Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Livestock Inspection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee clears repeal of century‑old ink‑stamp requirement for carcasses; inspections to continue

House Agriculture Committee · March 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Agriculture Committee concurred in Senate Bill 78 to remove a long‑standing code requirement that each dressed carcass be ink‑stamped, saying current inspection and brands verification already protect ownership; the measure was concurred in 17‑0.

Sen. Josh Kasmier introduced Senate Bill 78, which would remove a historic requirement that each dressed carcass be ink‑stamped after slaughter. Kasmier described the provision as outdated and said the department already inspects animals prior to slaughter.

Jay Bodner, brands division administrator for the Montana Department of Livestock, told the committee the ink‑stamp requirement likely dated to at least 1931 and that ownership verification currently occurs through pre‑slaughter inspections and hide inspections. "It did look like it was a brand inspector that was required to do this," Bodner said, adding that current practices continue to protect ownership rights.

Committee members asked whether repealing the ink‑stamp rule would affect ownership verification or daily compliance. Bodner and the sponsor clarified that inspections would continue and that the change removes only the ink‑stamping procedure, which agency staff said is redundant with other statutory language.

The committee moved to concur in SB78 during executive action. The voice vote, with proxies recorded, yielded a clerk tally of 17 in favor and 0 against; the committee concurred and sent the bill to the House floor.

Representative Kametz volunteered to carry the bill on the House floor. No formal opponents were recorded.

The hearing record references the statute section (81.91112) in discussing redundant language; proponents said overlapping statutory references will be addressed if the repeal advances.