Montana House Bill 119, introduced by Republican state Rep. Brandon Ler, is advancing through the legislative process, aiming to establish the Montana Cattle Committee and implement a statewide $1 per head beef checkoff. The bill recently secured approval from the House Agriculture Committee with a 10-7 vote, followed by a 59-41 vote in the full House and a 13-10 vote in the House Appropriations Committee. It now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
The proposed Montana Cattle Committee would consist of seven members, all required to be Montana residents actively engaged in cattle production. Nominees for these positions would be submitted by agricultural organizations such as the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the Montana Cattlemen’s Association. The initial appointments would be staggered across one-, two-, and three-year terms to ensure continuity in leadership.
If implemented, the checkoff is projected to generate between $1.5 million and $2 million annually. These funds would be allocated toward beef promotion, marketing efforts, and research benefiting Montana’s cattle industry. The committee would be responsible for overseeing the disbursement of these funds, with potential recipients including local, state, and national beef organizations. Additionally, the bill outlines the creation of a special revenue account to manage the checkoff funds, which would require approval from cattle sellers through a referendum.
Supporters of the bill, such as the Montana Farm Bureau Federation’s Vice President Casey Mott, emphasize the potential benefits of a state checkoff, citing increased investment in local beef research and marketing initiatives. Mott explained to 3KRTV that the bill initiates the process, allowing cattle producers to vote on whether they want the program in place. Mott also highlighted that participation would not be mandatory, as producers could request a refund if they chose to opt out.
However, the proposal has faced criticism from groups like the Montana Farmers Union. Concerns have been raised about the bill’s lack of clarity regarding how the additional checkoff fee would benefit producers beyond what is already achieved through the Montana Beef Council. Critics argue that the Montana Beef Council, which predates the national Beef Checkoff program, is already effectively administering checkoff funds for beef promotion, research, and education.
Opponents point out that Montana feeder calves already command a premium in the market, and breed associations are actively promoting their members’ cattle. They argue that if additional funding is necessary, it would be more efficient to allocate resources to the existing Montana Beef Council rather than duplicating administrative efforts.
The Montana Beef Council currently utilizes 17 percent of Montana’s share of the national checkoff for administration.
Another concern is the structure of the Montana Cattle Committee, which would be politically appointed rather than fully representative of the industry. Some have suggested expanding the committee to 11 representatives, including members from organizations such as the Intertribal Agriculture Council, Montana Meat Processors, and Montana Feeders Association. Additionally, they propose that the governor should appoint one representative from each nominating organization, along with an at-large member, to ensure broader industry representation.
The bill’s referendum process has also drawn scrutiny. Critics argue that the current language lacks key requirements, such as a minimum voter turnout threshold and a time limit on the initial voting period. They propose implementing a 40 percent voter turnout requirement for validity, a 30-day limit for the first referendum voting period, and a requirement to revisit the referendum every five years to ensure continued producer support.
Another issue raised is the potential allocation of funds to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which some Montana ranchers believe disproportionately benefits large meat packers. Critics argue that checkoff funds should remain within Montana or be directed to local, tribal, or state organizations rather than sent to the NCBA. Additionally, the bill’s refund process, which requires producers to request a refund within 45 days of sale, has been deemed cumbersome, with calls for an annual refund option instead.
Concerns also extend to the lack of informational statements included in the referendum process. Critics argue that ballots should contain both proponent and opponent statements, similar to Montana’s statewide ballot initiatives, to ensure that producers are fully informed before voting.
