The USDA and state Ag Dept. officials like to claim that the big producers are united behind the USDA’s proposed draft of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This is not true. The reality is more and more of the big producers, breed organizations and other large stakeholders are resisting NAIS.
The “Livestock Marketing Association, along with other industry groups, is letting Congress know there is a lot of dissatisfaction with this program, and there are many questions about it that need answering before we can move forward.” - Robinson of the LMA
“Regarding animal identification, members approved by a vote of 3,628-183 the following resolution: “R-CALF USA opposes a federally mandated national animal identification program. R-CALF USA opposes a totally privatized, centralized database and/or a federally centralized database. R-CALF USA supports a voluntary animal-health trace-back system that ensures the protection of individual data, and a system that is compatible with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). R-CALF USA shall continue to work with the federal government, state governments and Tribal governments, as well as the industry, to determine the feasibility, functionality, and benefit to the U.S. cattle industry of an animal-health trace-back system that incorporates existing systems, such as brand programs and the Intertribal Cattle Connect program, and vests the responsibilities and authority under the auspices of state animal health officials and Tribal governments.” -R-CALF
“Policies, procedures, and regulations that inappropriately or unnecessarily discourage farmers and ranchers from considering or continuing to steward rare and threatened breeds could lead to the extinction or functional loss of the genetic resource these animals represent. Such a loss would diminish our country’s genetic legacy, significantly reduce the capacity of present and future animal breeders to respond to new challenges and opportunities, and potentially compromise our nation’s food security.
ALBC stands ready to have dialogue with those charged in the development of NAIS to ensure this precious and vulnerable livestock and poultry legacy can be secured. Specific points of concern include: the potential unfair economic and administrative burden NAIS may impose on breeders and small farmer while providing little benefit, while the NAIS trace back system does have merit, clearly the enhanced export markets provide no benefit to breeders and small farmers, the record keeping and tracking procedures of NAIS could discourage present and future breeders and small farmers, and thus have adverse impact to the conservation of rare breeds of livestock and poultry is anticipated, NAIS has moved into implementation too quickly for fair appraisal, comment, or design, and no evaluation of cost to benefit has been undertaken.” -American Livestock Breeds Conservancy
“Mike John, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) president, agrees a trace-back system is needed, but remains opposed to a mandatory program. John argues that if the government intervenes on this trace-back issue, the data becomes government property and producers lose control and confidentiality.” -NCBA
Support for the USDA’s proposed mandatory NAIS is crumbling among the large producers, industry and breed associations. Small producers virtually universally oppose NAIS. Homesteaders are against NAIS. Horse owners don’t like NAIS either. Some states (ME, TX, VT, AL) have backed away from the USDA’s proposal and are taking a wait and see attitude. The USDA’s facade is showing pits, holes and large cracks. Now is the time to keep up the pressure, chipping away at their false arguments for Premises ID, Animal ID and Animal Tracking. Perhaps these things make sense for the big produces and meat exporters - let them have it. But the rest of us should not be burdened with an unworkable, expensive, unnecessary system. NAIS should be 100% voluntary and market driven - there is no need for government involvement.
Hat tips to: Dean, Laura, Lee, Sharon & Tom.
I am saddened that I am not hearing any comments from the livestock associations on the dangers of premise ID. Also, most newspaper articles ignore the issue, or mention it as an afterthought. Costs are important, but control of our own land is more important to me than anything. I love my goats more than money, but I don’t feel that I will be allowed to enjoy them if we don’t control the use of our land. Even if NAIS is temporarily halted or postponed, I speculate that all those that “volunteered” for a premise ID will not be released from it, and that, not so far away, in that large stack of papers that new buyers will have to sign when they purchase land, a premise ID application will be slipped in there — after all, it was “voluntarily” signed. How long will it be before land that is transferred when inherited, will also have a premise ID application in the paperwork. If someone (not my husband or I) applies for a government grant, maybe there will be, written into the contract, acceptance of a premise ID number. It won’t be too many years before Big Brother Government can have a hugh majority of premise IDs. This year, I am going to scrutinize our property tax bill for any numbers that have not been there for the last ten years. I think we should begin every objection to this sewage with a mention of premise ID. Even the 911 number we did not request, but was issued to us by mail after we changed our voter registration, is never used by anyone on this property. I feel if we use it, we own it. I pay the tiny store/UPS office in town to accept any packages I can’t get send to our post office box. That 911 number should be sufficient to Big Brother Government if they need to locate us. That is exactly why I believe there is something much deeper going on here — federal jurisdiction. And Walter, thank you for your tireless work here. I wouldn’t be able to vent like this without your beautiful website.
Comment Texas Goat Gal — June 2, 2006 @ 8:08 am
I just read the latest page from texas animal health commission watch regarding horses questions/answers. On this page, there seems to be conflicting answers for horses movements off premises.
Horse council, Q: Will I have to report every time my horse moves off its premises?
A: Not EVERY single movement of your horse will have to be reported. This would obviously be an unrealistic goal. Movements such as local trail rides, shows or ropings would not be required reportable events. It is likely that the movements that would be reportable would be when horses are transported interstate or to a premises where a brand inspection, Certificate of Veterinary Inspection or other health papers are required.
Animalid.aphis states, Q. If a Person Only Shows Animals or Only Takes Them to Trail Rides, Do They Need to be Identified?
A. When people show or commingle their animals with animals from multiple premises, the possibility of spreading disease becomes a factor. Those animals will need to be identified
Q. What is “Commingling”?
A. Commingling may be defined as an animal having contact with, or being inter-mixed with, animals other than herdmates from that animal’s premises of origin
It’s painfully evident that whoever wrote these aren’t horse owners. Seems like they’re playing both sides of the coin. Tho we live in MN now from Texas, I still have a mare on a breeding program in west Texas.. I had contacted Dr. Hillman several weeks ago regarding NAIS, only to recieve a nasty response from him. I keep mailing them and others in Texas and will continue to do so. Hopefully, others are also.
Have a great weekend!
Comment Goose — June 2, 2006 @ 8:25 am
NAIS is no longer a big worry. If THIS gets passed, it will very likely be the end of all farming in all states. That is just what they wanted. I’m speechless!!! link
Does Manure Make a Farm a Superfund Site?
[Please do not paste in entire articles from newspapers, etc. A excerpt or quote, is fine. A link to the article is great. Discussion of the article is great. But pasting the entire article in borders on copyright infringement so I have to delete or chop posts like that. -WJ]
Comment Lisa Ostella — June 2, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
Well, the statements in Walter’s post are a step in the right direction at least.
I too agree with the concerns over NAIS and premises registration. It’s my understanding that in other states the state vet’s office has been hitting the 4H leaders encouraging premises ID in order for the kids to show this year. I think this is happening in Oregon too, but I’ll have to check on that. I may have the chance to sponsor a 4H kid by letting her use one of my horses this year. If premises ID comes with that, unfortunately she’ll have to find another horse to work with.
I also have a copy of the AHC NAIS and how it relates to horses brochure. Talk about two faced. I wouldn’t be suprised if the people who wrote the thing have horses, I also wouldn’t be suprised if they cheat at solitare. The borchure is full of bold faced lies and half truths. I’m not sure if they think we just don’t read the actual government documents regarding the NAIS or if they think we’re too stupid to notice when their statements are contradictory with the the government documents.
Good job Walter on the post.
Comment Joanne Rigutto — June 2, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
What “they” are doing is painfully obvious. They are trying to appease horse owners by throwing them a very small bone…your beloved trail rides will not be reportable. They might even throw in some concessions about horse shows to further appease the horse owners.
The strategy is simple…divide and conquer. If they can effectively appease the horse owners, maybe the horse owners will stop objecting to the NAIS.
One thing I learned tonight after hearing a congressman talk (briefly) about the NAIS…
Neither he, nor any of his colleagues, has received enough constituent complaint about the NAIS to warrant any action beyond what has already been taken to require the USDA to present a cost analysis for the NAIS, after which the house can then decide if the USDA has answered their demand for cost analysis.
Barring some serious problem with that cost analysis, the program will probably go ahead with only a few (possible) minor alterations…such as horse owners will get some concessions.
We must remember the rules of the game…the house and senate passed a bill that assigned the USDA to create an animal id plan for the United States. That is a matter of record. The USDA has responded to that mandate with the NAIS. In essence, the USDA has done what the Congress asked it to do.
People need to understand the rules of this game. This is NOT a simple “bill” for which an “up or down” vote can be affected by a few phone calls, letters or emails sent to reps. on the eve of the vote.
This is almost (an analogy) like the prohibition of alcohol. The only way the law can be changed is if the law is either repealed or found to be unconstitutional. The former is unlikely. The latter is somewhat likely, but never certain.
Or..far more likely and encouraging, we can influence our state officials to “muddy the waters” at the state level…and if enough states cause enough trouble for the feds, the feds “might” throw up their hands and surrender still more concessions. (Maybe voluntary i/o mandatory).
More likely; some sort of compromise will be reached (voluntary i/o mandatory) and some form of the NAIS will be implemented. It is simply unrealistic to expect that the entire program will be scrapped now that it has gone so far.
Please don’t shoot me…I’m only the messenger! That is the political reality as it was explained to me earlier this very afternoon.
Comment Neil W. — June 2, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
As for the Manure=toxic waste argument, what next? A specific tax on human excrement? Perhaps these same environmentalists should pay to clean up after the Canada Geese they so love to protect.
I think farmers need to act fast to have manure classified as an asset or commondity. Pure gold isn’t as valuable. With that we should redefine the term and meaning. No longer manure, excrement, waste but reclaimed soil enhancer, animal processed fertilizer, Perfect Pasture Poo–I mean look at the marketing behind Zoo Doo.
Now feedlot manure lagoons are evil. Perhaps they do qualify as superfund sites–their less the organic waste byproduct of natural rumination than a toxic soup of chemical additives. But normal, less intensive farming activity and byproducts need to be held up as national treasures–our link to a rural past. It’s the only way to see the future.
Comment Podchef — June 3, 2006 @ 8:56 am