Small Farmers in uproar over NAIS (National Animal ID System).

[Dover]

The Farmer's market was abuzz with the news, and many an angry conversation could be overheard.

My favorite organic farmer is fuming over this new legislation which is purportedly a response to issues of animal disease control. It will require the tagging of many farm animal species (cows, goats, pigs, horses, emu, etc.) He says they'll be tagging US next. He feels it's a way for them to get information/control over small farmers and GPS readings on farm locations. He says its voluntary for now, but will be enforced soon. The cost is only $20 to join but will carry a penalty of a $1000 per day for noncompliance. I see they are doing this in Canada and the UK as well.

The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency began using RFID tags as a replacement for barcode tags. The tags are required to identify a bovine's herd of origin and this is used for trace-back when a packing plant condemns a carcass. Currently CCIA tags are used in Wisconsin and by US farmers on a voluntary basis. The USDA is currently developing and implementing its own program.

The U.S. NAIS (National Animal Identification System) Program: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/about/index.shtml

Discussion:
http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/farmlife/msg111654486927.html

UK - http://www.ritcheytagg.co.uk/NetBuildPro/process/24/Legislation.html?PHPSESSID=edb509f7f4aea87200000fc4af6c9665

Wikepedia on Radio Frequency ID Tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

[yellowcanine]

1. This is probably necessary if we expect to export meat and protect

the population from diseases like mad cow. As Big Brotherish as it sounds, I see no alternative.

[slaveplanet]

3. OK ..I heard the big farms were exempt

as the their lobbyists actually wrote the bill and exempted themselves.

This is about killing organic farming and access to peoples property

[yellowcanine]

7. I believe your information is incorrect. Do you have a link.

My understanding is that this would be implemented in large operations first. I have a hazy memory on it, but I have been at a couple of meetings where this was talked about and that is my recollection. If anything, one would expect the big operators to get behind it because economies of scale would give them an advantage over small producers. Most large animal producers aren't worried about competition from small producers anyway, as they don't compete in the same kinds of markets. Another way of saying this is that people who buy from small organic producers are never going to buy from the big boys anyway so it is a moot point - they will go vegetarian before they will buy meat raised on "factory" farms.

[slaveplanet]

8. heard it on the radio yesterday

Joyce Riley....It was also brought up that it would be illegal to take your horse off your property without prior governmental notification. No more trail rides.



ATTENTION

LIVESTOCK and HORSE OWNERS

ORGANIC and LOCAL FOOD CONSUMERS

THE USDA PLANS TO MAKE EVERY OWNER OF EVEN ONE HORSE, COW, PIG, GOAT, SHEEP, CHICKEN, OR PIGEON REGISTER IN A GOVERNMENT DATABASE AND SUBJECT THEIR PROPERTY AND ANIMALS TO CONSTANT FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE.

Under the present USDA plan, as of January 1, 2008:

● EVERY HOMEOWNER with any animals must obtain a 7-digit USDA ID number keyed to Global Positioning System satellite surveillance coordinates, with all the property and owner’s information permanently stored in a USDA database.

● EVERY ANIMAL must be tagged with a Radio Frequency tag or chip, readable at a distance, with a 15-digit USDA ID number.

● THE OWNER MUST REPORT, within 24 hours, every sale or purchase of an animal, every death or slaughter, every missing animal, every placement or loss of an ID tag, and every time an animal leaves or returns to the owner's property.

THIS PLAN WILL DRIVE SMALL FARMERS OUT OF BUSINESS AND WILL PREVENT CITIZENS FROM RAISING ANIMALS FOR FOOD OR PLEASURE.

PLEASE HELP STOP THE USDA PLAN

FARM for LIFE(TM) is a new public-interest organization opposed to mandatory animal ID. Please support our work by subscribing to our newsletter (to be published three times a year, first issue scheduled for November 2005).

For more information or to subscribe to the newsletter contact:

Mary Zanoni, Executive Director of Farm for Life, 315-265-2800.

http://thepowerhour.com/news2/livestock_database.htm

[DemonGoddess]

13. The tentative "plan" for horse owners is this

the animal(s) and premises are id'd. Doesn't matter if they're already registered, branded, tattood or freezemarked (thus identified), they will need an ADDITIONAL identifier under this plan. Should one want to go for a simple trail ride, the rider is supposed to fax that they are leaving the property with the horse, fax when they get to the destination (gee, what if it's in the woods, no fax machine :sarcasm: )and again fax when they leave the destination and then upon return to the barn. Don't you think that's a wee bit INTRUSIVE?? I sure as hell do.

I can already see one event that would be seriously impacted by this should it go through, and that's the Tevis Cup. An endurance race of 100 miles over rough terrain with NO way to fax this nonsense in to the bodies who'd require it reported in.

To me, this is just yet another way to find money from people with animals.

[pushycat]

20. "Another way to find money from people..." for CARLYLE GROUP

http://www.rfidgazette.org/asset_tracking/ (scroll down or search)

<Snip>"Tagging dogs in China

Advanced ID Corporation has entered into an agreement with the Carlyle Group, China. Under the agreement, Advanced ID Corporation will provide products and software to enable tagging 1 million dogs in the Guangdong province.

According to Allen Zhang, a principal of the Guangdong Carlyle RFID Technologies Ltd. (a venture company developed specifically by Carlyle and the government for companion and livestock animal identification efforts). "We are pleased to have Advanced ID Corporation begin the first part of our long-term animal identification strategy in Guangdong and further distribution other regions of China."<snip>

Wanna bet Carlyle gets into the action with this too?

[yellowcanine]

26. Ok please link to a USDA site that has a proposal like this.

[CottonBear]

57. No way is the US gov't micro-chipping my horse. No gaddamn way.

She already has a breed micro-chip, an annual Coggins test and an annual rabies vaccination (the last two are on file with the atate via the vet.)

[yellowcanine]

25. Please give a link to a USDA site that has a proposal like this.

There is a lot of stuff being bandied about. If you are going to cite USDA proposals than please link to the actual proposal not someone's interpretation of it.

[slaveplanet]

29. Look ..I'm relaying what I overheard

from a radio show that was playing in the background ...You asked for a link , I provided...I have no reason to believe she was lying. Why don't you provide a link that guarantees that the large agribusiness pushing for this won't bypass their obligations to their proposal by registering their animals NOT individually but as a herd or flock?

Now you know quite well you can't do that because the plans are not finalized, and won't be until just before implementation, as is the SOP when trying to pull fast ones on the populous.

Thus the petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/369063795?ltl=1140588916#body to try and inject some public input as up to this point they've been largely shut out.


If you want to find out how she reached her conclusions , why don't you call her at the phone number I've already provided.

Apparently She's studied this too...she's listed her reference points

Lack of Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard for Small Farmers and
Animal Owners.

The original impetus for a nationwide animal I.D. program came from a
private membership group, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture
(NIAA). (Plan, pp. 1, 4.) The members of the NIAA include such well-known
industry entities as Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto Company,
Schering-Plough, and the National Pork Producers Council. Further, of those
NIAA members listed as "National Associations and Commercial
Organizations," nearly 25% appear to be manufacturers and marketers of
identification technology systems. (animalagriculture.org/aboutNIAA/members/

memberdirectory.asp). In April 2002, the NIAA "initiated meetings that led
to the development of" the NAIS. (Plan, p. 1.) The NIAA "established a task
force to provide leadership in creating an animal identification plan."
(Plan, p. 4.) The NIAA already had been promoting animal I.D. for months
before the Department, through APHIS, became involved in the effort.
Moreover, the Department says that "he development of Standards] was facilitated by significant industry feedback." (Standards,
p. 1.) Essentially, a private group has dominated animal I.D. thinking and
has dictated the NAIS plan now being proposed by the Department.

That's about all I can tell you, As once again the plans are not in their final form.The final rule governing mandatory home and animal
surveillance will not be published until "fall 2007" (Plan, p. 10), leaving
only a couple of months, at best, for notification and compliance before
January 2008.

As for her other conclusions in post #8 ...She provides reference for those too.
You did read the Gardenweb thread offered up by the OP didn't you?



MARY-LOUISE ZANONI
P.O. Box 501
Canton, New York 13617
315-386-3199

Docket No. 05-015-1
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD
APHIS
Station 3C71
4700 River Road, Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238


Re: Agency Docket Number: 05-015-1

Docket ID: APHIS-2005-0044

Comments on NAIS "Draft Program Standards" and "Draft Strategic Plan"

June 29, 2005

Introduction

I practice law in St. Lawrence County, a leading dairy-producing region of
New York State. I am also the Executive Director of Farm for Life, a
nonprofit group supporting small-scale and sustainable farmers, and
citizens who raise livestock and crops for their own food. (We refer to
this last category as "home farmers.")

I have carefully examined the Draft Program Standards (Standards) and Draft
Strategic Plan (Plan) issued by the USDA (the Department) on April 25,
2005, in furtherance of the Department's proposed National Animal
Identification System (NAIS). Many aspects of the Standards and Plan appear
to create insurmountable legal, fiscal, and logistical problems. The
comments below address five categories of problems: (1) constitutional
infirmities of the proposed program; (2) an enormous economic cost to
animal owners, the States, the Department, and, ultimately, to American
taxpayers and consumers for a program likely to be ineffectual; (3)
weaknesses in the stated rationales for the program; (4) a lack of
consideration of alternative, far cheaper and more easily administered
measures which would more effectively protect animal health and food
security; and (5) a lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard for
medium-scale, small-scale, and home farmers, and for other citizens owning
livestock solely for their own use or pleasure, in the Department's process
thus far.

[yellowcanine]

30. Problem is you keep providing second hand information. That was

exactly my point. You are not the only one - lots of people are doing it here. It does not do anyone any good when people don't reference the original proposals. I am not going to take the time to read what somebody said about the proposals. It is only useful to discuss the actual proposals. Of course the proposals are not in their final form. That is why it is kind of misleading for people to say this and that is going to happen unless we do something. Why not look at the draft proposals themselves instead of indulging in fear mongering???

[slaveplanet]

34. She quite clearly has referenced the original proposal

both the standards and the plans and it is more than a mere proposal. It is a blueprint submitted by agribusiness and the RFID industry with very little if any public input.
Very little will change unless some major noise is made.

[yellowcanine]

38. This is the input phase now. There are no final regs. It is not enough

to "make major noise". You have to make reasoned arguments based on the actual proposals - not repeat what someone else says the proposals are. I don't doubt that SHE may have read the proposals. What I want is for YOU to read the proposals and not just post what SHE says about them. But I am repeating myself so I will let this go now...

[slaveplanet]

47. Look I have read the proposals

Just finished ....It is way worse than even she is describing.

Right from page 21 of the USDA PDF...swine exempt

Once the NAIS is fully
implemented, producers
should be able to register
their premises and then
contact a USDAapproved
Animal
Identification Number
Manager to obtain official
AIN Tags. Group/Lot
Identification Numbers
will be an option for
species, such as swine,
that typically move as a
group through the
production chain. (USDA
photo by Gene
Alexander.)

and on page 8 it clarifies

Producers with species identified as
groups or lots may use their premises number to establish the official
Group/Lot Identification of their animals.
Nowhere in the entire document does it say an AIN and GIN are required
It always says AIN or GIN
The document also describes the process of how a producer attains group status through a system of special animal identification number "managers" hand picked from non-producer labor pools after a rigorous screening process- translation: Good ole boy networking.

and here's this little gem from page 7-

In addition, the
September 11, 2001, attacks make clear that an intentional
introduction of an animal disease is a real risk.

Overall
Support

In a meeting (October, 2004) to discuss Strengths, Weaknesses
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) participants said one of the
strengths of the program is the broad industry, governmental, and
stakeholder support for a national animal identification program. In
listening sessions held by APHIS (June-November, 2004), 59 of 60
comments indicated support for NAIS.

Voluntary
Versus
Mandatory

In the listening sessions, 47 people commented on whether an
animal identification system should be mandatory or voluntary. Only
12 of the 47 said they prefer a voluntary system. 17 people
suggested that the system should be mandatory, while 18 people
suggested the program begin as voluntary, but should eventually
become mandatory. Therefore, a ratio of 3:1 respondents preferred
a mandatory program to a purely voluntary program.

Do you support a voluntary or mandatory program?
No response 08%
Voluntary 10%
Voluntary during developmental stages, but with a decided future
date for making the program mandatory 54%
Mandatory 25%
Unsure/No Opinion 03%

It is quite possibly the scariest thing I've ever read.
The Electronic Straight-jacket in Black and White for all to see...Repleat with
with vague definitions for "Animals", and "premises" and veiled language about rolling implementation and how this could easily be more inclusive to apply to even more "animals" once "infrastructure" is in place where "animals congregate" and how they're going to use public monies to fund the "infrastructure" and outline how to keep States or Tribes in Stage V recognition.

All prefaced by the Fear factor of 9/11 and "deliberate" disease and "Intentional disease introduction"

Folks go read it for yourself , They're clearly talking about this as a done deal and we're already about halfway through the timeline. And there will be a massive PR campaign announcement in April 2007 and "mandatory" compliance by Jan 2009.

Can rolling this over to humans be far behind that?
Would just one "Intentional disease introduction" have the media demanding it?
Time will tell

[yellowcanine]

56. GINs will only be allowed when the goal of quickly tracking diseases can

be met. For example, for a flock of broilers which are raised together in a house and go to a processing plant all at the same time it makes no sense to individually identify the chickens. Not only that, if avian flu hits one chicken in a flock the whole flock is killed.

As for "intentional disease introduction", you don't have to be a fear monger to believe that this is a real possibility. In fact, with the competitiveness among countries in the global market, there are probably many more people (than terrorist bombers) who might be economically motivated to damage the U.S. beef industry by deliberately introducing foot and mouth or mad cow disease - which would shut down beef exports for months and possibly even years. And it would be far easier to pull off than a terrorist bombing.

As for being worried about time lines and done deals....
This process started in December 2003.
Implementation by January 2009 hardly seems like a rush job. Just because some people have just found out about it does not mean it hasn't been under discussion in the agricultural community. Something has to be put down on paper in order to have a discussion. Have you ever been to a listening session? It is an excellent way of getting input from people who will be affected by a new program. If the USDA weren't holding listening sessions, soliciting comment, and promoting the program with PR campaigns then you would have something to complain about. How would you have them do it? I don't work for the USDA and certainly don't agree with everything they do but I think they are getting a bum rap here from people who haven't been paying attention and/or don't know what they are talking about and/or are pushing an anti-government agenda.

[ChrisCat]

60. My problem is that I've already been sent my application

from the Illinois Dept of Agriculture and I still have no idea what I'm getting into! Nothing has been made clear. I wouldn't mind tagging each one of my animals with a new tag that will make it easier to track an animal. I already tag my animals and keep excellent records. I called the number on the application to get more information, but I could only reach a secretary after three calls and she couldn't tell me anything because she didn't know anything about the program! Are they going to go with radio tags? Microchips? Retinal scans? Why do they want my GPS coordinates? What will the cost of the program end up being? What is a "sighting" of an animal? A "sighting" must be reported! I need more information before I commit. Why are they sending out applications if they don't even know what they're going to do yet???

[slaveplanet]

67. This is way beyond putting something down on paper

They are already installing the infrastructure, refer to the chart on page 17, In the green arrow it states "build IT and data collecting infrastructure"...This has been ongoing since early 2005 according to the chart. They plan on putting this in then announcing it by decree in APRIL 2007. At that point many small animal owners who don't have regular dealings with the USDA will be in for quite
the shock, as they will face the decision to slaughter, sell or CHIP in jan 2008.


Life is a risk, more people have been killed by starvation and accidental fire than all the terror attacks in the world to date...If you're so frightened of it, go move to a deserted island and become a vegetarian. Shoving a license plate up every animals' ass and handing out citations is not the answer to disease threat, nor is it freedom regardless of how much you're running around trying to pretty up the pig.

[Dover]

4. If you read the 'discussion' link,and read some of the arguments

and questions, I think you'll understand the implications and complications better. I'm guessing your opinion is based on the government's advertised reasoning which is a simplistic representation imo. See if you maintain that point of view after looking into it further.

[yellowcanine]

9. I think I understand the implications and complications. I have talked to

many farmers and animal scientists about this and don't really appreciate your condescending tone. The issues associated with controlling the spread of mad cow, foot and mouth, avian influenza, etc in today's global market are real, they are not government propaganda. If you had sat through a blow by blow account of the battle to control mad cow disease in Great Britain the way that I did (as told by a veterinarian who was there, NOT government bureaucrats), AND also an account of an outbreak of avian influenza on the Delmarva peninsula maybe YOU might understand the implications and complications better. So, thank you but I have already looked into it much further than your discussion link.

[Dover]

10. That was very revealing and enlightening. Thanks so much..

However you haven't addressed any of the REAL concerns mentioned in that discussion or this one. So it seems a rather lopsided and unbalanced opinion.

[yellowcanine]

23. The prospect of crippling animal epidemics is real enough that it is

necessary to have a national strategy. The fact is that if we had such outbreaks of disease - for example avian influenza, it is the small organic operations that would be hurt the worst. For example, free range poultry populations would be exposed to migrating birds carrying the influenza so those flocks would be the first to be "depopulated". Is that REAL enough for you?

I should also note that a lot of what is being stated here as fact is simply not the case. The NAIS is currently voluntary and the USDA is still discussing possible regulations with stakeholders so there currently are no regulations - just proposals. Even so, much of what is suggested here is a lot of internet speculation so I do not see the need to address it as you suggest. Show me a link to a USDA site that has a proposal that you object to and maybe we can have a useful discussion but I refuse to spend time on the wild assertions I am seeing here. To suggest that the current system is adequate is just ignoring the real possibility of devastating animal epidemics.

[DemonGoddess]

14. foot and mouth disease hasn't been seen in THIS country

for a VERY VERY long time. When there was an outbreak in the UK, people who were leaving the affected farms simply had to walk through a sanitizing solution for their shoes. It's easy enough to prevent the spread of it.

[yellowcanine]

21. Foot and mouth is just one example. I also mentioned mad cow

and avian influenza. And it is a mistake to think that because foot and mouth isn't as deadly as some other diseases that it is not serious. The fact is that if we had a foot and mouth outbreak in the U.S. it would shut down beef exports and thus would hurt the industry. It would be brought under control by killing off herds in where outbreaks occurred which could be devastating depending on how quickly it spreads. It is not to be taken lightly.

[KittyWampus]

33. How to control "Mad Cow"- 1. stop feeding cow offal to cows

2. start testing EVERY cow
3. increase.ENFORCE regulations as to HOW cows are raised and slaughtered

Tell you what when farmers and our government fully implement these few steps, then I'll consider the tag option.

[yellowcanine]

37. How are you going to be sure of the history of an animal you buy without

some sort of national ID program?

[KittyWampus]

43. the low cost methods we use now.

[yellowcanine]

52. Some animals have 5 different IDs. How is that low cost? Besides, the

ID won't necessarily be a microchip, it might be an ear tag - exactly the same cost as now. Specific technologies are under discussion. The purpose of NAIS is to find the most economical system that works for ID of animals and animal operations - not to promote a specific technology. Horse owners don't want ear tags - that is why microchips have been proposed for horses. But even that is not set in stone - it is possible that the ultimate result could be something like retinal scanning.

[riderinthestorm]

55. Ear tags can be changed

I had two of my dogs lose their microchips - they migrated out from underneath their skin. The vet couldn't believe it, and simply put in two more....

But even so, I do NOT want the government inrusion and invasion of my privacy. I don't see how the NAIS will alleviate ANY of the USDA's concerns about the spread of disease for horses for example.

And it would provide an enormous cost and onus on animal owners.

Oh, one more thing, you do realize that many disease like Strangles for example, can be transmitted to horses by humans who can carry the infection on their clothing. NAIS would do nothing to prevent that.

Unless all humans were chipped too....

[warrens]

39. Animal ID is going to be more and more important

Foot and mouth alone almost bankrupted the entire British livestock industry. Outbreaks of animal-based diseases are increasing rapidly (bird flu, BSE, etc.). This is not some plot to get a few more tax dollars from mom and pop ranchers (called "lawnmowers" in the biz) who raise a few cows and sell the meat at local markets. It's a serious program to fight serious diseases.

I am no fan of USDA or some of their cheerleaders in the livestock industry, but on this issue, there's really no other side. Being able to trace back a disease outbreak in minutes (RFID, retinal scanning) rather than weeks (England) could be the difference between a healthy economy and a total wreck. And that doesn't even consider the danger to humans of animal diseases.

[neweurope]

12. You can track every single German cow. We don't have RFID

tags yet. So it's perfectly possible to do without.

-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[DemonGoddess]

2. There IS an alternative.

We have programs in place already to deal with situations regarding the food chain. The big thing here, is that by not complying, small farmers will be forced out of business. Notice that included in this plan are also camelids which are not used for food here, and EQUINES who are companion animals in this country.

The big benefactors of this "plan" are the microchip manufacturers, and the big farm operations. The little guy loses with this all across the board.

[Dover]

6. Yep that's exactly right. A way to put the small farms out of business

or under greater control.

[warrens]

92. The reason they are included is they can spread disease

The cost of this program is minimal to the smaller guy, pretty expensive to larger ones, but the losses from FMD and other diseases are catastrophic. It is probable that the smaller guy will only have to give the buyer an affadavit if the animal was born and lived on his farm all its life; it's only when it first changes hands that a chip or other identifier (retinal scan, nose print, etc.) will be required. The problem with most ear tags and so on is that they can be lost or switched, so your worthless old cow could be identified as a prime Angus animal.

This program is necessary now that livestock move constantly. It's only a matter of who pays, but it's getting down to well under a buck an animal.

[riderinthestorm]

102. Where are you getting your data supporting your "low cost" assertion?

In my area, the microchips (and I'm not even touching RFID tagging) are $40/animal. That is a huge expense for pretty much anyone but especially when you consider the small farm with say 10 chickens, 2 goats, a milk cow, the family pony, a pig and some dogs and cats. This isn't "under a buck an animal".

And as has been proven over and over on this thread alone, the chips and other proposed ID methods don't prevent disease transmission at all.

And as I've also said over and over, for animals such as horses, they must have a vet certificate every time they move which certifies they are healthy so again, I'm not seeing how an ID system is nothing more than government intrusion - especially with the onerous paperwork they are proposing, and the creepy surveillance visits.

I re-iterate as well, humans can transmit diseases such as Strangles to horses via infected clothing or footwear. It's only a small jump to require farmer/human chipping as well once this type of program is enacted.

I don't trust the USDA on this, more importantly, it's NOT necessary.

[Lindsay]

5. They're using their power to stack the deck

in every possible way, aren't they?

My apologies to those who don't like doom and gloom - but the gang of crooks that is our government has really got me feeling beaten down today.

[MadHound]

11. Another way to drag the small farmer down

Why won't mandatory UPC tags work? Because they're cheap, plentiful and won't cost the small and organic farmer much at all. However chipped tags are expensive, thus putting another large burden on small and organic farmers, and those people who raise one or two animals for their own subsitence.

And somehow I doubt that it is going to be the animals at small and organic farms that will catch these diseases first. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions at the factory farms will lead to the disease outbreaks on those operations first.

[SoCalDem]

15. One good thing might come of this

Some of the western "ranchers" might start having to actually pay their fair share for grazing their livestock on federal lands.. For a LONG time they have been getting a "free ride" of sorts. If the true size of their herds is known, they may get charged what they owe:)...or they'll just have renegade cows with no id..:shrug:

[ChrisCat]

16. What's wrong with the current system?

I raise sheep and am required by the government to tag each and every one with a scrapie tag and to keep records. Every sheep I sell can already be traced back to my farm. The current program is at no cost to sheep and goat farmers. I received the papers for the new system and wasn't exactly sure how to fill them out. I called the Illinois Dept of Agriculture a few months ago, but the secretary I reached didn't know how to fill the papers out either. She took my number and said someone would call me back. No one ever has.

[DemonGoddess]

17. who knows? It works just fine I think

In order to transport my mares, in light of all this, I emailed Indiana's Dept of Ag to find out what, if any, new requirements there were for interstate transport. Nothing yet, just the normal must have coggins, current health cert, etc.

I'm not surprised no one has called you back.

[Dover]

18. Same question re: electronic voting. What was wrong with paper ballots?

They had to create an artificial crisis (the hanging chad) in order to ram their e-voting machines through.

It's the streamlining and control over information. Ever see the movie, The Corporation?

Corporations are determined to own and regulate everything under the sun.

[Trish1168]

41. Read the book "Spychips", and you'll get why this is a dangerous idea

They want to drive out small farmers and make us dependent on large producers, in my opinion.

[yellowcanine]

62. No thanks. I'll stick to the actual proposals and so should everyone

else. I don't need to read the product of some tinfoil hat guy.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi ChrisCat!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ChrisCat]

32. Thanks for the welcome!

I've been lurkin' a while....:-)

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. So they want to tag animals, Humans are animals too...

I wonder how much longer till they want to tag us too.

[bobbieinok]

24. sounds like 'we WANT to know everything about you and everything

you own'

tag cars, horses, and then people......no one will be able to go away for a bit without govt knowing exactly where you are

and say you're in a WWII resistance type scenario but happening today........there is really no chance for escape

[kineneb]

27. I have read some info on this

...seems it is mostly aimed at small farms and pets. No way in hell will I let them chip Henrietta (my pet chicken). Let 'em chip their children first, bastards.

[yellowcanine]

28. Link please to a USDA site that says it is aimed at small farms and

pets. Or did you read someone's interpretation of the proposals?

[ChrisCat]

31. Large farms will use a single lot number for a large group of animals

and small farms have to tag each animal with an individual number. Seems like more work for the small farmer to me.

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/subjects/animal_id/index.shtml

[slaveplanet]

35. GIN -thats the loophole

G as in group, a giant group as in herd

[yellowcanine]

44. You have made a leap there that isn't supported by the information on your

link. GINs are mentioned, it doesn't say when they will be used or when they can replace AINs. It would make sense to have both GINs and AINs for large animals such as horses or cattle. It might make sense to have only a GIN for small animals such as chickens. That is a good link you gave. If more people would read it I think they might see the sense of this idea. Right now there are a multitude of numbering systems for different situations and events. A single animal might have four or five different numbers. NAIS would eliminate the duplication by having a single number that identifies an animal.

On edit. Also GINs might be used for groups of animals which will never come in contact with other animals. There is no particular reason why a small farmer couldn't use a GIN under these circumstances.

[ChrisCat]

51. Ok, I'm a leaper

But I don't see what good a GIN will do. With an AIN, you would be able to trace the lineage of the animal in the case of an outbreak, but with a GIN, you would trace an animal to a group of animals that could be huge...and unrelated. How would that help to control a disease that can be passed on genetically like scrapies?

[yellowcanine]

53. GIN will only be allowed where it is workable. For example there is no

need to identify individually a flock of broilers that are staying in one house until they go to the processing plant. If there is one case of avian flu the whole flock gets depopulated anyway.

The same would probably apply to a batch of feeder pigs.

[riderinthestorm]

36. I am a small farmer

I've seen various forms of this proposal and this would be disastrous to me.

Firstly though, it appears to me that the one poster here, yellowcaninedog, keeps insisting that someone bring forth a copy of the proposals, well do it yourself dammit. I've seen a couple variations - in trade journals and FDA journals and heard them discussed on the farm report at the local coop. Yellowcaninedog, google is your friend - go ahead and get your own copy of the proposals. I know what I've seen and feel comfortable discussing it.

My problems with the current proposal revolves around three aspects:
1. I own 8 competition horses and board 40 more at my farm. We compete across the US. If I had to chip all of the animals at my farm (not just my own animals - I would also be responsible for enforcing this for all of those under my care and custody), document their movements at all times (again, not just for my own animals but I would also be responsible for enforcing this or doing it myself for everyone else as well as the farm owner) or face heavy fines of up to $1000 per incident, I would be out of business within a week. The horses are perpetually coming and going to shows, clinics, the vet clinic, for training, for symposiums, to be bred - you name it. Every single day. I couldn't sustain that level of paperwork or stress. We already work our asses off - the level of govt. documentation would swamp us.
2. My farm, our life, our business would be basically under surveillance at all times. Under the proposals I've seen we would have to submit detailed outlines of our operations, our layout - everything, PLUS they would be tracking our movements. This is insanely intrusive into my private life.
3. I know folks who are dirt poor but keep the family pony, sheep, milk cow, chickens and a pig on their farm to supplement their income - true small family farmers on small acreages. The financial burden of chipping all of those aniimals for them would be impossible and would literally eliminate this type of farm.

I know people don't think it's a "big" expense but the chips are close to $40/horse in my area. Multiply that by 48 (the number of horses on my farm) and it's damn expensive. And if the owner of the horses at my farm wouldn't comply I would face having to get it done at my own expense.

Make no mistake - this NAIS proposal is another measure designed to drive out small farmers.

[yellowcanine]

40. It is not my responsibility to document the claims of other posters. And

if you are boarding a horse and an owner doesn't pay for care for their horse (medical or otherwise) they come and get the horse. That is how the horse boarding operations that I am familiar with do it. If one doesn't do it that way people are going to take advantage of the boarding operation. I suspect the cost per animal will come down with widespread implementation. You do make a mistake to say that NAIS is designed to drive out small farmers. It is designed to provide a mechanism for tracking and controlling the spread of diseases. I would think that someone working with horses, and particularly competition horses, would welcome this proposal. In addition to tracking diseases and thus protecting horses involved in competitions from diseases like infectious anemia, national ID would make it more difficult for someone to switch horses in a race or competition as well as aid in tracking stolen animals. Information on special medical needs of a particular animal could be programmed unto the chip, allowing faster and more accurate treatment of a horse in the event of an accident or illness. Most states and events already require some type of ID. If fact I suspect that most horse owners would not participate in an event that did not require ID and vet certification. NAIS simply standardizes the process and makes it more foolproof. Instead of throwing up your hands and shouting "NO!" you should be providing input to the program as to how it can be implemented in a way that is fair to small farmers.

[Trish1168]

45. Diseases are no issue since we have effective vaccines and tests.

We have vaccines for west nile, EEE and other diseases. Who is going to RFID tag the mosquitos who spread EEE ?? Do you see how ridiculous this all is?? Also, we have coggins tests (we don't let in a new horse without a recent one and most shows require this too). I've never seen a problem with communicable diseases in all my years (14 or so) taking care of horses. How can you even try to defend this?

Don't you get it ?!!! Fear is their tool. Make us afraid and then they can impose their agenda of mass surveillance which can be perverted into tyranny (ultimately). Read the book "Spychips" and you'll get a clue of how they can use RFID technology against us.

Horses are doing just fine, thanks.

This isn't about disease. There are better ways for dealing with diseases like mad cow. How about not using the least sensitive tests (and instead using a test actually designed to detect the disease)? How about making more strict rules regarding cow feeds ? This is not about disease. Their motives are at best to sell RFID chips and at worst, for government to impose a tyranny (even if that is not the intent now, it could easily be turned into that....but maybe they understand this already).

[yellowcanine]

50. Vaccines and tests are less useful if animal ID can't be verified.

Some tests are cumbersome and expensive. If an owner has the animal tested for one event it is not necessary to have the animal tested again for another event if ID is verifiable. If ID is not verifiable some tests might have to be done every time at every event. That is way more expensive than the cost of an ID chip.

[Trish1168]

46. And one more thing, DNA is a better way to identify blood lines and ID's

We don't need chips that can track every move you make.

[yellowcanine]

49. It is not currently possible to quickly verify ID with DNA. Also NAIS

currently does not require a particular technology. Chips cannot necessarily track every move you make. RFID chips, which could be used to track movements, have been proposed but NAIS does not actually take a position on them. It is possible that certain animals would be required to have them and others not or it might be completely voluntary. Some owners of high value animals may want RFID chips in their animals as an anti-theft measure.

[riderinthestorm]

54. People are refuting YOUR claims

with links and yet you persist in asking us to bring up the proposals. Get them yourself.

I'm not sure what horse operations you are familiar with, but I don't know too many that operate the way you are describing, or that would be okay with this proposal.

First off, if an owner at my farm doesn't pay their bills, that owner isn't usually allowed to simply come and "get their horse". Most barn owners won't release the horse at that point if the owner has an outstanding bill. I've been to barns where the horse was padlocked into the stall, and the tack confiscated, while the barn owner tried to recoup their money. Knock on wood it hasn't come to this at my farm but there are times its been close. If a vet isn't paid the solution is even more immediate - they simply refuse to work on the animal. Period. Which puts the onus on me to ensure the horse is vaccinated and cared for properly.

You speculate that the cost of the chip would come down with widespread implementation but you have no way of knowing that. Even at $20/animal that would be a lot for virtually every small farmer I know. NONE of us are wealthy by a long shot.....

There are cheaper and more efficient methods to track and eliminate diseases in horses for example - techniques that have served the industry well for decades. Between Coggins testing and health certificates, there's no reasonable explanation as to how or why the NAIS chips would do a better job for the horse industry in controlling the spread of diseases.

Racehorses are tattooed - tattoos that are verified just before the horse is allowed onto the field - so your argument about "switching horses in a race or competition" is also moot. Beyond that, I know very well the horses and trainers that compete in my sport (dressage and combined training). If someone were switching horses, it would be noticed and the trainer/owner would quickly lose credibility and their livelihood. Besides, many of the horses are already tattooed by the Jockey Club or their various breed organizations so this argument is also specious. At the international level the horses all have their own passports with every mark identified, a passport that must be presented at every competition which makes it even more impossible to swap. Again though, as I've already said, the horses are easily recognized and would be spotted long before they probably even made it into the arena if someone were trying to do something like this.

As for stolen horses, the miniscule number of horses that are stolen every year makes this argument almost laughable especially in light of the grotesque invasion of privacy and intrusion into the lives of horse owners.

Lastly, a horse owners' vet has all of the relevant data on the animal. Just like the small animal vets, records are kept and available at the vet office and are just as easily accessible as any NAIS chip would be for emergency information. That NAIS chips would or should be superior isn't necessarily so.

Look, I've been in the business as an owner and trainer for more than 25 years. We've participated in literally thousands of events from local to international with the current standards in place without a qualm. I don't need NAIS chips to somehow ameliorate non-existent concerns.

My shouts of "NO!" are visceral and revolve around the tyranny and governmental control issues, the intrusion and monitoring. The false arguments and skewed rationales laid out by this government only amplify my alarm. I don't trust the USDA worth shit. And I sure as hell don't trust this government.

[yellowcanine]

59. I have read them myself. I know what they say. They don't say half

the stuff that is being bandied about here. They don't even say that micro chips are a done deal. The specific technology is still under discussion. It might be something like retinal scans. My comments on microchips had more to do with my personal belief that they make a lot of sense. One ID instead of 4-5 IDs for some show animals. Ability to store lots of information. Do you have 24/7 access to your vet wherever you might happen to take your animals? Does a new competitor and/or new animals ever come to one of your events?

The USDA has been holding listening sessions on this since early 2004. They are seeking comment on the proposals. They are putting the proposals on websites and distributing materials through the universities, the individual states, Cooperative Extension, trade and breed associations, fair boards, etc. I am not an employee of the USDA nor do I agree with a lot of what they do and I sure am not a fan of the current government. But I think on this issue the USDA is getting a bum rap. If we have an outbreak of mad cow disease and it ruins the U.S. beef industry people will justifiably wonder why the USDA didn't implement a NAIS a long time ago. Now that they are finally doing it we, and particularly animal owners, ought to figure out how to be part of the solution. Bellowing about big brother and government tyranny isn't going to accomplish squat and it sure won't contribute to a NAIS system that works for all animal owners and consumers.

[riderinthestorm]

64. You aren't addressing my specific points

I'm certainly not talking out my ass here....

Look, I don't even want retinal scans. I don't want my animals' entire history outlined on a chip, scan, RFID, or whatever. Beyond that I don't want my life monitored. And my life IS my animals.

And yes, I do have 24/7 access to my vet. Always.

Look, who cares (other than you for some wierd reason) if someone wants 4-5 forms of ID for their show animals. It's not the government's business. Besides, however much this legislation will affect people who extensively compete it will ruin small farmers who keep backyard livestock for their own and/or their family's consumption.

Your commment about "new competitors and animals at my events" is also moot. Competition horses MUST have current Coggins and health certificates - that means the animals were inspected by a vet within the week before they travelled.....

And if the USDA is worried about mad cow then they should be addressing the cattle industry - not everything else. Doesn't the fact that they want this for all animals give you the creeps in any way shape or form?

Its beyond bizarre, it's tyrannous and I don't use that word lightly.

[yellowcanine]

66. Health certificates are useless if one can't be certain of the ID of the

animal. Also, my point on 4-5 IDs is not that people WANT them - it is that they have to have them because of all of the different venues they are
involved with - one secure ID could eliminate that duplication and save the animal owner money. And you are wrong on the backyard animals for own consumption. Animals which never leave a property or mingle with other animals would be exempt from NAIS under the current proposals. They would be encouraged to voluntarily particapate to protect their animals in the event of a disease outbreak, evacuation, chemical/radiation emergencies, etc.

This isn't just about mad cow. It is about all sorts of diseases, natural disasters, chemical and radiation spills, terrorist attacks, etc. Did we not learn anything from Hurricane Katrina? We are not prepared to take care of people in a wide scale disaster, let alone animals. That is what gives ME the creeps, if you want to know.

[slaveplanet]

68. don't you feel this is a tad misleading?

Animals which never leave a property or mingle with other animals would be exempt from NAIS under the current proposals

The truth is...the proposal is intentionally vague about what could or couldn't be under the umbrella.

[yellowcanine]

73. No, I don't. Here are the quotes and the link.

I said:
"Animals which never leave a property or mingle with other animals would be exempt from NAIS under the current proposals"

Q and A from the NAIS site:

Q. If a Person Raises Animals for His or Her Own Use and the Animals Never Leave the Owner's Property, Do They Need to be Identified?

A. Under the current plan, animals that never leave a premises do not need to be identified. However, animal owners are encouraged to identify their animals and their premises, regardless of the number of animals present, since many animal diseases may be spread whether an animal leaves its home premises or not. Examples of such diseases include West Nile virus, foot-and-mouth disease, vesicular stomatitus, and equine infectious anemia.

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/newsroom/factsheets/nais_qa_factsheet.shtml

[slaveplanet]

76. from the same link

Which BTW is NOT the proposal which flaunts the system for its flexibility as situations arise.

Q. Who Will be Responsible for Applying Identification to Animals?
A. During the phase-in period, animals will need to be identified as they leave whatever premises they are on regardless of where they were born.

After the first few years of the program, identifying animals will be the responsibility of the "PREMISES OF BIRTH" animal owners. For animal owners who lack equipment for individual identification, "tagging stations" will be available.

Comprende'

[yellowcanine]

80. Seems reasonable to me. I don't see the issue here. The owners

of animals control the process. Would you have it otherwise?

[slaveplanet]

83. I see your comprehension is still a problem

The owners of the the animals "control" the process... they will control nothing.
Quite to the contrary they will be saddled with the responsibility...It clearly says responsibility not control.

After the first few years of the program, identifying animals will be the responsibility of the "PREMISES OF BIRTH" animal owners. For animal owners who lack equipment for individual identification, "tagging stations" will be available.

If you can't realize the doublespeak in that Q&A, I probably won't be of much help.

As you can tell it also says nothing about "Current" proposals , instead it clarifies and refers to a time "after" the current.

The proposal/plan also talks a little bit about failing to meet the obligations of "responsibility" to the tune of $1000 a day.

The proposal/fails to talk about what were to happen if obligations were further ignored. What then? perhaps confiscation on the drug raid/DEA model, black ski masks and all?

What if a next door neighbor were to bring a broiler hen over for that 4th of july cookout? the Government does not plan on letting that happen under this equation, thus they cleverly made use of the word "current"...in the future they are not going to leave it up to the discretion of the owner.

Your reasoning is scary as hell.

You see a great big problem when there is none.
and you fail to see a problem until it becomes one. Depending on the situation.

We have survived just fine without microchip trees for thousands of years, other posters have stated why the current system is not the problem.

[yellowcanine]

88. My interpretation is different from yours. That doesn't mean I have

a "comprehension problem." And since you have now resorted to an "ad hominum" attack, we are done.

[riderinthestorm]

70. Vets won't issue a health cert if they aren't sure about the horse's ID

I'm beginning to suspect you don't really know anything about the equine industry.

As far as multiple ID's let me give you an example of one of our horses: he is an Advanced level TB eventer who competes at the CCI*** level.
ID#1, he was tattooed by the Jockey Club as a racehorse - tattooing will never be replaced by any kind of chip, RFID, ear tag or whatever futuristic ID system invented since any of those can be removed and replaced. So racehorses will eternally be tattooed.
ID #2, annual rabies vaccination, administered by the vet, recorded by the state.
ID #3, twice annual Coggins exam to ensure he is disease free. Sometimes he has to get them more frequently depending on the competition schedule and the dates.
ID# 4, his passport which is mandatory to compete in FEI level events. This is a mandatory document for international travel. Again, this won't be replaced by any kind of removable chip since the document is basically a written record of the horse's physical characteristics (right down to the whorls on his forehead) as well as his vaccination record. This needs to be updated upon every vaccination performed. Again, nothing that could be updated if this information were place on a chip since that information would be static and the passport is perpetually updated.
ID #5, mandatory health certificate certifying he is disease free, and is the animal in transport. I've been pulled over numerous times by state AG departments checking my paperwork as I cross state lines. Again, another check.

Absolutely NONE of the above ID/health checks would be eliminated by a chip - they would all have to be continually repeated. And all of them ensure a healthy animal thereby preventing the spread of diseases. And all of them ensure that my right to privacy is respected, these ID checks merely certify the animal's health and ID, they don't track my movements.

Do you understand now how the NAIS chip wouldn't solve anything? But that it's only a measure to surveil and intrude and extract more money from small farmers and drive us out of business?

I am also going to guess that you haven't read the proposals in great detail. Slaveplanet is right, the measures as currently described by the USDA are intentionally vague regarding private ownership of animals that stay on the farm. ABsolutely every analysis I have read, and my vet service agrees, indicates that these animals, and their small farmer owners would most certainly be swept up in the spying.

And I can't believe you honestly believe the government cares one whit about the animals in a natural disaster. Katrina DID teach us a shitload about governmental concern about humans let alone animals. You are off your rocker if you think the USDA is doing this to ensure animal safety in an emergency. I've actually assisted in rescuing animals from barns in jeopardy of flooding and there wasn't a single governmental agency ever involved in that kind of rescue. Ever. How many times have you seen that? I wager never.

[yellowcanine]

72. You can't seem to separate me from the argument so there is no point

in continuing this.

"...you don't really know anything...."

"....you haven't read the proposals...."

"...you are off your rocker..."

I won't presume to judge you about why you feel the need to resort to "ad hominum" attacks but neither will I attempt to have a rational discussion with anyone who does. I have tried to point out that there are many things being said about these proposals that just aren't so. I have no ax to grind. I am an extension educator and I am going to get a paycheck regardless of which side of this discussion I am on. I do have a deep concern for animal owners and how they can protect their animals from harm and I think people who insist "there is not a problem, so we don't need to change anything about the way we do things" are kidding themselves. I don't know everything there is to know about the equine industry but I do know a few things about disaster preparedness and I was trying to promote understanding. Maybe some other time. Have a good day.

[riderinthestorm]

75. Fine. You can take any comment out of context and leave in a huff

The discussion with you was dead anyway. You aren't even trying to understand, address or even listen to what I'm saying. And talk about ad hominems - I have only brought up facets of the program that are really in the proposal yet you persist in conflating my comments with others. I'm not too thrilled with that either.

You have a real live small farmer debating you from a real life perspective and you aren't even addressing my comments. It's really frustrating. This is what it feels like to dialogue with the USDA on this issue - they aren't listening and then accuse the small farmer of getting irate about it.

I've addressed your points on cost, feasibility, theft, disaster preparedness, real life experiences for horses (and the related issues of competition barns and show grounds) etc. etc. I've brought up my fears of the intrusion and manipulation that I see in this measure.

And you haven't offered any reasonable alternatives to my comments.

[yellowcanine]

79. I am still here. Just not going to mix it up with you anymore. Out of

context? There is no context that justifies "ad hominum" attacks. I gave you three examples from one post. If you dialogue with the USDA the way you have with me I can see why you think they aren't listening. People tend to stop listening when they get shouted at and attacked on a personal level. The people in the USDA working on NAIS aren't elected or appointed officials. They aren't Bush, they aren't Chaney. They are thinking and well educated people who have been working hard all of their lives trying to do their jobs and serve producers and consumers alike. They don't make policy. They have no interest in making it difficult for small farmers. Some of them have observed first hand the anguish that small farmers go through during a disease outbreak when their herds or flocks are "depopulated". They know the issues and they have set up an elaborate process of "listening sessions" for farmers to give input on NAIS. If you want them to treat you right maybe you need to start talking to them as if they were people. Stop shooting the messenger.

[riderinthestorm]

81. Clearly the USDA doesn't know the issues

As I've repeatedly tried to point out. And I've given my feedback to the USDA at least 3 times to no avail. I will repeat you also haven't responded to my specific points either.

As for ad hominems:

From my post, my FULL quote "I'm beginning to suspect you don't really know anything about the equine industry."

How is that an ad hominem when you (finally) admit you don't the equine industry?

From my post, the FULL quote, "I am also going to guess that you haven't read the proposals in great detail."

I'm not sure how you can read this as an ad hominem, especially since you took up to 80 posts to finally admit you are an extension officer and have read the proposals. You haven't (and still haven't) addressed my concerns or comments. It leads one to believe you haven't read the proposal. Also, I stated this as a guess, not a certainty, which hardly qualifies as some kind of ad hominem.

From my post "You are off your rocker if you think the USDA is doing this to ensure animal safety in an emergency."

This isn't an ad hominem if you don't believe it either. Since we have absolutely zero history of the USDA ever assisting in animal rescue during disasters or emergencies, I think it's fair to surmise that anyone who believes the USDA will suddenly do a 180 on this issue isn't thinking clearly.

So let me re-phrase this - do you honestly believe the USDA is going to begin getting into the animal rescue business? Do you honestly believe the NAIS system is all about rescuing animals? I don't see any funds in the USDA budget for animal rescue operations during emergencies. Perhaps it's there and I've missed it. Can you point out the line item where that funding appears?

And bottom line: if the USDA thinks my comments as outlined above and/or in any of my posts are "ad hominem attacks", then the USDA isn't, and never was really interested in listening to small farmers and their concerns.

[yellowcanine]

84. When I said we were done I meant it. I am not an "extension officer"

whatever that is. I am not involved in regulation. I am an extension educator or agent if you prefer. Regardless, what does that have to do with whether or not I read the proposal to your satisfaction? That is not exactly a logical construct, in my opinion. Last word from me.

[riderinthestorm]

85. Noted that you have no response to my concerns or the points I raised. nt

[Trish1168]

42. I have a horse too. My facility has about 70.

This would encourage them to close. I could never keep my horse without them (they train dressage horses and I need their help to guide me through the issues that come up).

I find this really intrusive and disturbing. Many go on trail rides. There are no fax machines and this would probably force people to break the rules or stop trail riding.

Talk about 'big brother'.

Orwell was a prophet.

[yellowcanine]

48. The proposals do not require faxes for trail riding. This is a strawman

argument. Somebody stated it here and it has been repeated several times. That doesn't make it true.

[CottonBear]

58. I have a horse. Owners of competiton horses and breeding stock

travel frequently and widely with their horses. I have taken my baby horse to a regional breed approval and a training session at another farm. I will continue to trailer her places even though I can't ride her yet. When I can ride and show her, we will travel all over our state. Breeders frequently must take mares and foals out of state to regional breed approvals. Show horses can travel all over the US and internationally. These horses already have internationalorse passports with breed ID info and vaccination and test records.

[yellowcanine]

61. What is your point? When you take a horse to a show the show

documents that it was there. Your horse has to be vet certified. NAIS doesn't change that. Current systems of ID that achieve the goals of NAIS will be incorporated into the system. NAIS is not wedded to any particular technology, contrary to some of what has been stated here. I don't get what you are getting at.

[riderinthestorm]

63. Because the NAIS system will track us

And our movements. And our farm operations. And it will cost money. Lots of money that small farmers don't have.

It's not so much the identity stuff but the tracking that really bothers me. And I want control over how and why my animals are identified. And I want to be able to do it at my discretion - not Bush's government.

[yellowcanine]

65. Actually no, it won't. It will provide a means to determine which animals

were at which event and whether certain animals came into contact with other animals, yes. That actually protects your animals. There have been discussions of RFID but no one is suggesting mandatory adoption of that technology. Some owners may want it as an anti-theft measure. As I said before, NAIS is actually not an attempt to promote "one size fits all" in terms of the type of technology used. The important thing is to identify animals and to know where animals are located in case of an emergency, such as a widespread evacuation event. Counties have to prepare for the possibility of emergency evacuation or sheltering in place of animals and they can't if they don't know how many animals are in a county and where they are located. People will not evacuate even when their lives are in danger if their animals are not provided for. Governments know where people live. They know their addresses. I fail to see how having a database of where the animals are housed is somehow more ominous.

[riderinthestorm]

71. Since I am at these events, I'm also monitored

The animals at the events I go to, are already protected by numerous safeguards. A chip won't do a single damn thing to protect them more. The NAIS system only adds cost, time burdens, and a hideous surveillance of me and mine.

You know, you still haven't addressed my concern about human transmission of contagious diseases to animals, since you are so concerned about this issue, I'm sure you wouldn't mind getting chipped yourself....

And I've already said that equine theft concerns are a strawman. It's so insignificant a problem to be moot.

As far as emergencies, I've already indicated upthread that the government doesn't concern itself with animal evacuation. Katrina gave the world a chance to see what some of us already knew - the government has never participated in animal rescue, not on any level from the local to the national. I can't believe you even believe this, especially in light of the thousands of animal stories flooding the news and DU especially about the animals left behind from Katrina. If you honestly believe the government is somehow going to change its ways and rescue animals now that they are chipped, I've got some swamp land for sale for ya.....

And the proposal goes way beyond a simple database. If it were that simple do you think there would be this kind of brouhaha? You seem incapable of addressing people's concerns about having their farms, homes, and businesses mapped and tracked by the government (your arguments in fact verge dangerously close to the Freepers who insist that if you aren't doing anything wrong why worry about warrentless wiretapping), our concerns about having our animals monitored, the cost factor, the fact that this does nothing to really prevent disease outbreaks etc. etc. etc.

[MadHound]

74. Question for you

The current system of tagging and reporting is doing just fine. You can trace an animal down to the specific herd and location within minutes. Records or livestock are being adequately maintained under our current system.

So, why should we add to the burden of the small farmer by burdening them with additional work and monetary expense, and yet wave that for the larger operations? Why should we impose a program that is highly invasive of privacy when we don't need to? And finally, why should we adapt such a program when the cost-benefit of this comes out negatively for the small farmer, and at best, a wash for the larger operations?

[yellowcanine]

77. Repeating myself but here goes....

On your first question:

Current systems of ID that achieve the goals of NAIS will be incorporated into the system. NAIS is not wedded to any particular technology, contrary to some of what has been stated here.
The goal is to provide a means of tracking animals and diseases quickly to aid in fighting diseases. Current systems may indeed be adequate in some sectors but not by any means all. Where they meet the goals they will be incorporated into NAIS. NAIS also addresses the issue of unnessary duplication where some animals have 4-5 different IDS and one standard ID could eliminate the duplication. States, counties, and even individual events have different standards of ID that could be normalized with NAIS. Duplication is costly.

Nothing is being waived specifically for large operations. You are referring to GINs - group identification numbers. GINs will only be allowed when the goal of quickly tracking diseases can be met. For example, for a flock of broilers which are raised together on a single farm and go to a processing plant all at the same time it makes no sense to individually identify the chickens. Not only that, if avian flu hits one chicken in a flock the whole flock is killed anyway. This will be available to a producer whether he has 100,000 chickens or 250 chickens.

It is also not at all clear that small farmers will be negatively impacted in terms of cost. For one thing, the cost to the farmer will not necessarily be higher than current systems, it may even be lower in some instances as I suggested above. The USDA is putting a lot of money into this and it is very likely that costs will be shared and possibly even borne entirely by the USDA in some instances. The USDA is not ignoring the issue. It is not a plot against small farmers.

[MadHound]

78. Well, I have to disagree a bit

The current system being used is quite adequate for tracking livestock and the associate records. Each and every animal is tagged, tracked and recorded. Why mess with something when it is working?

GINs aren't going to be effective as you think, since many flocks/herds are split up and sold seperately, especially independent operators like PSF and the like. Thus, assigning a GIN would be much more inefficient than the current UPC system.

And with the increase in record keeping, and most likely the increased cost of RFID chips, this would indeed impact the small farmer substantially more than the factory farm. And if you honestly think that the USDA is going to bear any of these costs, I'm got some farmland in the Everglades for sale.

And I noticed that you failed to touch on my question concerning invasion of privacy issues. I understand, it is indeed hard to be an apologist on such a matter.

And I'm not saying that this is a deliberate plot against the small farmer(though given the track record of the government and the USDA, well, it wouldn't suprise me), but the added burden of money and time certainly doesn't help the small farmer at all.

Again and again, I keep coming back to the old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This seems like needless bureaucratic bullshit to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It is going to impose an unfair burden on the small farmer far greater than his competitor at the factory farm.

Since this fix isn't needed, nor wanted, why not just let matters stay as they are? Seems to make sense to me.

[yellowcanine]

82. Well, I never claimed to have all of the answers on this. I was just

urging people to look at the actual proposals instead of relying on someone elses interpretation of the proposals. And please lay off the name calling. I am not an "apologist" for the USDA or NAIS. I am just trying to inject some objectivity into the discussion. It all seemed to be on the negative side. What is the use of a discussion where everyone says "me too"?

The system is broke, at least parts of it are. We can't track animals and diseases adequately. The mad cow fiascos have demonstrated that. The inability to get people to evacuate during hurricanes because they insist on staying with their animals because we have no system for evacuating animals or sheltering them in place. NAIS addresses these issues. Is it perfect? No, but it is not implemented yet, either. It is still in the discussion phase. Are there privacy issues? Yes. If you are concerned about them, give your input. I will say that I don't see how identifying where an animal is housed is any more an invasion of privacy than the government having the SS # and the address of its owner.
You mentioned RFID. Again repeating myself - NAIS does not propose any particular technology for identifying animals. There will likely be a mix of technologies and it will differ according to the animal and even locally. NAIS is essentially a database of individual animals or groups of animals and their home addresses.

One other thing on the "isn't needed" category. We live in a global market. Animals and animal products are moving around as never before. So are animal diseases. What was adequate in 1950 or 1970 or even 1990 is no longer adequate. I am sure that the farmers in Great Britain thought their system wasn't broken before mad cow or foot and mouth hit. But they found out when they couldn't sell beef for years and many were ruined. You may be comfortable saying "It can't happen here." I am not and neither are most of the animal producers in this country, regardless of the tone of the comments here. Do we really want to wait for a disease outbreak that could devastate an industry before we take steps that we know could improve our ability to quickly detect and respond? The disease that we are concerned about might not even have a name yet. Who heard of "Asian bird flu" 5 years ago?

[MadHound]

86. Actually I've been following this quite carefully

And from what I see, this is a flawed proposal that the USDA is making. Contrary to your assertions, the current system does indeed work. When we had a couple of mad cows show up in the northwest, their herd, when they were born, what they were fed, all of these vital matters were tracked down in a matter of hours, using the system we have now. Somehow I doubt that that even an RFID system could do any better.

And I wasn't calling you an apologist for the USDA, I was saying that it is hard to be such in the face of such invasive proposals. Please don't put words in my mouth OK. And speaking of invasive, yes,this proposal would be quite invasive. If you had done your research, you would realize that the most favored method of ID in this proposal is indeed RFID, with extensively more record keeping required of the farmer. Animals every movement would be tracked and recorded, and the USDA would reserve the right to come onto a farmer's land at any time to inspect the tags and records. Not only is that invasive, but it would cost the small farmer time, which also equals money.

Oh, and one other thing, it isn't lack of animal ID that causes mad cow outbreaks and other animal epidemics, it is poor herd management, feeding cows animal proteins, overcrowding, poor sanitation and the like that causes these outbreaks. All conditions that are much more likely to occur on a factory farm rather than a small, especially organic farm. And yet again, it isn't these larger, more subseptible farms that will be the most watched and most penalized with this proposal, oh no. It will be the small farmers, with their limited resources that will be the most penalized. How screwy is that?

[yellowcanine]

87. Once again, mad cow is just one example but it is instructive

Obviously an ID system doesn't prevent disease. But it does allow us to track diseased animals. The NAIS system is not an RFID system. I have adressed this issue several times so I will not repeat myself here. If you are satisfied with our response to mad cow there is little I could say to convince you otherwise. I am not satisfied and neither is Japan, previously one of our best beef customers.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2006-01-20-japan-mad-cow_x.htm

As for the "apologist" claims, let's review:

Your words:
"And I wasn't calling you an apologist for the USDA, I was saying that it is hard to be such in the face of such invasive proposals. Please don't put words in my mouth OK."

Your words:
"And I noticed that you failed to touch on my question concerning invasion of privacy issues. I understand, it is indeed hard to be an apologist on such a matter."

Sounds as if you were indeed calling me an apologist for the USDA -"such a matter" refers to the USDA NAIS proposal, does it not?

[MadHound]

89. Of course I'm not satisfied with our response to mad cow

I don't think that anybody is. However, again, it isn't the part about tracking the animals that is the problem, the problem is in the way the animals are treated, what they're fed, and the hygiene of the premises that is the problem. Instituting an invasive, expensive and unneeded tracking method is not going to a thing to help correct any of these problems.

And I'm sorry, although it is couched in unthreatening language, it is apparent that the tagging methods are indeed going to be RFID. From the Draft Strategic Proposal:

"Advancing animal identification data collection systems at packing
plants will be a priority, so animals removed from the population can
be recorded as efficiently as possible. Collecting interstate
movements will be another priority, thus the USDA will implement the
electronic interstate certificate of veterinary inspection and electronic
movement permit systems. As more animals are identified, the
systems necessary to record animal movements through other
concentration points will be tested and implemented.<http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/about/pdf/NAIS_Draft_Strategic_Plan_42505.pdf>

Did you catch that? "Electronic interstate certificate of veterinary inspection and electronic
movement permit systems." Being as I don't thing that the USDA is going to hang a PDA on every cow, horse and chicken, the only other logical conclusion is that this is going to be an RFID system. In fact, if you go to the link I referenced above, you'll find serveral references to RFID chips, including a picture of how the machinery to read said tags will be set up.

And as far as the comment about apologist, again let me reiterate, I was saying that it was indeed hard to be an apologist, implying actually that you weren't one since you hadn't answered my question. But hey, if you wish to deliberately misunderstand me after I've explained it to you a couple of times now, and get all offended, fine, whatever.

I think that we could do much more to prevent the spread of diseases such as mad cow and bird flu by addressing the conditions in the factory farms that the livestock is subjected to. If we would enforce the matters concerning sanitation and humane care of livestock, we would go a long way to preventing such diseases. Mandatory tagging is nothing more than closing the barn door after the horse is gone, and sadly such actions won't cure the problem. All it will do is be an ineffective security blanket that will allow the USDA to claim they're doing something, all the while the real problems of factory farming, and its attendant problems will continue apace. And all at the expense of the small and organic farmer to boot.

You may like this band aid proposal, but I certainly don't. I find it overly burdensome to those who can least afford it, and it simply doesn't address the root cause of such disease outbreaks. Until we address those root causes, it doesn't matter how much tracking we do, our livestock and ourselves will still be at risk.

[yellowcanine]

90. RFIDs

"Electronic interstate certificate of veterinary inspection and electronic movement permit systems."

No I don't read that as RFID. Could just as easily be an emailed certificate and emailed movement permit. It may be that RFIDs will be involved at some point with some animals. What I said was that the NAIS system itself is not mandating a specific technology, RFID or anything else.

NAIS does not replace best management practices for disease management. But it is not enough to have good disease management on an individual farm. You also need to track diseases and diseased animals and you can't do that without a tracking system.

As for the "apologist" thing, I just don't think it was an appropriate comment to make in a debate. I am not offended, I just see no reason to allow it as it does not advance the debate. If I had been offended I would have quit responding to your posts. Anyway I addressed the "invasion of privacy" issue in the post that you responded to with "Question for you". I do get tired of repeating myself. But I did address it anyway in my next post to you and you still haven't told me how a database containing an animal ID and its address is any more invasive than the government (IRS) knowing your SS# and your address. Somehow we manage to keep the IRS from sharing our personal information with other government agencies - the proposals require the USDA to only use the NAIS database for the purpose of the program - tracking disease or emergency location of animals or animal owners. If you think people who work for government agencies take privacy issues lightly, let me tell you how the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 works. I wouk for a land grant university and have an extensive farmer contact list. I do not give out farmer phone numbers, addresses, emails, etc. to any other agencies, county, state, or federal, or private party. If a newspaper reporter calls me and wants to talk to a farmer I get the reporter's number and give it to the farmer. The farmer calls the reporter if he so desires. We don't even send nutrient management plans to the state department of agriculture or the local soil conservation district. We write the plan and give it to the farmer. He sends it to whomever he thinks needs to see it. Why? Because I think it is the right thing to do but also because under the Federal Privacy Act I could be prosecuted and/or lose my job if I breached that line. USDA personnel work under the same Federal Privacy Act as I do.

[MadHound]

91. And again, we already have a tracking system in place

And it was good enough to track down a couple of mad cows to their individual herd, and find out what they had been fed, within forty eight hours, before the turn of the century. This is well within the time frame that the NAIS wants to address. Therefore, if we have such an efficient tracking system now, why do we need to change it? Wouldn't that money be better spent on disease managment and enforcing USDA regulations in regards to sanitation, feed practices and other such matters? Why should the US impose an unneccessary burden on small farmers?

And while you may not be seeing anything about RFID tags, it is there, in the proposal, and elsewhere. Where else do you think these folks got the impression that RFID is going to be the wave of the NAID future?

"Hundreds of hours of study and discussion led to the NAIS Cattle Working Group’s recommendation in favor of RFID tags that meet ISO standards."<http://www.allflexusa.com/newsletter/archive/10.19.05/page1.php>

"Standards recommended by the USAIP, and adopted in the NAIS, call for official RFID tags in compliance with ISO 11784 code structure and readers compliant with ISO 11785. The International Standards Organization ratings essentially mean that various tags and readers will work with other ISO-compliant devices, here and internationally. Tags will be encoded with a 15-digit number, with the first three representing the U.S. country code (840), and the next 12 being the Animal Identification Number. The plan allows tags to contain two types of transponders known as half-duplex and full-duplex, so readers must work with both."<http://www.iqbeef.org/tophand/1004/Bells%20and%20Whistles.htm>

And here's one informing us that the biggest RFID animal tag manufacturer is ramping up in anticipation<http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=5662>

Oops, looks like RFID is already in the NAIS pilot phase<http://www.bah.state.mn.us/index/nais/pilot_projects.htm>

And on and on ad nauseum. You may wish to keep your head buried in the sand over this one, but Big Brother proceeds apace despite your denials. And again, this is an intrusive, invasive,financially burdensome and unneccessary program, especially for the small farmer in this country. This program would allow USDA and its agents to enter a farmer's property without permission, will track the movement of livestock, and thus the movement of the farmer, in real time. And again, it will be a financial burden. Sure, the factory farms will be able to absorb this cost, mainly because they will be able to use the GIN rather than tagging each animal. But also, even if they do tag each animal, since a corporation will have so many animals, they will get a price discount for buying in bulk. Your typical small farmer will have to pay full price, and they probably won't have the personell to do all required paperwork, nor the money to invest in the technical capital that would save them time.

This is utterly ridiculous. It penalizes the small and organic farmer, rewards the factory farmer, and doesn't do one damn thing to address the real problems of livestock feed, shelter and handling practices. All this is is a feel good program that the USDA can point to and say they're doing something without really doing anything, and that can also be used as a club to beat even more of our declining numbers of small and organic farmers out of business. I know, I know, you probably don't think that the USDA would do such a thing, at least not deliberately. Well if that is indeed the case, I suggest you go re-read your agricultural history of the seventies and eighties, and how the small farmer in this country fared under the "tender" mercies of the USDA. Then go read your current events concerning organic standards, and how those are being used as a club to kill off organic farmers. Then get back to me on what a wonderful entity the USDA is.

[yellowcanine]

95. More on RFID etc.

"Where else do you think these folks got the impression that RFID is going to be the wave of the NAID future?"

The same place they got trail riders firing off faxes to NAIS?

I have already addressed the RFID issue but apparently not enough. They probably will be used by some groups - NAIS does not specify any particular technology. Animal owners will have input into what type of technology they want to use. Some animal owner associations have apparently decided they want RFIDs. I am frankly not sure why they generate such trepidation anyway. To hear the talk here about invasion of privacy one might think the NSA is planning to keep track of every chicken, sheep, goat, pig, horse, cow, not to mention humans, with RFIDs. These are short range devices, as in several feet. Not something you can track from a satellite or cell phone tower. They would be useful for tracking animals going into a slaughter house. They are useful for tracking merchandise leaving a store. They cannot be used to track animals, people or objects from a half mile away, let alone hundreds of miles away. It is also relatively easy to jam them.
Here is a link if you want some dope on the cuddly little rascals.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/04/12/usefulness_of_rfids_worth_the_annoyance/

The USDA didn't destroy small farmers in this country. Market economics and development pushing up land values did that. Was there some bad ag policy in the 1970s? I'll say, particularly Earl Butz encouraging the farmers to plant fence row to fence row and the banks handing out money like candy to farmers based on rising land values. What that has to do with NAIS I am not sure but I am sure you could tell me.

As for organic standards, those were developed with major input from organic farmers. The recommendations of organic farmers across the U.S. were pretty much adopted wholesale. And that is the truth. I don't know how they are being used to "kill off organic farmers" (what is your source for that?) but you can hardly blame the USDA for that since it was organic farmers who mostly wrote the standards.

[MadHound]

99. You either don't get it, or you don't want to get it,

Either way, your ignorance on this matter is showing. You have been given link after link, source after source on this thread, yet you still don't think that RFID chips are coming. Your only concession is that this might be implemented in places, excuse me, but that is what the NAIS is all about, a UNIFORM, across the board method of tracking virtually every livestock animal in this country. Not some animals tagged with UPC and others with RFID, no, it is going to be a universal tagging system.

And it isn't the Big Brother aspect of this that is most troubling. It is the cost, both in time and money, that is going to be extracted from the small farmer. The second most troubling aspect is that such a tagging system won't address the real problems regarding sanitation, feed and care of livestock, especially those on factory farms, that lead to diseases such as mad cow and bird flu.

The most troubling aspect vis-a-vis privacy is that the USDA is going to be able to drop in anytime, without your permission, to inspect your animals. More time and money lost, more invasion of your privacy.

And you really do need to read the policy history of the USDA with regards to their favoritism of factory farms. Yes, bad lending practices did some damage, as did developments. But USDA policies regarding surplus crops, and farm development by far favored factory farms, and contributed a great deal to the collapse of the family farmer during the seventies and eighties.

And while organic standards were indeed developed with the input of organic farmers, the policies set since then by the USDA are once again favoring the large corporate farms. In fact there is so much anger about what is going on with the ever-changing organic standards that there is a rising movement of farmers who are pushing for a nationwide "certified naturally grown" labeling process to take over from the organic standards.

Perhaps you need to get out of academia and back on the farm friend. Talk to the small farmers, hear what they're saying. My bet is that they'll give you an earful.

[yellowcanine]

100. Why is it necessary to resort to the personal attacks? Do you want a

discussion or not? I will not discuss with people who are going to call me ignorant. Just because I work for a university does not mean I am in "academia." For your information and this will be my last word to you because you just want to pigeon-hole and characterize: I talk to farmers nearly every day, most of whom are farming on less than 60 acres. Just a few weeks ago I went to a public hearing before our county commissioners regarding county proposals for restrictive zoning for animal operations. I sat down with a couple of commissioners, some farmers and the head of the zoning board the next day and we worked out the issues to the satisfaction of the farming community. I know what the issues are with animal agriculture. I grew up on a dairy farm. I consult with farmers who have horse boarding operations and I supervise a 4-H agent who works with 4-H clubs that have animal projects. I judge at the county fair. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about with regard to animal agriculture because I do. The reason I know about NAIS is because I made it my business to learn about it because of the farmers I work with. I am also involved in agricultural disaster preparedness in my state so I am acutely aware of the need to have a method of identifying animals and knowing where they are in case of evacuation or sheltering in plase. It is not the USDA that is going to be managing disasters involving animals in counties. It is county disaster teams and they will need to know where the animals are. That is why there is a need to have GIS information on where animals are. In a disaster it is quite likely that some owners and/or vet records will be separated from the animals. A database of individual animals and their immunization status and vet needs would be crucial in such a situation. Rant over. Have a good day.

[MadHound]

104. You show poor form friend

You resort to screaming that I'm attacking you personally when you have no other coherent arguement to offer. Poor form, truly poor form.

Reread my post, I did not call you ignorant, I said that your ignorance ON THIS MATTER was showing. But you chose to be offended rather than coherenly argue. Poor form.

And for somebody who has made it your business to learn about NAIS, you certainly seem to have done a poor job. You're still arguing that NAIS won't neccessarily adapt RFID when it is apparent it already has.

You really need to change your style of debate around here. Stop being deliberately insulted when no insult was offered. You've done this twice in our discussion, even though I explained this to you the first time, now here you are doing it again. Again, I'm not saying you are ignorant, except on this one issue. Get a grip, and a thicker skin.

And while you may be talking to small farmers everyday, perhaps you need to listen more. You are missing the outcries of small farmers concerning all sorts of issues, including organic standards and NAIS. You've even been shown source after source about those concerns regarding NAIS, yet you still refuse to believe. Listen, please, and inform yourself on this matter. You will do yourself and your clients a world of good.

[riderinthestorm]

101. Good try Madhound.

I have seen this same wierd disconnect in most of my conversations about NAIS with local and regional reps.

I really believe they don't care what people want - they are going to implement their version come hell or high water, input be damned.

Do you grow organics? My husband and I grow 3 acres, primarily herbs for the farmer's markets and some local restaurants. I had a huge and painful laugh at yellowcanine's support of the USDA and their purported support of organic farmers.....

Alas.

[MadHound]

106. Just starting out

Started my orchard last year, adding to it this year. Have berries and mushrooms growning also. Finally have the soil in good enough shape to support a garden this year also. I'm hoping that there isn't another drought like there was last year. For awhile there I was hauling over a thousand gallons of water a week to keep new trees and plants from dying.

Starting into this whole deal slowly and building it up. Would like to get to the point in ten years where I can work the land full time, but even if I don't get there, it will be a nice supplement to our income, and will help when we "retire", since SS isn't going to be around most likely.

[DemonGoddess]

94. For equines, they do not ALLOW emailed

health certs. They will allow a faxed transmission of Coggins results, for example, but that is as far as the electronic transmission goes. To be given a health certificate for travel, whether its for transport to shows, transport to move to another state, etc, the animal has to be given a veterinary exam to determine the health. Which requires the vet PHYSICALLY inspect that animal to determine its health. Depending upon how often you are transporting, is how often you have to do this. In addition, with Coggins tests, those are recommended to be done annually even if the animal doesn't leave the property. Of course, if the animal is frequent traveler due to a show career, that test is administered every 3 months. The disease this test is for has no impact on humans, in that it doesn't spread to them. To an equine, it's deadly. That's why there are already such stringent measures in force for this, and a few other equine diseases which are very communicable and can be devastating to the horse owner by loss of their animal or animals.

Again, we have a working system. It ain't broke, so why "fix" it?

[yellowcanine]

96. I have addressed the "ain't broke, why fix it?" question already. NT

[DemonGoddess]

98. sort of you have

in your opinion....but as you can see from people posting here who own equines and are small farmers with other kinds of livestock, our experiences tell us there is no need for further regulation of this kind, or unwanted intrusiveness

[riderinthestorm]

103. But he's the extension educator remember?

An academic with vast farm experience, so his opinion is all that matters....

:crazy:

I keep hearing from various reps "make yourself heard!", and when I or others try to dialogue with anyone from the USDA or our local extensions we get the same kind of non-response or a response that doesn't even address our concerns, or an ignorant response that clearly demonstrates their lack of expertise.

I am totally wierded out about this. I believe they already have the plan in place and our comments are superfluous. I don't want to get too crazy but then when you hear about the guy upthread who already received his application, it freaks me out even more!

As a small farm owner, if my boarders don't or won't comply, I can't afford the $4,000 or so to chip all of them myself. Plus a $1000/day non-compliance fine. OMG.

But in this expert's opinion, I just get the owners to remove their animals from my farm.... Right, so I make half the population of boarders leave (cause NONE Of them will go for this program and they will think I am just being a cranky old bitch, disbelieving initially that I MUST do this by law) and I am left with what?

Jayzus. Either way I am out of business.

What's even worse is that every single damn rep has said the exact same thing, "this isn't a big deal! It's not intrusive!" It makes me crazy that they won't "hear" my concerns about this kind of monitoring and surveillance, especially now that we all reside in Bushworld.

I think I need a drink (walks off grumbling in search of alcohol.....)

[Shakespeare]

105. You are EXACTLY right. These new rules, btw....

....were written with help from corporations including Monsanto and Cargill (and aren't they noble?--yellowcanine has bought into the bullshit). This will devastate small farmers, and even individuals who do subsistence farming. Say good-bye to locally grown food if these rules are implemented.

[efhmc]

69. Got this about postponement from the TAHC last week.

Action on Texas’ Proposed Premises Registration Regulations Postponed

At their meeting Thursday, February 16, commissioners for the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), the state’s livestock and poultry health regulatory agency, postponed taking action on proposed regulations that would require identification of physical locations where livestock, exotic livestock, domestic fowl, and exotic fowl are held, managed or handled.

Dr. Hillman, Texas’ state veterinarian and TAHC executive director, explained that postponing action on the proposed rule that would make premises registration in Texas compulsory July 1, 2006, does not mean that the issue has been resolved. TAHC commissioners will reconsider the proposed rule at a future commission meeting. The time, date and place will be announced in the Texas Register, on the TAHC website at http://www.tahc.state.tx.us and by public announcement. All commission meetings are open to the public.

“Although commission action on the proposed regulations has been postponed, we continue to encourage voluntary premises registration, which, as of today, includes more than 7,000 of the state’s 200,000, or more, farms, ranches or other facilities,” said Dr. Bob Hillman, Texas’ state veterinarian and TAHC executive director.

Premises registration is the foundation for the three-tiered National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which, when fully implemented, is designed to enable animal health officials to trace the movement of diseased or exposed livestock or poultry within 48 hours. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has spearheaded NAIS development since 2004, with the cooperation of national species working group committees.

In Texas, HB 1361, passed and signed into law in 2005, authorized the TAHC to institute an animal identification program consistent with the NAIS, and to collect fees, to offset some costs of agency operations.

“More than 600 persons submitted comments regarding Texas’ proposed premises registration rule during the comment period which ended February 6,” said Dr. Hillman. “The commissioners also listened to concerns from nearly 80 persons at the commission meeting Thursday, which was held in an Austin.”

“Although the TAHC commissioners recognize the need for an improved animal identification system, they need additional time to consider complaints regarding the $10 per year fee, concerns about livestock and poultry identification and reporting requirements that, eventually, may be implemented on a national basis; and fears about the potential loss of privacy,” said Dr. Hillman.

Dr. Hillman explained that premises registration, the only aspect of the NAIS currently under consideration in Texas, involves providing the TAHC with a contact name, phone number, physical address and the species (but not the number of animals) housed, managed or handled on a site, such as a farm, veterinary clinic, arena, or livestock market. Information is confidential. A unique seven-character premises identification number (PIN) then is issued for the site.

All states have begun implementation of premises registration. Premises registration is required in Wisconsin and North Carolina. In Indiana, registration will be required starting September 1, 2006. Premises registration currently is voluntary in all other states. About 200,000 premises in the U.S. now are identified.

“National working groups for each involved species are developing recommendations for the second and third tiers of the NAIS, which, depending on the situation, will involve identifying either individual animals, or groups of animals, leaving their premises of origin or moving in commerce. The third tier will involve animal movement reporting and tracking, making it possible to locate diseased or exposed animals quickly,” said Dr. Hillman.

Links to additional information about the NAIS are posted on the TAHC’s web site at http://www.tahc.state.tx.us.

[DemonGoddess]

93. so in other words

Texas is looking to make the premises ID far LESS intrusive than what is outlined in the national proposal. For you horse owners, you need to contact the Equine Working Group and American Horse Council.

Equine Species Working Group
http://www.horsecouncil.org/species%20working%20group%20members.htm

American Horse Council
http://www.horsecouncil.org/

You'll notice that the ESWG has a listing of all the breed associations and other concerned parties who are working on this, and trying to address this for the horse owning population at large. However, they won't know what WE want as horse owners, if we don't TELL 'em.

[yellowcanine]

97. Good advice and note that NAIS, even though it is a national program

is going to be implemented through the states and counties. Adjustments will be made to meet local requirements. Farmers need to voice their concerns to the USDA during the development process, which is now.