I am totally opposed to the National Animal Identification system. I read a large part of your current User Guide draft and found no good reason for this invasion of privacy. It would be completely non-sense for the registration in this system to become mandatory. Our country is one of freedom. Have you think about the Amish people living of their farm? This system would be against their religious values. They cannot use any technology.
Let the United States remain free.
Some method for disease control would be far more effective and, even, less expensive. A basic example is the ground beef. Don’t mix meat from hundredths of cows all together!!! Europe and Japan have already taken such measure. It is not because the USA is independent that it cannot follow good examples from other countries.
In your User Guide draft of November 2006, it is stated “Time is money”. Whose first concern is money? Not the small farmers. It is probably your first concern and the concern of big food and meat industry. The concern of small farmer is to eat healthy and produce top quality product, fresh from the farm. Not to produce big quantity of meat, completely safe thanks to irradiation and preservatives.
I am deeply and completely opposed to this system.
Are animals the guinea pigs before you try this system on human?
Aude

God Bless

Comments on the NAIS program as proposed.

Our position: My husband and I own horses, sheep and poultry. We are a private, non-commercial small farm and use the animals for their meat, eggs, fleece and for entertainment. We do periodically buy animals, both in-state and inter-state, and may have goats or cattle in the future. We intend to raise / breed / sell a small number of heirloom livestock in the future, probably including cattle and sheep.

We are opposed to the implementation of NAIS in general. We are absolutely opposed to its application to small farmers, small producers, homesteaders, and private individuals. We are absolutely opposed to any mandatory implementation, and any voluntary implementation that could be made mandatory by state legislation, or implemented as a de-facto-mandatory by duress through economic pressure or restriction of access to services.

Incidentally, we are not *nuts* or rumormongers, and object to the characterization of NAIS-objectors as such by Mr. Knight and Mr. Johannes, et al.

Our specific objections (detailed reasons follow below):
1: We objection to allowing or inviting government control, regulation, and oversight into areas it does not belong in, including our backyard.
2: NAIS is not as voluntary as it is promoted to be.
3: Regulating our animals does not improve public safety or reduce the risk of the spread of disease.
4: NAIS interferes with the right to conduct commerce.
5: NAIS costs *our* money and takes *our* time.
6: NAIS does not provide much in the way of prevention.
7: The government already uses heavy-handed and open-ended tactics in dealing with producers, more opportunity to do so is frightening.
8: We have a visceral objection to chipping our animals.
9: NAIS does not provide any real protection against the theoretical introduction of disease as a terrorist act.
10: Regulation and registration of horses and other non-food animals is wholly unnecessary.
11: NAIS is redundant to existing and already functioning programs.
12: Application of NAIS to llamas and alpacas is not necessary.

Point 1: Our first objection is to allowing or inviting government control, regulation, and oversight into areas it does not belong in, including our backyard.
We have had several first-hand and more second-hand experiences with government regulation that brought home this point: Individuals within the government sometimes use or misuse the rules to suit their own purposes. We have absolutely NO confidence that the rules will be applied in the spirit that they were written, as we have personal experience that often they are not. The letter of the law is what matters, and people’s assurances about how and when it will be applied are meaningless. Further, we’ve seen the letter of the law turned to suit an agenda… so not only is the letter of the law important, but every possible interpretation of it needs to be considered… If it could possibly be interpreted or applied in a particular manner, sooner or later, it will be.

This is especially important to consider when we have limited resources to defend our position and our property, and the government has essentially unlimited resources. More concerning still is that the government has the power to take control of or destroy our property and our animals and detain or arrest us before a court would even hear a case. We are aware of a number of cases where animals have been destroyed before their owners have had a hearing before a judge. We personally know people who have been arrested on what we know *for a fact* to be false pretences and lies. Once the damage is done, it is done. Dead animals cannot be restored if the government is later determined to be in error.

Point 2: NAIS is not as voluntary as it is promoted to be. Often, things said to be “voluntary” are not so in practice. Pressures can be applied to force the issue. For instance, the “interim rule” to prevent the movement of animals from noncompliant states would pressure these states to comply or lose the economic opportunities of buying or selling outside their own territory. It could prevent us buying livestock from out of state, or even moving the livestock we already own. That is an outrageous invasion of our rights as property owners.

In addition, any voluntary program that is promoted as expecting 100% compliance within 2 years does not meet the requirements for “voluntary”.

Point 3: Regulating our animals does not improve public safety or reduce the risk of the spread of disease. Regulating our animals provides no public good or personal advantage, and introduces additional costs and government intrusion.

The government has no place in our back yard or in regulating our livestock. We are not a large commercial producer. We have a few sheep, horses, chickens, ducks, and geese. We do not keep our animals in a high-density environment where diseases are likely to spread. We do not buy and sell and have transient animals that might introduce or contract a disease and then be moved before it became evident. In theory, we might give or sell come eggs to a neighbor, or sell a lamb to be slaughtered or bred, but we will know our buyer and they know us. They know precisely where the animal came from; most likely have been on our property. They know what conditions the animal has lived in and how it has been cared for. If they have questions about our husbandry, they can check it out first hand before buying. If there were to be a problem, there is only one place to go, no mystery to be solved, and no risk to the general public’s health. If an animal we sold were to turn up ill - unlikely since it has only lived on our farm and is not exposed to other animals - the problem would still be contained… our farm and theirs. Simple good husbandry practices like quarantine of new animals reduces the already minimal risks.

Point 4: Interference with the right to conduct commerce. It seems to us that the opportunity to engage in commerce is one of the most basic of human rights. If we choose to buy or sell an animal or animal products from a neighbor, or to a friend, how is it the business of the government to be notified of that? If we raise half a dozen calves on contract for individuals that want lovingly raised, home-grown beef, how is it the government’s business to regulate that? Since doing so does not pose a general public health risk, there is no need to be involved for that reason. Perhaps, then, it is for reasons of tracking commerce? Since it is the current practice that those transactions may be taxable, it is our obligation to report income or expenses as part of our already existing tax obligation, and under already existing tax laws. There is no need for additional regulation or government invasiveness to cover commerce.

In addition, for the small farm, homestead, or landowner, NAIS does not protect access to markets. While we know that large commercial producers may like the tracking-factor because it makes them appealing to foreign markets, we are never going to be selling a steer to Japan. Our potential market is protected by the fact that we are a small grower with an attention to the welfare of our animals, and our customer’s product needs, because it is our way of doing business. Because it is our way-of-being in the world. If our customer wants what NAIS provides, they can buy beef at the market. If they want what we would provide, it has nothing to do with NAIS.

Point 5: It costs money. Regardless of if we pay directly for the tracking devices and services, or they are paid for through tax-generated “government” funds, it is still our money. Regardless if it is ten cents or a thousand dollars, it is still *our* money. The government already takes plenty of our money for use in things we may or may not approve of, not to mention obscene amounts of waste. We see no reason for the government to take more of it, directly or indirectly, for a program that, as it applies to us, provides no benefits. Why should we have to give them any amount of our money so we can have and use our horses, sheep, chickens and ducks?

Besides that, it takes time. Tagging, reporting, tracking all take time. For a program that provides us no benefit, why should the government be able to require we spend that time? Or punish us if we don’t?

Point 6: It is not clear to us that this program provides much in the way of prevention… rather it allows tracking of the perpetrators in case of a problem that has already occurred. It seems to us that in most cases this is already rather well accomplished by the existing systems. Cases of contaminated meat are relatively quickly tracked back to the source and the government already jumps in with quarantines and testing. The product is removed quickly and *further* illness is averted. I say *further* because the initial outbreak is NOT prevented, and we see no way in which the NAIS program would provide prevention. It is not clear to us how this program would provide significantly faster tracking back to the source that the existing systems. I don’t recall where I read it, but we think the numbers I saw were significant… current system tracks to source in 72 hours, where it is proposed (not proven or guaranteed) that NAIS would track to source in 48 hours. We are greatly opposed to giving the government huge new rights and accesses for that theoretical 24-hour gain.

Point 7: The government already uses some heavy-handed and open-ended tactics in dealing with producers; we find it scary that we would voluntarily offer more ways to do that. It was recently all over the news that some children had gotten sick with e-coli in raw milk. The producer was shut down, without a resolution date. Testing was done and *no* contamination was found. More testing was done and *still* no contamination was found. The dairymen have been throwing out their products for months, unreasonable economic harm has been done to both the producer and the dairy cow owners, but the government takes its time and the restrictions are not lifted. Recourse through the courts is slow, and certainly there has been no public vindication of the dairy or its products. In this case, the government found a likely looking villain and never mind that there is no proof. Those people have been irreparably damaged and are unlikely to be compensated. They are guilty until proven innocent and that is wrong, not to mention un-American. It is examples like this that make us wholly unwilling to yield our options and freedoms and offer more rights to the government.

Point 8: We have a visceral objection to chipping our animals. We would never permit ourselves to be chipped, and have no intention of allowing our animals to be chipped either. Aside from the issues of the right to control of property and person, this is an invasion we find completely unacceptable. It is our belief that we have the incontrovertible right to control our bodies, what goes into them, what is done to them. We believe that right extends to the living creatures whose lives we have accepted responsibility for.

Point 9: We don’t see that this program provides any real protection against the theoretical introduction of disease as a terrorist act. As we understand the proposal, not allowing un-tagged animals into the system would in theory protect us from terrorist acts. Somehow, it would seem the terrorists would find it easier to introduce a germ rather than a whole steer. Somehow, the distribution of an aerosol virus or a powder into a feedlot, feed manufacturing, or water supply (like what was done in DC with the Anthrax incident) seems much more likely and much more practical than the introduction of a whole animal. NAIS would do nothing to protect against that. We think this is a boogeyman being used to generate fear… a common tactic when convincing folks to give up freedoms and relinquish personal responsibilities for a theoretical “guarantee” of protection.

Point 10: Regulation and registration of horses, llamas, and other non-food animals is wholly unnecessary. We totally do not understand the need for applying the NAIS to horses. In more cases than not, the diseases of livestock do not affect horses, and vice versa. Horses are not part of the human food chain in the US, and are not carriers for diseases that could, through consumption of meat, eggs, or dairy products, affect humans. There are already laws in place requiring health testing for potentially contagious horse diseases when transporting inter-state. Facilities such as racetracks and show grounds are already attuned to identifying and quarantining animals that show signs of illness, and many already have their own regulations. We don’t see that the NAIS program is going to provide any disease prevention, while it imposes new requirements and opportunities for government interference in people’s lives and businesses.

Point 11: The NAIS is redundant to existing and already functioning programs. We are not convinced that the NAIS program would serve better than the programs such as the lucid and well-articulated plan by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Under the MDA program, infected animal movement would be controlled, infected animals would be destroyed, and quarantines would be put in place. Their program provides for testing, vaccination, and decontamination. Their excellent state plan provides a clear and solid guide for how to manage an outbreak of FMD, or any other highly contagious livestock disease, for that matter. It clearly states who is responsible for what, and what actions should be taken in the various possible eventualities. It has the advantage of state and local control, which is bound to make it more responsive to the conditions, needs and knowledge of the local population.

When states already have such programs in place, the NAIS program is not needed and is, in fact, unwanted, redundant, and expensive overhead.

Point 12: Application of NAIS to llamas and alpacas is not necessary. How is the public health protected by tagging and tracking the movement and sales of llamas? This we totally don’t get. They are not part of the US food chain, they cannot pass diseases to humans, and while they might carry diseases that could be transmitted to sheep or cattle, there are already extensive state programs in place for identifying and controlling things like FMD.

Conclusion: We are not large commercial producers, and don’t know enough about that to have an opinion about the advisability or usefulness of a NAIS program in that arena. But we are categorically opposed to the application of NAIS to small producers, small farms, homesteads, and the average rural landowner. Beyond that, we don’t see that this program would actually do much of what it is being pitched on. We have enough government overhead already and can’t see the value in having more big government oversight to achieve what we think will be a very small result. Especially not when it empowers the government to invade our privacy, regulate our activities, and oblige us to fees and efforts and potentially penalties in a program that brings us no benefit whatsoever.

- I explained specifically what I found utterly intolerable about the NAIS program. I explained my utter lack of faith in the USDA and its related agencies to do its job in any measure or to be in any way uncorrupt. I explained why I feel this way. Then I explained how they could fix it, starting with putting all kinds of policies in place to ensure that the NAIS remains 100% voluntary.
- I explained that they need an independent oversight committee in Congress to ensure that the USDA does not bribe states with federal funds to make NAIS mandatory in any state (I know, I know… I can hear your objections from here).
- I told them they need a Livestock Owners’ Bill of Rights which will guarantee all livestock owners of their civil rights and protect them from federal and state employees, providing a system for redress of grievance, whether there is an “emergency” or not. It must specify in specific terms what an emergency is and is not. And it must be ratified by at least 3/4 of all livestock owners/businesses whether they are signed up with the NAIS or not… One vote per individual or entity so that Big-Agro can’t throw their weight around. (I kind of like this idea… although I’m sure that there are all kinds of problems with it… it’s democratic, and damn it, I like democracy!)
- I emphasized that there must not be any penalties of any kind for not participating in the NAIS, and there must not be any coercion by any agency or entity to participate.
- I also said that all livestock owners must be reimbursed by the federal government for any loss of property during an emergency and must not be held finacially or legally responsible for any emergency situation not wholly of their *intentional* making, which must be proven in court at the government’s expense.
- I said that livestock owners must be notified verbally and in writing of the emergency when it occurs and of their rights any time they are visited by a USDA, other agency or state employee.
- I said that reimbursement to NAIS participants must be made for any financial burden beyond published USDA estimates.
- I said that there must be an easy and clear way to un-register from the program at any time for any reason and there must be no coercion to register or re-register.
- I said that buying an animal from someone signed up in the NAIS must not register the purchaser and they must be permitted to remove the NAIS ID device with or without notifying the NAIS of its removal.
- I said there should be a means by which people or entities can legally transport livestock across state lines without requiring participation in NAIS or any similar program.
- I said that the security must be improved to Fort Knox like proportions to safeguard the personal information of those enrolled in NAIS.
- I said that the USDA should require and personally review safety testing of all devices used to ID animals at the expense of the company developing/selling the device before approving or recommending its use to the public because I have read that microchips have been found to cause cancer.

In closing I said, “Ensuring the privacy, the civil rights and the unalienable rights of livestock owners should be the USDA’s number one priority in any attempt to implement the NAIS program. I do not believe that this is the case at this time. I do not believe that the USDA has any concern with ensuring the civil rights of American citizens. I believe that at the moment the USDA is implementing a program designed to limit the rights of US citizens in unconstitutional ways, to strengthen big-agro businesses at the expense of small businesses and individual citizens who own livestock, and to bow to unreasonable pressure from the World Trade Organization. The USDA is responsible to the American farmer first and foremost. The USDA’s responsibility is not to help big business stomp on the little guy or to help international organizations dictate policy inside the United States. As Abraham Lincoln said, it is to be the people’s department. The USDA and all of its employees and related agencies would do well to remember this and to use it as their guiding principle.”

link
I responded only to the voluntary part. Here is what I wrote to help out my fellow state of Washington:

Cookson Beecher wrote “the USDA has made the controversial National Animal Identification System voluntary, the agency is still aiming at 100 percent participation by 2009.” I would like to dispel this miss-information to the readers of Capital Press.

I have read all the documents on the National Animal Identification System and the USDA will not stop until it is MANDATORY as per this Cooperative Agreement.
link

on page 11 in the CA
Projects must focus on implementation of premises and animal identification methods according to the standards defined in the NAIS Draft Program Standards

on page 16 in the CA
“Provide a brief overview of the work to be performed and how the plan builds upon the 2005 or 2006 cooperative agreement plan. Also, explain how this plan will support the timelines for full implementation of NAIS as outlined in the draft strategic plan.
This means the USDA has all intentions of following the Draft Strategic plan.

On the cover of the NAIS User Guide it States, link “The November 2006 Guide is the most current plan for NAIS and replaces all previously published program documents, including the 2005 Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards and the 2006 Implementation Strategies. I think with the small amount of information that I wrote above clearly demonstrates that the USDA and the State Vet are miss-informing the public again.

Further more, another document is recommending that any state that does not support NAIS will not be able to ship across state lines.
link
Two recommendations were considered by the Committee. The following recommendation was approved by the Committee.

That USDA-APHIS-VS with input from the National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials (NASAHO), promulgate an interim rule that establishes a list of Consistent States for Cattle Identification. The rule would provide for restriction of interstate movements other than direct to slaughter from non-consistent states. The rule would specify that consistent states have established by law, rule, order, or other means requirements that all breeding age cattle be officially identified by means of official tag or registration brand or tattoo at each change of ownership, other than movements direct to slaughter, or movements through one approved market and then direct to slaughter. Further, that consistent states have import requirements that all such cattle be officially identified prior to import or at first point of concentration. Consistent states may grant waivers for such requirements for interstate movements which are part of normal operating business with no change of ownership and for seasonal grazing/feeding as agreed to by the state and federal animal health officials of the states involved. Further, that this interim rule be promulgated prior to July 1, 2007. In addition, the Committee recommends that a follow-up rule be promulgated prior to July 1, 2008, that establishes consistent states as those that have in place similar requirements for breeding aged cattle upon change of ownership for feeding or grazing.
-Report Of The Committee On Livestock Identification

The Committee has recommended that, prior to July 1, 2007, the USDA should promulgate an “interim rule” that would prohibit interstate movement of cattle from any state that fails to REQUIRE THAT ALL BREEDING AGE CATTLE BE OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED at each change of ownership. Such an “interim rule” would make it impossible for any state to resist, because it would become economically isolated. Also note that an “interim rule” can be promulgated WITH NO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

Is the USDA planning to follow this Committee recommendation and force NAIS upon the entire nation by means of a dictatorial “interim rule”? It is bad enough that the USDA has been killing off American agriculture for decades; don’t let them kill off democracy.

If the Committee of the USAHA can recommend this for cattle, will pigs, chickens, goats, equines, and the other listed livestock under the “Draft Strategic Draft Plan” be included?

People need to realize that the NAIS will be under FEDERAL RULES and REGULATIONS. Its a legal binding contract where you can not opt out once you sign up “VOLUNTARILY” and they need your signature to do so.

Every “State” who implements the National Identification System will have to be Stripped of the United States of America’s Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to comply with this “Voluntary to Mandatory” Program in Jan 2009 per the timeline in the USDA DRAFT STRATEGIC DRAFT PLAN!