Dustin Chrisman, who owns Double Barrel Game Farm & Hatchery, meets at a public hearing with the York County Commissioners about permits for his pheasant operation.
York County Press Release
YORK – Conditional use permits have been issued to Dustin Chrisman, operating as Double Barrel Farms, for three locations in York County where he is breeding, hatching, and raising pheasants.
A public hearing was held this week by the York County Commissioners, as they were presented with recommendations from the York County Planning/Zoning Commission regarding permits for each of three locations.
Chrisman started this business while he was still a high school student, as an FFA project. The business has steadily grown over the years as he has raised millions of pheasants over the years.
About a year ago, the county’s zoning administrator was contacted about Chrisman’s plans to add a third location for his pheasant operation and there were questions about his need to have conditional use permits due to the number of animal units and the nature of the operation – including at the original farm where the operation began many years ago.
The county commissioners invited Chrisman to talk about the matter.
“I started raising birds many years ago,” Chrisman said. “I bought the farm in 2010, and then in 2024, Nathan Heinz (zoning administrator) sent me a letter saying I need a conditional use permit. I’m approved through all the state inspection agencies and through Game and Parks, but this process at the county level has turned into a circus.”
Chrisman said the process has turned people against him and his family, while he feels many don’t understand much about his business.
“We asked the zoning administrator what we need to do and what are the steps,” Chrisman said, noting the process became so confusing he had to hire consultants to help through it.
There have been neighbors who have expressed concern about him having barns close to them and other neighbors have said they are supportive of Chrisman’s endeavors.
Cynthia and Larry Heine addressed the county, saying they have concerns about a pheasant barn being near their home and near the driveway to 21 other homes in that area. “I’m also concerned about his concern for other people,” Cynthia Heine said. “He hasn’t shown concern about encroaching on others’ properties. He told Larry he was going to put up a building and then we found out it was going to be a pheasant house. We encourage you to review this, indepth, it is important for the lake (community where they are) and for us. We have worked very hard on our property and a pheasant house would be inappropriate there.”
Mary Scott explained how she owns a lot at Sacks Lake, “and I’m also concerned. What happens with dead birds? We have a private well and private septic system. We were not notified by anyone, by the planning commission or anyone, about this and I’m really in the dark about something like this being adjacent to our property. Encroachment is a concern.”
Randy Collingham said, “No one lives any closer to these birds than me. I live next to this family which is like family to me. I think highly of them. But this land thing is to raise taxes – why is this being brought up now? I live within 30 feet of the property and am supportive of them.”
Terry Chrisman said he had concerns about whether the top nets on the pens will prompt the county to tax the pens as structures. “If so, would then shades for cattle be taxed that way too?”
Bob Bettger noted Chrisman is a neighbor of his as well. He also noted how back in the day, “I had the pleasure of being on the ag staff for then-Congressman Osborne. During that time, we heard a lot about the concerns of the ‘brain drain’ and the need to encourage entrepreneurism in Nebraska, to start diversified businesses. We thought it was critically important to create a handbook to help entrepreneurism. One entity which was supportive of this was Nebraska Game and Parks as they talked about a pheasant initiative to encourage hunting to try and rejuvenate that industry. In 2002, Dustin was a finalist in FFA as he worked to diversify his operation – he was adding value to marginal land. In the 2006 farm bill, Congressman Osborne got the open fields provision so if farmers opened up land to hunting they got a little extra payment which helped diversify their income. I support Dustin’s project – please do what you can to support him.”
Matt Clark owns a nearby hog operation and his concerns were about the spread of disease, should the avian flu or another strain infect Chrisman’s pheasants as it has in the past. “Herd health is a challenge as we don’t get support payments – we have to weather it. What helps us is distance from another livestock operation. We have strains now which can go from species to species and my big concern is if we’d be quarantined if Dustin had another outbreak of bird flu. Would we have to euthanize our hogs? Who would be liable for that? And when we spread manure, would we have to stay back away from his property? This would also box us in, creating problems for expansion.”
Clark also read aloud a letter from his veterinarian who addressed concerns about disease spreading from species to species. The veterinarian, in his letter, also said he supports the right to farm but location must be closely considered to avoid the crossover of illness.
“One thing I can’t understand is why build a pheasant farm with a quarter mile of those basins where there are all those wild birds,” said Dennis Clark. “If he gets an outbreak of bird flu like last time, he will get a check but if we get quarantined, it will cost us a small fortune. I’m not against him raising pheasants, but why does he have to build next to us or down by Sacks Lake? If a strain of illness was transferred to us, who would be financially liable or do we just have to eat it? Of all the places to build a pheasant farm, I can’t think of a worse place.
Mike Vorderstrasse started to talk about his living near Sacks Lake but stopped his testimony after Commissioner Chairman Randy Obermier said that location owned by Chrisman is already permissible (according to the county’s zoning regulations).
A consultant hired by Chrisman noted of the three locations, two had already existed for some time and the third location triggered the questions about the needs for conditional use permits.
Obermier noted he had received an email – which he shared into the record and with the other commissioner – from the state epidemiologist which said he had no worries about avian flu outbreaks affecting nearby livestock operations and if there was an avian outbreak they would only address the avian sites (meaning they would not quarantine the nearby hog operation).
Commissioner Daniel Grotz asked Chrisman to address the need for multiple sites. Chrisman explained how having different locations spreads out his risk – in the past, he lost thousands of birds to hail, a tornado, a wind storm, and avian flu. So by having birds in different locations, his risk factor is spread out. He noted he also has farms in South Dakota and Colorado.
“As we go forward with updating the comprehensive plan, we need to look at our livestock operation regulations as they are designed regarding an odor footprint, not with illness we are faced with today,” Obermier said. “When you had your outbreak of avian influenza, they were euthanized and taken care of. What happens with deceased birds in the day-to-day operation?”
Chrisman said they have an in-house composting system, or birds are buried. “I have a biosecurity plan regarding every step of our process, all of it is outlined and audited. We are inspected and tested by the state on a regular basis. The handling of deceased birds is in the biosecurity plan.”
“With any business, whether in the country or in town, dealing with the neighbors is something we have to do,” Obermier said. “I’d like to think how here in York County we do that exceptionally well. We have to try to get along. As soon as there is an expansion of things, if things change, there is a ruffle a bit but then in a year things settle down.”
As far as pens with net covers, it doesn’t sound as if these will be considered structures. “Once again, rules need to evolve,” Obermier said. “If we start calling things buildings – well, everything needs to be fair to all, and it needs to be defined in our comprehensive plan. I think it needs to be addressed in our current zoning and how we address things which are already here.”
They took each location separately when considering the permits.
The first was referred to as “Terry’s,” which is at 512 Road K. “The planning commission put no conditions on this one. I think we should add for each a condition on how the biosecurity plan is to be submitted (which Chrisman has already done), and any updates are provided to the zoning administrator.”
“If you expand, make sure it’s allowed,” Commissioner LeRoy Ott said to Chrisman.
The commissioners agreed to allow the permit.
The second property was referred to as “Main Farm.” Obermier noted how the planning commission recommending capping the capacity to the animal unit number it is at right now – which is 2,132 animals units currently (the unit number includes cattle on the site), based on the calculation established within the county’s zoning regulations. The commissioners agreed, which means no more pens can been added there and the number of pheasants has to remain at or below where it is now.
Chrisman also noted how his barns sit empty a good part of six months each year, which most people do not understand. “There is an entire cycle of rotation with six months of downtime; the barns are not full all the time.”
The permit was approved with the condition he cannot exceed the animal unit numbers determined in December of 2024 and the bio security plan requirement remains for this property as well.
The third property, which was referred to as “Dean’s” at Road 3 and Road O, was considered and the planning commission recommending the permit as it was in accordance with the county’s current zoning regulations.
“We heard concerns from the neighbors about the swine operation being there, and yes, we need to discuss new considerations for zoning, which weren’t an issue in 2015,” said Commissioner Grotz. “Yes, there are concerns, but this conditional use is an allowable use as the zoning regulations are currently written.”
The board approved the third permit.
