logo
This Bill Would Give Deer Breeders a Free Pass to Ignore Alabama's CWD Laws

This Bill Would Give Deer Breeders a Free Pass to Ignore Alabama's CWD Laws

Yahoo09-04-2025

A handful of Alabama lawmakers are pushing a bill that could totally upend whitetail deer management there. Introduced in the state House Thursday, the proposed legislation would make all of the state's high-fence deer private property, and it would make deer breeders immune to the CWD regulations that have been imposed in Alabama, as in other states, to protect wild deer herds.
State wildlife officials are not mincing words about the bill, which they view as a direct threat to Alabama's wildlife and hunting traditions. The National Deer Association is also speaking out against it.
If passed, HB509 would revise the laws that allow Alabamians to raise and propagate designated game birds, game animals, and fur-bearers. Under current law, licensed individuals can breed not only whitetails, but also elk, fallow deer, and any other nonnative species that was brought into Alabama prior to 2006. Although they're defined as livestock under the legal code, pen-raised whitetail deer are still considered a public resource in the state.
But HB509 would make all of those captive critters the personal property of the breeders themselves. It would also prohibit state agencies from euthanizing, testing, or prohibiting the transfer of 'certain cervids' (notably whitetails) due to disease 'except under certain circumstances.'
Read Next: Texas Officials Kill Off Deer Breeder's Entire Herd, Ending Yearslong Legal War Over CWD Management
According to the current language of the bill, those circumstances would only apply if the specific disease had already been detected in another one of the breeder's deer, or in a deer that was transferred from another breeder. It's unclear how those detections could occur, however, if breeders aren't required to test their animals and if the state isn't allowed to.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources said it is 'strongly opposed' to these proposed changes in a statement shared Monday.
'This bill should be disturbing to all ethical sportsmen, hunters, and citizens in Alabama,' Chris Blankenship, the Commissioner of the ADCNR, said in the written statement. 'Alabamians have a constitutional right to hunt and fish in this state. HB 509 would jeopardize that right.'
Blankenship said the proposed law would also 'drastically increase the risk of the spread of CWD or other diseases to all parts of Alabama.' The commissioner had a few other choice adjectives to describe the bill — among them: 'reckless, disturbing, and unfathomable.'
Hunters must currently obey CWD carcass movement and transportation restrictions on deer carcasses in the state.
While not quite as brazen as another recent bill, introduced in Texas, that would have abolished the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for the benefit of deer breeders, the proposed legislation in Alabama is still staggering in terms of what it would mean for wildlife and hunters.
The notion that deer and other wild game are resources to be conserved and held in the public trust for all state citizens is sacrosanct under the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Turning the pen-raised ones into privately owned pets is not only a depressing idea but a dangerous one. As Blankenship points out, it would allow deer farmers to bypass state hunting regulations and put their animals in small pens or fences, where 'they could be shot by individuals for a large fee paid to the breeder.'
What's even scarier, though, at least for wild deer, is that the legislation would severely limit the ADCNR's ability to inspect and test for CWD and other diseases at high-fence breeding operations. By tying the state's hands this way, the bill's proponents seem to be purposefully ignoring the evidence at hand; several breeders have been linked to CWD outbreaks in other deer-farming states, and experts say the transfer of infected deer from captive herds remains a very real risk.
Read Next: In the War Against CWD, Deer Breeders in Texas Are Being Cast as Both the Enemy and the Answer
By preventing the ADCNR 'or any other agency of the state' from testing, euthanizing, or even restricting the transfer of farmed deer, HB 509 not only encourages deer breeders to go about their business without considering the implications of CWD. It shields them from the pesky regulations that could otherwise impact their profitability.
Alabama's CWD regs increased in scope in 2022, when wildlife officials confirmed the state's first CWD case and implemented its strategic surveillance and response plan. This plan is similar to the ones that are underway in other CWD-positive states. It establishes high-risk CWD zones and buffer zones, and it requires hunters to submit any deer killed in those zones for postmortem testing. The plan limits the movement of deer carcasses and parts, and it prohibits the transfer of any deer (alive or dead) in counties that fall within the zones. It also prohibits baiting and supplemental feeding in those zones.
From Blankenship's perspective, giving licensed breeders carte blanche to transfer their pet deer wherever they like, without any sort of testing, is the 'most concerning' piece of all this, as it would allow for the 'reckless transfer of diseased deer' all across the state.
'This is totally unacceptable,' Blankenship said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act
Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Missouri General Assembly's special session reconvenes Monday, and it's the House side of the rotunda's turn in Jefferson City. The state Senate passed a trio of bills last week, one providing a plan to fund up to half of stadium projects for the Chiefs or Royals or Cardinals in St. Louis. The Missouri State House will consider the Show Me Sports Investment Act. The stadium funding bill sets the framework for the Royals and the Chiefs to pay back some of the costs for new and renovated venues. Construction bonds would be paid back using tax money generated at the stadiums and would cover up to 50% of the cost to build it. The teams would have to qualify to have access to that money. The stadiums would need to be built for football or baseball, have more than 30,000 seats, and cost at least half a billion dollars. On Sunday, Rudi Keller, the deputy editor of the Missouri Independent, discussed what could happen as the special session continues this week. Kansas City superheroes assemble behind local child battling cancer 'A member of the House budget Committee who will consider the spending bill on Tuesday said there is an assumption the House will pass this, and that's correct. I also talked to the Chair of the House Budget Committee earlier today, and it turns out he's not going to be demanding anything new. So as long as there aren't serious demands that endanger the bill from the House, much as the way demands from Senators resulted in a change to the call, I'm anticipating this will go relatively smoothly this week,' Keller said on 4 The People. The stadium funding bill does not have the words 'Royals' or 'Chiefs' in it, but a big reason for the calling of this special session was to find a way to keep both teams in the state and counter the plans of Kansas lawmakers. Nearly a year ago, the Kansas legislature approved a bill to utilize STAR bonds to cover stadium construction costs. The deadline for that bill is coming up at the end of June. 'If Kansas believes that we could really be in the conversation, you could see some limited extension,' said Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson. 'The way the law is written, it could be extended for up to a year. I don't see that happening.' You can watch the full conversation with Masterson and Keller here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

CCTV Script 06/06/25
CCTV Script 06/06/25

CNBC

time6 hours ago

  • CNBC

CCTV Script 06/06/25

The war of words between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which seemed to escalate almost hourly, has already cost real money in the capital markets. Overnight, Musk's personal net worth reportedly fell by approximately $34 billion. By aligning the timing of their social media exchanges with Tesla's stock movements, a clear pattern emerges: as the feud grew more intense, with language becoming increasingly blunt and emotional, Tesla's share price continued to slide. Many analysts believe that Tesla's stock is likely to remain volatile. To assess its future trajectory, we can start with the trigger of this conflict: a recently passed House spending bill. One provision would eliminate tax credits for electric vehicles—directly impacting Tesla. JPMorgan analysts estimate that the new legislation could cut Tesla's annual profits by around $1.2 billion. However, some market observers note that both Musk and others in the industry had long anticipated that the Trump administration would eventually scrap EV subsidies. This expectation has been priced in—it was only a matter of timing. But of even greater consequence is the second layer of impact: the broader regulatory posture of the White House toward Musk, particularly in the autonomous driving space. Timing is critical. Next week, Tesla is expected to debut its long-awaited Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas. Progress in self-driving technology has been a key reason many investors remain bullish on Tesla. But the breakdown in Musk's relationship with Trump could undermine those expectations. "there's a view that the battle here going on between musk and Trump, that this is going to continue to sort of, you know, increase, and with that, ultimately does is that autonomous and the regulatory vision does Trump now, now not start to play nice in the sandbox with musk.""Elon Musk, as brilliant as he can be, can also be mercurial and impetuous. CUT TO from a trading perspective, I think the stock could easily trade down into the 250s 260s until you get some support." Beyond the personal feud, the spotlight is also shifting to the broader relationship between Silicon Valley—the U.S. tech hub—and Washington, D.C.—the political center. As Musk and Trump move from allies to adversaries, their split is drawing attention to the evolving dynamic between big tech and federal power. Analysts told CNBC that during Trump's first term, major tech firms often found themselves in the administration's crosshairs. Companies like Meta, Google, and to some extent Apple were all named in antitrust inquiries. Now, the rift between Musk and Trump may open new doors for tech leaders who have had tense relations with Musk. For instance, Jeff Bezos—who also leads a space company—has in recent months made efforts to court Trump more closely, reportedly taking cues from Musk's political playbook. This shift may also present an opportunity for Sam Altman, CEO of AI startup OpenAI. "If you're a startup that's trying to make big names or big headlines with investments for the US, that's probably a good place to be." Still, some analysts caution that this overnight drama may not deserve too much attention. A defining feature of the Trump-era policymaking process has always been its volatility—things can shift dramatically within just a few hours. What ultimately matters is returning to the fundamentals and taking a long-term view of where the industry—and the economy—are heading.

Johnson: Deploying Marines to Los Angeles protests would not be ‘heavy-handed'
Johnson: Deploying Marines to Los Angeles protests would not be ‘heavy-handed'

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Johnson: Deploying Marines to Los Angeles protests would not be ‘heavy-handed'

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Sunday that deploying the Marine Corps to Los Angeles to suppress protests, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested, would not be 'heavy-handed.' 'Secretary Hegseth said that active-duty Marines there at Camp Pendleton, there by San Diego, are on high alert and could be mobilized. Could we really see active-duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles?' ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked on 'This Week.' 'You know, one of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy-handed,' Johnson responded. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the Los Angeles area on Saturday amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the action was due to 'violent mobs' attacking federal agents 'carrying out basic deportation operations.' 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X on Sunday morning. Deploying active-duty forces against Americans on U.S. soil would be an extraordinary move and would require bypassing laws that prevent the military from being used for domestic law enforcement purposes. There's also little precedent for deploying the National Guard to states that have not requested the help. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday went after Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to the Los Angeles area, saying the president 'thinks he has a right to do anything.' 'He does not believe in the Constitution; he does not believe in the rule of law,' Sanders told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' 'My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles, did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store