Cattle graze on pasture beneath the foothills of the Wind River Range in Lander. (Nick Reynolds/WyoFile)

Newly passed legislation that would allow Wyoming bison and cattle ranchers to use any method of state-approved livestock identification — rather than federally mandated eartags — could soon be challenged by federal policy.  

The policy may erode a recent victory by Wyoming’s ranching industry that earned them more autonomy over tracking their animals, and industry groups are watching developments closely. 

In 2019, ranchers in eastern Wyoming and Montana filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a new mandate requiring ranchers to use a specific type of high-tech eartag tracking device when transporting stock across state lines. 

The remote frequency identification devices enable federal regulators to track the movements of cattle in the supply chain and help better identify diseases, which proponents say could  potentially boost consumer confidence.  

But when the RFID requirement was implemented in 2019, the ranchers argued the policy change would put them at a competitive disadvantage to their neighbors in Nebraska, who — raising and feeding their cattle in the same state — would not have been subject to the same requirement. The rule change was also implemented illegally, the ranchers — represented by New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney and former Wyoming gubernatorial candidate Harriet Hageman — alleged, passed as part of an agency fact sheet with no formal public comment period.  

After the NCLA sued on behalf of the ranchers, the USDA reversed course. And in the 2021 legislative session, state lawmakers codified that victory through House Bill 229 – Livestock identification choice act, which would allow Wyoming bison and cattle ranchers to use any method of livestock identification approved by the state to track their livestock.  

“If you go back 20 or more years, there’s always been a widespread reluctance throughout the ranching community, to put any type of permanent identification on their animals other than the good old-fashioned brand that’s used for identifying ownership,” Jim Magagna, executive director of the Wyoming Stockgrowers’ Association, said. “Identification for traceability has been something that the industry has resisted for a long time.”  

Cattle in rural Wyoming. (Aaron Groote/FlickrCC)

There are currently a number of requirements for USDA certification. However, disease traceability is currently a jigsaw puzzle of regulations, often differing from state to state. Wyoming, for example, has its own tracking program administered through the Wyoming Department of Agriculture to monitor spread of diseases like brucellosis.  

For years, the USDA has sought to implement a new standard for traceability but hasn’t found success, leading the agency to “legislate by guidance,” according to the NCLA. 

Opponents of the tags — which cost about $5 a piece — have often made argued against them on financial grounds, saying their requirement would present an undue burden on cattle producers in states like Wyoming who regularly cross state lines to feedlots in states like Nebraska. Other groups, like the WSGA, have argued that any system in identifying livestock for diseases should be driven by the states, rather than the federal government. 

Those plans could eventually be coming. Though the USDA has since rescinded its RFID requirement, the agency announced in March it will  pursue the requirement anew through the formal rulemaking process, saying in a news release itcontinues to believe that RFID tags will provide the cattle industry with the best protection against the rapid spread of animal diseases.” 

If those regulations are deemed to be constitutional and ultimately adopted by the USDA, they would overrule Wyoming’s HB-229. Sen. Brian Boner (R-Douglas), a rancher and a co-chair of the Legislature’s Joint Agriculture Committee, said that the importance of Wyoming’s bill lay primarily in “having a discussion” about the state’s relationship with federal mandates.

“I’m not an attorney, and I don’t know if a bureaucracy can just unilaterally decide to overrule a state law,” Boner said Monday while on a break from tagging calves on his ranch in Converse County. “Certainly a law passed by Congress does, but I don’t know if the bureaucracy can unilaterally do that, especially with a change that could cost the livestock industry well over a billion dollars in additional costs. So I think that it’s important enough that we stand up for our producers and give them some protection under state law to at least have that litigated.”

Support independent reporting — donate to WyoFile today

In recent months, the USDA has sought to increase the adoption of the technology by offering 8 million free RFID tags to ranchers.  

“This will not only help offset the costs of switching to RFID tags, but also help us more quickly respond to potential disease events,” former USDA Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Greg Ibach said in a statement announcing the rollout of the program in August 2020. 

It is still unclear if the rule changes will ultimately go through. In February, Hageman filed a lawsuit on behalf of the ranchers arguing the federal government failed to comply with federal law while using two advisory committees to gather information necessary to implement the RFID eartag mandate. If the lawsuit succeeds, the NCLA wrote in a news release, the USDA “will not be able to use any of the recommendations or information obtained from the unlawful advisory committees in proposing a new RFID rule.” 

Magagna’s organization is unlikely to support the newly proposed RFID requirement, he said. The WSGA’s position could be flexible, however, assuming the federal government avoids turning the technology into an unfunded mandate on cattle producers, he said. 

“I would anticipate at this point as an organization that we will likely not support it as it’s been proposed,” he said. “But we will withhold some judgment on that until we see exactly what is proposed. If it’s flexible enough or if it came with funding for the USDA to provide the tags or something, there is always the possibility that we could change our position, certainly.” 

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published.

  1. The real reason that so many flannel and rawhide Wyoming Stockgrowers are fearful of new technological means to keep track of cattle ? — it would obsolete the classic red-hot smoking Running Iron used for two centuries to ” identify” cattle just fine. Usually in the middle of the night …

    If it ain’t broke , don’t fix it.

  2. The “importance” of domestic cattle to the US and the rest of the world, in practical effect, is essentially zero. And getting the cattle off of public lands would be a tremendous benefit to the rest of Wyoming residents and tourists.

  3. Interesting article to appear at this time with the world still confounded by pandemic. Do we need an economically important species to suffer the consequences of another “jigsaw puzzle of regulations,” This is just idle speculation on my part, but hoof and mouth disease is caused by another RNA virus, Could it mutate in a dangerous way? Will veterinarians be consulted for a followup Wyofile article to discuss the risks and benefits of this unfunded federal mandate in greater detail?

    1. Wyoming livestock are undoubtedly “…an economically important species…”, but only to Wyoming livestock farmers. Their contributions to the state domestic product (state gross product) and the national food supply are minor.

      1. An “economically important species” to farm supply stores, banks, implement dealerships, automobile dealerships, veterinary clinics, parts supply stores, feed stores, insurance companies, law offices, really just about any retail or service industry in any of the majority of towns in Wyoming.

        1. Without sales to people outside the commercial livestock (and plant) farming sector, those businesses, including “local” banks, would soon go under.