Out of the 70 or so deer farms still operating in the State of Minnesota, nine farms are still struggling to comply with a double fencing recommendation, which became effective in September of 2024 by the amendment of Statute 35.155. It changed virtually everything for Minnesota deer farmers when it became enforced, including the inability to start new deer farms or sell an existing farm to anyone but immediate family, along with the recommendation to erect a double fence around the entirety of an existing farm two to three feet away from the primary fence, with the intent of preventing wild and farmed deer from having any physical contact.
Erecting a double fence could entail using an identical fence to the current primary one, shade cloth attached directly onto a primary fence, a five-strand electric fence, wooden fence or various other pre-approved options. The cost, the time and perhaps the unfairness of it all has added to the hesitancy of complying, said Scott Fier, President of the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association. “In my opinion, nowhere does it state that putting up a secondary fence is a law. And additional fences have been proven in the industry to be ineffective in controlling CWD and impossible to manage with property lines, easements, difficult terrain and wooded areas,” Fier said. “If the DNR wants a fence up, they can pay for it as we the producers have already paid for and erected a fence that meets the standards that are in the statute.”
However, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, as a state agency, is obligated to enforce laws that are passed by the state legislature and if noncompliance is found they are obligated to seek compliance, said Eric Nelson, Interim MDNR Farmed and Feral Program Supervisor. The MDNR is willing to consider and potentially approve other fencing options from the nine deer farms that have yet to comply, said MDNR Conservation Officer Lieutenant Chad Thesing. Currently, these nine deer farms have been issued Notices of Violation as well as a $500 Civil Penalty Fine being processed in court at the time this article was written. Should the deer farms continue to remain in violation of Statute 35.155, their farm license will eventually be revoked. “I can see the hardships involved in this,” Thesing, 50, said. “At this point, most of the other deer farms who complied are using shade cloth or an identical fence,” he said. “Very few are using an electric fence. My job is to enforce the laws whether I personally agree or not.”
If approved by the MDNR, additional forms of double fencing could include a wrought iron fence or perhaps a welded steel fence. Any deer farmer wishing to propose their idea for a secondary fence should schedule a meeting with Lt. Thesing while there is still time. While the horizon has appeared bleak for some time in Minnesota for deer farmers, there has also been welcomed Democratic support from Senator Aric Putnam, District 14 and Chairman of the Minnesota AG Committee. Putnam, passed a bill out of his committee and off the senate floor that strikes out the language of "prevent physical contact between captive and wild deer.” Fier expressed appreciation for this and to everyone who considers the industry’s point of view.
