The Vermont Agency of Agriculture is waiting before adopting new rules that would make premises registration mandatory. Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr made his decision after receiving information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that showed concerns about data confidentiality. “The USDA had promised us complete confidentiality at every step of this process,” said Kerr.
“Now we have reason to believe that may not be the case. Without 100 percent confidentiality, we will not be sending any information on Vermont farms to the USDA database,” said Kerr. Kerr wants to get absolute assurance that the database is secure before giving up any information. “The Agency of Agriculture and the farmers were assured that this information would be secure and we need to know that it is,” said Kerr.
-WPTZ TV
Dear Secretary Kerr, August 15th, 2006
I applaud your putting Premises ID hold on in Vermont but realize that no government or industry database is secure - this is but one of my objections to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and Premises ID. Any database system built can be cracked. Putting large amounts of data in one system makes for a bigger, more tempting, more rewarding target for hackers, crackers, foreign terrorists and violent animal rights groups.
May I respectfully suggest that you focus on real solutions like providing educational materials and seminars about how to do good bio-security rather than false non-solutions like Premises ID. Going after Grandma’s egg hen, a family’s summer pig and small farms isn’t going to help with animal disease or national security.
Instead, focus on better meat inspection, helping us have more local butchers and slaughter houses, working with farmers to conserve soil and reduce the use of toxins, helping with sustainability, conserving working farms from development by buying development rights and reducing real estate taxes, encouraging the Buy Local and Slow Food movements, monitoring the large farms and factory farms who have a much greater risk and impact.
High Gate and big farms are a threat to our environment, hot points for disease and potential targets for terrorists. If you are going to spend $214,000 on a project it would be best to maximize your leverage to get the most benefit for our dollar spent. The big producers represent 85% of our state’s economic agricultural production and they represent almost all of the risk and danger - focus on them if you want to control disease.
Homesteaders and small farms are a diverse, dispersed asset to society that provides our local region with greater stability and security in both good and troubled times. The backyard livestock owners are not a threat to society. We are so distributed that our farmsteads are not a significant animal or human disease risk. Do not burden us with new regulations or threats but instead encourage us to thrive.
There is no need to violate our rights or privacy with any type of mandatory program be it NAIS, Premises ID or other regulations. Just as the FDA and OSHA keeps out of our home kitchen and home business, you should not be pushing the Agency of Agriculture or USDA onto homesteaders, pet livestock owners and small farmers.
Realize that if you had asked politely what types of animals we keep here at Sugar Mountain Farm I would have willingly told you. But when you try to force that information out of people using sneaky, mandatory regulations without legislative review, and threats of huge fines, you are bound to get resistance. The issue of mandatory is the biggest hurdle in NAIS and Premises ID. Drop it.
Keep it realistic and next time try saying please.
Cheers,
Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mountain Farm
Pastured Pigs & Piglets
Orange, Vermont
Save fool - Conserve government. -WJ
Thanks for keeping us informed. I think this whole thing is just a joke! Keep Up the GOOD WORK!
Comment Jeffrey — August 15, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
This is why I have such deep respect and admiration for Walter. To write such a meaningful letter to no less a personage than the Vermont Secretary of Agriculture is GREAT (squared)! Then to post the letter so that all others can see as an example to follow!
Few of us (perhaps none of us) have the skill to compose the sort of letter that Walter has sent.
But it’s important to write or to call…even if the letter or phone call is just to say “thank you Secretary Kerr”. Thank you for recognizing ONE aspect of the NAIS that you find objectionable. But please realize that we who are opposed have many more questions and concerns about this program. And, we hope that you will keep an open mind throughout the debate, and perhaps you will one day take a few minutes to actually investigate this program fully, and come to the logical conclusion that the program is unnecessary and will harm, perhaps irrevocably, many people.
Hat’s off to the people of Vermont! I wish that we could report the same sort of progress here in PA. We’re still trying…we have not yet surrendered…but we are unable to make the sort of “inroads” re: ANY elected or government official that are evident in Vermont.
We continue to face a hard brick wall here…all in favor of the NAIS. We have yet to find one who will oppose. Wish us well…but for now, congrat’s to the opponents in Vermont!
Comment Neil W. — August 15, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Walter: I wanted you to know that just today I received a correspondence from a federal elected representative that takes a “new approach” to the pro-NAIS argument. Hold on to your chair…you ain’t gonna belive this one!
The official writes,”Small farms may seem to be at a disadvantage when compared with large farms that can absorb the costs (of implementation, purchasing id tags and keeping records).
“But small farms may be at an advantage because they may better know their animals, already keep detailed records on them, and can more easily keep track of fewer numbers of animals”. (end quote).
That’s what the man wrote Walter…
Comment Neil W. — August 15, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Another well written letter Walter Thanks for putting my thoughts into words Keep up the good work. With folks like you we will prevent this program from happening
Comment dot lamb — August 15, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Maybe the 95% of people who showd up at the meetings and said NO!!!! had an affect!!!! I do not for a momento believ that Cur is stoping premise id out of concenrn for our data safety. I think he is scared of losing the election. Vote them out!!!
Comment PV — August 15, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Excellent!! Good Job WJ!
Comment David Hannes — August 15, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Bravo, Walter!! I like your ending. We must be able to laugh in the face of this.
Comment John Belding — August 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Hello Walter:)
Well done.
Question, does this mean the Montpelier hearing is cancelled?
respects, Wm
[Veddy interesting question… Dunno. I have emailed Kerry Rood, the state vet to ask. -WJ]
[A little bird assures me the hearing is on. -WJ]
Comment Mr Dirty Nails — August 15, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
You know this is going to result in a black market of animals without the proper health care they need. Sickness will be rampant.
Comment Monte Waldron — August 15, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Talk about a letter! How about this one, the one that Steve Kerr wrote to Johanns? Mind you, it IS smoke and mirrors, so don’t get all comfy cozy thinking it’s over. As an old friend of mine used to say, “Don’t say yet yet.”
Sharon
========
Secretary Michael Johanns
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250
August 14, 2006
Secretary Johanns,
For the past several months, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture has been writing rules requiring premises registration in the state, and taking public comment on those rules. We believe these rules are necessary to help ensure the health of animals in our state and to help contain an animal disease, should one strike here.
The process has been difficult at times, as Vermonters feel their privacy may be compromised. We have assured them that the premises registration database will be kept completely confidential, as USDA has promised us it would be.
I was recently surprised and disappointed to learn that the database may not, in fact, be completely confidential, and may be subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. This runs counter to numerous promises from USDA that control over names and addresses of farms will be maintained solely by me and my staff, or others whom we deem to be in need of this data.
Without such an assurance from USDA, we cannot proceed with the process of drafting premises registration rules. If it is to continue, we need an absolute guarantee that the privacy rights of Vermonters will be protected.
Failing such a guarantee, I ask that you provide the Vermont farmers who have registered voluntarily the option to remove their information from the database. They were promised confidentiality when they registered, and should be awarded the right to remove it.
A speedy reply is requested, as our public hearings are taking place now.
Sincerely,
Stephen R, Kerr
Vermont Secretary of Agriculture
Comment Henwhisperer — August 15, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
hey walter i like your new logo of the chicken. is that henny penny? she looks just like one of my buff oprs.
Comment anna — August 15, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez is
admittedly PRO NAIS
Please add him to your NAUGHTY list
[Please email supporting links or letters from them. Note I’m a little behind but still send more. If you put “Nice List” or “Naughty List” in the subject line that helps me. -WJ]
Comment GinnyP — August 16, 2006 @ 12:03 am
Congratulations on a well written letter. I like the comparison between home kitchens and small farms. And we do know our animals to the point that even though most of our cows long ago lost their ear tags, we can stand in the barnyard, point at a Holstein and recite pedigrees back for four or five generations
Comment Marianne — August 16, 2006 @ 4:43 am
Related articles:
After about 10 public hearings - and several more to go - Vermont Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr is putting the mandatory premises registration process on hold - but his office insists it has nothing to do with the strong opposition the agency has faced. -Caledonian Record
After talking with lawyers at the US Department of Agriculture, Vermont Secretary of Agriculture Steve Kerr has decided to indefinitely shelve a program that would require owners of livestock to register their premises.
“I made a promise to folks that the state would keep it’s information confidential… we know that’s the case, we have a good opinion from the Attorney General, and we said that we’ve been assured by the USDA that they will guarantee the same… well, they are no longer guaranteeing that, so we’re going to pull this proposal back,” said Kerr. -WCAX News
He said he wants to sever the link with the USDA, and create a separate Vermont database. At the end of the week the Agency of Agriculture will ask the USDA for a block of animal registration numbers so as not to mess up the countrywide standardized numbering system that ensures none are repeated, and speeds up the response time between states in the event of an outbreak. -Brattleboro Reformer
Kerr said he might propose that the state create its own registry, which he could ensure would remain confidential. “I’ll be ready with an alternative before the Legislature comes back.” Critics welcomed the demise of the registration mandate, but recognized their battle would continue. -Burlington Freepress
Vermont is suspending plans to require farms with livestock to register with the state in an effort to contain outbreaks of contagious diseases over concerns about keeping the information private, according to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture. The agency had been drafting rules that would have required the registration of farms, but not of individual animals, a plan advocated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA had promised us complete confidentiality at every step of this process,” Vermont Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr said Tuesday in a news release. “Now we have reason to believe that may not be the case. Without 100 percent confidentiality, we will not be sending any information on Vermont farms to the USDA database.” -Burlington Freepress
Comment walterj — August 16, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
No offense meant to anyone. Yet doesn’t this gentleman realize that his own database is not 100% secure?
[I pointed this out to the Agency of Agriculture this spring and their response was:
Unfortunately the people who are the ‘experts’ are not going to be very open about that fact that they can’t deliver security - after all, that was what they were hired for. As to data being available on the internet - that is irrelevant. The problem is the government is compiling all this data in a nice neat package for foreign and domestic terrorists. Now, if they really want to test their security they’ll offer a renewing $10,000 reward for anyone who cracks their system - no proscecution, no questions - just find the token and show them how. It is a great way of improving security. But the fact will remain, no system is secure. -WJ]
Comment PAT — August 16, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Walt,a neighboring farmer called me today and asked me to drop by ,I did ,they showed me papers they have recieved ( from PDA)with their new Federal farm Id number,this new number supercedes the number they already had (the one that the state issued them through 4H that they had to have to show horses at the fair for the last couple of years,that I had told you about a while back)the lady was upset because now she has to change all the animals tags to the new number,(I told her things will get very expensive and be very inconveinent as this will be their M.O.)the thing is PA has not officially passed SB 865 which is the “enabling” bill to do premise ID,the senate of PA recently passed this %*&#@ bill and then sent it to the house ag people to consider,( as I understand Aug 15-17 so if you live in Pa act quickly to tell your Rep NO!!)anyway it seems we have a bunch of morons who are not paying too much attention to what we want,or else they think that it’s going to pass and they are just going ahead with it,keep up the pressure in your states folks,you can beat this,Pa is a old state and they (politicians) have had a lot of time to perfect “socialism” here,we are going to beat this ,somehow,anyway for those in PA I am listing the last names of the senators who sponsored SB865 they are not worthy to hold office and some are up for re-election, MADIGAN, WAUGH, STOUT, PICCOLA, LEMMOND, PILEGGI, PIPPY, EARLL, MUSTO, O’PAKE, RAFFERTY, WOZNIAK AND ROBBINS and as it passed the senate it had to have support of others,I think that you can find out where your senator stood online, or call them and ask,these knotheads need to hear from us,thanks!
[A Naughty Dozen… Added to my Naughty List. -WJ]
Comment LEE — August 16, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
Thanks Walter,thats where they belong,UPDATE: I just talked to a PA senator who has (for the most part) been helpful and sympathetic to our cause,(as opposed to simply pathetic :-) He informed me that there was more opposition to this SB 865 than the final vote would imply,but he said in no uncertain terms that the feds (USDA and others as I understand)told the Pa. senate that if they did not pass this bull/bill that they would hold up millions of dollars in funding to the state, (blackmail)I told him that was not a good excuse,although I understand what he was saying,and told him we as a state need to cut off the federal nipple and get our state back,he agreed.anyway this goes to show how low the fed will go to push this on us,after all wasn’t it said that this would be up to the states? Yaaa riiggght!I contacted my federal rep and told him about this,as he had told me( back at RON PAULS bill) that they had told USDA that they had to comply with congress before proceding further,methinks I smell a rat,(seems to be a policy in Washington lately that no one has to ask congress,Hmmmm)looks to me like USDA is still working to push this into place,with out compliing with anyone,Pa. folks need to kick and scream,all others,keep your eyes open,( if this is on the level,and I at this time think it is, then they’ll do it again) keep your reps feet to the fire,when there is money in the mix,it’s hard to get a politician to go the right way, especialy if another interest groups nipple money is threatened,the one with the loudest voice will win,so lets keep at it,…”Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism” Thomas Jefferson
[Interesting imagery… I completely agree with you that the states need to get up the gumption to say no. This issue of federal funding getting cut off was brought up by our state representatives in the April meeting with the USDA’s Dr. Wiemers. He was very cagey about how hard the feds would punish states that balked but clearly stated that agricultural funding to states would be cut off if they did not press through Premises ID and NAIS. They are desperate to get states to do the implementation because otherwise they have a states rights fight on their hands. Keep up the good fight! -WJ]
Comment LEE — August 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm