The Goat Spot Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If I understand it correctly, the NAIS (National Animal Identification System) is a "voluntary" government proposal that would require every small farmer in the country to insert a tracking chip into every animal and then register those animals with the USDA. Its supposed to be a no-cost program but the installation and tracking of the chips is not free and would present an undue burden on small farms. We all know a registration system quickly turns into a yearly renewal with fees attached at some point. In other words the government will charge us a registration fee to own an animal. This has made a lot of folks very unhappy. It was looking pretty serious for awhile but the law suits are being filed and the USDA plans may be on hold for the moment. You can read more about it on the NAPgA page.
http://www.napga.org/links.asp?pageid=10&menuID=
http://nonais.org/

I'd also add that many animal owners, probably you as well, have already been registered without consent or knowledge. Here is a list of states and the percentage of premises registered. No one ask us to register but the chart shows almost 100% compliance in our state. That means the local county extension offices are forwarding our information to the data base without our consent. You can track down the contact person for your state by following the links at the top of this page. http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/pre ... date.shtml I have submitted written requests for our farm to be removed from the list of registered premises. There are lawsuits being filed over this very issue in several states already. It fraudulently inflates the number of "voluntary" registrations so they can get more appropriations but tramples our right to privacy in the process.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
595 Posts
Well, we were told that the NAIS had been put to rest forever, but as of last month it seems to have raised it's ugly head again. So, it is alive and well, and what Rex says about nefarious enrollment without the owner's knowledge or permission is true.

I am on the NAIS national board for working goats, and it's everything you fear and more. Write your congressman, make sure no group that you belong to is enrolling you under the table, and be aware.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Rex said:
I'd also add that many animal owners, probably you as well, have already been registered without consent or knowledge.
After submitting a very pointed email to the people in charge of the NAIS in Idaho we finally received a letter this week stating that our farm had been removed from the NAIS program.

At least we got that far....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
I never heard of it until I saw it a whlie back on one of the pack goat lists. I asked our County Ag Agent and found I was already in the database.... me and my 2 pet goats !

Here in Wisconsin I found we have no choice... Registration of all livestock, fish farms, chickens, ducks etc is mandated by State law. The animal owner has to register their premisis. As far as I know, they haven't yet enforced the penalties... I found that most people in our County who have not registered themselves are registered by the State through our County Ag Agents as soon as they find out there is a covered animal present on your property. There is no opt out option.

The State Ag Dept. has enlisted big dairies to enforce their registration Statute.... some bulk drivers refuse to load milk from farmers who refused to register as dairies won't accept it.

Wisconsin law so far only makes registration of the premisis mandatory... the chip implant and travel notice part of the thing is still voluntary.... for now.

There are a number of small co-op farm groups that have been fighting tooth and nail here... even the legislator that sponsored the current law said she was misinformed of the ramifications of the law by the US Dept. of Ag.

Just what we need.... more Big Brother.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
595 Posts
The NAIS Story--crossposted from another list


If fully adopted and implemented, the likely outcome of NAIS is
that animal ownership increasingly will be limited to large entities
who can afford to comply and who are willing to accept the
governmental intrusion. Yet this "feel good" program will
do virtually nothing to safeguard animal health, its alleged purpose.
Rather, NAIS will do all of the following:


drive small producers and their supporting suppliers (feed
stores, auction houses, etc) out of existence

make people abandon raising animals for their own food and as
pets

invade Americans' personal privacy to a degree never
before tolerated

deprive Americans of their property rights

violate the religious freedom of Americans whose beliefs make
it impossible for them to comply

cost the American economy far more than it will deliver


So what is this program and how did it develop?


History

The concept of an electronic national animal identification system
was started back in the early 1990s, by technology companies seeking to
expand their market, and large agricultural entities seeking to protect
their ability to sell their mass produced meat on the world market.


Their efforts culminated in 2002, when the National Institute for
Animal Agriculture (NIAA) proposed that the USDA develop a
"national animal identification system" (NAIS). While NIAA
may sound like a public interest organization, its membership reads
like a who's who in industrial agriculture and technology,
including entities such as Cargill Pork, Tyson, National Pork
Producers Council, and Global Vet Link.


Notably, the NIAA developed the national animal identification
system more than a year and a half before the first case
of Mad Cow was found in the U.S. Over the course of three years, USDA
and NIAA worked together to develop the NAIS and inform the
large-scale livestock producer community, while ignoring hundreds of
thousands of people who will be affected.


The Federal Plan

After it took up the task from Industry, the USDA developed the
plan through working groups, made up of representatives from
government agencies, large agribusinesses, and technology companies.
Notably absent from these workgroups were any significant
representatives of pet owners, recreational animal owners, and small
farmers and ranchers. Much of the work of these workgroups has yet to
be completed, yet industry is rushing to make this program mandatory
and implemented nationwide, without regard to the price to be paid by
consumers and the average animal owner.


On April 25, 2005, the USDA released "Draft Program
Standards" ("Standards") and a "Draft Strategic
Plan" ("Plan") for the NAIS. The Standards and Plan
have no authority in law. The USDA has stated that the Animal Health
Protection Act of 2002 is the source of its authority. (Plan at 9.)
But that statute addresses only the import and export of animals,
interstate travel, quarantines areas, and related programs. Two
Congresses have tried, but failed to pass legislation that would amend
the Act to provide for a mandatory electronic tracking system for
individual head of livestock. USDA is operating without authority
from Congress. Currently, there are three bills in Congress, trying
to give postdated authority to this assault on our freedom. The
existence of these bills proves that there is no Congressional
authority for USDA to establish a mandatory animal identification
system.


USDA, various state agencies, and many private companies who have
vested financial interests in seeing NAIS adopted have tried to
present an image of the NAIS as a sensible, practical plan to address
animal disease. A review of the government's plan, however,
shows quite the opposite. The current NAIS Plan provides:


Premises registration: Every person who owns even
one horse, cow, pig, chicken, sheep, goat, deer, elk,
bison, or virtually any livestock animal, will be forced to register
their home, including owner's name, address, and telephone number, and
keyed to Global Positioning System coordinates, in a government
database under a 7-digit "premises ID number." (Standards, pp. 3-4,
10-12; Plan, p. 5.) Additionally, pet owners who own one parakeet,
canary, cockatiel, etc. as owners of "exotic fowl" have been targeted
for mandatory inclusion in this system. If you buy a pet bird after
this system is put into effect, it probably will already have an
Animal Identification Number. It will be registered to you, and you
must register your premises (wherever you keep the bird). If you move
the bird off your "premises" for any reason, or it dies, or it
produces more birds, you must report such activity to the federal
government within 24 hours. In Texas, there was a staff
recommendation to hold off on mandatory registration of exotic fowl
kept as pets, until a disease was suspected, then they will implement
mandatory registration. However, that recommendation is on hold until
TAHC decides what path it will take.

Animal Identification: Every animal will have to
be assigned a 15-digit ID number by the government. The form of ID
will most likely be a tag or microchip containing a Radio Frequency
Identification Device (RFID), designed to be read from a distance.
(Plan, p. 10; Standards, pp. 6, 12, 20, 27-28.) The plan may also
include collecting the DNA of every animal and/or a retinal scan of
every animal. (Plan, p.13.) Despite the announcement that a federal
mandatory database might be put off, USDA maintains detailed
information on the structure of these 15-digit ID numbers as of
mid-March 2006, ostensibly so that ID manufacturers could normalize
their numbering systems. Some animals such as pigs and poultry, owned
by large producers, may have a "group" identifier assigned instead of
an individual number for each animal, as described below.

While some state agencies and industry actors have pointed to
the provision for "group numbers" for poultry and swine,
small farmers do not manage their animals in ways that would qualify.
Group or lot identification can only be used where groups of animals
are managed together from birth to death and never commingled with
other animals. (Standards pp.5-6.) This provision is tailored for
confinement poultry operations, not pastured poultry operations. If
animals do not meet the requirements for group identification, they
will have to be individually identified.

Animal Tracking: The owner will be required to report: the
birthdate of an animal, the application of every animal's ID tag,
every time an animal leaves or enters the property, every time an
animal loses a tag, every time a tag is replaced, the slaughter or
death of an animal, or if any animal is missing. Also, every time an
animal goes onto or off of another person's premises, a report would
be required, showing that the tagged animal had been on each of these
other premises. Such events must be reported within 24 hours.
(Standards, pp. 12-13, 17-21.)

Third parties, such as veterinarians, will be required to
report "sightings" of animals who do not have ID numbers.
(Standards, p. 25.) In other words, if a farmer or rancher calls a
vet to their property to treat an animal, and the vet finds any animal
without the mandatory 15-digit computer-readable ID, the vet may be
required to report that non-compliance.

There are no exceptions; under the USDA plan; livestock owners
will be forced to register and report even if they raise animals only
for their own food or keep horses for draft or for transportation.

The USDA will exercise "enforcement" against
livestock farmers who don't comply. (Standards, p. 7; Plan,
p. 17.) As an example of what can be expected, the proposed Texas
regulations for mandatory premises registration provide for fines of
up to $1,000 per day and criminal penalties.


The Alleged Rationale: Disease Control

The alleged rationale for this program is to protect against animal
disease by providing 48-hour traceback of all animal movements. The
proponents raise the specter of Mad Cow, foot and mouth, avian flu,
and other "foreign animal diseases." There are many flaws
with this rationale.


The first flaw is that the threat of disease cannot justify every
intrusion into our privacy and property rights. Disease, both human
and animal, has been part of our existence for millennia. The
government's and industry's attempt to use fear to deprive
us of our rights is unacceptable.


Second, even when viewed solely from the perspective of animal
disease problems, the NAIS is unnecessary, ineffective, and even
counterproductive. The government already has established systems and
processes, including surveillance, tracking, and quarantines, for
controlling the spread of animal diseases. In contrast to the
established systems, this new program is impractical; the technology
is flawed, the database would be unmanageable, and the logistics of
actually tagging and tracking the animals would dwarf any government
program in existence. The costs will roll downhill to the smallest
producer and individual animal owner. There are no provisions for
USDA to offset the staggering costs of this national program.


Moreover, the tracking of animal disease 48 hours later does little
to address either the prevention of diseases or the safety of our food
supply. If we want to protect Americans from Mad Cow disease, for
example, the answer is simple: stop feeding animal parts to cattle and
test animals that are slaughtered before they enter the food chain.
The problems of salmonella and e. coli in our food supply can also be
best addressed by prevention and proper inspection of
slaughterhouses. Tracking will not solve these problems.


The idea that a one-size-fits-all tracking program could address
the issue of animal disease shows a complete lack of understanding of
biology and animal management. As is well documented in the
scientific literature, the susceptibility of animals to disease and
the likelihood of transmission differ greatly depending on the
conditions under which the animals are kept. Yet the NAIS makes no
distinction between farmers raising a small herd of sheep and cattle
on carefully-tended pastures, and a feedlot with hundreds of animals
crowded into small pens, hock-deep in manure; there is no distinction
between a pastured poultry operation where the birds are moved daily
and sunlight kills any pathogens and confinement operations with
10,000 chickens living in an unsanitary, crowded building. This
program is precisely the opposite of what is needed to
prevent and control disease.


Indeed, NAIS will probably increase the spread of livestock
diseases by creating a new black market. If these new regulations are
adopted, it is inevitable that some people will not comply -
whether for religious reasons, economic reasons, or unwillingness to
allow the government intrusion. Since they will be acting illegally,
they will be far less likely to seek a veterinarian's help should
a disease problem arise.


The Secondary Alleged Rationale: The Export Market

The USDA has stated that NAIS is also necessary to protect the
U.S.'s export market. Yet a voluntary program would suffice to
address exports. Such a program would allow the market to determine
how valuable it is to track animals from birth to death. Any farmer
that wishes to export animals or food to other countries could enroll
in the program; in turn, these exporters could refuse to buy from
anyone who was not also enrolled in the tracking program. There is no
reason to impose the heavy burdens of NAIS on the thousands of
farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, and companion animal owners who have
no interest in being part of the commercial chain.


The Real Reasons

Given that the stated reasons for NAIS are insupportable, one has
to look for the true reasons for this program. In searching for the
truth, it is helpful to look at who is advocating the program.


First, the large industrial agriculture entities, such as Cargill
Pork and Tyson, support this program. These entities will reap
all of the benefits from the enhanced export market, without bearing
the costs that will be imposed on the people actually raising the
animals and/or taxpayers. Moreover, by creating such a burdensome
program, the industrial agriculture can rid itself of the small, but
rapidly-growing, local foods movement that threatens its monopoly and
its ability to complete the vertical integration of our food supply.


Second, various technology companies also stand to profit from this
program. Global Vet Link, Micro Beef Technologies, and Digital Angel
are all members of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture and
involved in the working groups developing the details of the
plans. Such companies not only make the microchips and radiotags, but
charge for software and related equipment necessary to operate these
systems.


Third, the large associations support this program, even though
most of their members are opposed. While this is puzzling at first,
it is yet again an issue of following the money. The USDA has stated
that the database with all of the NAIS information will be
privately-held, to avoid Freedom of Information Act issues. There has
been repeated discussion that NAIS will actually consist of multiple
databases. Many large livestock and companion animal breed
associations already operate significant databases with information on
livestock animal owners, and are perfectly positioned to become
contractors and subcontractors for the NAIS database. The government
will mandate registration and reporting, and the private organizations
will be able to charge as they like, because their "customers" are
captives of NAIS.


The Real Effects

So if NAIS will not solve animal disease problems, what will it do?


Eradication of Small Farms - People with just a few meat
animals or 40-cow dairies are already living on the edge financially.
The USDA plan will force many of them to give up farming.

Loss of the True Security of Organic and Local Foods -
The NAIS is touted by the USDA and agricorporations as a way to make
our food supply "secure" against diseases or terrorism.
However, most people instinctively understand that real food security
comes from raising food yourself or buying from a local farmer you
actually know. The USDA plan will only kill off more local sources of
production, which are our best defense in the event of adulteration of
the food supply by terrorists. These small producers also represent
the community of organic and sustainable agriculture farmers and
ranchers, which provide food sources in increasing demand.

Destruction of Personal Property Rights as We Know Them
- Legally, livestock animals are a form of personal property. The
NAIS plan refers to a "national herd" (Plan p.8) which
clearly indicates the government's vision: private ownership
rights will be destroyed, and no one will be allowed to birth, hatch,
own, or transfer any head of livestock without government permission.
We can take our shotguns and walk over our neighbor's property,
but if children ride their ponies to their neighbors, or a farmer
gives a couple chickens to a neighbor, that will have to be registered
with the government.

Extreme Damage to Personal Privacy - It is unprecedented
for the United States government to conduct large-scale computer-aided
surveillance of its citizens simply because they own a common type of
property. (The only exceptions are registration of motor vehicles
and, in some locales, guns.) A gun owner will be able to transport
their gun almost anywhere they want to go, without reporting such
movement to anyone. But, if you take a chicken to a livestock show,
you will have to report it. The NAIS would actually subject the owner
of a chicken to far more surveillance than the owner of a gun.

Insult to Animal Welfare - The NAIS is the ultimate
objectification of higher level living creatures, treating individual
animals as if they were cans of peas with a bar code. Many people who
raise their own animals, or buy from small local producers, do so
because they are very troubled by industrial-scale production of
chickens, cattle, sheep, and pigs. These people will be forced either
to sacrifice their personal privacy to government surveillance, or to
stop raising their own food by humane standards.

Burden on Religious Freedom - Many religious sects
require their members to raise their own food animals and use animals
in farming and transportation because their beliefs require them to
live this way. Such people obviously cannot comply with the
USDA's computerized, technology-dependent system. The NAIS will
force these people to violate their religious beliefs.

Extraordinary Costs without Value - The database will
cost far more than it will delivery. The disease control claims are
specious, as they ignore that disease control methods must be designed
based on the species and disease involved, and the vectors of
transmission. One system, even if it was useful for one species, will
not fit all. The numbers of annual reports, and the size of the
database, will dwarf any other database the federal government has. If
it cannot track aliens with expired visas, how will it track
300,000,000 annual reports of movement or tagging of chickens? In
other countries that have adopted mandatory premises and animal
identification and tracking, costs have multiplied to twelve times the
original fees per animal. Our economy cannot absorb these costs, when
American citizens will reap no measurable benefit.

A Technological Nightmare - While the technology
companies claim that they can deliver the technology called for under
NAIS, this technology carries many problems and dangers of its own.
RFID chips can be reprogrammed or even infected with viruses. Want to
place the blame for a sick animal on someone else? Just reprogram the
tag. Want to create chaos at a livestock auction? Infect the tags
with viruses. Want to steal a horse? Simply destroy the microchip
embedded in the horses' neck and insert a counterfeit one of your
own.


State Issues

It is critical that everyone learn what is happening in their
state. NAIS is not a federal mandate. The USDA has no
statutory authority to implement NAIS. Each state is free to decide
for itself whether or not to implement an animal
identification system.


So find out if your state already has legislation or is
implementing NAIS without legislation. If there is legislation, is
the state agency working on regulations to implement it? If there
isn't legislation, then how is it that your state is setting up its
program? You, and your friends, have the capability to block and/or
force the repeal of any laws. Tell your neighbors about this attack
on our civil liberties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thank you Carolyn!

That was very informative. Its time to get a hold of your state representatives. A simple Google search will give you phone numbers and email address to them. If we set back and say nothing we'll be herded along like the sheepeople we are. One day we'll look back and wonder how it happened. Right now is the time to voice your opinion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
849 Posts
I know I'm resurrecting a pretty old thread here, but I (finally) just got through reading Mad Sheep by Linda Faillace, and my deep suspicions about the USDA were very much confirmed. I recommend this book to anyone and everyone who is involved with raising animals or eating animal products or has starry-eyed visions of their government representing their interests and looking out for the good of the people.

http://www.amazon.com/Mad-Sheep-Story-B ... 1933392096

Back on the NAIS topic though, Phil and I got into the habit of taking our phone off the hook every night when we go to bed, and the NAIS program was the reason we started. I kept getting a survey from the USDA asking us to identify ourselves, our premises, and our animals for the purpose of safeguarding the public and farmers against disease outbreaks. I only have one goat and do not consider him to be livestock, nor do I consider my backyard to be a farm, and I wasn't going to fill the thing out in any case because I don't like the government and don't trust them.

I threw the surveys away, so I started getting calls. I told them I didn't want to hear from them and even told them I didn't have animals, but they kept calling back. Since I'm often outside during the day, they started calling early in the morning. But when they woke me up early on a Saturday morning after I'd been on the rode until 2 a.m. the night before, I was outraged. The phone stayed off the hook after that until well after breakfast.

But they still got ahold of me one more time and I decided to try one more thing to make them go away. I told them exactly what I thought of the USDA and of government in general. The girl on the other end said "wow," and when she went on to try to explain that this was for the protection of my animals I told her that not only do I not have any animals, I am a raging anarchist. After the anarchist statement she thanked me for my time and hung up. No one from the USDA has ever called me again. I'm not sure if it actually worked or if they were ready to give up anyway, but I've since found that playing the anarchist card is the fastest way to end those unwanted political calls during campaign season. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
595 Posts
The current state of the NAIS issue is a bill that would prevent farms from making more than half their farm income from selling farming produce.
It's called bill S510. More as I ger more information.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
849 Posts
Yes, I called my senators asked them to oppose S.510. Of course they voted for it anyway. It's moved on to the House now, and you can bet I'll be badgering my representatives about it too. Hopefully with a bit more success than I had with badgering my senators.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if WikiLeaks would release dirt on the USDA next. But now I'm dreaming.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top