Game breeder license; possessory interest in deer established; killing, testing, prohibition of transfer of deer by state agencies for disease prohibited, subject to exceptions
HB509 revises Alabama’s game breeder law, focusing on cervids such as whitetail deer, elk, and fallow deer kept by licensed game breeders. The bill updates definitions and licensing provisions for game breeder licensees, including annual licensing, eligibility standards, and fee schedules that vary based on the number of cervids held. It also makes technical and stylistic updates to the existing code.
The bill’s most significant policy change limits state intervention in the management of licensed cervids. Under the bill, state agencies may not require the killing of a cervid for disease reasons, require antemortem disease testing, or prohibit/restrict transfer of a cervid because of disease unless specified exceptions apply. Those exceptions include situations where disease has already been detected in another cervid under the licensee’s care, or where a transferred cervid is epidemiologically linked to a diseased animal from the transferring licensee. The bill also declares that cervids possessed by a licensee on October 1, 2025, and their offspring, are the personal property of the licensee rather than state property.
HB509 amends Section 9-11-30 of the Alabama Code and changes how the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and other state agencies may regulate cervids held by licensed game breeders. It creates statutory limits on disease-based destruction, testing, and transfer restrictions, while preserving some authority in narrowly defined disease-linked circumstances. The bill also establishes that cervids held by a licensee as of October 1, 2025, are private property, which affects ownership rights, regulatory control, and potential enforcement actions involving breeder-held deer and related animals.
The bill appears to have broad support among legislators, as reflected by strong House and Senate votes and final concurrence. The voting history shows large majorities at each stage, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee-floor actions in the Senate and substantial support in the House despite some opposition. Overall, the sentiment suggests the measure was viewed favorably by most lawmakers, likely because it supports the game breeder industry and clarifies property and transfer rights for cervid owners.
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on state disease-control authority over cervids. Opponents likely object to limiting the Department’s ability to require testing, euthanasia, or transfer restrictions in response to disease concerns, especially given wildlife health and disease-management risks. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor protecting breeder property rights, reducing regulatory burdens, and allowing transfers when animals meet approved testing or breeding-value standards or are housed behind double fencing. The exceptions built into the bill indicate an attempt to balance breeder interests with some disease-control safeguards.