Nebraska bill would abolish mandatory brand inspection

Two competing brand law reforms are set to be heard by the Nebraska Legislature, a fight that mirrors bills introduced during 2020’s short 60-day session.

LB 1258, introduced by District 16 Senator and Agriculture Committee member Ben Hansen of Blair, would eliminate the Nebraska Brand Committee, eliminate mandatory brand inspection and change the name of the Livestock Brand Act to the Livestock Protection Act.

Hansen, a chiropractor whose district is outside the brand inspection area, modeled his bill off Kansas’s voluntary brand inspection. LB 1258 would establish a new Brand Registration, Brand Inspection and Livestock Theft Investigation division under the Department of Agriculture. The new agency would provide for voluntary brand inspection as proof of ownership upon request for a fee.

LB 1258 would also allow the state to contract with brand inspectors rather than employing them, and appears to allow “any documentation or other satisfactory evidence of ownership” to be considered proof of ownership for livestock, and removes the “physical inspection” language in the law.

District 47 Senator Tanya Storer, a Cherry County rancher[1] , proposed an amendment to 1285 which would strike the word “protection” and insert the word “dead capitol.” District 31 Senator Kathleen Kauth, a business owner from the Omaha area, proposed an amendment to “strike the enacting clause.”[2] 

A 2025 bill promoted by Senator Teresa Ibach to reduce inspection fees for RFLs could enter the discussion this year as well.

District 40 Senator Barry Dekay, a 4th-generation rancher and farmer from Verdel, introduced LB 1187, which would increase the cap on inspection fees from the current limit of $1.10 to $1.50. Dekay’s bill would give the Nebraska Brand Committee the ability to increase the brand inspection fee to $1.50 or less. It would not necessarily equate to a $1.50 inspection fee increase, but rather would give the Committee the option to set the fee at an amount no more than $1.50.

Additionally, Dekay’s bill would establish a maximum $30 mileage surcharge for ranch/feedlot/”country” inspections. Similar to the inspection fee cap, this change to the law would not necessarily mean that the Nebraska Brand Committee would set the mileage surcharge at $30, but would give them the option of establishing a surcharge at a rate of $30 or less.

Dekay said he wants to make the brand inspection fee as cost effective as possible and keep brand, “in some form, as close as we can to what we have today.”

Nebraska Brand Committee Chairman Duane Gangwish of Lexington, weighed in and said the brand committee supports LB 1187 and opposes LB 1258.

The Nebraska Brand Committee recently implemented a mileage fee structure for inspections that take place outside of an auction barn.

Inspectors will now charge the federal rate for mileage, and if they travel to multiple locations during the same outing, the first operator pays the mileage from “home base” to their location (we will call that point A), the next operator pays the mileage from the first location to their location (point A to point B), the next operator pays from point B to point C and so on. The NBC doesn’t charge the operators for the return mileage. They pay the inspector for the full trip, but the NBC covers the expense of the return trip.

Chief Brand Investigator Tom Hughson said he believes the surcharge concept, like the one contained in LB 1187, is the most fair way to charge producers mileage.

“I’m a proponent of the surcharge idea in the spirit of equality,” said Hughson.

Mileage can be difficult to split up when an inspector travels to more than one location before returning home. In addition, the surcharge is fair to every producer rather than putting producers who live further away from a brand inspector at a financial disadvantage.

Hughson said if the bill passes as is, the brand committee protocol would likely charge each producer the set rate for each visit to a particular location. He pointed out that if an inspector conducts more than one inspection at a particular location (for example, inspects loads of cattle for multiple owners at a feedlot), the mileage surcharge would be divided evenly between those paying the brand inspection fees. If an inspector looks at cattle belonging to three different people at one location, the mileage would be split evenly three ways.

The legislation comes on the heels of two different Nebraska cattle ownership issues which captured media attention over the last few months.

Senator Storer is unimpressed by the fact that a legislator who lives outside of the brand inspection area (the brand inspection area is the western 2/3 of the state) and doesn’t own cattle filed a bill, co-sponsored by three other non-livestock legislators who reside outside of the brand inspection area, to essentially kill the brand inspection program.

“There is nothing about Hansen’s bill that reflects any thoughtful consideration from the industry,” she said. Storer pointed out that cattle prices are at all-time highs. “This bill is an attempt to make a mockery of the most valuable fluid cash commodity in our state. It’s a reflection of how little the (cattle) industry is understood by the majority of legislators in Lincoln, and it’s not the kind of change that will result in good policy,” she said.

“This is the highest value we’ve ever seen in the cattle industry, and we’re talking about pulling back inspection requirements? That is a complete insult,” she said.

Storer said that members of the Nebraska Brand Committee took the time to meet in interim hearings this past summer to provide valuable input regarding changes that could improve the inspection program. Storer said some solutions focused on ensuring that cattle that move into RFLs but don’t change ownership are not inspected more than necessary. “The brand committee spent considerable time working through recommended changes that included updates, and I have no reason to believe those recommendations are being considered right now,” she said.

“I will strongly oppose Hansen’s bill and I will strongly oppose legislation that weakens our ability as cattle producers in the beef state to have a system with integrity to prove ownership on a valuable asset. The core of this argument is the fact that we are talking about the ability to prove ownership on private property, which is a core value of this nation,” she said. As for the voluntary inspection concept, she said “You have to have a chain of command and a third party to prove ownership, not some helter-skelter voluntary system that has no legal teeth to it. Eliminating mandatory proof of ownership in a climate where cattle have never been more valuable is a completely insulting proposition,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal published a story on Dec. 23, stating that Bridgeport cattle feeder Cassie Lapaseotes allegedly transported cattle from her family’s ranch to her family’s registered feedlot without proper proof of ownership or a brand inspection.

Cattle arriving at an RFL will typically require a brand inspection unless directly moved from a point of inspection, such as the salebarn where the cattle were sold and purchased. If one operation buys cattle from a different operation, a brand inspection needs to be done to show the change of ownership. Additionally, cattle entering a Registered Feedlot must be inspected because cattle leaving the RFL for slaughter are not inspected on the way out.

Brand Committee Executive Director Don Arp said the purpose of the RFL is to allow inspections into the feedlot rather than out in order to minimize shrink and other issues when dealing with fragile market-ready cattle.

“If someone moves cattle from one LLC to the ownership of another, a brand inspection is required. And if that entity happens to be a registered feedlot, the ownership inspection will suffice for entrance into the feedlot,” Arp said.

If those steps aren’t properly followed, an investigator will look into the situation to determine what corrective action needs to be taken as far as education, a brand inspection, possible citation, etc.

“We have to see what is going on, but our first step is to try and help educate producers and try to get the situation fixed,” said Arp.

In a completely separate case, a McCook woman was arrested on felony charges related to allegedly fraudulent cattle purchases made in Keith County. Amanda Gentry, who shares no relation to current committee member Chris Gentry of Hyannis, was charged in Keith County District Court with theft by deception – more than $5,000 and identity theft.

According to court documents[3] , on Nov. 7, the owner of the Ogallala Livestock Market contacted a criminal investigator with the brand committee who reported 453 head of cattle totaling approximately $1.24 million were purchased by Gentry on Oct. 16.

Gentry bought the cattle on behalf of C&A Farms of Mansfield, Texas, and then had them shipped to a Red Willow County feedlot owned by Bryan and Ami Hauxwell.

An arrest affidavit for Gentry states that multiple attempts by the livestock market to collect payment were unsuccessful. The brand investigator contacted an individual named as the buyer for C&A Farms who denied having any involvement.

Gentry was located in McCook on Nov. 18, 2025, and arrested on felony charges, and transported to the Keith County Jail. Her criminal history includes convictions for bad checks, theft and failure to appear in court in Kansas and Missouri, according to the McCook Gazette.

Gentry was released on a $50,000 bond.