WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5645

Agriculture: animals; certain definitions in the privately owned cervidae producers marketing act; modify. Amends secs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 17 of 2000 PA 190 (MCL 287.952 et seq.).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 6 co-sponsors

Shifts regulatory oversight of privately owned cervidae operations from DNR to MDARD, including new registration, biosecurity, and enforcement requirements.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE
#agriculture:animals #stateagencies(existing):agricultureandruraldevelopment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5645

Overview

  • Bill: HB 5645
  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Jurisdiction: Michigan
  • Topic: Agriculture; animals — Privately Owned Cervidae Producers Marketing Act (amendments)
  • Purpose: Move regulatory oversight of privately owned cervidae operations from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD); adjust related definitions, processes, fees, and administrative procedures; update coordination requirements and certain public-health/wildlife protections; shorten registration validity; and align enforcement and decommissioning processes.

What the bill would do

  • Transfer regulatory authority:

    • Shifts jurisdiction for the Privately Owned Cervidae Producers Marketing Act from DNR to MDARD.
    • Requires MDARD to lead administration, with consultation from DNR, EGLE (Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy), and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as applicable.
    • Replaces references to DNR coordination with MDARD coordination in relevant provisions (and modifies cross-department consultation language).

  • Definitions and scope (Sec. 2):

    • Clarifies terms used in the act, including:
    • Biosecurity
    • Cervidae livestock facility and cervidae livestock operation
    • Cervidae products and cervidae species
    • Department and Director
    • “Owner,” “Person,” “Release,” and other key terms
    • Keeps focus on privately owned cervidae species and their products, including animals like deer, elk, moose, reindeer, and caribou.

  • Operational and regulatory framework (Secs. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17):

    • Cervidae livestock operations are treated as agricultural enterprises with associated rights and responsibilities under MDARD.
    • Initial registration and modification processes remain, but with MDARD as the lead agency.
    • Applicants must submit a business plan and detailed information (location, species, biosecurity measures, flushing method for wild cervidae, record-keeping, disease herd plans, zoning, and other pertinent data).
    • MDARD, after consulting with relevant departments, evaluates applications using operational standards (previously adopted by DNR; standards are incorporated by reference).
    • Local government notification is required unless the land is zoned agricultural per local ordinances.
    • Conditions for approving registrations include facility inspection, barriers to prevent escape/entry of wild cervidae, animal identification methods, and compliance with water resources and wetlands permits, among others.
    • A 120-day initial registration/expansion review timeline is specified, with a streamlined process for renewals (60 days after completed renewal application). Timelines may be tolled for deficiencies, construction, required reinspections, or other mandated actions.
    • Informal reviews and potential hearings are provided for denials or adjustments.

  • Registration and fees (Sec. 8, 9):

    • Registrations are issued for 3 years, but the text indicates a renewal framework that interacts with a 1-year validity period following expiration (the exact interplay can be nuanced in the bill; the fiscal note references a reduction from 3 years to 1 year).
    • Fees are specified, including nonrefundable initial application fee ($250) and inspection fees (varying by facility size: up to 40 acres = $250; over 40 acres = $500).
    • Renewal and class-based fee structure: Class I (hobby), Class II (exhibition), Class III (ranch), and Full registration with specified renewal charges (amounts listed as placeholders in the text but referenced in the fiscal analysis).
    • Renewal cycle payments due by May 1 each year; proceeds go to the Agriculture Licensing and Inspection Fees Fund.
    • If MDARD fails to issue/deny a registration within the required timeframe, the department must refund the fee and may reduce the next renewal fee by 15%.

  • Modifications and decommissioning (Secs. 9, 10, 14):

    • Modifications to registration must be approved before changes occur (e.g., class changes, size changes, ownership transfers, new species).
    • Decommissioning of a cervidae facility is allowed with MDARD approval and must comply with standards; decommissioning must address environmental and wildlife health considerations.

  • Compliance, enforcement, and penalties (Sec. 17):

    • Prohibits release of cervidae from a facility; release of wildlife or escapes trigger penalties and public-property designation for escaped animals if not properly reported.
    • Prohibits abandonment of a facility without notifying MDARD and DNR.
    • Violations can be misdemeanors or felonies depending on the nature of the act (e.g., releasing or permitting release of cervidae or allowing ingress of wild cervidae into a facility).

  • Administrative proceedings (Sec. 14) and coordination (Sec. 10):

    • The department can deny, suspend, revoke, or limit registrations following hearings under the Administrative Procedures Act, with conditions for physician-like remedial steps.
    • MDARD Director may enter into a memorandum of understanding with DNR to approve disease herd plans, decommission facilities, approve locations/sizes, review habitat impacts, approve flushing methods, and other purposes necessary for program oversight.

  • Effective date:

    • The act takes effect 1 year after enactment.

Who would be affected

  • Private cervidae livestock operators (owners and facilities): subject to registration, ongoing compliance, biosecurity standards, flushing of all wild cervidae if applicable, disease herd plans, and record-keeping requirements.
  • MDARD: primary regulatory agency for cervidae operations; gains program responsibilities, fee collection, and enforcement authority.
  • DNR, EGLE, and the Department of Agriculture: provide consultation and interdepartmental coordination, as applicable.
  • Local units of government: notified about proposed facilities; may influence zoning compliance.
  • General public and wildlife: affected through updated management practices, habitat impact reviews, and potential decommissioning of facilities.

Key procedural and timeline elements

  • Application review: initial decision within 60 days (Sec. 6(1)).
  • Completion notice and inspection: completion notification by applicant, followed by department inspection within 30 days; registration issued within 30 days if compliant (Sec. 6, 7).
  • Renewal timing: renewals due by May 1; renewal period 3 years with post-expiration continuation pending processing (Sec. 8, 3, 7).
  • Inspections: up to two preregistration inspections allowed per facility (Sec. 7(3)).
  • Fee structure: various application/inspection/renewal fees; proceeds deposited into a dedicated fund (Sec. 8, 9).
  • Enforcement: penalties for improper release, ingress of wild cervidae, or abandonment; potential hearings under the Administrative Procedures Act (Sec. 17, 14).

Fiscal and administrative impact (based on analysis)

  • Shifts costs and revenue from DNR to MDARD, with MDARD incurring costs in animal health, herd certification, and disease prevention programs.
  • Revenues from cervidae licensing/inspection would move to MDARD; estimated current DNR fee levels and actual revenues provided in the fiscal note.
  • MDARD would expand responsibilities for disease prevention, herd health, and facility oversight, potentially increasing program costs but aligning with broader agricultural regulatory responsibilities.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison of the current law versus HB 5645 language, or a plain-language FAQ for cervidae facility operators and local governments.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.