Appeals court rules against Minnesota deer farmers

St. Paul — Is it the end of the line for Minnesota deer farmers fighting new laws, directed at their vocation and enacted during the 2023 legislative session?

Following the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision Monday that affirms an early U.S. District Court rejection of a lawsuit – brought by the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association and a host of deer farmers themselves against several state agencies and officials – that conclusion could be drawn.

Steve Porter, secretary of the MDFA and owner of Steve Porter’s Trophy Whitetail near Lake Bronson in northern Minnesota, however, says not so fast. In a Facebook video posted by Porter shortly after the appeals court’s decision, he said he and his attorney will appeal the recent decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Our constitutional rights are under attack,” Porter states in the video. “We’re gonna fight, fight, fight.”

The deer farmers association and its members in January of 2024 sued the Minnesota DNR and its commissioner, Sarah Strommen (the DNR has oversight of the farms), along with the state’s Board of Animal Health and its board members, after a host of new regulations were imposed on deer farm operations per 2023 legislation.

The regulations were, according to the DFL-controlled state Legislature, intended to address the threat of chronic wasting disease the farms pose to the state’s wild deer herd. The restrictions were approved by Gov. Tim Walz, also a DFLer. Republican attempts to undo some of those restrictions were unsuccessful during the past legislative session.

Among the new regulations: No new registrations of deer farms, and ownership of those in existence could be transferred only one time and to only an “immediate family member.”

Further, should CWD, a neurological disease that results in the deaths of animals of the cervidae family – white-tailed deer and elk among them – be found on a deer farm, that farm would be subject to fencing requirements for 10 years, during which time farmed cervidae wouldn’t be allowed on the premises.

Increased fencing requirements – double fencing – and other provisions were included as well. Porter stated during his video post that such fencing would cost him about $200,000 and that he’d recently received a “notice of violation” for not complying with the new law. He said that taking out a loan of such an amount for a type of farm that state legislators were “trying to get rid of” made no financial sense.

MORE COVERAGE FROM MINNESOTA OUTDOOR NEWS:

DNR offers $4.65 million to southwest Minnesota parks after closure of Upper Sioux Agency State Park

Minnesota’s deer season details now available; 25 DPAs increasing bag limits

These training tools will help you level up your retriever or pointer

Deer farm lobbyists and officials called the new rules the industry’s death sentence.

Less than a year after the legislation passed, deer farmers sued the state, arguing that because farmed whitetails are considered livestock, and because deer farmers were considered part of the agricultural sector, the Legislature’s action violated their constitutional rights.

About eight months later, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim ruled against the deer farmers. He noted in his decision that the state Legislature “passed the statute to prevent the spread of CWD, not to eliminate the white-tail deer-farming profession. The eventual elimination of white-tail deer farming in Minnesota, while unfortunate, is incidental.”

Tunheim also wrote that “The liberty to pursue one’s chosen occupation is not a fundamental right.”

The appeals court decision addressed those same deer farmers’ arguments as presented to Tunheim, including the (10c) prohibition on new registrations for white-tailed deer herds, which limits registrations to only one transfer and to only immediate family members: “The Deer Farmers argue that subdivision 10(c) deprives their fundamental right to pursue their chosen profession of white-tailed deer farming in violation of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,” per the appeals court document.

But, the court’s decision states, “Trying to elicit strict scrutiny review, the Deer Farmers argue this ‘complete prohibition’ infringes a fundamental right. But they conflate a generalized due process right with a fundamental right. [T]he liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one’s field of private employment. But that right ‘is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation.’

“The fact that a right is acknowledged to be a liberty covered by the Due Process Clause does not automatically render that right ‘fundamental’ such that any statutory regulation of that right must be subjected to the highest constitutional scrutiny.”

The court goes on to state the following: “The Due Process Clause only ‘specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’

“The Deer Farmers present no evidence or precedent establishing, or even indicating, that white-tailed deer farming is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions or that the asserted right is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The court also states the Minnesota Legislature placed restrictions on white-tailed deer farming for a “legitimate government interest: to contain chronic wasting disease” – a health-based justification, per previous case law.

And finally, per the July 28 decision on the Eight Circuit’s decision on case No. 24-2845, “The Minnesota Legislature made a policy decision to allow family deer farms to continue for another generation, which protects familial, occupational, investment, and reliance interests, particularly considering the culture of ‘carrying on of the family farm.’ Subdivision 10(c)’s prohibition on new registrations and provision for one-time transfers are rationally related to Minnesota’s legitimate interests.”

Porter, who’s been in the business of deer farming for more than three decades, stated via his video post that, “We got bad news today,” on Monday, directing blame toward the DFL “trifecta” of the 2023 session that, he said, admitted to desiring to “phase out” deer farming.

He points out 2023 state statute that refers to farmed whitetails as “livestock” and deer farming as an agricultural practice – which, he says, butts heads with the state constitution, which allows license-free agricultural transactions.

“This issue – (that) it’s not a fundamental right to farm – is gonna be used as case law by the far left to attack other types of agriculture,” Porter says in the video. “Agriculture is under attack.”

Porter provided a link to a gofundme website where “the money collected here will be used to further this case and bring it into the U.S. Supreme Court,” per the site message.

As of Tuesday morning, $1,420 had been contributed. The stated goal was $5,000.

Outdoor News attempted to but was unable to reach Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association, prior to deadline.