NoNAIS is my effort to spread the word of how harmful the USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is to small farmers, homesteaders, pet owners & consumers.
Bulletin Board 200901
Use the comments of this post during this month if you have things you would like to bring to people’s attention and are not sure where else to post them. I’ll make a new Bulletin Board each month for free posting.
Have at it, communicate and keep up the good fight!
Cheers,
-WalterJ
|
Pastured Pigs & Piglets |
Personal Pencil Portraits |
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
NAIS and the International Criminal Court
There are times when I am researching a subject that something just jumps out at me because it is out of place, seemingly unconnected to the issue, or seems totally irrelevant. Sometimes, gut instinct tells me to pursue it and see where it leads. This is what happened with an unusual comment made By Bruce Knight of the USDA.
On June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, said, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.” (end quote)
Knight was referring to the return and adherence to the International Criminal Court: a global court which cedes itself the right to act with impunity and with no adherence to national or local laws, but only to the laws it has created itself……and not for your benefit.
Bruce Knight was promoting the National Animal Identification System known as NAIS. What could the International Criminal Court have to do with that?
In every instance in the Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises. A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property indicates exclusive private ownership and is protected by the Constitution.
This is where the return to the ICC comes in. The ICC is in part modeled on the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Conventions text
where [premises] is defined globally and with a global use intended with no recognition afforded to the rights of private individuals, national laws or protections, or the rights or recognition to private property ownership.
[At this point we have to remember the use of UN Agenda 21 mandates regarding rules and guidelines in NAIS, and now we add one more point of interest to 21: It calls for the complete ownership of all lands to be held by the [state] citing land as a source of wealth and one that should not be held by the common individual.]
Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court
3.1.2 Ownership and control of property privileges Description
“premises to mean the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary (connected to or existing as) thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purpose of…”. The word “premises” includes a place and a conveyance in this section. Conveyance is the transfer of ownership of real property from the original owner to another… such as land….such as what happens when you sign up for Premises ID under NAIS and CONVEY ownership and control of your land and livestock to the USDA acting as agent for the federal government.
[Now we know how and why the word [premises] was used. The word premises is not only a redefinition of ownership and control within our legal system, but now under the International Criminal Court is also globally recognized and eliminates our private property rights and makes our own laws unavailable to us.]
Sect 3.2.1 cont.
As reflected in the discussions of the ICC Preparatory Commission Working Group, “the concept of legal capacity means that States (countries, provinces, commonwealths, or sovereign nations) will not subject the Court to national jurisdiction or legislation, and the Court will consult national authorities when it needs to act. Implementing legislation should not restrict the Court in the exercise of its functions or fulfillment of its purpose and should reflect the fact the Court is not subject to national law.”
States may need to ensure steps are taken to guarantee the Court will have the capacity that may be necessary to exercise its functions and fulfillment of its purpose in that State, such as the capacity to contract, acquire and dispose of property and participate in national legal proceedings.”
link
There is far more to this, but you get the idea: Bruce Knight was advocating a return to the International Court System because it would facilitate the NAIS. It would do this by ignoring Constitutional laws and rights, substituting global efforts to seize privately held lands and material property and any suits brought against state or federal agencies attempting to force NAIS would now be directed to the ICC…..where the individual is not recognized as owning or controlling property.
Think they can’t get away with this? Well..here is a law from 1949 that says they can and you can’t do anything about it.
Agreement on Privilege and Immunities of the Organisation of American States.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/c-13.html
[Signatories and Ratifications] [text in Spanish]
AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
WHEREAS:
Article 103 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, signed April 30, 1948, at the Ninth International Conference of American States, provides that “The Organization of American States shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity, privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions and the accomplishment of its purposes”;
Article 104 of the Charter provides that “The Representatives of the Governments on the Council of the Organization, the Representatives on the Organs of the Council, the personnel of their Delegations, as well as the Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General of the Organization, shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary for the independent performance of their duties”;
Article 105 of the Charter provides that “the juridical status of the Inter-American Specialized Organizations and the privileges and immunities that should be granted to them and to their personnel, as well as to the officials of the Pan American Union, shall be determined in each case through agreements between the respective organizations and the Governments concerned”;
THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Authorize their Representatives on the Council of the Organization to sign the present Agreement concerning the privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by the Organization of American States, -which are substantially identical to those granted to the United Nations,
CHAPTER I
Organization of American States
Article 1. The privileges and immunities of the Organization of American States shall be those which are granted to its Organs and to the personnel thereof.
The Specialized Conferences and the Specialized Organizations are not included within the scope of this Agreement.
Article 2. The Organization and its Organs, their property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case the immunity has been expressly waived. It is understood, however, that no such waiver of immunity shall make the said property and assets subject to any measure of execution.
Article 3. The premises of the Organization and of its Organs shall be inviolable. Their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.
Article 4. The archives of the Organization and of its Organs, and all documents belonging to them or in their possession, shall be inviolable wherever located.
Article 5. The Organization and its Organs, their property, funds and assets, shall be»
a) exempt from all direct taxes; it is understood, however, that they may not claim exemption from taxes which are, in fact, charges for public utility services;
b) exempt from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of articles imported or exported for their official use. It is understood, however, that articles imported under such exemption will not be sold in the country into which they were imported except under conditions agreed with the Government of that country;
c) exempt from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of their publications.
Article 6. Without being restricted by financial controls, regulations or moratoria of any kind,
a) The Organization and its Organs may hold funds, gold or currency of any kind and operate accounts in any currency;
b) The Organization and its Organs shall be free to transfer their funds, gold or currency from one country to another or within any country, and to convert any currency held by them into any other currency.
In exercising these rights, the Organization shall pay due regard to any representations made by the Government of any Member insofar as it is considered that effect can be given to such representation without detriment to the interests of -the Organization.
CHAPTER II
Representatives of the Member States
Article 7. The Representatives of the States Members of the Organs of the Organization, as well as the personnel of the Delegations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
a) Immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, immunity from legal process of every kind;
b) inviolability for all papers and documents;
c) the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier or in sealed bags;
d) exemption in respect of themselves and their spouses from immigration restrictions, alien registration or national service obligations in the state which they are visiting or through which they are passing in the exercise of their functions; in the case of permanent delegations, -this exemption shall extend also to dependent relatives;
e) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions;
f) the same facilities in respect of their personal baggage as are accorded to diplomatic envoys; and also
g) such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy, except that they shall have no right to claim exemption from customs duties on goods imported (otherwise than as part of their personal baggage) or from excise duties or sales taxes.
CHAPTER III
Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General
Article 8. The Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General of the Organization, their spouses and minor children, shall be granted the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities granted to diplomatic envoys.
CHAPTER IV
Pan American Union
Article 9. The Pan American Union, in exercising its functions as General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, shall have the capacity*
a) to contract;
b) to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property;
c) to institute legal proceedings.
CHAPTER V
Staff of the Pan American Union
Article 10. The officials and other members of the staff of the Pan American Union shall:
a) be immune from legal process of any kind in respect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity;
b) be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by the Pan American Union, on the same conditions that the officials of the United Nations may enjoy such exemptions with respect to the particular Member State;
c) be immune from national service obligations, except when the States of which they are nationals require such service. In the latter case, it is recommended that the States take into consideration the needs of the Pan American Union with respect to its technical personnel;
d) be immune, together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them, from immigration restrictions and alien registration;
e) be accorded the same privileges in respect of exchange facilities as are accorded to officials of comparable rank forming part of diplomatic missions to the Government concerned;
f) be given, together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them, the same repatriation facilities in time of international crisis as diplomatic envoys;
g) have the right to import free of duty their furniture and effects at the time of first taking up their post in the country in question,
Article 11. The Pan American Union shall cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities of the particular State to facilitate the proper administration of justice, secure the observance of police regulations and prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities mentioned in this Chapter.
Article 12. The Pan American Union shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of»
a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which the Pan American Union is a party;
b) disputes involving any official or member of the staff of the Pan American Union with reference to which immunity is enjoyed, if immunity has not been waived by the Secretary General in accordance with Article 14.
CHAPTER VI
Nature of the Privileges and Immunities
Article 13. Privileges and immunities are granted to the Delegations of Member States to ensure the independent exercise of their functions with relation to the Organization. Consequently, each Member State shall waive such privileges and immunities in any case where, in its own judgment, the exercise thereof would impede the course of justice and when such waiver can be made without prejudice to the purposes for which they were granted.
Article 14. Privileges and immunities are granted to officials and personnel of the Pan American Union in the interests of the Organization only. Consequently, the Secretary General shall waive the privileges and immunities of any official or member of the staff in any case where, in the judgment of the Secretary General, the exercise thereof would impede the course of justice and the waiver can be made without prejudice to the interests of the Organization. In the case of the Secretary General or of the Assistant Secretary General the Council of the Organization shall have the right to waive the immunity.
Article 15. The present Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities in the respective countries.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Representatives sign this Agreement on behalf of their respective Governments, in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French, at the Pan American Union, Washington, D. C., on the dates which appear below their signatures.
[Signatories and Ratifications]
text
Now…….on to the “World Conservation Bank”…….another piece of the global wealth puzzle.
© 2009 Marti Oakley
Comment esbee — January 19, 2009 @ 6:41 am
this from Darrol Dickinson who sends me an email everytime he has some news about NAIS. this news is from Australia about their version of NAIS…
Editor’s note~~~
The government of Australia started a 100% animal ID law many years ago called NLIS. As pockets of resistance are located the article below kindly explains how important NLIS is. The Australian DPIF enforces NLIS on every pet, back yard pony, etc. The owner of one pony is encouraged to do the RIGHT THING and pay the fees, buy the computer equipment and record all movements. Livestock owners are told they are helping with Australian imports by registering the pony.
All is well, unless a traveling Biosecurity Officer is looking over the back yard fence and sees the pony. It is up to $4000 in tax enforcement fines for “failure to register.” Australia has found a method of tax collection that is promising for them. Australia is in compliance with the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) world trade agreements, which they and the USA jointly agreed to enforce. (See NAIS International Entanglements — at www.naisstinks.com ) This article is a glance at what USA livestock producers can expect when NAIS becomes mandatory. Either oppose NAIS now, or hide the pony. Darol Dickinson
farmonline
north queensland
Register
Hobby farmers face livestock rego
15/01/2009 12:00:00 AM
HOBBY farmers and those with a backyard ‘pet’ are being reminded they are not exempt from having to register their property.
Owners of just one or more head of cattle, sheep, horses (ponies, mules and donkeys), pigs, deer, goats, buffalo or camelids (alpacas and llamas) must register their property with the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.
Travelling around the west, DPI&F Biosecurity officer Stacey Wilson said she noticed livestock in backyards and small enclosures and thought it timely to remind people about the importance of registration.
“People who own small acreage farms may be grazing calves, ponies, lambs or goats to keep the grass down or as pets and if so, they should contact DPI&F,” she said.
“They may need to receive a new property identification code (PIC) or register their animals under a current PIC.
“Registration is an important element of identifying land parcels where livestock are kept or grazed, and this is crucial for trace-back in the event of an animal disease outbreak.
“By doing the right thing, you are helping to protect our international market access and the livelihoods of producers and others.”
As well as property registration, calves, lambs, kids and piglets along with adult stock must also have a National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) tag fitted before they travel to and from a place.
Stacey said keeping a few chooks and budgies in the backyard was not a concern, but where larger numbers were kept, the place should be registered.
“If you keep 100 or more poultry, including caged birds, on your property, then you do need to contact DPI&F,” she said.
“Registration is easy to do and Biosecurity staff like myself are happy to help livestock owners through the process.”
Failure to register your property is an offence and penalties of up to $4000 apply.
* To register, call your local DPI&F office, visit the website at www.dpi.qld.gov.au or call the DPI&F business information centre on 13 25 23.
Comment esbee — January 19, 2009 @ 6:44 am
Thank you Esbee on your information. A good article by C.J. Graham (USAF ret.) on June 15, 2008 is “The Demise of the American Identity” and it is about the OAS “Organization of American States” of which there are 35 and the U.S. is one of them. It is an agency of the U.N. Go to newswithviews, look at the left sidebar; find CJ Graham; hit on her name and you will find her article. Her article should help with understanding your information.
Comment The Phantom — January 19, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Speaking of Newswithviews, just added today is a nice article by Devvy Kidd against NAIS.
Comment eileen — January 19, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Its great to see the info getting out to people that shows just how insidious and widespread this NAIS is and how much bigger it is than just USDA!
Information is power,truth they say will set you free but only the truth you know and act upon!
Keep fighting this thing; we can beat these globalist facists,and if we cant…oh well better dead than a slave!
“Live free or die tryin”
Comment Lee — January 19, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
One thing we can do about the FR proposed rule is to contact the State Attorney Generals, especially in the States that have statute constraining it from being mandatory. If we can tell them lucidly why this is de facto mandatory, to uphold state law, they should enter an argument in the FR comments, and also contact the fed legislators from the state and tell them to halt this implementation legislatively.
Comment Doreen — January 20, 2009 @ 7:44 am
President Obama Halts All Pending Regulatory Changes:
Announcement Here
Does this include NAIS????
Comment Jared — January 20, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
It says ALL pending regulatory changes. That should include the new rule they’re taking comments on.
Are there any legal types here who can comment on this?
Comment Barbara — January 20, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
do ya ever wonder why you do not hear about NAIS on RFID-TV or if you do it is watered down to sound palatable. I got an email from one of the people who works for one of those who has a horse training show on RFID-TV and she told me they are NOT allowed to mention it on their shows. I guess we know who pays or owns or the station, if you do the money trail it will lead to some big ag, monsanto or one of those villians.
Comment esbee — January 20, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
Please distribute and encourage all opposition to NAIS to complete this quasi poll. It still has some importance that voices be heard or read regardless if USDA has their mind firmly set in concrete on this unpopular heavy handed, issue. Please do this. Darol
I submitted my comments to the Federal Register for the new proposed NAIS regulation. I will copy and paste them below as an example of what one might write.
I encourage EVERYONE to comment on this proposed rule, even if you do not own the livestock currently proposed to be affected (this opens the door to the rest) AND even if you will never own any livestock. If you like to eat local foods, this WILL affect you.
To comment, click on this link: text
The first entry is the regulation itself. To comment, click on the yellow balloon next to that document:
I would also suggest taking the time to read the many other excellent comments for ideas.
Remember that it sometimes takes a few days before your comments appear.
Comments on Docket No. APHIS–2007–0096 Official Animal Identification Numbering Systems
January 24, 2009
This proposal is nothing more than a back door approach to implement a mandatory NAIS. What happened to the USDA’s often stated claim “NAIS is voluntary with a capital ‘V’”!
You cite:
“Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.”
How can this be? The first paragraph of Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act states:
“The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today.”
And
“Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles. (a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American p eople. In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Costs and benefits shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. Further, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.”
I submit that you are violating this act by not first having this proposal reviewed by the OMB and by not making public the cost/benefit analysis completed by Kansas State University.
NAIS will directly affect my ability to raise and sell breeding stock to other people and 4-H children when they discover that they must register their ‘premises’ (property) in a federal database for a program whose true costs and requirements are yet unknown! I view NAIS as a direct threat to the continued survival of rare and endangered species of livestock.
NAIS will do nothing to stop disease from entering this country. It is an ‘after the fact’ reaction. It will also do nothing to stop disease from entering our food chain because it ends at the slaughterhouse door. The large recalls that have occurred in the past few years were all from contamination that occurred in either the slaughterhouse, the packing industry or at the retail level, NOT on the farm itself!
On page 1635, column 1, paragraph 3, the proposed rule states:
“It is not our intent at this time to set a date by which AIN eartags in adult animals must conform to the 840 standard.”
The wording of this sentence indicates that you DO intend to do just that in the future. Requiring livestock owners to retag animals at some point in the future will be a terrible economic burden.
On page 1635, column 2, paragraph 1, the proposed rule states:
“the fundamental purpose of a PIN is to identify locations in the United States where livestock and/or poultry are housed or kept.”
And
“When animal health officials know where at risk animals and locations are and have accurate, up-to-date contact information for their owners, they can respond quickly and strategically to prevent disease spread.”
There is no way this database can ever be 100% accurate! I have a very real fear that your agency will look at as just that, especially after listening to numerous USDA officials speak.
Your often cited reason for NAIS is ‘mad cow’ disease and the need to trace where said cow went. Not ONE of the cows who tested positive for BSE originated in this country! Each one of them was imported from Canada yet you consistently water down the import requirements!
On page 1635, column 2, paragraph 3, the proposed rule states:
“Because the use of a single numbering system to represent premises in all animal-health data systems would help to standardize information and to enhance existing disease-tracing and emergency-response capabilities, we are proposing to remove the PIN format that uses the State postal abbreviation and are proposing to create a single national format for the PIN by requiring that all PINs issued on or after the date on which this proposed rule becomes effective would have to use the seven character alphanumeric code format.”
If the FIN (flock identification number) “serves the sheep and goat population well”, and will be continued under this proposal, why the need to change from the current state postal code numbering system for other species of livestock?
In addition, storing all PIN’s in a single database at the USDA will be far less secure than the current system of storing locations at the state/territory/tribe level. It is well known that any computer system can be ‘hacked into”. The USDA’s own system has been a victim of this in the past with social security numbers for private individuals stolen. If an individual or group wants to contaminate our food supply, how much easier could it be if the location of every producer is stored in one massive database?!
On page 1637, column 2, paragraph 3, the proposed rule states:
“We do not currently have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments concerning potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the potential costs to eartag manufacturers and livestock producers.”
According to a recent FOIA request for copies of the completed ‘NAIS Cost-Benefit Analysis’, the USDA has a 438 page report from Kansas State University. This FOIA request was denied. What happened to ‘transparency in government’?
According to your grant proposal, you paid Kansas State $50,000 of taxpayer money for this study. Why has this report not been made public?
Why are you, once again, submitting a proposed rule for a program which you cannot or will not state the actual costs to the producers themselves?
On page 1637, column 3, paragraph 3, the proposed rule states:
“These potential costs may be passed on to livestock producers that purchase the new eartags. We do not have data to quantitatively estimate these potential costs at this time, and welcome public comment from affected entities with this information.”
In this economy, where small farmers are already struggling to make ends meet, why do you propose that these costs be passed on to the producer? Especially by technology companies who stand to gain windfall profits from the implementation of this system? This latter fact has been clearly reported in numerous technology journals and memos/reports to stockholders from the approved tag/RFID manufacturers.
It would be far more cost effective and safer for humans if the $130 million of taxpayer money that has been spent so far trying to implement this expensive, intrusive system had been spent on a software system that would be compatible with the current systems in use AND by increasing the number of inspectors at our portals of entry and at the slaughterhouse/processing level. Then, and only then, would our food be safer.
When NAIS drives all the small farmers out, where will people go to buy their locally grown and wholesome food?
When NAIS drives all the small farmers out, we will become increasingly dependent on importing food, just as we have become increasingly dependent on importing oil.
When NAIS causes parents to pull their children out of 4-H and Future Farmers of America, what will the cost be to society? Raising animals teaches children responsibility, improves their self-esteem, teaches them the value of ‘community’ and makes them less likely to engage in criminal activity.
When NAIS drives all of us who raise rare and endangered breeds out, where will the larger producers go when they need to improve the genetic strength of their commercial breeds?
Karen Nowak Pond Ridge Farm
Brookfield, NY
Comment esbee — January 24, 2009 @ 11:51 am
more from darrol dickenson
a link between crohn’s disease and a disease in cattle the USDA is doing nothing about—
NAIS: Not About Disease !!
January 20,2009 for public release from NAFAW.
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) has stirred up a hornet’s nest of problems for the USDA. Dislike for the program is multiplying daily by klans of all flavors. Citing the abject failure of a similar program in Australia, the total costs dumped on livestock producers, and voicing concerns about individual property rights, opponents have demanded the program be totally abolished.
On the other hand, the USDA claims it needs to be able to move fast in case of an outbreak of disease. At first blush it sure sounds fine and good, until you consider that people are in the middle of a major epidemic on American dairy farms, and the USDA hasn’t moved at all to stop it. Is there a tiny touch of hypocrisy showing between the lines?
Sixty-eight percent of all dairy cows in America are infected with an always fatal disease called Johne’s (pronounced yo knees). In 2004 the USDA estimated the infection rate to be at 20%. Today, 68% of the nation’s milk is comingled with Johne’s positive cows, a three-fold increase in only four years, but the USDA doesn’t feel the need to mandate an eradication program. Why? The USDA is fine with this epidemic, and refuses any serious dialogue about the subject. The USDA, with their own data, estimates an annual loss as a result of Johne’s in dairy herds to be $200,000,000. For one year this loss is nearly as much as USDA has invested in promoting NAIS during the past 6 years. This loss is more than 1000% the eradication costs of the US Avian Influenza fiasco, a statistic USDA tosses out to tout the serious need of NAIS mandatory.
USDA is not totally avoiding Johne’s. A small budget is allocated for research, public awareness and informational press releases on how to manage a dairy with Johne’s. Peanuts!
So, if the USDA is aware of the Johne’s epidemic, why aren’t they focusing their efforts in that direction? If you think it’s because Johne’s doesn’t affect humans, think again. Reliable information connects Johne’s with Crohn’s Disease. Crohn’s Disease, virtually unheard of in 1940, was on the rise by 1950, about the same time as the concept of factory farming showed up on the scene. Today, a generation later, up to two million US citizens and even more Canadians are infected. Most cases of Crohn’s Disease are diagnosed in children, who will suffer a life of physical misery because of the debilitating symptoms for which there are treatments, but no cures.
Symptoms
The symptoms of Johne’s Disease in dairy cows are identical to the symptoms of Crohn’s Disease in humans:
* Persistent diarrhea
* Abdominal cramps and pain
* Fever
* Fatigue
* Rectal bleeding
* Loss of appetite
* Joints, eye, skin, and liver pain
* Obstruction of the intestine
* Development of fissures (small cuts or tears in the anal canal)
* Abscesses
There is no cure for Johne’s or Crohn’s. Fortunately for people, there are treatments. Cows aren’t so fortunate. Johne’s is always fatal, with death coming in slow, painful extended waves.
What Causes Johne’s Disease?
In a word, filth. Dairy cows loiter in feces filled confinement their entire life. Johne’s is contracted by ingesting feces from infected animals. For you city people, eating poop! Animals who are raised on clean grass pastures seldom get infected. This is where a mix happens. The disease is transmitted by feces consumtion. Dairy herds are often mixed with beef cattle herds to provide a more stable farm income. Many beef herds with Johne’s have traced their sickened stock back to dairy raised purchases. Now Johne’s is found in beef herds but with lower percentages than dairys.
If the USDA and corporate proponents of the NAIS were sincere in their concerns about disease, they’d at least exhibit a good faith effort about the disease that is rapidly consuming America’s highly productive dairy cows. Management and information distribution about the worst livestock disease (most costly in history) in the last 100 years by USDA appears to have the urgency of watching paint dry. Their rubber neck attack on Johne’s shows one of the most milk-toast approaches to disease eradication in the historic track record of USDA. Only two things are needed to permanently deal with Johne’s, one fool proof vaccination and one fool proof negative/positive test. At this time neither are a consideration or priority to USDA. They are too busy promoting NAIS premises surrender.
Is locating infected herds a problem with Johnes’s? Perhaps a test—-announce that a vaccine and valid test method has been developed and watch the dairy owners stampede to use it. USDA will not have a problem locating the herds. Neither do they on most diseases.
As long as USDA evades a valid attempt to deal with Johne’s disease, anything they say about their “come hell or high water” premises enrollment is totally and completely bogus! It will be totally impossible to convince any livestock producer that premises enrollment will do a “gnats bristle” of good to eleminate disease when Johne’s is not a priority USDA issue.
Until USDA can clean up this mess, I’ll be hard to convince producers that USDA can do better with the quackery of a costly NAIS.
Comment esbee — January 24, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
This just in from Darrol Dickenson:
Mandatory Equine Licenses Enacted
by Darol Dickinson~~ 1-26-09
The New Hampshire Municipal Association proudly touts a new special “equine” tax that will increase jobs and create new state income from the estimated 24,000 equine in New Hampshire. A licensing of each and every equine is proposed to be effective July 1, 2009. This is a tax of $25 per horse (equine) and in cases of refusal to comply, the state adds another $50 to slap the cowboys in line. It isn’t a smoke screen about export, food safety or disease, it is just a new state income.
Beyond the state lines of New Hampshire, the USDA has been at war with livestock owners to coerce enrollment in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a multi-billion dollar scheme to computerize, number and create a permanent surveillance system on all US livestock. This plot is the mother of all numbering scenarios. With the commerce of all US livestock, at the end of three years the total computer movements recorded, and paid for by animal owners, would eclipse the number of the earth’s human population.
These draconian sounding tax collection schemes, although totally putrid to animal lovers, are completely sane to bureau-rats who’s salary increases, retirement and weekly sustenance depend on innovative ways to transfer wealth from the regulated to the regulators.
Just down the trail to New York 88 new taxes have been deviously hatched by the lowly staff of Governor David Paterson to help pay for his flawed $15.4 billion budget gap. Hookers who have enjoyed a tax break on work clothes worth less than $110, won’t any more. An 18% increase on sodas is proposed; higher gas tax, increased taxi tax, boats, cars, rental car taxes, cigars, iPods, etc. Plush governmental cubicles high in the New York sky are filled with think-tank devious minds searching the alleys for a new tax source to increase the regulator’s revenue. New York Conservative Party Chairman, Michael Long says, “You’re (Gov. Paterson) sending notice to the people of New York that we really don’t want you here.”
Tribute ideas like the USDA’s NAIS, horse licensing and the New York taxationists search the world over to locate new and innovative collection methods. It is one thing to develop a new tax and another to collect it. That is where enforcements are enacted with fines, late penalties, and refusal-to-comply fees.
In Australia a tax called the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) has been operational for several years. Herds of computer toting Biosecurity Officers now stalk the Outback to locate animal owners out of compliance; conviction is up to a $4000 fine for not registering a livestock premises.
The love of companion animals is multiplying in affection world wide. What a sadistic way to create funding, to assess a new tribute for pets, livestock and beloved family animals. Animal licensing is the contemporary government way to tax not just the animal, but the joy and profit of livestock ownership.
In New Hampshire it starts out, In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine, and then explains for Equine Licenses. Amend RSA 435, Sec 41, etc. In a scoop shovel it is proposed, $25 per year, every year, and each animal must have a number. The number process approved by the USDA is a computer chip, surgically injected under the skin by a USDA licensed veterinarian at a fee of $75 to $125 per equine, depending on how many in the remuda.
The Fiscal Impact: “The Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and the New Hampshire Municipal Association estimates this bill will increase state and local revenue, and increase local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county revenue or state and county expenditures.”
On July 1, will the horse owners of New Hampshire migrate to other states or will a large population of equine feces machines establish residence on the Concord State Capitol lawn?
This may be the time and place to rethink the New Hampshire motto: “LIVE FREE OR DIE.”
First Australia, the NAIS, the New Hampshire Equine Licenses—-all innovations of hostage taxation, which is a spreading livestock disease in itself. The mystery of expanding government is not how it works, but how in the world to make it stop!
Comment Pat H — January 24, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
i did some checking and horse people are fighting the mandatory licensing of horses in New Hampshire….good for them! They cite reasons like 1. the need for such an idiotic tax to prove your horse has been vaccinated for rabies when there is such low or no incidence of rabid horse
2. how many folks can afford it since the cost for keeping horses has gone sky high
3. those who do not take good care of their horses will lie anyway and say their horse died or hide it somewhere
YOU GO NH HORSE OWNERS…WE SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS! AND WE PRAY YOU WIN OVER TYRANNY OF ANY KIND!!!!
Comment esbee — January 25, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Did you know that you have to fight NAs on 2 levels, both state and federal…my state of TX is getting legislation for NAIS to be totally optional UNLESS the fed govt says all states are to be mandatory but they did get the penalty removed for non-compliance. McGeary has been working hard down in Austin to push, pull, give, take on getting the language in the bill to where both sides are ok with it…that unfortunately is the legislative process…
with the ice day and no school, I have spent some $ calling my elected offal to let them know how I feel about NAIS. I called the Am Horse Council and the man I talked to said NAIS is not his issue but he did talke with me since the lady in charge of discussing NAIS was not in….He was very nice but I got the feeling I was being treated like a senile old lady in the rest home…”yes, Aunt Matilda, we are taking care of your 99 cats.” (wink, wink)
Comment esbee — January 28, 2009 @ 11:03 am
text
MSNBC-Newsweek article “Head to Hoof” on slow food and how city people going rural with how they approach meat and other foods and knowing where it comes from…good place to leave comment about NAIS!!!
And a place to leave a comment at the author’s blog.
text
Comment esbee — January 29, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Fight Now - if you don’t - you will be getting a lot of emails like this one (actual case - received this afternoon):
“Rural Cleansing comes to Price Co. Wisconsin”
On or about 12:15 pm on January 29th 2009, two men arrived in a black car, one approached the front door, I tapped on the window and indicated to go to the back door. The taller of the two held out his hand and stated he was Duane Brander. I refused his hand shake and asked them if they had a warrant and if not, to vacate the property. Duane responded that I would have to renew my premises registration or face charges; he asked if I was familiar with the case in Clark Co. I stated I was and that I had not registered the premises, the accomplice indicated that someone else must have done it for me. I stated that they DATCP had and that I would not register as it was unconstitutional, Duane stated that he was sorry I felt that way and was aware that I was opposed to the program. His accomplice, who never introduced himself, stated that it must have been registered as a dairy; I informed him I have never had a dairy. I proceeded to inform them that they were engaged in fraud as I had exhausted administrative process against Dr. Paul McGraw pursuant to USC 5 (556). Mr. Brander stated Dr. McGraw was his boss and that they were here to inform me that I was to be charged.
In an ironic twist I had cut short my conversation with Greg Niewendorf to answer the door, should have had him stay on the line for a trip down memory lane. Throughout the instance they were smiling, reminiscent of the Monsanto representatives involved with Steve Hixon. The reference to the Clark Co. case only exposed their ignorance, as I had filed brief of Amicus Curiae in support of the defendant and a set of court docs was setting on the table. I notified a few friends in the area to be on watch. Then contacted the Sherriff and indicated to him that in order to avoid any conflict during service to contact me in advance and that I wished to be amicable in my relationship with him. Duane’s statement regarding constitutionality was identical to Robert Fourdraine’s, given years before at a Farm Bureau Convention. It is nice to know that they have so little regard for the laws that govern this country.
To those groups I have been working with I would now request their understanding if I am no longer able to commit my time as before.
Respectfully;
Paul Martin Griepentrog
—————
Respectfully,
Sharon Sabo
Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Association
Comment Mrs. Michael Sabo — January 29, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
This appears to me to be just another desperate attempt to cling to a filthy habit… that of consuming animals - It’s not necessary. No matter how “you try to slice it” - it’s an ugly ordeal because it is a luxury that requires the highest of “sacrifices” for absolutely no genuine “reason”. In fact, consuming flesh is more of a detriment to ones health and the environment. Beyond this too is the “luxury” of the resources that could have gone to feed 6 to 10 times more people. We should be focusing our attention to a more sustainable, healthy, bloodless alternative - It is time to evolve.
To snezzy… I’ve been tracking NAIS for a year now… Because of the corporate giants… and the other bad news - looks like it’s going to be a reality no matter what. Vegans - this also affects rescued, sanctuary animals, and eventually “pet” animals. NAIS “National Animal Identification System” shuts the lid on “animals as property”. It forces all to be micro-chipped, bar-coded, legal “commodities”. Rights activists should pay attention to this “system” as it snuffs liberty and freedom not only from non-humans, but humans as well.
As for chopping up pigs and cows and other animals?… Empty the cages - Go Vegan
Comment Bea Elliott — February 19, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Bea take your hate mongering somewhere else. You vegan idiots just dont get it. Veganism is not sustainable. You survive on your little pills and by shipping food in from great distances and using the toxic waste of chemical fertilizers to grow foods in fields that kill off animals. Do you have any idea how much wild-life dies so you can eat your guilt free plates of spinach and peppers? Gads almighty you are such an imbicile.
Heres reality for you– without livestock farmers you have no organic manures to make the good high quality fertilisers needed to grow quality organic veggies.
GO OMNIVORES!!!!!!!!!
Comment M.A. — February 19, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
To Bea Elliott,
What you eat is you right ….for now. If big Ag gets its way what you eat will be dictated by a corporation that could care less if they poison you.
As an American you rights stop at my property line. If you do not agree I suggest you head for a nice communist country like China.
Comment Snazy snezy — February 19, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
BEA-WARE
BEA IS A P.E.T.A. NUTCASE WHO GOES AROUND MAKING TROUBLE.
SHE IS A RICH LAZY BITCH WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO BUT POST COMMENTS LIKE THIS ON BLOGS.
BEA IS A TROLL LOOKING FOR BAIT.
Comment Dan — February 20, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Bea-
You look pale.
Eat more meat.
Love,
Alice.
Comment Alice — February 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Please ignore the troll. Do not feed it. Just keep eating good, healthy, humanely produced, pastured meats. Out breed her and out live her.
Comment Ed Pell — February 20, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Vegans and vegetarians are in deep denial. To grow the veggies they want everyone eating requires huge fields tended by machines that rape the land and kill enormous numbers of animal when they plow and mow and disk and till and cut and harvest. Vegans are the dertiest most hypocritcal people on the face of this planet with their holyer than thou puckered up assholes.
Go Meat Eaters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment virginia — February 20, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
The word is getting around to those who like naturally raised veggies that NAIS will not be good for them either….look at the following article
NAIS Threatens Access to Organic, Local and Sustainable Food
Monday, February 09, 2009 by: Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
text
Comment esbee — February 22, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Ah, Bea… not enough play time on MeatingPlace? She is equally ugly there.
Self promotion alert:
Have you read my book? It is an excellent resource for those who don’t know about NAIS. Go to my blog
and click through the link on the right side bar. Or, signed copies available through me. Just drop me an email.
Cheers!
Comment Henwhisperer — February 22, 2009 @ 6:41 pm