New Hampshire’s Ag Committee is attempting to clamp down on people’s right to know what the government is up to with HB 1316 which exempts NAIS from right to know laws like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
“This bill exempts records of the National Animal Identification System from the right-to-know law in the event such system is established in New Hampshire.”
While on the one hand big producers might cheer saying that this protects their NAIS records from competitors, realize that this is a horribly dangerous precedence. If we are unable to know what the government is doing then we can’t correct errors and we can’t catch the government when it is up to no good. Messing with the free exchange of information leaves the public in the dark about the cloakroom deals and could lead to a fascist Big Brother state that will not let you see its evil. A government that is not accountable to the people is extraordinarily dangerous to the people.
Write the Ag Committee and let them know you are against HB 1316 and you oppose NAIS.
Just stole your post Walter and sent it to the Union Leader. Union Leader has often gotten into battles about Right to Know issues. If we can get that papers attention I believe we will have a very powerful ally
Comment Sue Foster — March 4, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Anybody else care to send them thoughts?
Our primary e-mail addresses are:
Newsroom e-mail (news tips, inquiries, news releases): writeus@unionleader.com
letters@unionleader.com, letter to editor
Comment Sue Foster — March 4, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
DITTO Washington, HB 2651,SB 6854
Comment Celeste — March 4, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Possible different angle from the AG commitees is the commerce commitee. This does afterall interfere with commerce.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/billstatus/commmail.asp?commcode=H33
Comment Sue Foster — March 4, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
Badly written bill on the FOIA issue. This federal NAIS bill is much better: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1254
You have to read it in the full text option, but it basically states that all personal information collected is to be considered proprietary and private and not available to anyone who requests it.
“…information obtained
2 through the livestock identification system–
3 “(A) may not be released;
4 “(B) shall not be considered information in
5 the public domain; and
6 “(C) shall be considered commercial infor-
7 mation that is privileged and confidential.”
Oh, and it also authorizes another $175M if the bill passes.
The funniest part for me was the charge to the USDA to help defray the costs to small producers. ROFL, I’m a disabled vet dealing with the VA and still not getting what the regs say I’m authorized after ten years of fighting. I also get the joy of knowing that after I beat the VA finally, I get to go back and fight the DoD for the same reason.
Comment Anon — March 5, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
another $175M.
makes it real clear.
Comment Sue F — March 6, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
NH HB1316 for 2006 was reported out of committee as Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on 16 Feb. Floor vote in the NH House on 22 Feb approved the ITL. This means the bill is dead (for ths year).
Comment Pat McCotter — March 13, 2006 @ 4:32 am
Also, for non-NH readers, the right-to-know law in NH is much easier to use than the Federal FOIA. It is known locally as 91-A because it is NH law “RSA 91-A: Access to Public Records and Meetings.”
It basically guarantees transparency in NH government.
Comment Pat McCotter — March 13, 2006 @ 4:37 am
Doesn’t matter now because it was killed but it’s only a matter of time before it’s rewritten and resubmitted.
At the NAIS meeting in Haverhill on 3/30, the state vet, Crawford, admitted that this bill was his.
Comment Sue F — April 7, 2006 @ 5:42 am
It’s been rewritten and resubmitted. I’ve asked McConnell for a copy. Isn’t appearing on the state site yet.
Monday January 01, 2007
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) The state veterinarian hopes farmers will be more receptive to tagging and registering their livestock if such information is kept private.
Out of more than 3,900 farms in the state, only three dozen have signed up for the voluntary National Animal Identification System, a program created a decade ago to identify animals and record their movement and lifespan. The goal is to help protect livestock and the public during a flu outbreak.
Dr. Stephen Crawford is backing a bill that would prohibit the public disclosure of information collected under the program in most cases in hopes that more farmers will participate.
“I view it as an emergency management tool,'’ Crawford said. “My department has responsibilities for animals in an emergency. God forbid we get avian flu. I have no idea right now where these flocks are and how to contact them.'’
State Rep. Timothy O’Connell, R-Milford, has filed a bill on Crawford’s behalf that would exempt the disclosure of livestock records except in the case of a “reporting animal health investigation.'’
O’Connell said he has not registered his own half-dozen chickens under the national program, but believes such a program could become mandatory for commercial farmers by 2009 and perhaps for all livestock owners in years to come. He compared the bill to health privacy regulations for humans.
“We are looking to protect all animal health information,'’ he said. “I couldn’t release it without the permission of the participating farmer. This would be much like human health records.'’
Crawford said he does not support a mandatory registration but wants some way to contact backyard farmers if there is an outbreak. He said a national survey conducted in 2004 estimated that 7 percent of households in the eastern United States owned backyard birds, which would amount 33,200 flocks in New Hampshire.
“I quite frankly don’t need to identify each individual animal,'’ he said. “We need to know where these animals are housed.'’
Rob Johnson, executive director of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation, said the delegation has voted to support a voluntary identification system and will support the privacy protections envisioned in O’Connell’s legislation.
He said most of the state’s dairy farmers already register their livestock through various breed associations.
“The backyard farmer that is where the opposition is,'’ he said. “They see it as government intrusion. Big Brother.'’
Information from: New Hampshire Union Leader, http://www.unionleader.com
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Comment Sue F — January 7, 2007 @ 3:46 am
This is what the Rep sent me last night.
Section 2 Header
; 07-0614.0
; 08/05
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the year of our Lord Two Thousand Seven
AN ACT relative to the disclosure of certain livestock health information.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 1 New Section; Records Disclosure. Amend RSA 436 by inserting after section 6 the following
2 new section:
3 436:6-a Records Disclosure. Information submitted by an individual or business for the purpose
4 Of participating in a state or national animal health or disease control system is exempt from
5 Disclosure. Disclosure to local, state and federal officials is not public disclosure. This exemption
6 does not affect the disclosure of information used in reportable animal health investigations under
7 This chapter.
a. 2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 fays after it’s passage.
Comment Sue F — January 15, 2007 @ 2:57 am