BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

In the matter of the amendment of ARM 32.2.405, 32.3.435, 32.3.1303, 32.3.1308, 32.18.101, 32.18.109, 32.22.101, 32.22.102, 32.22.103, 32.22.104, 32.22.105 and 32.22.106 pertaining to testing within the DSA, Department of Livestock miscellaneous fees, official trichomoniasis testing and certification requirements, hot iron brands required, freeze branding, aerial hunting, identification, and identification methodology

)   NOTICE OF AMENDMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

 

TO:  All Concerned Persons

 

            1.  On December 20, 2012, the Department of Livestock published MAR Notice No. 32-12-229 regarding the proposed amendment of the above-stated rules at page 2543 of the 2012 Montana Administrative Register, issue number 24.

 

            2.  The department has amended ARM 32.2.405, 32.3.1303, 32.3.1308, 32.18.101, 32.18.109, 32.22.101, 32.22.102, 32.22.103, 32.22.104, 32.22.105, and 32.22.106 exactly as proposed.

 

            3.  The department has amended ARM 32.3.435 as proposed, but with the following change from the original proposal, new matter underlined, deleted matter interlined:

 

            32.3.435 TESTING WITHIN THE DSA  (1)  The following official brucellosis test requirements apply to all test eligible animals and cattle or domestic bison of any age if intended to be used for breeding purposes that are or have been located within the DSA boundaries of any calendar year:

            (a) through (2) remain as proposed.

            (a)  A change of ownership test is required on all cattle and domestic bison regardless of age intended to be used for breeding.

            (3) remains as proposed.

 

            REASON:  The original proposed changes in 32.3.435(2)(a) were not clear as to intent of testing requirements.  Language was added to (1) and deleted in (2)(a) to clarify the rule.

 

            4.  The department has thoroughly considered the comments and testimony received.  A summary of the comments received and the department's responses are as follows:

 

            Comment #1:  The language in [32.3.1303] (3)(a) and (3)(b) are in conflict with each other.

 

                Response #1:  This language is consistent with the existing official order and addresses two different groups of animals.  Subsection (3)(a) addresses animal by reproductive status.  All sheep and goats that are sexually intact are required to be identified when they are involved in one of the following: importation, entry into interstate marketing channels, change of ownership, or exhibition.  Subsection (3)(b) addresses animal by age, i.e., animals that remain in the population past 18 months of age but do meet one of the other identification requirements.  Specifically, this would address animals over 18 months of age that may have been spayed/castrated, but remain in the population.

 

            Comment #2:  The language in [32.3.1303] (4)(a) does not allow the movement/sale of ewe lambs into feeder/slaughter channels without identification.  This creates a burden on the producer to identify these animals before they are moved.

 

            Response #2:  This language is consistent with the existing official order and the exemption does allow for the movement/sale of ewe lambs into recognized slaughter channels without official identification.  This would include the sale of animals for feeding purposes or the sale of animals direct to slaughter.  What is not included in this exemption is the movement of animals for grazing purposes.

 

            Comment #3:  [We] have thought about how this new test requirement would work for us.  Most producers in our area ship directly off the cow and from their summer pastures.  This means we usually have one day set aside to handle the calves for pre-shipping vaccinations and weighing.  To add yet one more procedure to the day will take up more time.  It is already a very long day (til dark) and we as well has others do not have the facilities at the summer pasture (mountains) to accommodate holding over animals that did not get tested the first day.  Working the calves two days in a row would be too stressful with the results being sick calves, not to mention weight loss which is what our paycheck is based on.  Basically the addition of this new test requirement becomes a difficult if not impossible event from a management standpoint.

            Response #3:  DSA regulations promote receiving state confidence in the disease-free status of Montana cattle.  This proposed change to the administrative rule will only affect sexually intact DSA calves (less than 12 months of age) that are sold for breeding purposes.  This regulation has been in place in Wyoming's DSA for some time and is an addition to Montana's program recommended by the recent USDA review team.  The majority of sexually intact calves currently sold out of the DSA are sold for feeding purposes and therefore will not be affected.

            Comment #4:  When you think of the number of cattle located within the DSA, the rule change to "regardless of age" puts a large increase in the amount of state-required testing.

            Response #4: The majority of heifers are sold for feeding purposes and not specifically for breeding.

          A variety of comments were received that do not apply to the rule change but address DSA and brucellosis issues.  Comments and responses #5 through #13 respond to these questions.

            Comment #5:  Once again the livestock industry is bearing the brunt of the accountability for the disease of brucellosis found in the GYA.

            Response #5:  This comment does not apply to the rule change; however, please see response to #6 and #9.

            Comment #6:  Accountability needs to occur within the DOL for livestock protection/disease control and with FWP for mitigation efforts with elk.

            Response #6:  The department is the lead agency in protecting the livestock industry of the entire state, from disease as well as preventing the movement of potentially infected livestock out of the DSA.  Movement of infected livestock out of the DSA would likely cost the livestock industry millions of dollars.

            Comment #7:  The review of the management plan by the committee in September conveniently did not mention wild bison.

            Response #7:  The USDA APHIS review team looked specifically at the DSA programs in the three GYA states.  The IBMP addresses the Yellowstone National Park bison management.  One of the partners in the IBMP is USDA APHIS.

            Comment #8:  Will FWP accept the recommendations within the committee report (page 18, second bullet under recommendations) that indicates the use of late hunts to mitigate comingling?

            Response #8:  The USDA APHIS review team as well as the Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) elk brucellosis working group recommended the potential use of late hunts.  The FWP commission adopted the elk brucellosis working group recommendations and is aware of the recommendations of the review team.  For that reason, late hunts could potentially be used in local situations if local citizens working groups feel that it is the best course of action.

            Comment #9:  While the DSA regulations fit certain agency prescriptions, has anyone given thought to how producers are affected in their operational management?

            Response #9:  This comment does not apply to the rule change; it is directed toward all DSA regulations.  The DSA and its regulations on approximately 5% of the cattle and domestic bison industry in Montana are in place to protect the entire industry of the state from the introduction of brucellosis.  The DSA regulations prevent the movement of potentially infected livestock to other states and allow for rapid discovery and traceability of the disease.  The DSA also prevents additional and varying regulations that would be imposed by other states on DSA cattle as well as low risk cattle from other portions of Montana and potentially the entire state. Such regulations would be significantly more costly.

            Comment #10:  How many producers knew this committee was meeting in September?  Was the meeting advertised so the public could attend?  How many producers know there is a 21-page report on your web site?

            Response #10:  The USDA APHIS review committee included one State of Montana employee and reviewed the overall effectiveness of the DSA in the state.  Public meetings were not held.  However, two of the review team members did meet with DOL staff, market staff, and producers that were present at that time as a sort of "spot check" for DSA enforcement at markets.  These two members of the review team did the same at markets in Wyoming and Idaho.  The DOL does post general information on the web site and encourages interested parties to utilize this resource to stay informed of current issues.  Information regarding other programs, regulations, diseases, and other information are available there as well.

            Comment #11:  How many more recommendations from the review committee does the DOL plan to implement?

            Response #11:  Any recommendations that we have not already implemented (those recommendations that say for Montana to "continue") the DOL plans to implement.

            Comment #12:  Is the DOL ready to go to the legislature and make sure those funds are secured and appropriated?  What happens if there is no funding?  The DOL has significantly increased the financial burden with this rule change.  There will be no support for producer-paid testing.

            Response #12:  The DOL has and will continue to work diligently to secure funding for testing and surveillance within the DSA.  Funding for DSA testing is in the governor's budget (House Bill 2) as well as the use of per capita fees.  Additional funding for the program has come from the USDA through cooperative agreement dollars.

            Comment #13:  We continue to believe that with transparent, informative, and respectful dialogue, there could be many more times where the DOL and livestock producers are partnered instead of adversarial.

            Response #13:  The DOL is committed to continued transparency and dialogue with livestock producers within the DSA as well as statewide.

 

            Based upon the comments received, there are no revisions to the proposed rule amendments.

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK

 

BY:      /s/ Christian Mackay                         BY:      /s/ George H. Harris

            Christian Mackay                                          George H. Harris

            Executive Officer                                           Rule Reviewer

            Board of Livestock

            Department of Livestock

 

            Certified to the Secretary of State April 1, 2013.