Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Livestock Inspection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee concurs in bill repealing ink-stamp requirement on dressed carcasses
Summary
The House Agriculture Committee concurred 17-0 in Senate Bill 78, which removes an outdated requirement that each dressed carcass be ink-stamped and cleans up related redundant provisions; the Department of Livestock supported the change as a code cleanup.
Get email alerts on the Livestock Inspection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Montana House Committee on Agriculture on Monday concurred in Senate Bill 78, a bill that eliminates an outdated requirement that each dressed carcass be stamped after slaughter.
Senator Josh Kassmayer (Senate District 13), the bill’s sponsor in the hearing, said the ink-stamp requirement dated to earlier statutes and that current inspection practices already verify ownership and ensure animal inspection prior to slaughter. Jay Bodner, brands division administrator for the Montana Department of Livestock, told the committee the statute appears to date back to at least 1931 and that department practices already verify ownership through pre-slaughter and hide inspections.
Committee members asked whether the change would affect ownership verification or daily compliance; witnesses and the sponsor said inspections and brand verifications will continue, and the code cleanup removes a redundant stamping requirement rather than eliminating inspection. Representative Griffith noted language on the second page deleting a provision exempting those who kill livestock in good faith for personal use; Bodner said that provision is redundant because the statute already refers to the exemption earlier in the code.
Vice Chair Carter moved concurrence; the committee recorded a voice/electronic tally of 17 ayes and 0 noes. Representatives Romano and Lynch were recorded voting aye by proxy, as were other members noted in the record. The committee sent the bill to the House floor with concurrence.
Committee members described the measure as a cleanup of archaic code rather than a change to current inspection practice.
