by Darol Dickinson
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) has been alleged as a three component program, however now a fourth component facade is starting to reveal itself.
The first step of NAIS is premises enrollment, next animal identification, and then coast to coast 48 hour animal tracing.
USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Bruce I. Knight has promised that the NAIS program is easy to enroll and totally voluntary on the federal level, “if . . . enough livestock owners enroll so it does not have to go mandatory.”
The NAIS program has distributed thousands of “selling” USDA press releases quoting Knight. The constant controversy of NAIS has placed the Knight name among the top ten Internet bureaucrats according to Google, with Bruce Knight or Bruce I. Knight showing up over 17,000,000 times.
The fourth Component is meticulously touched by Knight, “If USDA decides to make all or parts of the NAIS mandatory, APHIS will follow the normal rulemaking process.” With rules, laws, inspections, taxes, regulations, or licensing comes the fourth component……Enforcement.
Enforcement of NAIS is not a happy subject especially when the first component is still not setting well with the majority of producers. However, it is a dead serious issue for animal owners who want to know what new enforcements are involved, and their price tag, before they permanently enroll.
In 2007 the US spent nearly one trillion dollars (from taxes and borrowed funds) in regulation enforcements, policing, investigations, and mandatory compliances. Although this was a huge expense to the citizenry, the fines, collections, penalties, licenses, fees and private property confiscations from all law violations was an equally swelling amount; a number impossible to locate from federal published data.
The current “rule making process” for USDA is found on line at Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, U.S. Code., Title 7 >Chapter 109> 8313. Penalties. #8313
(b) Civil Penalties, (1) In general (A)
(i) $50,000 in the case of any individual, except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1000 in the case of an initial violation of this chapter by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain;
(ii) $250,000 in the case of any other person for each violation; and
(iii) $500,000 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding.
Penalties appropriate to the violation is a cornerstone fundamental of the US judicial system. Enforcement is totally capricious with USDA. One could be fined in county court $1000 for a 70 mph speed violation through a school zone, yet $50,000 for crossing a state line with one number incorrect on a USDA issued livestock health certificate—for a perfectly healthy child’s pony! Dr. Max Thornsberry, President of R-CALF USA says, “The USDA is a run away agency out of control, with total disregard for U.S. citizens.”
Producers have been mystified by the massive amount of grants and funds (cooperative agreements) doled by USDA to get NAIS closer to full mandatory mode. The nearly $150,000,000 invested to promote enrollment looks large, but ….. it would only take 300 violations of $500,000 each to quickly earn it back.
US leaders watch other government trends closely in creating new laws and taxation. Europe has been a leader in pioneering thought for US policy. Government animal numbering systems have been urged in a few countries prior to the marketing of NAIS in the US. Australia is the only country to have implemented electronic tagging and tracking as is proposed by the USDA. Australia is a prototype for enforcement also.
Stephen Blair, a Director of the Angus Society of Australia was recently fined $17,300. He was prosecuted by Australian Minister McDonald for moving cattle from one of his ranches wearing ear tags from his other ranch to a livestock auction. No diseased or stolen livestock were involved. It was a matter of a government rule violation. This is a small example of the enforcement USDA could wield over US livestock producers if NAIS was exacted mandatory.
Part of the title for Bruce Knight, is “REGULATORY PROGRAMS.” This probably helps explain his tigerish priorities for the income generating fourth component of NAIS—ENFORCEMENTS.
USDA enforcements are now, and will be a coerced obligation of all licensed USDA veterinarians. Vets will be required to report all non compliance of their valued clients or be subject to immediate licensing reviews. The USDA/APHIS policing division is the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) with headquarters in Raleigh, NC; Fort Collins, CO; and Riverdale, MD. IES boasts of increasing thousands of “clients” with a 51% increase in case load and “more than a threefold increase in the dollar value of civil penalties” in one recent year. To enforce the ever increasing number of regulations, the government seeks to make ordinary citizens into their enforcers. Even today all neighbors, farm employees and friend or foe associates are encouraged on the IES web site to “Report potential violations, please contact IES.” Wisconsin tried to use bulk milk haulers to enforce NAIS against Amish dairy farmers in 2007. The Fourth Component is operational and extremely aggressive.
The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) printed an information flyer to dispel negative NAIS exaggerations. Question: Reports say you’re going to charge $1000 a day for not participating if it is mandatory. Answer: The TAHC is a regulatory agency and has administrative penalty provisions in it’s law as a recourse for persons who refuse to comply.
The Fourth Component is Enforcements It can be disastrously expensive. The majority of US livestock producers don’t like the thought of imprisonment and exorbitant fines.
NAIS, when mandatory, as proposed by USDA, will require 100% computer movement documentation at the full expense of livestock owners. In a three year period the total NAIS computer movement numbers in the USA will more than eclipse the number of all people living on the entire planet earth. The whopping magnitude of this federal numbering burden will require a giant increase in USDA employees, facilities, and, of course IES will explode with new “clients.”
Every livestock producer is encouraged to study the many intricate details of NAIS. The large majority of livestock producers refuse to enroll their premises in NAIS. Oppose NAIS now, rather than when it becomes scurrilously mandatory. There is a small amount of time remaining to politically react.
For more information see:
naisSTINKS.com
NoNAIS.org
www.LibertyArk.net
Australian ear tag case
Cornell Agriculture Law
APHIS’ Investigative and Enforcement Services
Dickinson Cattle Co., Inc.
35500 Muskrat
Barnesville, Ohio 43713 USA
July 10, 2008
Darol Dickinson
Information@texaslonghorn.com
[Also see this and this about fines in Texas and Vermont. The government wants their money back… -WJ]
As usual, Darol has a very clear vision of the truth and is not afraid to say in plain English. What amazes me is how the USDA and certain Congress critters think they can possibly fund their massive surveillance society in a failing economy. It’s time to stop this crazy government now. Please, support and vote only for small government, anti-NAIS candidates. Write in Ron Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin. It’s past time that We the People send a very clear message.
visit Campaign for Liberty
Comment Pat H — July 12, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Umm, most of the “Bruce Knight” hits seem to be Batman related. Us USDA bureaucrats wield great power, but not enough to rate 17,000,000 hits. (I’m retired.) “Bruce I. Knight” gets 688 hits, “Bruce Knight -Batman gets 411,000 (and the second hit is for a Bruce W. Knight).
Comment Bill Harshaw — July 12, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
U.S. Code., Title 7 >Chapter 109> 8313. Penalties. #8313
Is this thing actually a LAW or another one of those phantom hammers hovering over our heads if we don’t comply with the extortioners?
These people pull all sorts of edicts out of a hat.
Unfortunately, those of us isolated here and there across the countryside don’t have a lot of backing when the big boys come knocking at the front gate.
Comment donna — July 12, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais”
The US Department of Agriculture says right on their website, “take the first step, register your premises today!” When you follow that link, you get to another page that says first you have to “apply.”
Here’s a definition of “apply” from Black’s law dictionary, 4th edition: To make a formal request or petition, usually in writing, to a court, officer, board, or company, for the granting of some favor, or of some rule or order which is within his or their power or discretion. …”
So the NAIS program, appears to be an invitation to contract with the private company called the US Department of Agriculture, in return for benefits such as having diseases in one’s animals monitored.
In addition, we are being urged by parties to petition our Congress to vote against the NAIS, but again, it looks like even Congress is a “private company.”
From the Manta website, which derives its data from Dun and Bradstreet:
“Detailed United States House Of Representatives Company Profile
This company profile is for the private company United States House Of Representatives, branch located in Fremont, CA. Us Congress Rep 13th Dist’s line of business is legislative body.
Company Profile: United States House Of Representatives
Year Started:N/A
State of Incorporation:N/A
URL:www.tammybaldwin.com, www.house.gov, www.electadamsmith.com, www.dondavis.net, www.rodneyalexander.com
Location Type:Branch Location
Parent Companies: House Of Representatives, United States , Government Of The United States
Stock Symbol:N/A
Stock Exchange:N/A
Also Does Business As:Us Congress Rep 13th Dist; Us Congress Rep 13th Dist
NAICS:N/A
SIC #Code:9121
Est. Annual Sales:N/A
Est. Employees:0
Est. Employees at Location:5
Contact Name:Jo Casanoff
Contact Title:Branch Manager
Data above provided by D&B.”
Hillary
Comment Hillary — July 14, 2008 @ 5:39 am
It is interesting that this same article appeared on an animals owners rights list but a certain person identified by only a first name said it was “misinformation” could not be proven. I jumped in with my and many other opinions. Her replies were the same tripe that often goes with USDA propaganda. Someone from that same list emailed me privately saying she is probably a USDA plant and often had those same opinions that signing up your premises is no big deal, etc. The general opinion of the others who wrote back was anti-NAIS so I think her efforts are in vain. I did a google search using the first name dash USDA and came up with a first and last name as author of many food safety articles written for the USDA. Hmmm! Velly interesting! It may/may not be that this person is a spy sent to keep tabs and try to convince us but the unusual spelling of the last name are certainly more than a coincidence.
Comment esbee — July 14, 2008 @ 8:41 am
Hillary,
Are you referring to the author of the above article?
Comment donna — July 14, 2008 @ 11:34 am
BREAKING NEWS: Crazy US law could give PETA right of farm entry.
CALIFORNIA NationalDogPress.com) –
Animal rights and vegetarian activists could have the authority to enter and search California farm buildings and arrest producers for suspected violations of animal welfare laws if California voters approve a ballot initiative in coming months.
This is the conclusion of attorneys who are analyzing the legal consequences of the initiative for agricultural and food interests in California,whose “Californians for SAFE Food” coalition is organized to educate Californians on the initiative and urge them to vote no on the measure.
The determination makes it exceedingly important for producers and production companies, trade associations and allied industry across the US to become involved in the “SAFE Food” coalition, its supporters said.
The initiative - which has been designated “Proposition 2,” or “Prop 2″ - is directed at the treatment of farm animals and, if passed, would require that farm animals not be confined or tethered in a manner that prevents an animal from lying down, standing up, turning around and fully extending its limbs.
For a hen in an egg production system, fully extending its limbs means extending its wings without touching the side of an enclosure, such as a cage, or another hen, according to the initiative.
The initiative is directed at cage housing systems for hens and sow and veal calf stalls, but recent studies found that even most barn, or cage-free, housing systems for hens would be prohibited under the requirement.
The law would become effective on 1 January 2015, and would carry penalties for violations of a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or a jail term not to exceed 180 days. Legal observers have said violations could cover each animal.
Normally in California investigations surrounding and arrests for alleged violations of criminal statutes are conducted by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities.
However, in a paper based on legal opinion, it was noted that California law is unique in that enforcement of animal cruelty and welfare laws “can be undertaken and/or compelled by any individual or by certain non-profit organizations”.
The paper quoted California Penal Code 599a, which provides that an individual, who can represent a non-profit organization, can compel issuance of search warrants upon making a complaint under oath.
When such a complaint is made to any magistrate authorized to issue warrants that the complainant believes that any law relating to, or in any way affecting, “dumb animals or birds is being, or is about to be, violated in any particular building or place”, that magistrate must issue a warrant to any law enforcement officer or to an officer of a legally qualified association “authorizing him to enter and search that building or place and to arrest any person there violating, or attempting to violate” the law, according to the paper’s summation of the penal code.
The initiative qualified for the ballot through a petition carried by animal activists led by Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), both non-profit organizations.
Accordingly, the paper suggested that any representative of Farm Sanctuary, HSUS or other animal activist group “would be free to demand and execute warrants and make arrests” to enforce the initiative, the paper said.
The empowerment of non-profit organizations to enforce California animal cruelty laws is further provided for in California Corporations Code Sections 10400 and 14502, the paper said, noting that representatives of such organizations can obtain “peace officer” powers with respect to animal welfare laws.
This unique enforcement feature is almost never referred to by supporters of Prop 2 and is not ordinarily understood by the voting public, the paper said.
In a statement, senior campaign director for “SAFE Food” Mitch Head said Prop 2 would establish a precedent for the enforcement of animal welfare laws.
“This is something that all of American agriculture must realize,” he said, explaining how Prop 2 would help the animal activist groups supporting the measure “not only increase their political powers but also their police powers”.
This crazy US law could give PETA right of farm entry.
by Dean A. Ayers
http://AnimalsClubFreedom.us/
Comment DogPressOrg — July 20, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
—– Original Message —–
From: Bob Parker
To: Holloway, Leslie
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: Nais stuff…
This is an open letter to Leslie Holloway and Missouri Farm Bureau. Permission given to reprint all or part of this letter by me, Bob Parker
Leslie Holloway
Lobbyist for Missouri Farm Bureau July 21, 2007
Dear Mrs. Holloway,
You know that in 2005 Mr. Kruse, in representing MOFB on NAIS said that the program must ultimatly be mandatory in his letter to USDA! There was no policy to back that statement up. You know it, and I know it!
It is a fact that Mr. Kruse is a board member of American Farm bureau that has been instrumental in developing NAIS for many years.
The draft plan was developed with many Farm Bureau folks supporting it. That is a fact.
You have never allowed anyone in opposition to NAIS speak to the resolutions committee while developing policy.
If you truly would have had all sides the issue, this could have all been avoided. But that is not how Farm Bureau works. The leadership has an agenda, and invites speakers and presents the side they want their members to hear. This is why Missouri Farm Bureau has lost it’s credibility as well as American Farm Bureau.
I was voted off my board and was told it was partly so I could not go the the Annual meeting to speak my views about NAIS. My county president and others have stated several time they they were in close communication with the head office in determining how to deal with me.
Myth: MFB supports corporate agriculture and is driving the small
> livestock producer out of business.
Based on the statements I have made how else would you appraise the situation? You guys just continue to spin this to try and make you look good. The truth hurts, and it will keep hurting. I have always said the best thing Mr. Kruse and others could do is admit their mistakes and ask for forgiveness. Because they haven’t, I think they should leave, there is no trust for them anymore.
Myth: MFB supports corporate agriculture and is driving the small
> livestock producer out of business.
>
There is no doubt that fully implemented NAIS will drive out small producers. the draft plan that Mr. Kruse endorsed would be devastation to small producers. This is a fact and not a myth. I’ll debate it anytime.
Fact: This is not true. However, if this were to happen those leaders
> would most likely not be reelected and staff would be terminated. MFB
> has an extensive grassroots policy development process that is second to
> none. The process is democratic, straight forward and provides
> transparency to our members at all times. Those who feel differently
> should attend an MFB annual meeting and watch and/or participate in the
> process.
>
It is a fact that Mr. Kruse and his staff have done everything in their power to discredit myself and the others that have opposed NAIS and have exposed what Farm Bureau and Missouri Farm Bureau have done. After repeatedly asking how we have misrepresented the facts as you have been putting in print about me, you to this day have never shown one instance of when that was done. I ask you again, please show me where I have stated anything that is untrue.
Fact: MFB has time and time again conveyed our members’ concerns to USDA
> and others about the confidentiality of data, cost to producers and
> potential liability of participating in the NAIS.
>
While it is true this has been repeatedly stated by Missouri Farm Bureau, No studies have ever been done on this. We don’t know the cost, we don’t know how the information has been handled, and we don’t know what our liabiltiy will be. Makes you wonder why Mr. Kruse told USDA that this NAIS program should ultimatly be mandatory doesn’t it?
Fact: Recently when the 2009 agriculture spending bill was being marked
> up by the House Appropriations Committee it contained a provision that
> specified USDA would be required to purchase meat products for the School
> Lunch Program from livestock and poultry farms that had registered their
> premises in the NAIS. MFB opposes such a requirement and sent a letter
> to members of the Missouri Congressional delegation. This is just another
> example of MFB’s advocacy for a voluntary program.
>This is true! You are finally beginning to get it! After years of doing everything in your power to keep your members from hearing the truth about NAIS they finally heard enough from other sources and decided to put some policy in to try and keep NAIS voluntary!
This policy was introduced from the floor and not by the resolutions committees that you have so much control over. I had asked for opponents to be able to speak to the Missouri Farm Bureau board and the resolutions committees but none of us were ever invited and I was even removed from my County Board to silence me. The Texas County Board has no grounds to remove me. I asked them for one reason why I was removed and still don’t have a reason. That is because they don’t have a reason other than me pointing out the truth about Missouri Farm Bureau’s leadership and I had asked in print that Mr. Kruse step down because of his statements in his 2005 letter to USDA about NAIS. Ever since then the Missouri Farm Bureau leadership has done every thing in their power to cover up Mr. Kruse’s letter and it’s horrible implications to small producers.
I would welcome an opportunity for my statements to be printed in the Show Me Missouri Magazine so that all Missouri Farm Bureau members can hear both sides of this issue. Until this is resolved, it will continue to be an issue the will hurt Missouri Farm Bureau.
I do hope Missouri Farm Bureau can clean up it’s act and become an organization that can be trusted but that is not up to me, it is up to Mr. Kruse and the membership.
Leslie, you know I am telling the truth here. How can you continue to spin this issue like this? I know I don’t sign your paycheck and that Mr. Kruse does, but really, aren’t there more important things than money?
Sincerely,
Bob Parker
Formerly a Texas County Farm Bureau board member and still a member of Missouri Farm Bureau.
[the reason I am still a member is that Missouri Farm Bureau itself paid for my membership renewal, not me]
The following statements were printed in the Missouri Farm Bureau’s recent Capitol Connection News letter.
> Misinformation about MFB’s Position Concerning the NAIS
>
> In some parts of the state there continues to be an incredible amount of
> misinformation about Missouri Farm Bureau’s (MFB) position concerning the
> National Animal Identification System (NAIS) drifting across the
> airwaves, internet and in print. We have had requests from some members
> for information to combat this propaganda and set the record straight as
> to the facts. Please feel free to use the following myth/fact
> information in your county if you feel there is a need.
>
> Myth: MFB supports a mandatory NAIS.
>
> Fact: MFB policy is clear. We support a voluntary animal
> identification program at the
> state and national levels. A voluntary program supports a producer’s
> right to participate or not to participate.
>
> Myth: MFB is going to make huge profits from all the various aspects of
> the NAIS program.
>
> Fact: MFB as a company and its officers, staff and board of directors
> has no financial stake in NAIS. MFB does not sell ear tags or other
> identification devices and does not provide any type of handling or
> database services for NAIS compliance.
>
> Myth: MFB supports corporate agriculture and is driving the small
> livestock producer out of business.
>
> Fact: Farm Bureau is a membership organization and has members with
> operations of all sizes and production methods. With 20 straight years
> of continuous membership growth, we work to protect the interests and
> promote economic opportunity for all our members. That does not happen by
> selling out any producer.
>
> Myth: Farm Bureau leadership and staff are not following policy and the
> will of its members.
>
> Fact: This is not true. However, if this were to happen those leaders
> would most likely not be reelected and staff would be terminated. MFB
> has an extensive grassroots policy development process that is second to
> none. The process is democratic, straight forward and provides
> transparency to our members at all times. Those who feel differently
> should attend an MFB annual meeting and watch and/or participate in the
> process.
>
> Fact: MFB has time and time again conveyed our members’ concerns to USDA
> and others about the confidentiality of data, cost to producers and
> potential liability of participating in the NAIS.
>
> Fact: MFB believes participation in the NAIS should be decided by each
> individual producer.
>
> Fact: Recently when the 2009 agriculture spending bill was being marked
> up by the House Appropriations Committee it contained a provision that
> specified USDA would be required to purchase meat products for the School
> Lunch Program from livestock and poultry farms that had registered their
> premises in the NAIS. MFB opposes such a requirement and sent a letter
> to members of the Missouri Congressional delegation. This is just another
> example of MFB’s advocacy for a voluntary program.
>
> Fact: The merits of animal identification will continue to be discussed
> and debated by Farm Bureau members. MFB’s voluntary policy might remain
> the same, be reversed or modified in some way. One thing is for certain;
> Farm Bureau members will make that decision.
>
Comment Bob Parker — July 21, 2008 @ 4:57 pm