BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

In the matter of the amendment of ARM 32.3.212 additional requirements for cattle and 32.3.212A brucellosis vaccination of imported cattle under four months of age

) ) ) ) )

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

 

TO: All Concerned Persons

 

1. On September 18, 2014, the Department of Livestock published MAR Notice No. 32-14-252 regarding the public hearings on the proposed amendment of the above-stated rules at page 2067 of the 2014 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 18. 

 

2. The department has amended ARM 32.3.212A as proposed.

 

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

 

32.3.212 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATTLE (1) remains as proposed.

(2) Nonvaccinated sexually intact cattle, 12 months of age and older, must have a negative brucellosis test no more than 30 days prior to arrival unless originating from a:

(a) U.S. state, area, province, or territory that has been brucellosis class free for ten years or more; or

(b) through (13) remain as proposed.

 

            4. MDOL received written comments and collected comments at public hearings on this proposal.  Of the 11 written comments, ten were in favor of the proposal and one was opposed.  Comments were submitted by veterinarians, ranchers, feedlot owners, livestock market owners, and regulatory personnel.  Public hearings were held in Billings (0 attendees) and Three Forks (12 attendees).  A number of comments were made at the hearing in Three Forks that were outside the scope of this proposal.

 

A summary of the comments received and the department's responses are as follows:

 

Comment 1: A number of comments suggested that requiring vaccination for import is illogical and unnecessary when there is no statewide official calfhood vaccination (OCV) requirement.

Response 1:  MDOL agrees with these comments.  A statewide vaccination requirement was proposed in 2009 but was rejected by the industry.  The rationale that Montana uses to justify that cattle have no risk of brucellosis outside the Designated Surveillance Area (DSA) also applies to other states that are brucellosis class-free, especially if they have been class-free for ten years or more.  In order for Montana's non-DSA areas to be recognized as brucellosis-free, it's important that Montana recognizes the disease status of other states.

 

Comment 2: MDOL has done an excellent job "selling" our brucellosis surveillance plan to other states, and I agree there is currently no good answer when asked why cattle from their states have to be vaccinated prior to entry (other than SW Montana).  If we enacted statewide mandatory vaccination, this situation would be different.

Response 2: See Response 1.

 

Comment 3: Many comments stated that the risk of importing brucellosis from a brucellosis-free state (or from a non-DSA county in Montana) is very low and that this change would not create any additional risk to Montana cattle.

Response 3: MDOL agrees that the risk of importing a diseased animal from a brucellosis-free state is extremely low; and if it were a concern, the most effective method of mitigating that concern would be to require a brucellosis test prior to import. Vaccination prior to entry does not prevent a diseased animal from entering Montana.

 

Comment 4: Several comments stated that changing the import regulation would not affect the fact that the majority of breeding heifers in Montana are vaccinated.

Response 4: MDOL agrees that the rate of brucellosis vaccination of breeding heifers would not likely be affected by this proposal.  Approximately 70% of Montana heifers are vaccinated each year, even without a statewide vaccination requirement.

 

Comment 5: Vaccination on import is a regulation that adds an unnecessary cost to Montana producers, especially in the case of feeder heifers.

Response 5: MDOL agrees that quarantines create an additional cost to producers. For example, as of early December 2014, one Montana producer had been issued quarantines for nearly 6000 feeder heifers that could otherwise have remained unvaccinated until slaughter. MDOL must track the inventory of animals imported under quarantine until they are either vaccinated or spayed by a veterinarian. There can be additional cost to the buyer associated with tracking quarantined animals and penning them separately.

 

Comment 6: Removing the OCV requirement would increase the number of female cattle imported into Montana without official identification.

Response 6: MDOL sets most official identification requirements by office policy, which would be adjusted to ensure that identification and traceability requirements are maintained.

 

Comment 7: The ten-year duration of class-free status may not be necessary but probably serves to show continued vigilance.

Response 7: Requiring that a state has been brucellosis class-free for ten years or more provides added assurance that no disease remains in the state.

 

Comment 8: Multiple comments stated that when procuring feeder heifers from within the state of Montana, they are not bangs vaccinated, but to import them from another state they must be vaccinated at additional cost and stress to the animals.

Response 8: See Responses 1, 3, and 5.

 

Comment 9: The current regulations impede commerce when purchasing heifers from livestock markets by creating additional processing time, logistical issues with veterinarian and trucker schedules, animal stress, and cost.

Response 9: See Responses 1, 3, and 5.  Currently, nonvaccinated females from a sale yard must be vaccinated prior to entry.  This proposal would eliminate these costs.

 

Comment 10: How does MDOL plan to handle imports into the four counties in which brucellosis vaccination is required?

Response 10: Vaccination has been required in Beaverhead, Gallatin, Madison, and Park counties since 2009.  Under the proposed rule, cattle imported from out-of-state into these four counties would be subject to the same regulations as cattle entering those four counties from other parts of Montana.  Therefore, the proposed rule would simplify compliance with existing regulations for vaccination in the four-county area. However, MDOL will send correspondence to producers importing nonvaccinates from out-of-state into the four counties informing them of the requirements.

 

Comment 11: "I don't know details of the immune response of vaccinates compared to naive cattle, but it is at least conceivable that vaccinated cows might be more likely to show a positive titer following exposure while less likely to harbor an active infection posing risk of transmission to herd mates.  While I think dropping the vaccination requirement for females imported to MT outside the four counties in which the DSA is located is a good idea, I don't think the fact that most reactors have been vaccinates is a good reason to drop that requirement."

Response 11: Many details of the immune response to brucellosis vaccine are not well understood. However, brucellosis vaccination has been demonstrated to be critical to reduce transmission and minimize the impact of the disease in a herd. The disease status of states that have been class-free for ten years or more was the most significant factor driving this proposal.  It would remove brucellosis vaccination requirements for cattle with negligible risk of exposure to the disease and that do not, therefore, benefit from the vaccine.

 

Comment 12: The burden of enforcement of vaccination of imported female cattle in the four counties in which vaccination is required will be placed on producers and local enforcement officials.

Response 12: See Response 10.

 

Comment 13: If MDOL expects the district, market, and local brand inspectors to carry out the enforcement of vaccination of imported cattle in Beaverhead, Gallatin, Madison, and Park counties, they need to be educated and compensated accordingly.

Response 13: See Response 10.  Current regulations and MDOL ARM proposals and adoptions are available on the MDOL web site: www.liv.mt.gov.  MDOL sends regular updates to district, market, and local inspectors when changes to livestock laws and policy occur.  MDOL will issue a press release if this proposal is adopted.

 

Comment 14: One commenter expressed concerns that brucellosis testing of Canadian cattle provides added assurance that imported animals are brucellosis-free.

Response 14: Exempting adult Canadian origin cattle from brucellosis testing was a clerical error, and will be addressed in the final rule.  MDOL agrees that the most certain way to ensure the brucellosis-negative status of international imports is to require a test.

 

Comment 15: It is imperative that MDOL communicates the option to import nonvaccinated females into Montana as well as the implications of importing nonvaccinates into the four counties in which vaccination is required.

Response 15: See Responses 10 and 13.

 

Comment 16: It seems that the DSA has been a vehicle to shift the risk and burden of diseased wildlife away from the managing state and federal agencies and onto the private producer who has little control of where this diseased wildlife roams.

Response 16: MDOL agrees that the DSA has been successful in maintaining the marketability of Montana cattle and minimizing regulations placed by other states. Wildlife management is outside the scope of this proposal.

 

Comment 17: Any time there are restrictions placed on cattle in commerce, it costs producers money.

Response 17: See Responses 5 and 9.

 

DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK

 

BY:      /s/ Christian Mackay                        BY:      /s/ Cinda Young-Eichenfels

            Christian Mackay                                         Cinda Young-Eichenfels

            Executive Officer                                         Rule Reviewer

            Board of Livestock

            Department of Livestock

 

            Certified to the Secretary of State December 15, 2014.