There are reports on discussion lists of the Vermont Department of Agriculture using information from bird fanciers to sign up people for the voluntary Premise ID program without their explicit permission. This follows the ID, WA, TX and USDA cases of the government falsifying voluntary signup. Beware and fight back.
May 1, 2006
VT False Voluntary Premise ID
|
Pastured Pigs & Piglets |
Personal Pencil Portraits |
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Walter,
Your last post on “NONAIS.ORG” has just been brought to my attention. I feel compelled to clarify a few things. There has only been one complaint that I am aware of regarding premises registration and the swap meets. They contacted my office and when we researched the issue, found that they had signed the premises registration form.
The premises registration system is voluntary and has been.
When we test birds for avian influenza we will be asking for a name and contact info – phone number – if the test results are positive. Those who give us this information will not be automatically signed up in the premises registration system. That would not be voluntary.
Here is exactly what we will be testing for at swap meets –
• Salmonella pullorum and typhimurium (P-T) – required by statute before any exhibition or swap meet to be tested. This statute has been on the books for years. Testing can be done on site with results in minutes. No information needs to be taken from the owner.
• Avian Influenza – voluntary testing is available for owners wishing to participate in monitoring. The test results take several days to return. Contact information is needed incase we need to notify the owners. This contact information does not register you in the premises system. Again it is voluntary and we would need to have a signed form – or electronic if done on-line.
All of this activity has been under the direction of the bird fancier’s club board. They are in agreement that monitoring is needed and have invited us to their swap meets.
Kerry…
Kerry A. Rood, MS, DVM
State Veterinarian
Vermont Agency of Agriculture,
Comment Kerry Rood — May 1, 2006 @ 7:04 am
From the above it appears that somebody did not know exactly what they were signing.
Perhaps the intent needs to be stated more clearly by whomever is asking for a signature and, at the same time, the individual needs to be more careful when providing a signature.
Out of curiousity, did they choose to rescind their registration and, if so, were they truly able to do so?
Comment Jason — May 1, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Once you are added to the database “you never get off” says WA state. There is no provision for recinding. In my case, they obtained the information deceitfully thorugh my affliation with my local goat club and satellite imaging of my property, commercial transactions, and participation in internet activity such as forums.
Comment Celeste — May 1, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Members of MN Against NAIS have reported that in at least one county, Wright, the 4H board is now REQUIRING NAIS PREMISE IDs to show 4H animals at the Wright County Fair. (Not sure if this appkies to open class exhibits also?)
One member of this discussion group was also asked, when picking up chicks at the feed store, if these birds were for a 4H project. She had never been asked that before, so when she asked why, she was told that they had to ask under the “new rules.” (Not sure if this incident was also in Wright County also, but it has ominous implications just the same.) It is not clear from the University of Minnesota 4H site whether Premise IDs are requyired statewide for 4H, but the Ethics lessons section on record keeping now includes NAIS and group leaders are “strongly encouraged” to include this lesson in the certification program.
Perhaps people should consider a boycott of 4H animal projects this summer? If the fairgrounds are all empty of animal entries, the counties might get the point?
Comment rooster-lover — May 1, 2006 @ 11:49 am
Kerry A. Rood, MS, DVM,I personally would not trust anyone even remotely connected to USDA. The working groups were stacked in favor of USDA objectives from the get go and when the comments were not what was wanted to shove this program down our throats the working groups I tired to communicate my concerns to went to private email address rather than any official USDA address so they could pick and choose what they wanted to use. The head of the working group I sent comments to was so bias for the program no other opinion mattered.
I would not trust USDA about anything or anyone connected to them. Ever since they became incorporated 1986 with ARS 1990 to do business and earn profits they stopped being an unbiased regulatory agency even if appearances but became instead a global profit motivated highly competive corporation. Only natural to regulate in favor of your partnerships and profits with an eye for total world control with UN at the head. USDA no longer has any concern for the constitution, US sovereignty or fair play. Heck, they helped develop GM seeds and then got to say how safe they were in a official manner or how with their partnership with Monsanto how many profitable uses Bt Corn would provide all the time getting profits, license fees, royalties and seeing $$$$ for the future in ethanol and other related products. (only one GM seed example of many) That is profitable to them not small guys. eMerge is partners for packer plant testing equipment for contaminates with ARS and so poor packer with only 1% of market has to sue to test their own cows again ruled against in favor of the big 4 that have almost 90% of the market. Message to me is either USDA gets part of your profit or they will regulate profits out of your pocket or regulate you out of business hidden behind their OFFICIAL position as regulator not their free from freedom of information corporate position of competitor. USDA should be United Nations Dept of Agriculture INC. since it sure does not have any loyalty to United States of America Citizens any longer. Processing plants in China prove that Docket No. 05-012F (PDF Only) (Apr 20, 2006. How dare I raise my own supper and offend China and Major US Producers with lot numbers not individual ID numbers like they want for small guy. USDA and partners want to force me to eat chickens they raise and process only God knows what is in them or where they have been or how handled. NO THANKS.
Even the vets are under OIE International Rules over ruling US Laws. Get a clue, truth is not required to get people herded into the system for cost control, higher profits and better inventory control to redistribute the assets for USDA and partners. Disease is almost wiped out so the loss of control over the inventory caused this NAIS mess with a heads up it was coming in vet conferences as early as National Farm Animal Identification Symposium, Nov. 8-10, 1998, in St. Louis, Mo. long before 9/11/01. We are their inventory. We, the citizen, are being herded into a system of total control.
So the message is clear to me. If I am not making money for the USDA and partners they will wipe me off the face of the earth as a producer even self use producer with any means possible because that will make them money, give them total control over my life.
Watch out for every competitor trick to be used to forced NAIS.
Comment Sue Karber — May 1, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
What is needed here is for just one person to come forward and be able to prove that they have been signed up for premise id without their permission or under false or even mis-leading circumstances.
Any person who feels as though they have been “wronged” in Vermont or any other state needs to come forward. Then they can contact an attorney and begin the battle.
But one question remains; namely, how does one know that they have been added to the premise id list if they have been added without their permission? Is there some way to check the records and see if your premise has been added without your permission or knowledge?
And if so…then how does the government plan to keep the records safe? If a master list exists, and is available for the general public to examine, then what guarantee is there for the security of the list?
To Doctor Kerry Rood:
Are you beginning to see the problems related to signing premises to the program if those signers were not made completely aware of what they were signing and that “they can’t change their minds” after they sign? (If that is in fact true).
It should be made very clear to potential signers that they are signing up permanently for a program that will be monitoring their premise for the forseeable future. And, that by signing, they are giving their permission for their data to be used when animal id starts.
The state should make every effort to be upfront with these signers. If not, the signers might have legal recourse despite your best efforts to disqualify recourse before the fact.
To the “bird fancier’s club board”…
Whoever you are, and whoever is in charge of your organization, you should be very sure that you are not mis-leading your members. If you are not making your members completely aware of what they are signing, you may also be involved in any legal action taken by persons who believe they were misled when they signed the form.
“Let the buyer beware” does not necessarily apply here.
Comment Neil W. — May 1, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
About unvoluntary premises registration, Mark Bosma, Public Information Officer, said on Vermont Bird Fanciers:
This is the question posed
2.) If our registration were truly voluntary, is it then possible for members to unregister their premises?
This is Mark Bosma’s answer
*It is possible to unregister. Call us.
If you are registered and you didn’t request it, then call the Agency to get unregistered.
Like I believe it would be that easy, but, folks it is in writing.
link
Comment Henwhisperer — May 1, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Awful, Just sneaky and unconstitutional ..our rights are vanishing before our eyes… Have you heard of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Proposal .. Its a government take over of 750,000 acres that will displaces farmers, ranchers , retires like myself from there family farms and little towns for a Us Army training program… Its an Eminent domain thing that we will get Penny’s on the dollar and that’s if we are lucky,with no say from the land owners…. Check it out on the net .. Its in Colorado .. Wont have to worrying about fighting having to register our farms they’ll own them and we will have our lives and homes go up in smoke..with no replacement think they will pay moving costs Hah! .Sounds like Communist old Russia and this is the land of the free and the home of the brave…Sounds like they are making us out as nincompoops or treating like it!
Betty Rodgers
Comment Betty Rogers — May 1, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
If Dr. Rood reads this, could we get a clear and direct statement on whether or not one can unregister a premises in VT, however they were registered, since this is just a “voluntary at this time” program?
Comment Kamatu — May 2, 2006 @ 6:37 am
When we purchased this little ranch three years ago I was asking a lot of questions of our local FSA which is of course USDA regarding arial photographs of our property and other questions regarding what one has to do to be able to raise animals in our county and government grants/loans etc. In the go round that insued I somehow got signed up for the monthly newsletter and not once have I seen anything regarding NAIS in that newsletter. I am wondering if when I signed up for the newsletter I was automatically registered for the premis ID or whatever..? This is in Virginia. Just curious if anyone else has experienced anything like this?
Sallie
Comment Sallie — May 2, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
To Kamatu and all other interested persons:
It appears that Dr. Rood does in fact read this forum, however he chooses NOT to repond when the questions/comments get too tough.
For one brief moment, I thought that perhaps we had a state official (Dr. Rood) who might wish to engage in intelligent correspondence. But alas, that does not appear to be the case.
Dr. Rood; we would very much appreciate your participation on this forum!
Comment Neil W. — May 3, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
My apologies to Kamatu and Neil W. as I thought I had replied today in a lengthy correspondence with the host of NONAIS.ORG.
The premises registration system is voluntary. As a voluntary system, there is a mechanism in place to “un-register” your site, just like a system is in place to change contact information, sale of premises, etc.
Here in Vermont, those registering have to sign up on-line or by filling out and signing a premises registration form. That is the only way they will be registered. This supports the definition of “voluntary”.
Comment Kerry Rood — May 3, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Thank you for answering about the Vermont’s definition of “voluntary”. Maybe you are too just one of those in USDA that does not have a clue of the real agenda of USDA, INC.
This is the commercial site for the USDA and it’s partners. It is answerable and under the control of the USDA. Really is interesting when investigated for all it’s implications profits, power and control and then regulates to their favor….
Comment Sue Karber — May 4, 2006 @ 1:00 am
Dr. Rood;
Thank you for responding. As a follow-up question I wish to ask, are you stating that there is absolutely no chance that a premise might be signed-up without the owner’s express consent? That there is no case of anyone in Vermont being signed up to premise id simply by registering birds at a swap meet? (example)
And also, to your knowledge, are all premises that have been registered in Vermont given some confirmation of their registration? So that it would be impossible for anyone to be registered without their knowledge?
Thank you.
Comment Neil W. — May 4, 2006 @ 10:06 am
Dr. Rood-What is your definiton of “voluntary”?
Comment Celeste — May 4, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Thank you Dr. Rood.
Neil W., all Dr. Rood could say is that to the best of his knowledge, no, but with the caveat that he can’t know everything subordinates and others do.
Comment Kamatu — May 4, 2006 @ 12:15 pm