Sika deer 'deleterious' under Fish and Wildlife rules

MOSES LAKE — A longtime resident says he is upset over a regulation from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife saying he is unable to keep the deer he raises.

Glen Gray said he has been keeping his deer for about six or seven years. He said he already shot and killed five bucks because the Game Department told him he could not have them, but then his parents advised him not to kill any more until he gets in contact with an attorney.

Gray said he was not ordered to do anything with the deer, but was told he could not have them.

He originally bought them in Moses Lake with the intention to use them for his own venison, he said.

"I don't know what their problem is," Gray said of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, adding that they have been aware of his deer for about six years and noting that some people have owned deer for about 20 years.

"Now all of a sudden, they say, 'Well, you can't have them. The ones that you have, you've had them so long, you can keep those, but you can't raise any more,'" he said. "In other words, I can't breed them to eat them for myself, I can't sell them. They're afraid that they're going to get out and intermingle with these other deer. Well, it just ain't going to happen — they're too small for that."

Gray said that a second grade class has been out to see his deer for a class field trip.

"These deer aren't mean, they wouldn't hurt nothing," he said. "The only time is the bucks get a little ornery when they're in the rut, and at that time of the year, nobody comes in (where he keeps the deer) but me. This is wrong, what they're trying to do."

Gray said he thinks he is being singled out because of previous altercations with the game department.

Steve Dauma, captain in the enforcement program for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, said that in about 1992-1993, the department designated certain species of wildlife, such as sika deer, as "deleterious."

That generally means a species of wildlife not native to the state that has been designated as dangerous to the environment or wildlife of the state, Dauma explained. They could possibly compete or hybridize with native wildlife, destroy habitat of or prey upon native wildlife or potentially transmit diseases.

Skia deer are a close relative to Washington state elk, Dauma said, and could hybridize with them.

"The desire was trying to maintain the genetic purity of the elk is Washington state," he said, adding that he thinks the assumption is justified that any time one has captive wildlife, they are going to get loose at some point. Sika deer, he said, have proven "either very difficult or nearly impossible to recapture. The intent was to try to protect Washington wildlife and natural wildlife habitat."

Under the provisions of the rule, people who possessed sika deer at the time that the deleterious rule was adopted could continue to possess those animals, but they had to comply with the provisions of the rule, he said. The rule states that the deer can not be bought, sold, transferred, relocated, or propagated, or bred.

"So anyone since the time the rule was adopted who has sold or purchased or propagated sika deer are in violation," Dauma said.

A recent case in Snohomish County involved the same species, Dauma said, but was not associated with Gray.

"Mr. Gray is not being singled out," he said. "He is in violation of the rules, and would not be treated any differently than any other person who is in violation of the rules."

"Who makes these rules?" Gray asked. "Don't the people have any right to vote or comment on it? … I'm going to fight them if I can."

He said that he doesn't have the money for an attorney, but if he could find one to take the case and help him fight the department, he would be more than happy to.

"They're going to have to take me to court to get me to kill the rest of them," he said.