Can the South Dakota State Brand Board hire and pay the salary of a third livestock inspector to work alongside the SD Stock Grower's Association's existing inspectors, with the Association paying for the inspector's car and other expenses?
Plain-English summary
The SD State Brand Board oversees livestock ownership inspections (brand inspections at sales, shipments, and movements of cattle and other livestock). By 1965-66 the Board was operating a system in which inspections were carried out in cooperation with the SD Stock Grower's Association, a nonprofit cooperative of cattle ranchers. The Association had two inspectors in the field, and the workload was growing.
The Brand Board wanted to add a third inspector. The plan was: the Board would hire and pay the inspector's salary, but the Stock Grower's Association would furnish the inspector's car and pay the other operating expenses. The Board asked the AG whether the underlying statute, SDC 1960 Supp. 40.1201-2, authorized that arrangement.
The AG said yes. The statute is broadly worded. It lets the Board employ "such person, persons, corporation or corporations" as it considers necessary, fix their compensation, and make the expenditures needed to carry out the Act. It explicitly contemplates designating a nonstock, nonprofit cooperative livestock-grower association as the agency for inspection work, with the Board fixing compensation. It also lets the Board delegate police powers to the chief inspector and up to two additional inspectors, whether employed by the Board or by a designated agency, for enforcement of brand, ownership, transportation, and theft laws.
Putting the pieces together, the AG said the Board could hire the third inspector directly, pay the salary, and write the contract with the Association so that the Association supplied the car and covered the expenses. The arrangement was within both the Board's hiring authority and the Board's contracting authority with the Association.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1965-66. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The SDC 1960 Supp. citation has been replaced by modern SDCL Title 40 (animals and livestock). The current SD Brand Board sits under modern statutes that may organize inspector authority differently, and the specific limit on numbers of inspectors with police powers should be checked directly. The general principle that statutory grants of authority include necessary implementing powers remains stable, but the specific brand-inspection framework should be looked up in current law.
What the opinion meant at the time
For the SD State Brand Board in 1966, the opinion cleared the way to add a third field inspector under a public-private cost split. The Board could budget for the salary while leveraging the Association's vehicle and field-expense infrastructure. The Board did not have to either absorb the entire cost on the state side or push the entire cost onto the Association.
For the SD Stock Grower's Association, the opinion confirmed the cooperative-agency arrangement. The Association would furnish the vehicle and pay operating costs, in exchange for the operational benefit of an additional inspector working in coordination with the Association's existing two.
For SD ranchers shipping or selling cattle, the practical effect was more inspector capacity in the field, with the cost split between the Board's appropriation and the Association's dues structure rather than being passed through entirely as a brand-inspection fee.
For other states with similar brand-inspection frameworks, the SD model showed how a state board could combine direct employment of an inspector with cooperative-agency operations to scale enforcement without scaling state payroll dollar-for-dollar.
Common questions
Q: What does a livestock brand inspector do?
A: Inspects cattle and other livestock at sales, shipments, and movements to verify ownership by brand. Brand inspection is the historical mechanism in Western states for preventing cattle theft and resolving ownership disputes. Inspectors typically have peace officer authority for brand-law enforcement.
Q: Why involve the Stock Grower's Association?
A: SD's framework permitted designating a nonstock, nonprofit cooperative association of livestock growers as the Board's agent for inspection work. That let the state work in partnership with the industry's own organization, sharing infrastructure (offices, vehicles, field staff) while keeping ultimate authority with the Board.
Q: How many inspectors with police powers can the Board authorize?
A: Under SDC 1960 Supp. 40.1201-2 as it stood in 1965-66, the Board could delegate police powers to a chief inspector and up to two additional inspectors. Whether those inspectors were employed by the Board or by a designated agency, the police-power delegation was capped at three total (chief plus two others). The opinion implicitly treats the proposed third inspector as the second of the two additional positions.
Q: Can the Board pay an inspector who is technically working for the Association?
A: The opinion treats the proposed arrangement as the Board hiring the inspector directly (so the salary goes from Board to inspector), while the Board contracts with the Association for the Association to provide the car and pay the inspector's expenses. The Board pays salary; the Association provides infrastructure and operating support.
Q: Are the inspector's enforcement duties limited to brand inspection?
A: No. The statute extended police powers to "enforcement of all the laws pertaining to the inspection, sale, branding, misbranding, ownership transportation or theft of livestock." That is a broader livestock-enforcement scope than just brand inspection.
Q: Could the Association have hired the inspector directly instead?
A: Yes, under the cooperative-agency designation. The statute let the Board delegate police powers to inspectors employed by the designated agency as well as those employed by the Board. The choice between Board employment and Association employment was a policy choice about funding, supervision, and accountability.
Q: Did the opinion address the contract terms?
A: The opinion answered the threshold legal authority question. The actual contract between the Board and the Association (who supervises the inspector, performance standards, termination rights, expense reimbursement details) was left to the Board to negotiate.
Background and statutory framework
SD's State Brand Board was created to administer the state's livestock ownership inspection system, a function with deep roots in Western ranching law. Brand inspection traces back to the open-range era when proving ownership of cattle at sales or movements required visual verification of the registered brand against state records. The infrastructure of state brand boards, county brand inspectors, and brand-of-record registries grew out of that need and persists in modified form in many Western states.
SDC 1960 Supp. 40.1201-2 set out the Board's structural authority. The Board could employ "such person, persons, corporation or corporations" it considered necessary, fix their compensation, and make the expenditures needed to carry out the Act. The Board could designate a "nonstock, nonprofit cooperative corporation of growers of livestock" as its agent for inspection work, fixing the agent's compensation. And the Board could delegate police powers to the chief inspector and up to two additional inspectors, whether employed by the Board or by the designated agency, for enforcement of brand, ownership, transportation, and theft laws.
That dual-track structure (direct Board hiring on one side, cooperative-agency designation on the other) gave the Board flexibility to combine direct state employment with industry-side operations. The Stock Grower's Association was the natural cooperative partner for cattle, given its statewide membership and its existing field infrastructure.
The 1966 question presented a hybrid arrangement that drew from both tracks. The Board would hire and pay the inspector (direct employment track), but the Association would furnish the car and pay operating expenses (cooperative-agency contracting track). The AG read the statute as broad enough to permit that hybrid. The hiring authority covered the salary; the contracting authority with the designated cooperative covered the car and expenses; the police-power delegation covered the inspector regardless of which side furnished what.
The opinion does not separately address budget authority for the Board's portion or the Association's authority to commit to the vehicle and expense outlay. Both were presumed to be in place. The legal question was strictly whether the statutory structure permitted the hybrid arrangement, and the AG said it did.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDC 1960 Supp. 40.1201-2 (State Brand Board powers; inspector hiring and police-power delegation; cooperative agency designation)
Source
Original opinion text
Brand Board. Authority of State Brand Board to hire special inspector to work with the South Dakota Stock Grower's Association.
You have requested an opinion of this office based upon the following factual situation:
"Owing to an increase in work load, the Stock Grower's Association can use another inspector to work with the two inspectors now employed. The Brand Board paying the salary, the Association paying the other expense involved and furnishing the automobile."
You ask the following specific question:
"Is there any statute whereby the Brand Board can employ a special inspector to work with the Stock Grower's Association and pay his salary direct to him?"
SDC 1960 Supp. 40.1201-2 states in part:
"...the Board shall, in addition, have authority to employ such person, persons, corporation or corporations at it may consider necessary to properly carry out the provisions of this act, under the supervision and control of the Board, and to fix the salaries and compensation of such person, persons, corporation or corporations, and shall have authority to make such expenditures as. are necessary properly to carry out the provisions of this Act. The Board shall have authority to designate as an agency for the carrying. on of livestock ownership inspection work, under the supervision and control of the Board, a nonstock, nonprofit cooperative corporation of growers of livestock, and to fix the compensation of such (corporation). The Board shall have authority to delegate to, and vest in, the chief inspector and not to exceed two other inspectors, whether employed by the Board or by any agency designated by the Board for the purpose of carrying on of livestock ownership inspection work, police powers for the enforcement of all the laws pertaining to the inspection, sale, branding, misbranding, ownership transportation or theft of livestock..."
The above quoted section specifically authorizes the employment of a chief inspector and not to exceed two other inspectors, provides for a contractual relationship with a nonprofit co-operative association such as the Stock Grower's Association, and provides for the necessary expenditures to properly carry out the provisions of the Act. In addition, this section provides that the duties of such inspectors, among others, shall include enforcement of all the laws pertaining to "theft of livestock."
Therefore, it is my opinion that the State Brand Board may employ a third inspector, the Board paying the salary of such inspector and as part of its contract with the Stock Grower's Association provide that such inspector's expenses and automobile be paid for and furnished by the Stock Grower's Association.