CWD IN IOWA

Discussion in 'Whitetails General' started by Stan The Man, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. callaojoe

    callaojoe Máistir an pointe hocht.

    Jan 21, 2004
    N/C Missouri
    Just cause you don't violate a current law, don't mean your not a sleezeball in my book... :wave1: I get it, penned deer are your buddies, just not a fan.... That's my opinion, and you are not going to change it, so you can quit trying.... :wave1:

    BTW, happy birthday. :D
     
  2. 421sd

    421sd Part-time malcontent

    Dec 23, 2012
    Ozarks Plateau
    Deer farms and high-fence hunting contribute nothing positive to our hunting heritage.
     

  3. bajabill

    bajabill BDR529

    Feb 16, 2012
    East Central MO
    this is some updated info on the culprits. :)

    I am not familiar with the situation but quickly found the following, seems like they won in court but did not win much.

    http://globegazette.com/news/local/...cle_440a0a6c-f1c2-5931-b35b-e1f662606911.html

    text from the link......

    CLEAR LAKE | The Iowa Supreme Court Friday ruled the Department of Natural Resources wrongfully quarantined a North Iowa couple's land after diseased deer had been eradicated.

    Tom and Rhonda Brakke established a whitetail deer-breeding farm near Clear Lake in the 1990s. Deer raised on that farm were taken to a hunting preserve the couple owned in Davis County in southern Iowa.

    In June 2012 the Iowa Department of Natural Resources was notified that a deer from the Brakkes' preserve, Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, tested positive for chronic wasting disease (CWD).

    The couple gave the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship permission to kill and test some deer at their Clear Lake farm. One of the deer tested positive for CWD and the farm was quarantined.

    In September 2012 the Brakkes and the DNR reached an agreement where the couple were allowed to carry out planned hunts at Pine Ridge until Christmas.

    However, the Brakkes were required to install jointly with the DNR an electronic fence inside the perimeter of the existing fence surrounding Pine Ridge, with the costs to be split evenly between the two parties.

    After construction of the electronic fence, the Brakkes were solely responsible for repair and maintenance.

    The agreement also stated Pine Ridge must be depopulated of all deer and elk no later than Jan. 31, 2013, with all animals to be tested for CWD.

    One addition deer harvested at Pine Ridge in December 2012 tested positive for CWD.

    After the conclusion of the hunts, Pine Ridge depopulated the deer and performed the cleaning and disinfecting of the facility required by the DNR.

    The Brakkes wrote a letter to the DNR in April 2013, stating they had met all the agency's requirements and would no longer be operating Pine Ridge as a hunting preserve for white-tailed deer.

    In early June 2013 the DNR discovered the gates at Pine Ridge were open and portions of the fence were damaged or had been removed.

    The next day the DNR issued an emergency order requiring the Brakkes to stop their deconstruction of the fence and to immediately restore the damaged portions.


    The order also required the couple to close the gates and allow the DNR to access Pine Ridge to kill any deer present on the property.

    In addition, the DNR ordered the Brakkes to agree to a plan to ensure CWD would be quarantined within Pine Ridge.

    The Brakkes immediately closed the gates and repaired the fence. However, a few days later wild deer allegedly were seen inside the fence.

    The couple appealed the emergency order, claiming the DNR lacked jurisdiction over Pine Ridge once it was no longer a hunting preserve.

    In February 2014 an administrative law judge ruled state law only authorized the DNR to quarantine diseased preserve whitetail deer, not the land.

    The DNR appealed the judge's decision to the Natural Resource Commission, which upheld the emergency order. The ruling stated a quarantine on the land was required to prevent the spread of CWD.

    The Brakkes requested judicial review. In February 2015 the district court ruled the state legislature did not intend to give the DNR unfettered authority to quarantine any land that contained infected deer.

    However, the district court ruled the DNR was not required to compensate the Brakkes because the invasion of their land was only temporary.

    Friday's Supreme Court ruling upheld the district court's findings regarding both the quarantine and compensation issues.

    The DNR said in a statement that "we respect but are disappointed" with the court's decision.

    The quarantine was "intended to prevent the wild deer herd from accessing the chronic wasting disease exposed soil on site," according to the statement. "Chronic wasting disease prions exist in the environment without a live host."

    DNR officials also stated CWD "may be devastating to the health of Iowa's deer herd."

    The Brakkes did not respond to a voice mail message left by the Globe Gazette Friday afternoon seeking comment on the ruling.
     
  4. 20'

    20' Well-Known Member

    Aug 9, 2017
    For clarification, whomever the person or persons at the MDC that approved the application to reopens Heartland pen were IDIOts and should be fired! To do such a things leaves it open for people to think pens may not be a serious threat to have cwd
     
  5. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    I guess I'm just way more concerned with people's rights than I am with hunting. Not to say that they're not very close to each other but without rights we don't get to hunt.
     
  6. callaojoe

    callaojoe Máistir an pointe hocht.

    Jan 21, 2004
    N/C Missouri
    yup...... :tup:
     
  7. callaojoe

    callaojoe Máistir an pointe hocht.

    Jan 21, 2004
    N/C Missouri
    I believe in peoples rights, up and to the point that their perceived right, starts to trample on the rights of others around them. At that point, they need to be looked at. It's like smoking in the office, one could say a person has a right to smoke, and I'd agree with that, but not if the people working around them all have to breathe in their second hand smoke.

    This is sort of what deer pens are to sportsmen who cherish a wild and healthy deer herd. :wave1: You can disagree with that, but it's how I see it.
     
  8. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    I don't necessarily disagree with that argument but your solution of just simply putting them out of business is not really the way things should or will work. An example is the pig farms. They pollute and they cause problems with odors all over but they don't just make them shut down.
     
  9. callaojoe

    callaojoe Máistir an pointe hocht.

    Jan 21, 2004
    N/C Missouri
    Well, if they have 280/300 deer infected with CWD, it's time to do something.

    If it's a clean facility, and has never tested positive for CWD infected deer, let them do bidness, but lets make sure adequate controls are in place. Personally, I think MDC is best suited to make sure the right controls are in place, because there is a conflict of interest in having a farm organization do it. Once again, this is my opinion. Farm organization will tend to side with the farmers, as it's that farming practice they are trying to protect, not the wild deer herd. MDC is tryin to protect the wild herd, not the practice of "farming" deer. :wave1:

    Only ones I want shut down, and shut down for good... Are the CWD positive places. Unless you have a 100% sure way of containing it withing that facility.... If you do, better let people know, as it's not widely known....
     
  10. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    And i disagree that MDC would be better at it, mostly because they have no experience at it, or managing wildlife or livestock diseases. But we will see...
     
  11. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    The only way to know which ones are is to have mandatory testing and measures to track penned populations so you know the testing is being done. That's what they are spending fortunes in court to avoid.
     
    20' likes this.
  12. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    They already have mandatory testing. How on earth do you think they found the positives at Heartland???
     
  13. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

     
  14. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    Already have mandatory testing and records keeping in MO.
     
  15. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    No. That's just a rumor .
     
  16. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    If its a rumor then its a rumor that the MO Supreme Court acknowledged.....
     
  17. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    Regulations that sparked the law suits and that have been held up because of the injunction. Screenshot_2018-02-08-19-48-53.png Screenshot_2018-02-08-19-49-22.png Screenshot_2018-02-08-19-49-41.png
     
  18. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    This lawsuit is NOT about the regulations, its about the REGULATOR, and their authority to do so.

    All mortality is tested now. That reg would only change it from 1 yr and up to 6 months and up.
     
  19. henry

    henry Fan Boy aka Mr Twisty and

    No. Only to be certified which is voluntary.
     
  20. Hawk

    Hawk Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Oct 15, 2009
    Both side lawyers told the MOSC that there was mandatory testing of all mortality now. If you have an issue, take it up with them.