• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

South Dakota Brand Board election bill

L

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Okay, this is legislation I've been working on all summer and I want to present my ideas to those of you in South Dakota who have a dog in this fight.

My main objective is to remove any hint of politics from the Brand Board issue while maintaining a reliable, inexpensive, and very necessary, brand inspection program in South Dakota.

Would you producers from South Dakota read over my notes and point out any improvements that should be made in this before I take it to LRC to have it drafted? Please give me your comments.

I plan on seven brand inspection districts instead of the current five, with only one district east river where there is no brand inspection.

Here is what I have now:

* Brand Board members must be registered brand owners and livestock producers in South Dakota.

* Brand Board candidates must submit a petition signed by ten registered brand owners within that district to be added to the ballot.

* Ballots will be sent out from the South Dakota Brand Board office to registered brand owners from each of the seven districts.

* Brand Board elections will be held every four years in odd numbered years.

* The South Dakota Secretary of State will supervise the ballot count with the assistance of the Brand Board office.

* Each brand owner will only be allowed one vote even if they own more registered brands. Joint owners of the same registered brand would each be allowed a vote. Corporations will only be allowed one vote.

* If the brand owner has an address in a state bordering South Dakota, they may vote in the district closest to their mailing address if the mailing address is in a county bordering South Dakota.

* Brand owners from foreign countries and from states not bordering South Dakota can not vote.

* All four of the members currently on the Brand Board are from separate districts so this will not create a conflict for them, should they decide to run.

Make 40-18-15 and 40-18-17 consistent. Both should read SHALL instead of 40-18-15 saying MAY and 40-18-17 says SHALL.
 
I know I'm not for SD but was wondering if it wouldn't be better to have elections every two years with half the board up that way it would keep some continuity to the board. Takes away the chance of a wholesale change. :-)
 
That was one of the issues I discussed with a lawyer in our legislative research council and he reminded me that all of the South Dakota senators and representatives are up for re-election every two years and it hasn't been a problem on the legislative level so he didn't see that it would be a problem for the Brand Board either.

It would also be less expensive to hold the election of the whole board every four years instead of having elections for half of the board every two years.

Big Muddy, thanks for reading this over and commenting even if you're not from SD. I appreciate comments from anyone who understands brand inspection and it's importance to producers.
 
Looks good. I also had the same thought as Muddy.

But try this. Just playing devil's advocate.

I have a brand in my name.
I have one in mine and my wife's name.
My wife and I are part owners in a corporation that has a brand.
I have a partnership with by brother, the partnership has a brand.
My brother has his own brand.

How many votes do I get?
How many does my wife get?
How many does my brother get?
Do we also get one for the corporation?
Do we also get one for the partnership?

Just trying to make it tough.
 
Good question Cinch, and that's one that had me scratching my head for awhile. I did come up with the solution though and you must have missed it. Each person would only be allowed one vote, no matter how many brands they own. Here it is again and I hope this answers your question:
* Each brand owner will only be allowed one vote even if they own more registered brands. Joint owners of the same registered brand would each be allowed a vote. Corporations will only be allowed one vote.
 
So in the case where my wife and I own part of a corporation, but we also have a separate joint ownership of a brand, it would be like this:

I get a vote
My wife gets a vote
The corporation gets a vote

Right?

Is a partnership treated like a corporation or is it treated like joint ownership of a brand?


Also, another monkey wrench to throw in.
Is there consideration for minors who own a brand or who have joint ownership of a brand? Can they vote like everybody else.
 
LB, I think you have done well.

I have 3 brands all registered in my name as an individual. So I have one vote and IMO that is as it should be. If I'd get married and/or had a kid I could transfer a brand to their name and they could have a vote. :P

If I sold a brand on the open market, then the new brand owner would have a vote if they did not own a brand before.

In short, I believe every owner should have a single vote whether owning single or multiple brands.

Thank you for your service and keep up the good work, LB! :wink:
 
This is a slightly different subject, but related. East river salebarns should still require brand inspection. It's too easy for a trailer load of cattle to go across the river and get sold unchecked.
 
Richard Doolittle said:
This is a slightly different subject, but related. East river salebarns should still require brand inspection. It's too easy for a trailer load of cattle to go across the river and get sold unchecked.
Click to expand...
I agree, but until the east river producers realize how many of their own cattle are disappearing through their local sale barns where ownership doesn't have to be proven to sell livestock, nothing will be done in the legislature. Last year a west river producer, Rep Tom Brunner, brought a bill to have statewide inspection and his bill didn't even make it out of the Ag committee because there was no demand for inspection from east river.

That may change this year. A newly elected east river rancher, Charlie Hoffman, is in favor of statewide inspection. I'm posting the comments from another blog about the governor's new appointment to the Brand Board. The first quote is from Rep. Charlie Hoffman. You'll find this interesting:

Comment by Charlie Hoffman on December 10, 2008 @ 11:31 am
As a cattle rancher living just forty five miles East of the Mighty Mo and six miles south of ND I find it completely insane that SD does not have a statewide brand law. That said though it sure makes it easy for cattle rustlers to steal cattle in East River SD. At least no one has to ever wonder about how I would vote in Pierre on a statewide brand law anymore. This is a no brainer.

Comment by Nick Nemec on December 10, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I'm with my State Representative Charlie Hoffman on making East River part of the brand inspection area. There is more cattle theft going on than most people realize.

The conduct of the actual inspection program should be bid out to the lowest bidder. Any interested organization or company (including the SD Department of Agriculture) could submit a bid, lowest one wins a five year contract, at the end of the contract period review the results and rebid.

Comment by Ranger on December 12, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Well Charlie, maybe you can do something about a statewide brand inspection. The ranchers on the west side of the river have been losing cattle across the river for years, but what most east river producers don't realize is that they have been having their cattle stolen in much greater numbers because there is no brand inspection before livestock is sold on your side of the river.

Having brand inspection statewide does NOT mean that you have to brand your cattle if you don't want to, but it would sure prevent a lot of theft if everyone had to prove ownership of the livestock being sold.

Go for it and you can be sure we'll be cheering you on from this side of the river!

http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/6374#comments
 

Latest posts

Back
Top