ANTHRAX FOUND IN CATTLE CROSSING STATE LINES INTO SOUTH DAKOTA
PIERRE, S.D. – Anthrax has been confirmed in a group of cattle originating from North Dakota, which moved through a South Dakota auction market.
Working quickly to determine the cause of death of a single animal at the auction market, a South Dakota auction market veterinarian helped diagnose anthrax by sending samples to the South Dakota State University Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory.
The South Dakota Animal Industry Board (AIB) promptly tracked all cattle in this group to their destinations and notified owners of the potential threat.
“Once again, the AIB is grateful for the dedicated private veterinarians we have in the state,” said South Dakota State Veterinarian, Beth Thompson. “Anthrax can be a devastating disease, and we were quickly able to determine the movement of exposed animals because the veterinarian took immediate action and the livestock market had complete records.”
A consistent vaccination protocol is important to keep livestock free of disease. The Anthrax vaccine is effective and allows ranchers to take steps to protect their herds. If Anthrax is suspected, contact a local veterinarian or the AIB at 605-773-3321 as soon as possible.
If there is suspicious death in the herd, do not move carcasses until a diagnosis is made. Proper handling of affected carcasses by burning and burying is important to help prevent additional impacts.
Anthrax can be an economically devastating disease for all livestock because it may cause rapid loss of many animals in a short time. Affected animals are often found dead.
Anthrax spores survive indefinitely in soil and much of South Dakota has the potential of having contaminated soil. Weather events, such as drought, floods and winds can expose the anthrax spores to livestock.
Other factors that affect the spores are certain soil types, high humidity, and high temperatures, which allow the anthrax spores to become infectious to grazing livestock.
LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT ADDS $42,000 TO THE COST OF SOUTH DAKOTA NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENTS TO THE BORDER
PIERRE, S.D. (Seth Tupper / South Dakota Searchlight) – South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem’s troop deployments to the nation’s southern border now have another cost: $42,000 to settle a lawsuit over a watchdog group’s document request.
The federal government recently paid the money from funds earmarked for the South Dakota National Guard, according to a National Guard spokesman.
The money went to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known by the acronym CREW, in Washington, D.C. The nonprofit’s work “targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests and personal gain,” according to its website.
In 2021, Noem deployed 48 Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, using $1 million donated by Republican billionaire Willis Johnson, of Tennessee.
CREW submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents related to the donation and deployment. The South Dakota National Guard denied the request, and CREW filed a lawsuit against the Guard and the U.S. Army.
The nonprofit ultimately obtained records showing the deployment cost the state nearly $500,000 beyond the $1 million donation. Email records showed that Jeff Marlette, then the state’s adjutant general of the National Guard, was involved in framing Noem’s language about the donation and deployment despite saying publicly that he was unaware of the donation until after the deployment was planned.
CREW criticized the donation and deployment in a news release last year.
“The use of the private donation to activate the troops was widely covered in national media not only as unprecedented, but also unethical and legally dubious,” CREW said.
CREW’s lawsuit sought not only the release of the documents but also payment for the organization’s costs and attorney fees. The litigation remained pending until this September, when the parties told a judge they had reached a settlement. The settlement is not included in the public court file, but South Dakota Searchlight obtained it through a records request to the South Dakota National Guard.
The donation-funded deployment was one of three that Noem ordered to the nation’s southern border from 2021 through this year. The state spent $2.7 million on those deployments through May, according to the state Department of Public Safety.
The Johnson donation covered $1 million of those costs, and Noem tapped South Dakota’s Emergency and Disaster Fund to cover the rest. Although the troops were deployed to assist the state of Texas secure its border, Noem has said she will not ask Texas for reimbursement.
CUSTER STATE PARK BUFFALO ROUNDUP SETS NEW ATTENDANCE RECORD
PIERRE, S.D. – The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks announced today that a new Custer State Park Buffalo Roundup attendance record has been set.
The park had 24,178 visitors attend the 59th annual Governor’s Buffalo Roundup, surpassing the previous record of 22,690 visitors set in 2023.
“The weather may have been warm, but the event was deemed a success across the board,” said Lydia Austin, Custer State Park Visitor Services Supervisor. “We had a large variety of news coverage from international and local outlets, and once again, SDPB hosted the event online.”
The animals’ condition is excellent overall, and park staff plan on working the animals through the corral system the week of October 10. The park rounded up approximately 1,485 animals, including the 488 calves born in 2024. The park will sell approximately 474 animals at its annual auction on Nov. 2, 2024, and plans to overwinter 975 bison.
In addition to the Buffalo Roundup, the Custer State Park Arts Festival, held September 26 – 28, 2024, was a resounding benefit. This annual event featured over 140 vendors and showcased the region’s vibrant arts scene amidst the park’s breathtaking natural beauty, drawing 19,225 attendees.
FARM BILL KICKED DOWN THE ROAD UNTIL AFTER ELECTION, CONGRESS NOW TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Allison Winter / States Newsroom) – Sweeping legislation that would set food and farm policy for the next five years is in limbo, waiting for lawmakers to decide its fate after the election.
The latest deadline for the farm bill passed unceremoniously at midnight on Sept. 30, without a push from lawmakers to pass a new farm bill or an extension.
Congress will have to scramble in the lame-duck session set to begin Nov. 12 to come up with some agreement on the farm bill before benefits run out at the end of the year — which if allowed to happen eventually would have major consequences.
The law began 90 years ago with various payments to support farmers but now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.
Ag coalition in disarray
The omnibus farm bill is more than a year behind schedule, as the bipartisan congressional coalition that has advanced farm bills for the last half century has been teetering on the edge of collapse.
Congress must approve a new federal farm bill every five years. The previous farm bill from 2018 expired a year ago. With no agreement in sight at the time, lawmakers extended the law to Sept. 30, 2024.
The delay creates further uncertainty for farmers, who are facing declining prices for many crops and rising costs for fertilizer and other inputs.
Lawmakers have some buffer before Americans feel the consequences of the expiration.
Most of the key programs have funding through the end of the calendar year, but once a new crop year comes into place in January, they would revert to “permanent law,” sending crop supports back to policy from the 1938 and 1949 farm bills.
Those policies are inconsistent with modern farming practices and international trade agreements and could cost the federal government billions, according to a recent analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
‘Groundhog Day’ cited by Vilsack
The stalemate between Democrats and Republicans over the farm bill has centered on how to pay for it and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters in a press call on Saturday that the process “feels like Groundhog Day” — because he keeps having the same conversations about it. Vilsack said Republicans “just don’t have the votes” on the floor for legislation passed in the House Agriculture Committee, which is why it has sat dormant in the House for four months.
“If they want to pass the farm bill they’ve got to get practical, and they either have to lower their expectations or raise resources. And if they’re going to raise resources, they have to do it in a way where they don’t lose votes, where they actually gain votes,” Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, said.
The Republican-led committee approved its farm bill proposal largely on party lines at the end of May, amidst complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.
Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.
Shutdown threat
Lawmakers are on borrowed time with both the farm bill and the appropriations bills that fund the federal government.
The House and Senate both approved stopgap spending bills at the end of September to avoid a partial government shutdown. The short-term funding bill, sometimes referred to as a continuing resolution, or CR, will keep the federal government running through Dec. 20.
Some agriculture leaders had asked for the continuing resolution to not extend the farm bill, to help push the deadline for them to work on it when they return.
The day after they approved the CR and left the Capitol, 140 Republican House members sent a letter to congressional leadership asking to make the farm bill a priority in the waning weeks of 2024.
“Farmers and ranchers do not have the luxury of waiting until next Congress for the enactment of an effective farm bill,” the letter states, noting rising production costs and falling commodity prices that have put farmers in a tight spot.
House Democrats also say they want to pass a new farm bill this year.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, listed the farm bill as one of his top three priorities for the lame duck. Also on his list were appropriations and the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy for the Pentagon.
“It will be important to see if we can find a path forward and reauthorize the farm bill in order to make sure that we can meet the needs of farmers, meet the needs from a nutritional standpoint of everyday Americans and also continue the progress we have been able to make in terms of combating climate crisis,” Jeffries said in remarks to reporters Sept. 25.
Nearly 300 members of the National Farmers Union visited lawmakers in September to ask for passage of a new five-year farm bill before the end of 2024.
“Family farmers and ranchers can’t wait – they need the certainty of a new farm bill this year,” National Farmers Union President Rob Larew said in a statement after the meetings. “With net farm income projected at historic lows, growing concentration in the agriculture sector, high input costs and interest rates, and more frequent and devastating natural disasters, Congress can’t miss this opportunity to pass a five-year farm bill.”
Disagreements over SNAP formula
The key dispute for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.
It would keep SNAP payments at current levels but place a permanent freeze on the ability of future presidents to raise levels of food support. Democrats have characterized it as a sneaky cut to vital support for hungry Americans that makes the bill dead on arrival.
Republicans are using the limits as part of a funding calculation to offset other spending in the bill. The bill would raise price supports for some crops like cotton, peanuts and rice.
“They have to do one of two things,” Vilsack said of lawmakers. “They either have to recognize that they can’t afford all the things that they would like to be able to afford, if they want to stay within the resources that are in fact available … Or another alternative would be to find more money.”
Vilsack recommended finding other sources of funding outside the farm bill, like changes to the tax code.
“You close a loophole here or there in terms of the taxes or whatever, and you generate more revenue, and you have that revenue directly offset the increase in the farm bill. … That’s the correct way to do it. And that’s, frankly, the way Senator Stabenow is approaching the farm bill,” Vilsack said, referring to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
The Senate Agriculture Committee has had no public markup or formal introduction of a bill. But leaders say committee staff have been meeting weekly to discuss a path forward. Stabenow has not publicly disclosed the offsets for the money she says is available to be moved into the bill.
