logo
Nebraska feedlot political fight makes way to statehouse

Nebraska feedlot political fight makes way to statehouse

Yahoo01-04-2025
A branding battle is emerging in Nebraska over whether feedlots should pay branding fees. ()
LINCOLN — A divide between rural Nebraska lawmakers is rustling in the statehouse.
State Sen. Teresa Ibach of Sumner, in west-central Nebraska, has proposed a bill that would exempt a significant sector of agriculture in the state — feedlots — from branding and inspection fees under the state's livestock branding law that she has said she aims to 'modernize' with Legislative Bill 646.
'LB 646 simply provides an exemption for [feedlots], so [they] are treated uniformly across Nebraska,' Ibach said during the bill Agriculture Committee hearing.
She has faced opposition from State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman, a freshman rural lawmaker from north-central Nebraska who proposed an amendment to essentially kill the bill and let lawmakers make a more informed decision later regarding one of the state's biggest industries. Her reason: Most lawmakers don't deal with cattle.
'The reality is there's only about four in this body of 49 that understand that,' Storer said.
Nebraska is the second-largest cattle-producing state in the U.S., generating $13.2 billion from cattle and other livestock, according to the latest tally from the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Parts of that industry are regulated by the Nebraska Brand Committee, which is tasked with investigating cattle theft and verifying ownership through branding when cattle are bought, sold or moved in or beyond the brand zone in state law, essentially covering the western two-thirds of the state. Its services are funded entirely through fees, not by taxpayers.
The divide on the Ibach bill is that it would exempt feedlots in the state's brand inspection area from paying branding-related fees, replacing them with a one-time payment of $500 to apply for feedlots to get exempt status. The Brand Committee called the legislation an attempt to 'severely' weaken the cattle industry's checks and balances, and several cattle industry groups have opposed it.
During the bill's hearing before the Agriculture Committee, Nebraska Farmers Union president John Hansen said the Brand Committee provides security from cattle theft. He added the whole state should be under the Livestock Brand Act because the areas not in the branding area are an 'invitation for abuse.'
'If I were stealing cattle, I know that I would be trying to sell them in the area of the state that does not have brand inspection,' Hansen said. 'So the viability of the system will be undermined if this bill goes forward as is.'
The Nebraska State Dairy Association testified in support of the bill and requested its own exception from the state Livestock Brand Act, calling the system a time and economic burden on the dairy industry because the branding committee hasn't updated its ID Program.
'Our producers are tired of waiting for the change to pay for a program that has no value to our industry,' said Steve Wolfe, who testified on behalf of the Nebraska State Dairy Association.
Bill sponsors initially included all eight of the Legislature's Agriculture Committee members, though only six of the eight voted it out of committee for a floor debate: two original sponsors, State Sens. Mike Jacobson of North Platte and Dan McKeon of Amherst withdrew their names from the bill last week. Jacobson said it because his constituents won't like it.
'The only reason I signed on to begin with was to try to get to the point where we could negotiate something better than what we have today,' Jacobson said. 'Every email and phone call I've gotten on this issue, except from the feed yards who stand directly to benefit, have been not only no but hell no. That's a pretty strong message.'
Other cattle-feeding states, including Texas and Oklahoma, deal with cattle branding differently. In those states, it's not mandatory but encouraged to deter theft, while brand inspections are mandatory in Wyoming and Colorado.
Elliott Dennis, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor of livestock marketing and risk management, said Nebraska's cattle branding approach is unique because some parts of the state don't have to deal with the inspection fees.
Dennis said the quirk is because areas in the eastern parts of the state have fewer cattle than most of western Nebraska. He said consumers wouldn't feel the proposed changes to the branding law.
Feedlot owners and beef and dairy cattle growers tried but failed in 2020 and 2021 to comprehensively update state branding laws. Dennis said feedlot owners have historically been against brand inspection due to the frequency of fees they must pay based on their cattle numbers and because getting an inspector can slow down production.
He said who proposed the bill tells a lot about its intention.
'This isn't a person unfamiliar with the cattle industry,' Dennis said.
Ibach, a first-term senator, is married to the longest-serving state agriculture director Greg Ibach. She and her family own a cattle operation in Dawson County. She said the legislation is about updating the state brand law, not getting rid of it.
'To be clear, [the] bill does not do away with brand inspection inside the brand area, nor does it impact anyone's ability to own or use a brand,' Ibach said.
In an op-ed last month on KRVN Rural Radio's website in Lexington, Ibach said she worked with the Nebraska Brand Committee and the Nebraska Farm Bureau after the bill's Agriculture Committee hearing to add amendments to address the concerns from the committee, farm bureau, and other groups.
'I believe the amendment addresses legitimate concerns raised by the testifiers and others,' Ibach wrote.
Her amendment, AM 829, to LB 646, would cap the amount the Brand Committee can charge feedlots.
Currently, the committee can charge for each additional increment of 250 cattle above the total of 1,000 cattle, which represents the lot's one-time capacity. Feedlots are charged a $1,000 annual permit. If the bill becomes law, it's estimated the committee would lose $1.6 million annually, roughly 25% of its operating budget.
Nebraska Farm Bureau Senior Director of State Legislative Affairs Bruce Rieker said the Bureau's stance on the bill could change as negotiations between stakeholders in the cattle industry continue.
'There are very sincere conversations going on between many of the parties now, Rieker said. 'Much more so now than maybe they were earlier in the session.'
On Tuesday, the Farm Bureau released a statement expressing disapproval of the amendment to the bill, signaling that it still opposes the changes.
'For more than 80 years, the Nebraska Brand Committee has played a vital role in overseeing livestock brand registration, enforcement, and proof of ownership.' The statement reads, 'We support the work of the Brand Committee and believe the Committee should have the fee authority necessary to adequately fund its programs.'
Nebraska Cattlemen also expressed continued opposition to the bill. Still, the group said it would 'remain committed to working with Senator Ibach toward a solution that could be acceptable to the membership as we work to modernize brand laws in Nebraska.' The statement said the Cattleman Board of Directors would meet Tuesday to discuss and take a stance on the agriculture committee amendment.
Storer announced an amendment late last week to Ibach's bill that would delay immediate action on the bill and call for a study by the Nebraska Brand Committee for potential solutions. Storer said she was 'frustrated' with how the bill was initially crafted without the input of the Brand Committee and the cattle industry. She said her amendment was reasonable and would give more parts of the cattle industry a say.
'I believe it is vitally important that we have an agency in place to provide oversight that prevents fraud and theft in that industry,' Storer told the Nebraska Examiner. 'So at the end of the day, anything that's going to weaken that agency…to prevent fraud and theft is problematic.'
The legislation is set to be debated on the floor Wednesday.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate official rejects food aid cuts proposed by Republicans in megabill
Senate official rejects food aid cuts proposed by Republicans in megabill

Miami Herald

time22-06-2025

  • Miami Herald

Senate official rejects food aid cuts proposed by Republicans in megabill

A top Senate official on Friday night rejected a bid by Republicans to slash federal food aid payments as part of their sweeping legislation carrying President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, sending party leaders scrambling to find another way to help offset the massive cost of the bill. The measure passed by the House last month and on track to be considered in the Senate next week would cover part of the cost of extending and expanding large tax cuts by cutting social safety net programs including Medicaid and nutrition programs, including SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Republicans are moving the bill through Congress using special rules that shield it from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must comply with a rigorous set of budgetary restrictions meant to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. And the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, must evaluate such measures to ensure that every provision meets those requirements. Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP measure, which would push some of the costs of nutrition assistance onto the states, did not. That sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She also said Republicans could not include a provision that would bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving SNAP benefits, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. The House-passed bill would require all states to pay at least 5% of SNAP benefit costs, and more if they reported a high rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. That provision was estimated to save roughly $128 billion. Senate Republicans were unsettled by that plan, arguing it would tee up insurmountable budget shortfalls for their states. They softened it, advancing a lower share for states to shoulder than that set forward by the House proposal. On Saturday, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., the chair of the Agriculture Committee, said GOP senators would continue to try to find a way to cut food assistance that complied with Senate rules. 'To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars, the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,' Boozman said in a statement. He said he was looking at options 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, cheered the parliamentarian's decision, saying she had 'made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.' Several fiscal hawks in the House and Senate have complained that the legislation does not do enough to cut federal spending. With the parliamentarian's ruling, Republicans will have to find another way to slash a huge sum of money that their members also feel comfortable voting for. The ruling was just one piece of a broader review the parliamentarian is conducting of the Republican-written legislation. She was expected to work through the weekend evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order. Should they fail to do so, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it, which would effectively kill it since Democrats are solidly opposed. The parliamentarian also will determine whether Republicans can keep a provision that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, and whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025

Chicago City Clerk to stop accepting online applications for CityKey municipal ID program after receiving ICE subpoena for records
Chicago City Clerk to stop accepting online applications for CityKey municipal ID program after receiving ICE subpoena for records

CBS News

time14-06-2025

  • CBS News

Chicago City Clerk to stop accepting online applications for CityKey municipal ID program after receiving ICE subpoena for records

Chicago is pausing online applications for its municipal ID program, known as CityKey, after receiving a subpoena for records from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "This was a tough decision as this program serves a number of vulnerable populations that rely on the accessibility of CityKey, and ultimately, that's also the reason I'm pausing our online platform," City Clerk Anna Valencia said in a statement. "Making decisions that protect people is vital during a time where the federal government is terrorizing its own people, and I'm going to keep speaking out and standing up for all Chicagoans." The CityKey ID helps people who are undocumented or unhoused who might have problems getting or maintaining an ID card. People can still apply for a CityKey ID in person by making an appointment online. The clerk's office said applications and documents used to validate and print CityKey IDs are returned to the applicant, meaning no online records are maintained of applications. In addition to serving as a government ID card, CityKey also works as a Ventra card, library card, and prescription discount card. The Chicago Tribune reported last week that ICE had subpoenaed the clerk's office for personal information of CityKey applicants. Mayor Brandon Johnson's administration has vowed to fight the subpoena, and on Wednesday the mayor condemned the Trump administration's attempt to access applicants' records. "It's bad," the mayor said. "It's wrong." The City Council authorized the CityKey program in 2017, but it wasn't until December 2024 – after President Trump was elected to a second term – that the city began taking online applications for the ID. State law requires the city to retain records submitted online, so unlike with in-person applications, the city must keep records of online applications for the ID.

Upstate Democrats oppose cow limit for dairy farms
Upstate Democrats oppose cow limit for dairy farms

Yahoo

time05-06-2025

  • Yahoo

Upstate Democrats oppose cow limit for dairy farms

(WIVT/WBGH) – Some Upstate Democrats in the New York State Assembly are pushing back on a proposal that would limit the size of dairy farms. Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, who is chair of the Agriculture Committee, and three of her Democratic colleagues issued a news release this week in opposition to a proposal by downstate Democrats to end the authorization of dairy farms with more than 700 milking cows. Lupardo says she was disappointed that the bill would be crafted without consulting anyone in the dairy industry. She also says dairy farmers are some of the best stewards of the land that she knows. Lupardo added that she doesn't foresee the bill going anywhere. Eucharistic Procession makes way through Binghamton Celebrate Pride Month with an evening of laughter at Schorr Family Firehouse Stage Roosevelt reflects on the legacy of Principal Dave Chilson Mercy House prepares for $2.1 million expansion Upstate Democrats oppose cow limit for dairy farms Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store