A measure pending in West Virginia’s legislature would aim to boost the state's economy by taxing any veterinary service performed in that state. But some veterinarians oppose the bill on grounds that it could endanger animals. Introduced into the State Senate on Feb. 16, SB 335 would amend the West Virginia tax code to levy an 8% sales tax on a range of goods sold and services performed in the state, including fees charged by veterinarians for any treatment of small and large animals.
The General Assembly recognizes that persons who participate in equine activities, livestock activities, or llama activities may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in such activities. The General Assembly also finds that the state and its citizens derive numerous economic and personal benefits from such activities. The General Assembly finds, determines, and declares that this chapter is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. It is, therefore, the intent of the General Assembly to encourage equine activities, livestock activities, and llama activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities
Neonicotinoid pesticides would be subject to new restrictions and labeling rules under two bills proposed in Oregon. Labels would be required for pesticides containing neonicotinoids, as well as seeds and raw crops treated with the chemicals, under Senate Bill 928. The entire class of neonicotinoid insecticides would be restricted under Senate Bill 929 to only be available to licensed pesticide applicators, farmers and veterinarians. An exemption in SB 929 allows farmers to use the insecticides but doesn’t explain who meets that description. Raw agricultural and horticultural commodities would be labeled under SB 928 as being treated with neonicotinoids even if they contain no residue of the chemicals. Paul Jepson, director of Oregon State University’s Integrated Plant Protection Center.Jepson said he’s neutral on the bill but asked lawmakers to consider the trade-offs of the legislation.Without access to neonicotinoids, many backyard gardeners would probably substitute organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides that also kill insects but are more toxic to humans, he said, “I urge you to consider the consequences of using a blanket approach,” Jepson said.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has just launched the Cropland Grazing Exchange. The new online tool seeks to connect crop farmers and livestock farmers to improve soil health. Livestock are an integral part of achieving optimal soil health. They convert forages to more available forms of nutrients and help break up residue material and stimulate soil microbial activity. As crop production has become more specialized, the lack of livestock impact has become evident in declining soil health. “The Cropland Grazing Exchange is a simple solution to a sometimes complex issue,” said MDA Program Administrator Kelly Anderson. “Modern agricultural tools like portable watering systems, temporary fencing, and remote solar energizers make it possible for livestock producers to graze their herds on a short-term basis. That gives livestock farmers more grazing options, and it also helps stimulate soil health for crop farmers. It’s a win-win.”
Colorado livestock could be eating hemp as early as next year, thanks to a bill directing the Colorado Department of Agriculture to study the use of industrial hemp in animal feed. Mike Sullivan, the owner of Johnstown-based Hemp Farm Colorado, said the inclusion of hemp in animal feed could solve one of the biggest problems hemp farmers face. “One of the real big problems with the hemp industry is there’s hardly any processors out there that are buying materials straight from the farmer. This would be a great leap forward,” he said. The use of hemp in animal feed is forbidden because the Food and Drug Administration considers hemp an adulterating substance. State Sen. Kerry Donovan wrote and sponsored the bill, which passed the Legislature unanimously and awaits the governor’s signature. The study would be headed by the commissioner of agriculture and would result in a recommendation by the end of the year. The bill initially intended to allow hemp in livestock feed without a study, but Donovan said a study could help avoid further complications with the FDA. The Congressional Research Service identified 25,000 uses for industrial hemp in a report released this year.
Vermont pushed back against President Donald Trump’s immigration orders with a new law on Tuesday that limits police involvement with the federal government and gives the governor the power to sign off on agreements for officers to do federal immigration duties. Republican Gov. Phil Scott called it a response to federal overreach by the Trump administration.Under the law, state and local police officers are prohibited from collecting personal information on residents beyond what’s needed to carry out their law enforcement duties. It also bars police in some instances from providing information on residents to federal agents. The bill was introduced in February with support from Vermont leaders of all political stripes, including Democratic Attorney General TJ Donovan and Progressive-Democrat Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and cleared the House by a wide margin. Before signing the bill, Scott addressed concerns that Vermont’s law would conflict with federal immigration laws.
Filing lawsuits over alleged pesticide damages would be easier in Oregon under a bill that would eliminate a plaintiff’s responsibility to first notify farm regulators. Currently, anybody who claims to be harmed by pesticides must submit a report within 60 days to the Oregon Department of Agriculture before taking legal action against the landowner or applicator.Senate Bill 500 would remove this requirement, which is characterized by proponents as an unfair impediment to justice and by critics as a reasonable barrier to frivolous litigation.“Keep things the way they are,” urged Denver Pugh, a farmer near Shedd, Ore., during a March 22 legislative hearing.Pugh said pesticide spraying at his family’s operation was blamed for injuring the trees and shrubs of a nearby organic grower, who filed a “report of loss” with the ODA.After an investigation, ODA determined the damage was actually caused by hail, not pesticides, which prevented an unnecessary lawsuit, said Pugh. Critics of the bill argue the reporting requirement allows ODA to gather facts substantiating or repudiating the claims of pesticide loss, thus avoiding litigation based on weak or nonexistent evidence.The 60-day window also ensures that accused farmers have an opportunity to collect their own evidence, which may not be possible if a lawsuit is filed long after an alleged incident, opponents say.Greg Peterson, a tree farm owner, said ODA officials determined that his pesticide usage had no connection to the death of fish at a nearby property, contrary to the neighbor’s accusations.
The House of Delegates on Saturday approved a bill aimed at jump-starting the process of trying to protect West Virginians from future flooding and reduce damage to lives and property from floods that do occur. House Bill 2935 creates a State Flood Protection Planning Council, a multi-agency panel that would resume examination of a long-ignored plan aimed at protecting communities across the state from flooding. It would also create a permanent legislative committee that would oversee flood protection, response and recovery efforts. “I am grateful today for the House of Delegates’ unanimous support for this legislation,” said House Speaker Tim Armstead, the bill’s lead sponsor. “I believe this bill, and the committee and council it creates, will be a crucial step forward in improving our planning and mitigation of future disasters.” The bill appears to be the first significant move by lawmakers this session to revisit a long-dormant “Flood Protection Plan” which was published more than a dozen years ago, but never fully implemented.
Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled in April in Seattle in an “ag-gag” appeal that has pitted Idaho officials against the Animal Legal Defense Fund in a constitutional battle. The case, Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v. Idaho Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden, landed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill tossed Idaho’s “ag-gag” statute. Winmill, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, struck down the statue on constitutional grounds. Wasden filed the appeal on behalf of the Idaho with 9th Circuit which is headquartered in San Francisco. The case is one of four state laws involving agricultural trespass that are being challenged in federal courts by animal activists’ groups. Idaho’s Chief of Civil Litigation, Steven L. Olsen, contends that the many ALDF and numerous amici curiae “argue vigorously about what the law should be, not what it is.”“The First Amendment does not displace the state’s authority to protect the right of landowners to limit access to the property,” Olsen argues. “Gaining access through misrepresentation infringes on that right. Neither journalists or special interest advocates have any constitutional dispensation from this rule, e.g. no First Amendment exception of ‘high value lies.’ ”
Governer Hutchinson signed Arkansas House Bill 1665 adding a civil cause of action to the state's code that permits individuals to sue over the unauthorized access to non-public areas of commercial property. Of course, animal rights activists called it an ag-gag bill. It applies to the “unauthorized use” of commercial property, meaning businesses, agricultural or timber production operations including buildings and outdoor areas not open to public and even residential properties used for business purposes.Anyone who knowingly gains access to a nonpublic area of such property and engages in an act that “exceeds the person’s authority to enter the nonpublic area is liable to the owner or operator for damages sustained by the owner or operator.”An act that exceeds a person’s authority to enter a non-public area of a commercial property is for one that does not involve business or employment reasons, and without authorization subsequently results in:The employer’s data, papers, records or other documents are removed for uses that damage the employer;Images or sound being recorded in the non-public area for use in a manner that damages the employer; and Unattended cameras or electronic surveillance equipment being placed for unattended use in the non-public areas.