3

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

Â

115 Beef cattle The following counties submitted all or part of current policy.

St. Francis, Sharp, Franklin 1.

We support amending the brucellosis program by changing the testing requirement to a random sampling.

-- Perry

2.

We oppose legislation that removes brucellosis control to Arkansas farmers.

-- Union

3.

We support the Arkansas Brucellosis Eradication Program be broadened to include other cattle health issues.

-- Van Buren

4.

We support changing the current brucellosis fee to include other cattle health issues.

-- Baxter

5.

We urge the Livestock & Poultry Commission to be able to use the $1 per-head, collected on beef cattle for brucellosis, for other animal diseases that arise in the state.

-- Nevada

6.

We support retaining the brucellosis fee of $1 per-head and allowing the fee to be used for other cattle health issues.

-- Bradley

7.

We support maintaining the a maximum $12-per-head fee on cattle to support Arkansas’ Brucellosis Eradication Bovine Animal Health Program. We further recommend that this fee be authorized for use on other all cattle health needs as determined by the Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Commission.

-- Sebastian

8.

We support maintaining the $1 per head on cattle for use on cattle health needs as determined by the Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Commission.

-- Faulkner

9.

We support using the money from the brucellosis program can be used to fund other livestock health programs as long as Arkansas is a brucellosis free state.

-- Garland

Â

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

Â

10.

We support continuing the brucellosis animal health program with an increase from $1 to $2 per head as long as the program mandates the funds for brucellosis vaccination only.

-- Conway

11.

Strike: "We support maintaining the $1 per head on cattle to support the Arkansas Brucellosis Eradication Program." Replace with: "We support increasing the fee up to $2 per head on cattle to support the Arkansas Brucellosis Eradication Program."

-- Benton

12.

We support the $1 per-head livestock health program but oppose any attempt to increase it.

-- Fulton

13.

We recommend that the $1 per-head fee that is currently being collected on all cattle sold in Arkansas markets be redirected to support future funding for Arkansas animal health programs.

-- Searcy

14.

We support continued collection of the $1per-head fee for brucellosis with test being expanded to cover other cattle health issues and any increase in the fee should require legislation.

-- Crawford

15.

We support the down-sizing of the present brucellosis program to match the income derived from the $1 per-head assessment. The down-sizing should start with the sale barn activities of tested and vaccination of cattle. The $1per-head fee should remain and any surplus to be used to fight other cattle diseases.

-- Howard

16.

We support the present "brucellosis fee" being changed to a more general animal health fee as well as the Equine Infectious Anemia surveillance fee. The coming animal disease traceability program; brucellosis surveillance (at market or slaughter) calfhood vaccination support; operation of the state diagnostic lab; and other necessary inspections services should be a combination of fees per use as needed by market facility, veterinarian, and the animal owner.

-- North Logan

17.

We support the current brucellosis program. When other health issues arise, we support adequate funding on a fee per-head basis.

-- White

Â

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

Â

18.

We support changing the current brucellosis fee to a general animal health fee and limit livestock and poultry commission's ability to set the rate without legislative approval.

-- Madison

19.

We recommend that a legislative oversight process be developed to serve the management of funds collected for the current brucellosis program and other bovine health issues.

-- Polk

20.

We support maintaining a field force for the Livestock & Poultry Commission to monitor and implement animal health oriented programs. Funding for services provided by field technicians should be supported by the $1 per-head fee on all cattle sold in Arkansas. Any additional funds needed should be sought from federal or state general funds prior to imposing this per-head fee on producers.

-- Yell

21.

We support maintaining an adequate force of technicians within the Livestock & Poultry Commission to monitor the health of the cattle industry. If reduction in services becomes fiscally necessary, we propose phasing out testing cows for brucellosis at livestock markets and using the $1 per-head fee to preserve cattle health capabilities as needed by the commission if more funds are required by the commission for these services, consideration should be given to increasing the $1 per-head fee on cattle sold in Arkansas.

-- Washington

22.

We recommend the termination of the brucellosis program in Arkansas that requires mandatory testing at local markets of adult cows and requires calfhood vaccinations of all eligible heifers sold in Arkansas markets and returning to Arkansas farms.

-- Searcy

23.

We propose all bulls 16 months old or older sold at livestock markets be tested for trichomaniaisi if they are returned to an Arkansas farm.

-- Washington

24.

We support the $1 beef checkoff program as it stands in its current form.

-- Lawrence

25.

We oppose any ID regulation or legislation that would require beef cattle producers to identify the animals on their farm.

-- Scott

26.

Because of the extended statewide drought and shortage of hay, we recommend the re-introduction of the statewide hay registry.

-- Franklin

Â

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

Â

27.

We support use of any university approved by-products such as rice bran, gin trash, DDG, poultry litter, etc., for livestock feed.

-- Sevier

28.

We oppose any attempts to ban the use of poultry litter as livestock feed.

-- Yell

29.

We support the use of chicken litter as a feed or fertilizer as long as it is used according to the guidelines put forth by the UofA and UofA Extension Offices.

-- Hot Spring

30.

We support the continued use of poultry litter as a feed source as long as the science and guidelines set forth by the UofA Division of Agriculture deems it safe.

-- North Logan, Scott

31.

We oppose the restriction of the use of poultry litter as a feed source and encourage the use of guidelines set forth by the UofA Division of Agriculture.

-- Madison

32.

We support the use of chicken litter as a food source for cattle.

-- Pike

33.

We favor properly managed poultry litter as a feed source for livestock.

-- Columbia

34.

We support the continued use of poultry litter as a livestock food source. There have been no known instances of disease from feeding litter, which has been used for decades.

-- Washington

35.

We support the use of poultry litter as a feed source for beef cattle based on university research that no harm comes from feeding litter to beef cattle.

-- Little River

129 Equine 1.

Â

We support funding horse slaughter inspection.

-- Boone

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

Â

145 Animal care The following counties submitted all or part of current policy.

Cross, Hot Spring 1.

We oppose any effort to expand or broaden animal cruelty laws.

-- Montgomery

2.

We favor striking language supporting a constitutional amendment similar to the Ohio Animal Care Board. (Was removed from policy in 2010).

-- Hot Spring

3.

We oppose any regulations on the number of companion animals or domestic livestock that an individual can own.

-- Sevier

4.

We oppose any limitation on animal ownership, but not to exceed local regulations.

-- Sebastian

5.

We oppose legislation designed to require animal agriculture producers and processors to adopt unnecessary and unreasonable practices for the protection of farm animals. (Also in N-301Animal Care) -- Union

6.

We oppose any attempts to place ownership restrictions on any animals.

-- Yell

7.

We oppose any limitations in animal quantity of ownership as long as acceptable industry standards are being followed.

-- Madison

8.

We oppose any restrictions on the number of companion animals and/or domestic livestock an individual can own.

-- Little River

Â

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

Â

9.

We oppose any limit on the number of breeding units of any animal (including, but not limited to, animals traditionally referred to as pets, i.e., dogs and cats) or any restrictions on production techniques for any animal. We believe that the current animal cruelty statue, Arkansas Code Annotated 5-62-101, is sufficient to curtail any potential animal abuse.

-- Marion

10.

We oppose any legislation that imposes legal guidelines on how to properly care for livestock.

-- Union

11.

B) The interim study before the General Assembly to review the Act, and will work Working with the Veterinary Medical Examining Board to enhance understanding and clarification of the Veterinary Medical Practice Act; and ‌.

-- Sebastian

12.

Add c, d, e, f, and g to: "(D) The Veterinary Medical Practice Act exceptions allowing:" c) The art of professional horseshoeing. d) Training, except that the training shall not include diagnosing, prescribing, or dispensing of any therapeutic agent. e) Selling medicines, feed, appliances, or other products used on the prevention or treatment of animal diseases as permitted by law, by any pharmacist, merchant, or manufacturer at his/her regular place of business. f) Collection, preparing, or freezing semen, and g) Performing nonsurgical artificial insemination.

-- Sebastian

13.

We oppose: a) Exemptions that would change the Veterinary Medical Practice Act's definition of veterinary medicine; b) Exemptions that have a negative effect on the education and recruitment of large animal veterinary practitioners; c) The replacement of "routine accepted livestock management practices" with the specific terms, vaccination, branding, deboning, castration, deworming, and other parasite control, and d) "Non-Veterinary ownership of licensed veterinary practices."

-- Sebastian

Â

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

14.

Strike: “b) The owner of an animal, his/her consignees and their employees, to perform routine accepted livestock practices in the care of animals belonging to the owner.” Replace with: “b) The owner of an animal, his/her consignees, their employees, or contractor to perform routine accepted livestock practices in the care of animals belonging to the owner.

-- Washington

15.

We support the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association positions statement on non-DVM/VMD opposing equine teeth floating and their position supporting massage therapy dated July 2, 2012.

-- Yell

16.

We recommend people who are "teeth floating" on animals other than their own, only be allowed to do so under the supervision of a veterinarian.

-- Crawford

17.

We support compensation for teeth floating by a non-DVM/VMD. -- Washington

18.

Animal rights' groups are targeting the youth in school and the media. We support the continued efforts to educate them on the widespread deceiving nature of these groups.

-- Scott

N-301 Animal Care

1.

We oppose legislation designed to require animal agriculture producers and processors to adopt unnecessary and unreasonable practices for the protection of farm animals. (Also in 145 Animal Care) -- Union

N-307 Equine 1.

We recommend that equine processing facilities be offered federal inspections by USDA as it is with other agricultural livestock commodity processing.

-- Polk

2.

We recommend that equine processing facilities be offered federal inspection by USDA as it is with other agricultural livestock commodity processing.

-- Montgomery

Official Book for Subcommittee 3

N-308 Livestock & Poultry Health The following counties submitted all or part of current policy.

Montgomery

1.

We support any university research approved by-product, shown safe as a feed additive, be available to livestock producers.

-- Sebastian

N-309 Livestock Identification

1.

We believe the present system for livestock identification is sufficient.

-- Johnson