farms up to code.


The new requirements are applicable to fencing that is newly
constructed on or after July 1, 2013, when the bill takes
effect, and are applicable on or after July 1, 2014, to fences
existing before July 1, 2013.

It appears preserves would have a year to comply.
 
Double Fencing Deer Farms

Bill would require double-fencing at deer farms

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) —An Iowa lawmaker wants to require double-fencing at deer farms and shooting preserves where white-tail deer are kept.
The bill introduced Monday by Senate Natural Resources Committee Chairman Dick Dearden is intended to reduce the threat of chronic wasting disease being transmitted to Iowa's deer herd.

The height of fences around deer farms and preserves would have to increase from 8 to 10 feet and there would have to be a 10-foot secondary fence. This would prevent nose-to-nose contact between captive deer and wild deer.

Dale Garner, who heads the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' wildlife bureau, tells The Gazette in Cedar Rapids that double-fencing would help.

The DNR says deer hunting has a $214 million annual economic impact on the state.
 
Whoa- I can't imagine what that double fence would cost, holy smokers!!! Let's say you have a 320 that's fenced... Having to do another section... I dunno - 3 miles of fencing for the 2nd layer- 10', posts, labor, etc - geesh, I could imagine $50-100k extra for someone forced to fork over if this goes through & then $5k/year plus insurance. Whether you like folks who have deer or not- that's a huge chunk of change & I personally feel bad for them and guarantee many will not be able to float this. maybe that's what folks want "dang folk's with deer, causing trouble" - whatever BUT you also have to realize, that happens in almost ANY industry & government does this to almost every business now-days - chokes them out so they close shop or cease to exist in the 1st place. Really, many guys who would like to have some deer will now not be able to. I understand some of this BUT I also see a Government having another one of 50 billion examples of ruining businesses, hobbies, costing a fortune, regulating our freedoms away, etc.
 
This, like everything else in life is a matter of perspective. On the one hand, I agree completely with Sligh on government interference. On the other hand, I don't think any one has the right to threaten the health of a natural resource based solely on economics or degree of difficulty to complete (I realize those two are closley related).

We fret a lot over poachers, length of seasons and even method of take, all because we are concerned about the quality of our deer herd. Are we then going to turn around and jeopardize that because of money?
I admit I'm not a fan of high fence game farms and that may be why I find it hard to feel any sympathy for them over the possibility of this getting passed.
Actually, the further into this post I get the more I'm in favor of it.
EHD was problem last year so I would rather we did what we could to limit health issues to our deer.
 
Last edited:
I do agree with both of above. I get it. I don't want to come across like I don't. Yet- ill admit I have been sucked into a lot of gov crap for the same types of reasons. In general I am very uneasy about gov in all out lives & business. I'd be more careful here..... I don't know BUT would this stop most CWD cases??? I don't know. Is there other options???? Dunno that either. Could we simply put a massive fine on any facility w/CWD?
If its really about a "what if" - couldn't or shouldn't we just ban all captive deer??? I am not saying I'm totally against this & hope we do have a solution. But - for how many risks we all face in any area of business & life- r u fine with governement regulating any risk with anything out there? Because u could shoot someone during gun season- should u purchase a $5000 liability fee for medical costs? Because u own a dog which could bite someone in the public- maybe we should have an animal psychologist do a bi-annual evaluation of ur dog & charge u $2k per visit. I get it BUT consider risks in any part of life & how the gov is aggressively not allowing anything to take place because of "what if's" & "risks of varying degrees". I get it BUT I also get government. Any other solutions except for huge $ most can't afford????? & I don't know the answer.
 
The "deer industry" response was that it would be too expensive to erect a double fence. They seem to feel that they are being unfairly restricted.

But think about it. There are restrictions on the importation of livestock into the state of Iowa.

If a horse needs to leave the state, it has to have a negative Coggins test.

There are restrictions on the importation of cattle. No hoof and mouth is allowed and no TB.

For the "deer industry" to cry fowl is ludicrous.
 
The "deer industry" response was that it would be too expensive to erect a double fence. They seem to feel that they are being unfairly restricted.

But think about it. There are restrictions on the importation of livestock into the state of Iowa.

If a horse needs to leave the state, it has to have a negative Coggins test.

There are restrictions on the importation of cattle. No hoof and mouth is allowed and no TB.

For the "deer industry" to cry fowl is ludicrous.

You vey smaht man missa bwonc:way:
 
You need to be tb and brucellosis certified to sell deer across state lines and a cwd acredidation of (5) years I think. I guess this is all being blown way out of proportion. Can someone please get me a link of proof where a deer died of cwd? Last I knew they have never found a case where it has killed.
 
The "deer industry" response was that it would be too expensive to erect a double fence. They seem to feel that they are being unfairly restricted.

But think about it. There are restrictions on the importation of livestock into the state of Iowa.

If a horse needs to leave the state, it has to have a negative Coggins test.

There are restrictions on the importation of cattle. No hoof and mouth is allowed and no TB.

For the "deer industry" to cry fowl is ludicrous.



Not quite what I gathered. And I'm not on one side of this, I am just trying to critically think. And too many folks don't critically think, based on data (vs Liberal's usually using emotion) and jump on a whim for more taxation, more government regulation, less freedom & more of Gov in our lives.

They are saying "the current fence laws & situations have been deemed to be 100% effective. I suppose it would not include a vandal ripping fence down, a tree or something BUT those problems could happen with double fence. They are saying double fence data has no scientific support while single does (simply stating that the data proves single alone is effective). Logical argument.

Then, they are saying, "all that these laws are trying to do.... Blah, blah" - has no data that says it will stop CWD. The science says transmission can happen from birds. Logical argument. *I personally think we need some darn good proof that 2 layers of fence and all this will stop CWD because there's evidence to the contrary. And, if that critical evidence isn't given BUT the laws go into effect anyways, we are putting 100's of legal farming operations out of business. Are you ok with this IF there is not lock solid science backing the law? *And again, I'm not necessarily for or against.

These folks are burdened with a ton of laws, transport regs, testing regs, red tape, etc. Trust me on that, I casually know a few guys and I personally feel bad for them along with a bazillion other small business owners in any capacity. Government is crippling many industries.

Will the double fence work? Is there scientific proof?

Will these costs & regs drive honest/legal folks out of business? YES.

Can CWD be transmitted from birds? Sounds like the answer is yes.

Do cows, sheep, horses, etc have vast & serious diseases? Have we done anything so severe as to put a whole state's bovine farms out of business? I don't know.

Is this legislation the solution? I don't know. I'd like more data, support, FACTS, etc. Personally, I see it SO FAR as more emotional, knee jerk & likely popular (just like gun regs after a shooting) BUT.... Has this been thought out, what does the facts & data say? Is this the best way & do you all fully understand the ramifications of this to the legal operators of these farming facilities?
 
Last edited:
I thought about this awhile back. I would think the size of the fence(s) would be proportionate to the number of deer owned by each farm. The larger the operation-the larger the income potential to offset the cost of the new fencing.
as far whether or not the fences will work to protect the wild deer herd, let me pose this question: do profilactics work to prevent the spread of STDs? Not 100% but well enough to make them a good idea.
 
Let me pose this ?.... Ok, 2....
1) we all realize this will likely put all or most of the deer farms out of business right?
2) maybe #1 will solve this BUT... Why don't we simply outlaw captive deer at this point? And really think about that question.

**& iabwhntr- u saying society should advocate "2 condoms" at a time for "safer sex"? R u also telling us that's what u personally did too, since it "can't hurt"? :)
 
Last edited:
Let me pose these ?'s.....

What will the DNR's response be to a positive CWD test in Iowa's deer herd?

Will it mimic the Wisconsin response, an attempt at total eradication in the area?

Do we want to find out?

I'm not totally against those who want to raise deer as livestock. My best friend runs a deer farm. But like any industry, there needs to be checks and balances for all involved.
 
Top Bottom