[ndt]

"Yea, I don’t see why they should receive a cent from the state. I also don’t see why the state should mandate the destruction of the herd. Just, IMO."

In the case of a disease like brucellosis, it is so infectious that the situation is a little like the TB guy that's in quarantine. Not limiting it would be so immediately devastating to the community that I have to agree that it is a valid govenment role to prevent it's spread.

I don't know why this type of scenario is not covered by insurance though. If it raises the price of beef, so be it. Otherwise we are essentially eating subsidized beef. You pay for it one way or the other.

[Montana Headlines]

I doubt that one could insure against brucellosis. Not sure, though.

The point at issue is that ranchers are not allowed to manage the source of potential infection.

Since they are not, the cost is the responsibility of the agency that won’t let them control it.