Concerning the reporting of missing livestock to the department of agriculture.
Summary
SB 26-136 requires the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s division of brand inspection and the state board of stock inspection commissioners to receive reports of lost or stolen livestock. It directs the division to adopt procedures, by December 31, 2026, to improve coordination with law enforcement when livestock theft is reported and suspected, including a requirement that relevant law enforcement be notified within 24 hours after the division receives and reviews a report indicating a likely theft. The bill also requires the division to establish a way to notify the public about reported lost or stolen livestock.
The bill allows the division’s procedures to vary by geographic region, recognizing that reporting and enforcement needs may differ across the state. It is framed as a public safety measure and includes a safety clause, indicating legislative intent for immediate effect.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado law in Title 35 governing the state board of stock inspection commissioners and brand inspection procedures by adding a new requirement that both the board and the division receive reports of lost or stolen livestock. It also imposes a rulemaking and implementation mandate on the division to create law-enforcement coordination and public-notification procedures, with a specific deadline and a 24-hour reporting trigger for suspected livestock theft. The measure affects livestock owners, brand inspectors, the Department of Agriculture, and local law enforcement agencies involved in theft investigations.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally supportive sentiment. The bill passed through the agriculture/natural resources committees and was ultimately signed by the governor, and there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts indicating significant opposition. Its focus on improving theft reporting and coordination appears to have been viewed as a practical response to a livestock industry concern.
Contention
No formal committee debate or recorded votes are available in the provided materials, so specific objections are not documented. The main policy choice embedded in the bill is how the new reporting and notification procedures should be implemented, including whether regional variation is appropriate and how quickly suspected thefts must be escalated to law enforcement. Any contention would likely center on administrative burden, enforcement logistics, and the scope of public notification, but those concerns are not expressly reflected in the record provided.