Update the membership of the Animal Industry Board to include a poultry producer.
Summary
SB 120 updates the membership requirements for South Dakota’s Animal Industry Board. The bill keeps the board at eight members appointed by the governor, but revises the required industry representation so that one seat is specifically reserved for a poultry producer. The measure also clarifies that all members, except the veterinarian, must be actively engaged in raising or marketing livestock or poultry in the state.
The bill further amends the state’s agricultural definitions to make clear that, for purposes of Title 40, the terms “livestock,” “domestic animals,” and “nondomestic animal” include poultry unless the context indicates otherwise. It also defines “poultry” to include chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and other game birds raised in captivity, while excluding pigeons and doves. These changes align the board’s composition and statutory definitions with the poultry industry’s role in animal health and regulation.
Impact
SB 120 changes South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 40-3-2, 40-3-3, and 40-3-10. Its practical effect is to add formal poultry-industry representation to the Animal Industry Board and to ensure poultry is clearly covered under the state’s animal industry statutes. The bill affects gubernatorial appointments, board eligibility, and the scope of regulatory terms used throughout Title 40, which may influence how animal health, disease control, and related agricultural oversight are administered for poultry producers and other livestock stakeholders.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous at each stage, with no recorded opposition in committee or on the floor. The lack of committee transcript material also suggests there was little public dispute or extended debate over the measure.
Contention
No significant contention is evident in the available record. The only potentially notable policy choice is the decision to create a dedicated poultry producer seat on the Animal Industry Board, which may have been intended to ensure representation for a growing sector of agriculture. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such issue was not a source of meaningful opposition among legislators.