For now Alabama’s governor Riley, Commissioner Sparks and the legislature have blocked mandatory Premise ID, Animal ID and Animal Tracking - the three corner stones of the USDA’s proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
The bill (254) contained an Executive Amendment from Governor Riley at the request of Commissioner Sparks. The additional language was added to ensure that it is clear that the law would not implement a mandatory animal identification program in Alabama and that the program would not be mandatory until it is required by federal regulations. The law is intended to keep information collected in the program confidential to protect the privacy of those who participate.
“I want to thank Representative Blaine Galliher and Senator Zeb Little for sponsoring this bill,” said Commissioner Sparks. “Keeping our producers’ and farmers’ information private has proven to be an effective way to encourage participation in our voluntary program in Alabama; and participation means we are able to better protect our consumers and our agriculture industry.” -AL Dept Agriculture
There is discussion in Vermont, Missouri, Maine, Texas and Washington state of similar legislation to protect our traditional rights to farm and local agriculture from the groping hand of Big Ag and its proponents in government. I hope that other states will find the courage to follow this example and even take it further by implementing specific legislation to protect our traditional constitutional rights and privacy from further erosion.
AMEN and Hallelujah!
Comment Cynthia B. — April 25, 2006 @ 9:48 am
Good news.
I have today sent out e-mails to everyone I know to respond with e-mails/letters to their elected officals. Each elected offical needs to know that their time in office CAN be taken away at election time if they support this regulation. I don’t care if I live in MN, I still send out letters and emails against NAIS to other states. And will continue to do so. Written/typed mailed letters have more ‘force’ in this regard. If you hit the USDA as I have 3 times a week letters/emails/phone calls you get response. The phone call from the USDA in Washington yesterday finally has given me a name for a contact person that I have been trying to get for many weeks now. Of course, I did post on a website, after many rejections(10) from the USDA to speak at our meeting, I did post that I would hold the meeting and state, “The USDA refused to attend”. Looks like we will be having a USDA person to speak at our Town Hall Meeting after all.
“WHEN I COUNT MY BLESSINGS, I COUNT MY HORSES TWICE”
Comment Goose — April 25, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Good for Alabama! We may need to import some of those rational people to my state of Kentucky who is still sliding toward NAIS.
Comment Dave — April 25, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
When I first heard of this in Texas from the USDA saying we would be fined If animal owners dident sign up.. I thought of my personal freedoms and constitonal rights were being worshed away By Big Brother I wrote my state repersentive now I write my congress woman! Every body write , email, scream ,fight! My horses will love you! Betty Rodgers
Comment Betty Rodgers — April 25, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Good for Alabama - I have a State Rep. here in NH whom I believe is “on our side” now. I’ve sent him much information and recently sent him the bills introduced in Missouri and Tennessee with the suggestion that I wish NH would do the same. Now it’s wait and see.
Comment Faith — April 25, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
I live in Alabama and had e-mailed Governor Riley a few weeks back requesting he have someone study the draconian rules of the proposed NAIS, of what it would do to small farmrs, and asked he make effort to develop a reasonable and fair program. This is the first I knew our officals have taken action in the right direction.
Comment Nancy Coffin — April 25, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
And the Maryland legislature continues with its collective head…well in the sand or somewhere dark and airless.
Comment Bkeepr — April 25, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Nancy I am in Georgia and I also wrote Riley. Looks like he may have got some of our letters?
Comment Goatster — April 25, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Frankly I’m stunned.
This is NOT a step in the right direction. They have not backed off and they are not going to. They are moving forward, speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
This “not mandatory” and “keeping info private” is the standard government line.
This will be voluntary until they make it mandatory and the only people that won’t have access to your info will be those outside of the federal and state government’s whorish beds.
I know this language is harsh. I mean it to be so. These people are not on our side. They are still going through the path of least resistance and our freedoms will continue to die over plates of barbecue beans at Cattlemen’s Association dinners unless we get out from in front of our computers and go to meetings.
Explain to your fellow livestockmen and women that this will not help them. The extra money promised now for id’d cattle and premises means DISCOUNT in the future. There are no price increases for livestock raisers.
It’s not the government we’ve gotta convince, it’s the other farmers, y’all.
Comment Justin — April 25, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
I agree with Justin. The Alabama move may be a small battle that has been won, but the real war is still to come. The federal government plays for keeps - do NOT forget that.
My $.02.
Andrew
Comment Andrew — April 25, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Something else I noticed about this article is that it states animal ID will continue to be voluntary but it doesn’t seem to address manditory property ID.
Comment Robin — April 25, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Tinybabe wrote:
We have to get every state to back off of this horrible, Constitutional mishap.
I just wish some of these people in states that are pushing the envelope and forcing people to sign up would sue the state. Once one group of people wins a law suit, the entire thing will fall apart.
Agreed. I don’t have the money to fight it in court and I suspect that is the case of most individuals. The government is the proverbial 800 lb boar who gets to sit where ever it wants. Or was that a gorilla? :) I have repeatedly contacted the ACLU but they tell me they are not interested because it does not involve people. I was surprised as I always thought that farmers, homesteaders, pet owners and consumers were people…
Comment walterj — April 26, 2006 @ 5:24 am
I agree with the comments that this is not a solution. But it is encouraging to see that the state governments and the federal government are actually listening. They have changed the program and backed off of some of the agressive timeline and other issues. We need to keep pushing to turn this into something that will work at all levels. NAIS should be a purely market driven solution. Buyers who want meat that can be traced-back should offer a premium and then farmers who produce that get paid something to make up for the added costs and labor. Meanwhile, back on the farm, the rest of us would not be burdened by a system that has no value to us. Keep fighting for NAIS to be kept 100% voluntary.
Comment walterj — April 26, 2006 @ 5:31 am
Don’t let the government’s words fool you! Keep your info. letters, calls, etc. flowing to everyone until this ID System is dead & buried. And, don’t forget to thank your state gov. & reps. for their assistance; honey works better than acid!
Comment Elaide Gahn — April 26, 2006 @ 6:09 am
Justin, Andrew, & Robin are correct. I live in Alabama, and a group of small farmers here, including myself, petitioned the state government to WHOA! before passing HB254, and take a look at what it would do to non-commercial farmers in the state. Only 6 representatives & senators listened - not even Ag Commissioner Sparks would agree to hear the side of the small producers. (I’m not sure it’s a good idea to list him in the “nice” column.) We addressed our many concerns to Sparks personally, and his response was definitely one-sided and evasive. For instance, he would not even address the issues of cost, privacy, or farming ventures that are not part of the “food producing” agri-business sector. He seemed to brush us off as an unimportant non-entity, yet stressed that we MUST be included in the NAIS laws. What he did want to talk about was how “agriculture is now a GLOBAL commodity, and we must stay abreast of international trade issues”. How this is a step in the right direction is beyond me - NAIS should not affect those of us who do not participate in commercial food production, PERIOD.
Comment FarmerSid — April 26, 2006 @ 10:44 am
I was out of town and just now began to catch-up with latest developments. But…I must agree with Justin (comment #9). This is a very small victory if it is a victory at all. They have said that “they won’t make the program mandatory until the USA requires”. Well folks, that could be any day the USDA chooses!
What will happen to this if the USDA chooses to make premise id mandatory tomorrow? Then I guess the states drop their objections? And the USDA still maintains that it has the right ot make the program mandatory without further action by Congress.
It’s okay to see this for what it is; a small (perhaps) delay in implementation. And maybe it will help to raise public awareness. But aside from that, I am hoping for stronger action to be taken against NAIS.
We still have lots of work to do!!
Comment Neil W. — April 26, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Walter…re: your comment #13…you agree this is not a solution…
Does this go back to your comment made earlier about the two tier system? You mentioned an upcoming article about that topic? I mean; what exactly should we be requesting of our legislators? Should we be asking them to oppose NAIS altogether, or should we be asking for a two tier compromise?
Perhaps if we could all agree on what it is we realistically expect to gain at the end of this war, we could all agree on what we should be asking our legislators to propose!
This might prevent the sort of “wishy-washy” responses we are getting where states say “we won’t make it mandatory unless the USDA requires”.
Should we still be opposing NAIS 110 per cent, or should we be looking at reasonable compromise that might generate more meaningful legislation from our respective state assemblies? Is it too soon to be talking compromise?
Comment Neil W. — April 26, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
A friendly comment to Justin…hey pardner…I know that spending time in front of the computer isn’t the same as attending meetings and forums. But…my time in front of the computer has generated a front page story (and all of page two) in our local newspaper sirculation 50k or more.
That front page article generated much debate and public awareness in this county where few people even KNEW ANYTHING about NAIS! And that has spread to recruiting more people against NAIS and more letters and phne calls to legislators than you can imagine!
And all of that has led more legislators to wake up and smell the coffee about NAIS. We have found that many of them didn’t know as much as we might have thought!
I know about “bench racing” as opposed to actual racing. Yes, there is a difference! But…don’t discourage people from exchanging the written word! I have attended many meetings in my time where absolutely NOTHING gets accomplished! There is much to be said for well-timed letters and phone calls that generate more results than attending meetings. The time will draw near when we all have to “hit the streets” with our opposition. But let’s not denigrate the fine people who’s written words have generated much interest in this cause!
Comment Neil W. — April 26, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
For those who are living in states that are jumping the gun and forcing people to register their animals and/or premises (both private property), here are some suggestions:
If you can get a group of people together, an attorney can file a class action suit and most will take it on as a contingency basis, i.e. they don’t charge you, but take 1/3 of the amount of money won. Of course you have to have an attorney that is willing to fight the good fight. A civil rights attorney.
How can the ACLU say it doesn’t affect the people? Who do they think it affects? It’s not the animals rights being violated. It’s not the animals who will have to be put out of business or pay thousands of dollars and have
the government violate their Constitutional rights.
Maybe you can take a small ad out in your local newspaper. Something that says “Those of you willing to fight the NAIS, contact” and you can have your
number there. You might be surprised how many people you get to call. Then, you ask if they are willing to sign a letter or petition for a law
suit (even an email with their name and addy) and take it around to civil rights attorneys. That’s how the ball gets rolling and once it’s on the move, more people might come out of the woodwork and possibly the newspaper
might run an article. I did that with the vet who killed my mastiff and I could not believe the amount of people who had animals injured or killed by that vet. Sometimes people need a kick in the ass to get them off that couch. You know the old “We’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore” thing?
All you need is 10 people with signs marching outside city hall buildings to get the media to come out. When this is on the news, more people will know about it.
K.C.
Comment K.C. — April 26, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
we don’t want any compromises.
Don’t give an inch.
This thing is SO EVIL it harms us
to think about it.
This is the tip of everything that has led up to it….
Never let up and don’t fall for
the lies. If this had been a good
idea they wouldn’t have had to lie about it.
The fate of the world is in our
hands..no more vacations…
we are now the leaders and our
children’s futures depend upon us……
Comment sid sargent — April 26, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Neil, until we can get some assurance that we will be protected from the abuses of NAIS we should keep fighting it 110%. Realistically, NAIS will likely exist in some form. I want to see it kept voluntary and market driven. There a few people who would benefit from NAIS and in a democracy they should be allowed to benefit. However NAIS should not be forced on the rest of us. The current danger is they’ll slip NAIS in piece meal, gradually stealing away our rights. We need protection against that. This will probably take the form of state level legislation like the “Right to Farm” laws. The protection needs to be broader than just farming - they are chipping away at a lot of our rights.
Comment walterj — April 27, 2006 @ 11:32 am
AMEN,I AGREE WITH ALL YOU THAT SAY KEEP THE PRESSURE ON,HERE IN PA. I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ABOUT CHRISTMAS I HAVE QUICKLY GOTTEN UP TO SPEED,I HAVE CONTACTED LOCAL STATE REPS,MINE AND EVERYBODY ELSES,AND HAVE BEEN AMAZED THAT ONLY ONE HAD EVEN HEARD OF NAIS,SO I HAD TO BRING THEM ALL UP TO SPEED ALSO I SEEM TO HAVE FOUND A COUPLE REPS WHO ARE RILED UP A BIT BY THIS,STATE SENATORS ON THE OTHER HAND SEEM TO BE ,SHALL I SAY WIMPS,OR NOT TOO BRIGHT OR JUST PLAIN COMPLACENT,ALTHOUGH I DID LIGHT A FIRE UNDER ONES REAR TODAY.THE POINT IS THAT THEY HOPE WE”LL ALL JUST GO BACK TO WHAT WE DO AND THEY CAN SLIP THIS IN SOMEHOW,LETERS E MAILS LETTERS TO EDITORS POSTERS FLIERS PETITIONS SCREAMING IF NESSESSARY TALKING TO POEPLE ECT ECT,EDUCATE THE PEOPLE AND POLITICIANS AND WE CAN BEAT THIS MONSTER THE ALTERNATIVE IS NOT AN OPTION!!! ETERNAL VIGILENCE IS THE PRICE OF FREEDOM!
Comment LEE — April 27, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
“NAIS” is this Darkness which will befall us all,if “We the People” don’t FIGHT!
I say:
Courage is not defined by a person’s ability to speak their mind, yelling like a lion’s bellow.
Courage is an “Action” of Humility, putting one’s Cause of Honor, before his/her Life,
to retain the Freedom and Liberty which “We” as People, seek, from an Honorable and Just God, Not from Oppressive Men in Secret combinations.
By Dean A. Ayers , AFOSI (Iowa)
Stop NAIS……..
Iowans_Against_NAIS
Comment DeanAFOSI (IOWA) — April 27, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
DEAN AYERS FOR PRESIDENT
or else……
Courage is daring to ask
and then to stand
yelling won’t help
but standing up will
Never underestimate the power
of one LOUD QUACK
Comment sid sargent — April 28, 2006 @ 7:32 am
I just found out about NAIS a couple of weeks ago and have been asking around but not to many people seem to know much about it. I live in Indiana and as I understad it we are to have a premise tag by the first of Sept. I talked to a hog farmer I have known for years only to find out he is on the board to get tags going in the state, when I questioned him about it he got real evaseive and would only say I needed to go to a vet and get a premise tag real soon. I have a vet and he has never said a thing about this. Every bit of this seems hush-hush. I am not going to get tags for any animal or the farm (8 acres) I’ll sell everything first and all the other people that I know with small farms have said the same thing. So what do I do now since Indiana has already passed this rediculous law?
Comment John Walker — April 28, 2006 @ 9:28 am
John, Write your legislators. Spread the word. Write your local papers. 90% of the people I speak with do not want NAIS when they find out what it is. The problem is, not enough people know about. -WJ
Comment walterj — April 28, 2006 @ 9:56 am
I am a small hobby farm in NC. I can’t find out any info. on the national ID program. I have written the state politions and Ag people but no answer yet. I don’t want the National ID sytem.
Does any one know where NC stands.
Comment Robert Bell — May 3, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Robert, Go to NC Ag website. I just went to it, look under FAQ on NAIS. Y’all are in it BIG time, and the fines are steep, $5000 for non-compliance. The only good thing I saw was that they are honest and put stuff up on their website. Translated, that means you have a whole lot of work ahead of you because they haven’t experienced any “heat” yet. Learn all you can, spread the word, and hold them to the fire. That is what we are all doing in our states. Make em squirm! Oh, and make hard copies of whatever you find because once they feel the heat it is amazing-things start to disappear off the websites, they get sanitized.
Comment Celeste — May 4, 2006 @ 9:00 am
I have contacted the ACLU also ,and it is about people ,family farms ,ranches ,horse owners 4Hers etc… We need to put action where our mouth is Write USDA Secretary mike Johanns You can email on the USDA web site and many of their officials also your Senators, your state represenatives Your News papers and the small Business administration Many of us have small animal businesses! Betty In Colorado
Comment Betty Rodgers — May 11, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
Celeste,
I just pulled up the NC NAIS FAQ page and I did not see anything about $5,000 fines. It looks like it is all the same rhetoric without any specifics—in other words the goverment is basically saying, “don’t panic, this is a good system and the goverment will take care of you.” Basically downplaying any fears. Of course, anyone with half a brain in their head knows they can’t trust the goverment for ANYTHING. What DOES worry me is the fact that the FAQ is so bland and generalized with no specifics that the state (NC) is taking. Did I miss something when I was going through the FAQ section? I can’t fight the dragon if I don’t know what the dragon looks like, and it seems to me that the state of NC is hiding behind a bunch of rhetoric, biding their time till this is passed, only to swoop down on unsuspecting farmers once passed.
If anyone knows more of the specifics for NC, I would like to hear about it so I know what weapons I need to “slay the dragon”, so to speak.
Marlene
Comment Marlene Lenker — May 13, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Marlene, Sorry I didn’t book mark it. I would search each link on your Dept. of Af and hard copy them. What is here today is gone tomorrow-known as the shell game. I would search but our state is in high gear so I need to stay focused on it, national and international ..which is a mouthful.
Comment Celeste — May 14, 2006 @ 9:37 am
I am wondering how many folks saw RFD TV discussion with the , I believe, sectary of Ag last evening May 30th,with a few heads of the southern cattlemans Assn. It was focused on the cattle market and why we need the NIAS for the industry to compete with Canada and Australia in the market , Note that thoes countrys already have an ID system… there was NO mention of any other animals except Cattle ..The gentelman made it seem like cattle were the only IDed.. Ha!! He also said in so many words it was a done deal and the states were being Paid by the department to promote it, and by 2009 all animal owners would have the system in place…I think our only hope is to fight it in the courts on the basis of the constitution… If we don’t we have alredy lost! The beast will get its mark!!!!
Comment Betty Rodgers — May 31, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Very interesting to return to the topic posted so few months ago. In my state,WA, the NAIS is “Full Speed Ahead…But keep your trap shut if you want to get is passed, otherwise these country bumkins might actually catch on to what we’re pulling and make it public knowledge!”" Our state Governor Gregoire has done everthing possible to push this through, and is not in opposition with any other state officials other than one good guy- Jole Kretz. So watching what our state officials(swindlers) are currently doing to propmote NAIS just goes to show that it was an outright lie to say that the states are backing off the NAIS. That was obviously put across the “air waves” to get people to forget about it. It worked for a while. Its an old strategy of bluff…..anybody ever heard of that…. :)
We are dealing with the lowest of the low and the greediest of the greedy, both in corporation and in govt. They’re all getting paid off to make each other richer. And who gets the stab in the back- we do. They are playing very dirty here, and just keep that in mind. They are like the child molester luring the child into the car. Once they have you, they will do anything they want to do to you. Only with NAIS, they will be taking away all your rights, and with me- all my animals and farm when I refuse to comply. Then they will fine me a minimum of $1,000 per day for about a month, and I’m flat out washed up-done with- all my life’s work down the drain. I won’t be the only one-there will be millions of families in the same boat. So keep vigile here, and recognize a “child molester” type manipulative govt when you see it and don’t forget it. Sounds harsh, but its true. I can’t think of any better way to describe an upcoming system that will steal everything I currently have. Hey- why don’t they do something useful with all those bazillions of dollars they are using to promote NAIS and go stop the meth producers and drug dealers?? They COULD be doing something useful, but they’re not, they’re working on ways to steal from the good people.
Comment Rene — June 16, 2006 @ 1:39 am
No, the states are NOT backing off at all! This topic started on Apr. 25 stating that Alabama’s newly passed HB254 “will not implement NAIS unless the USDA mandates it”. What a bald-faced lie! We’ve just spent a week researching news we heard last weekend to the effect that as of Aug. 1, 2006, Alabama will be implementing premise ID registration for ALL participants in ANY State Extension System programs involving livestock or crops! FFA, 4-H, fair-goers, and any farmers or gardeners using the assistance of their local county agent WILL BE SIGNED UP! This was confirmed by our representative’s office, but he couldn’t tell us who ordered this step! The way we read the passed version of HB254, there was nothing about any mandatory premise ID at ANY FUTURE DATE - not until the USDA implements NAIS. This is Alabama’s idea of following their own legislation???? Makes me ashamed to be a citizen of this state!!!
Comment FarmerSid — June 16, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
FarmerSid,Just a thought and I may be off,but if this is the case do you suppose it has anything to do with Mr. MOORE running for gov.and Mr.Lipscomb running for ag sec.? As I understand both these fellows are against NAIS,and are quite popular there in Al. is this the case? Anyway do you think that the NAIS proponents are attempting to rush it through to force these fellows to have to come against it if they win in Nov.?What is your take on this situation? I have been in Al.and have told my wife recently that if Al.goes against this thing we will move our farmstead there.
Comment LEE — June 17, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Finally, some good news from me. I wish I could say I had something to do with this resolution, but a man in the county, who is well-acquainted with some of the elected officials was the one that pushed for this. Actually, I guess I was instrumental in some way, because at our local meat goat association, many months ago, I passed out packets I had compiled on NAIS, and I have heard people talk about the table that I sat up against NAIS at our local goat cook-off in May. I would like to think I played some small part in this. I believe some people in our county think I am too “intense” over this issue, but, for me, life isn’t a popularity contest. I think this is a good resolution, and if others think so, maybe we can start a movement from right here in Texas to pass more.
A Resolution of the Commissioners Court of the County of Mills, Texas, Opposing the Proposed Texas Animal Health Commission Regulations for Mandatory Premises Registration where Livestock is raised.
WHEREAS the 79th Legislature of the State of Texas passed HB1361, authorizing (but not mandating) the Texas Animal Health Commission to develop and implement an animal identification program “that is consistent with” the USDA’S NAIS (National Animal Identification System) which is voluntary,
WHEREAS the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) has proposed regulations to implement mandatory premises registration;
WHEREAS the TAHC’s proposed regulations would require every individual who is the “owner, manager, or caretaker of a premises” that has livestock, exotic livestock, domestic poultry, fowl, or exotic fowl to register that premises with the state and pay a biennial fee;
WHEREAS the TAHC’s proposed regulations would impose significant costs, in both time and money, on animal owners;
WHEREAS the TAHC’s proposed regulations is likely to have many unintended consequences on small farms, related businesses, the companion-animal industry, and thousands of private citizens who own animals for companionship, recreation, and subsistence;
WHEREAS TAHC has not performed a cost-benefit analysis of the mandatory premises registration;
WHEREAS House Bill 1361, codified at section 161.056 of the Texas Agricultural Code, is completely permissive and does not require the TAHC to take any action;
WHEREAS the TAHC’S proposed regulations provide for fines and criminal penalties for noncompliance;
WHEREAS the TAHC’s proposed regulations will require each registrant to pay a biennial fee, effectively taxing citizens based on livestock ownership;
WHEREAS the TAHC’s proposed regulations will require hundreds of thousands of people and businesses to register their property and homes;
WHEREAS the TAHC’s proposed regulations will negatively impact individuals, businesses, rural communities, and the entire state;
BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Mills, Texas opposes the adoption of the Texas Animal Health Commissions’s proposed regulations for mandatory premises registration and opposes the implementation of a mandatory national animal identification system in the State of Texas. Be it further resolved that, should the State adopt a voluntary animal identification program, the County supports the inclusion of a provision for full-disclosure of the voluntary nature of the program, the substance of the entire program, the possible uses of information collected thereunder, and every entity or person to whom such information may be disclosed.
Approved this 12th day June, 2006
Commissioners Court of Mills County, Texas
SEAL: COMMISSIONERS COURT MILLS COUNTY, TEXAS
I have carefully gone over this resolution, and have copied it exactly as it is, capital letters where they are and are not, punctuation, etc. The only things that I show differently are these: In the last paragraph (Be it resolved), where the first “voluntary” appears, it is underlined (I don’t know how to do that); in the approval, 12 and June are handwritten; and Mills is also handwritten.
Comment Texas Goat Gal — July 5, 2006 @ 10:34 am
ALL US STATES. Lets fight this for our men/women in Iraq.
Comment Judy — August 19, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
I am an Alabama resident and a link to this comment was sent to me some months after it first appeared, hence my late reply. I’d like to remind everyone of exactly what Alabama’s HB254 actually says.
Commissioner Sparks seeks the governorship in Alabama and his public comment on Alabama’s animal ID bill being about confidentiality is not true. He omitted that the bill’s purpose for Alabama’s ID program to be consistent with the USDA’s NAIS. All of it. No provisions are included in this bill to do otherwise. No exceptions.
His comments appear to be a distraction from the actual language contained in the bill.
It’s a short bill and reads as follows:
Below is the link:
link
When you click the button “HB254″ at the website and nothing happens you call Montgomery and a tech gives you a link over the phone for the text. Unless you have the compatible program that is. Otherwise, you must call Montgomery. The Legislative Reference Service Telephone is (334) 242-7570. That is the only way I and others have accessed the text of the bill online.
I have put the text below.
HB254
By Representative Galliher
RFD Agriculture and Forestry
Rd 1 10-JAN-06
Enacted 2006-504
Last action date: 04/05/2006
SYNOPSIS: Under existing law, information collected by the State Department of Agriculture and Industries from livestock farmers in order to implement and maintain a database consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Identification System would not necessarily be confidential. Also under existing law, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Industries has no specific authority to keep confidential any personal information about individual farming operations that the commissioner may choose to collect in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. This bill would authorize the department to develop and implement an animal identification system consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Identification System. This bill would provide that information collected by the department to implement and maintain the animal identification system would be confidential with certain exceptions. This bill would authorize the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Industries to make confidential certain information the commissioner may collect in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
To authorize the State Department of Agriculture and Industries to develop and implement an animal identification system; to provide that the information collected to implement and maintain the system is confidential; and to authorize the department to make confidential certain information the commissioner may collect in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1. (a) The Department of Agriculture and Industries may develop and implement an animal identification program that is consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Identification System.
(b) The department may require all persons subject to the identification program to provide all information necessary as determined by the department to implement and maintain the program.
(c) All information collected by the department pursuant to this section is confidential and shall not be subject to public disclosure except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or as authorized by rule of the department.
Section 2. In the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Industries may collect information, from time to time, regarding the existence, operation, or business of livestock, milk and dairy products, eggs, cotton, poultry, commercial feed, grain, seed, fertilizer, plants and trees, pesticides, or any other subject regulated by the department pursuant to Title 2 of the Code of Alabama 1975. In order to collect the information without revealing the personal information about individual farming operations, the commissioner may make the information collected pursuant to this section confidential except as otherwise provided by law.
Section 3. All laws or parts of laws which conflict with this act are repealed.
Section 4. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.
Agriculture and Industries Department
Animals
Confidential Information
Livestock
Agriculture
——–
Section 2. In the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Industries may collect information, from time to time, regarding the existence, operation, or business of livestock, milk and dairy products, eggs, cotton, poultry, commercial feed, grain, seed, fertilizer, plants and trees, pesticides, or any other subject regulated by the department pursuant to Title 2 of the Code of Alabama 1975. In order to collect the information without revealing the personal information about individual farming operations, the commissioner may make the information collected pursuant to this section confidential except as otherwise provided by law.
Section 3. All laws or parts of laws which conflict with this act are repealed.
———————–
Commissioner Sparks wrote this bill, he has consistently held to his position on NAIS, he is for it. If you read all his position papers on NAIS he has never waivered from this and continues to push for it.
———————–
Alabama Legislature:
link
Alabama’s Legal Information Center:
State Law Library
link
Commissioner Sparks seeks governorship:
Title of article: Sparks Fires Up Demos, attack Republicans
link
Alabama Dept. of Agriculture and Industries
Search archives for Commissioner Sparks commentaries.
link
Comment Ceci — August 26, 2006 @ 9:45 am
>>>…under existing law, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Industries has no specific authority to keep confidential any personal information about individual farming operations that the commissioner may choose to collect in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare.
Comment Breederville — September 8, 2006 @ 7:31 pm