All Rights Reserved

In a joint meeting on August 12, 2010, the Michigan Department of Agriculture (now re-named Department of Agriculture and Rural Development - MDARD) and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) commissions squared off on the issue of feral swine.

After lengthy and at times heated discussion, it was agreed that after waiting three years to set up regulations of facilities that were used to either breed or shoot swine, that the industry would work with government to settle the matter.

The concern at the time was the potential impact of feral swine escaping these operations and establishing populations in the wild, considered in many states as a condition of great significance for damage to habitat and other wildlife species.

Commissioner John Madigan from Munising laid down a challenge that if nothing were done and done soon, the NRC would declare feral swine as an invasive species, essentially shutting down the industry.

The night before, at a social gathering for the two state agencies, a young candidate for Michigan’s House of Representatives was meeting and greeting those in attendance. His name was Ed McBroom from Dickinson County. He went on to win the seat for the 108^th District which covers Dickinson, Delta and Menominee Counties.

While in line with other people I overheard comments on the swine topic, being shared with then candidate McBroom (farmers versus hunters), that served to polarize agriculture interests from natural resource interests. I quickly button-holed the candidate to a private landowner that had a very negative position regarding feral swine that had escaped capture and were residing on and near her land.

After hearing her comments, I told candidate McBroom he should remain objective on all issues and fully understand the “big picture” before taking a stand.

Since then, at the end of 2010 and with no resolution in sight, former MDNR Director Becky Humphries issued an order that declared the feral swine as an invasive species, to take effect July 8, 2011 if no laws were passed to consider the issue.

Now, as a freshman legislator, Ed McBroom has made an attempt to objectively work on the issue, respecting the agricultural industry, something that is already part of his life as a farmer, and the genuine concerns presented by the MDNR on the potential and real impact escaped swine could have on the UP and are already having in the LP.

This spring, Representative McBroom announced bills he sponsored that would address the issue and regulation of feral swine. It would create a new law creating “the sporting Swine Marketing Act” (HB4503). It was modeled in part, after the Privately Owned Cervidae Producers Marketing Act which authorizes and regulates that commercial raising of cervids (i.e. Deer, elk, moose, caribou, and reindeer).

Additional legislation from McBroom would amend criminal procedures for violating the Sporting Swine Marketing Act (HB4506), and transfer administration of the Cervidae Act from the MDNR to the MDARD (HB4507).

In concert with the issue, Representative Sharon Tyler, who sits on the Agriculture Committee for the House, submitted two pieces of legislation that would remove feral swine as a game species regulated by the MDNR (HB4504) and would facilitate proper registration of individuals under the Sporting Swine Marketing Act (HB4505).

In June, there were substitutes submitted for all but one of the bills, all with more detail and essentially giving the proposed law more teeth in what it intended to provide in regulation of the industry, as well as penalties for those who violate the new law, again if it is to pass.

What has also occurred is that the substitutes are “tie barred”, which means if one fails they all fail. An extension of the July deadline to August was also entered, so that the Senate could have time to consider the bills.

Another concern raised regarding fiscal impact is that revenue from registration and inspection fees, and penalties derived from violators most likely won’t meet the cost requirements for maintaining the law by enforcement. As it stands, it would require tapping into the State’s General Fund for subsidy which isn’t likely to happen.

While I do feel a bit of bias between Agriculture and Natural Resources still exists (old habits are hard to break), I truly think Rep. McBroom has taken the issue seriously and is working to protect the integrity of our agricultural industry, while seeking protection for our natural resources.

No one wanted the job of shutting down private businesses in our already economically crippled state. The concept of this collective legislation seeks to serve both. It appears the primary stumbling block to getting resolution to the issue is money. Who pays and how much they pay for staying in business and what penalties and fines lay in store for those who violate the law are the question of the day.

If done correctly, it may serve as a model for other states to follow.

If it fails, it will be the demise of some businesses and no one will be a winner here.