It is good to give an “atta-boy” even if you disagree with the reasoning. As you get small successes, or big ones, with your states, remember to write the officials and let them know what they do that is good. Here’s my most recent letter to our head of agriculture in Vermont:
Secretary Steve Kerr
Vermont Agency of Agriculture
Montpelier, Vermont
September 5th, 2006
Dear Agricultural Secretary Kerr,
I wanted to let you know I am hearing all sorts of good things from people about Vermont saying no to the USDA on NAIS and Premises ID. You have done well and are a role model for other states by rejecting the USDA’s overbearing proposal and protecting Vermonters. People are impressed that you respect our right to privacy.
It is, of course, important that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) be respected and preserved because transparency in government and free access to public information is key to preserving our open democracy.
Likewise it is important to value our Constitutional rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness without government micro-management of our affairs. Respect for the Constitution is important to maintaining a respectful association between government and the people.
I look forward to a polite, respectful proposal from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture to issues disease, terrorist and food safety management in a Vermont way. As you progress with this process I hope that you will seek full public input from not just the big agricultural producers but also from the micro-farmers, homesteaders, pet owners and consumers. After all, we, not hte big producers, make up the vast majority. In this way we should be able to protect our farms and the public all while preserving our rights and privacy as guaranteed in the Constitution.
Respectfully,
Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mountain Farm
Orange, Vermont
Pastured Pigs & Sheep
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog
http://HollyGraphicArt.com
http://BlackLightning.com
http://NoNAIS.org
Hand out: http://NoNAIS.org/handout
Hang up: http://NoNAIS.org/poster
Stickers: ttp://NoNAIS.org/stickers
Ad copy: http://NoNAIS.org/ads
Unfortunately I don’t trust our dear Secretary Kerr to actually protect our traditional rights to farm because as of last February he was rabidly pro-Animal ID and NAIS. We even have the verified memo that demonstrates this. Mr. Kerr saw the light of the torches from the angry mob of farmers headed his way and backed down.
As of this spring and summer he was rabidly, even insultingly, pushing for mandatory Premises Registration here in Vermont. Now he has apparently backed down from that. My suspicious is that the real reason he backed off, using the excuse of privacy, is that he finally realized that NAIS, Animal ID and Premises ID were a third rail of politics that represented suicide for his own personal advancement.
I just hope that he, and Vermont, really does stay backed away completely from these proposals that would mandate such systems and infringe upon our basic Constitutional rights. Time will tell.
As NAIS gains a strongarm hold on some states–PA and MO–Vermont’s weakening any link in the chain is welcome, whether it is sincere or not. It gives us all hope. Just don’t pack up those pitchforks and torches yet.
Here In WA Johannes and our own governor, Gregior, are forming tighter alliences with aid being given to weather-stricken farmers. I fear the USDA noose has just been clinched tighter by the acceptance of this help. If WA falls than VT’s “victory” is nullified.
The only way to stop the spread of the NAIS disease is to notify every citizen in the country before the publicity virus of the USDA strikes later this year. And with the finding of non-H5N1 birdflu on the Eastern Seaboard this month this fight only gets more difficult. Has anyone contacted Michael Pollan about this thing?
Comment Podchef — September 8, 2006 @ 9:33 am
Hello PodChef,
Michael Pollan was on my mail list very early on. I believe we started our mail campaigns back in February when we started the NONAISin-theUS Yahoo Group.
I mailed him through the NY Times.
I never heard a thing.
Regards.
Comment Breederville — September 8, 2006 @ 11:07 am
Have you seen this story on records on CAFOs not being private even when held in private hands?
bet the same rules could apply to NAIS records
link
Comment threecollie — September 8, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Breederville,
I emailed him today, but I went through his site. I doubt anything will come of it. At least the email address seems a bit more direct. Maybe if he gets enough emails he’ll get off the stump and start writing in the Times. NAIS cuts across and will destroy everything he is currently championing.
Then again, like so many other writers in the press, he could be choking on his gag.
Comment Podchef — September 8, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
One group that has written the most on this issue is the Home School Legal Defense fund.
link
Their writings have been picked up by various publications.
That link I posted above says the search within HSLD is for ‘Healthy People’. NAIS is a focus area of Healthy People. It is under the Food Safety category.
Comment Breederville — September 8, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
Folks: Something big has happened in DC on Sept. 07…check www.libertyark.net for article entitled “Legislators Introduce Measures to Prohibit MandatoryAnimal ID System”.
The URL is too long to copy here…but the story is from FarmFutures.com dated Sept. 08.
It reports something called the Talent-Emerson Bill…introduced on Sept. 07 by US Senator Jim Talent and US Representative Jo Anne Emerson (both of Missouri).
We need to get behind this legislation because it might actually keep the NAIS program voluntary? At least that’s how it reads. Check www.libertyark.net for the link to the story behind the Talent-Emerson Bill.
Comment Neil W. — September 9, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
Threecollie, you have an excellent point. This is the type of thing we must look for when proceding with our legislative analysis of the up-coming Talent/Emerson Bill and any other similar bills. We’ve got to watch our Lawmakers like hawks. They’ve got experts in legislative law drafting these bills who are very skilled at nullifying an otherwise positive looking bill for those of us fighting against the NAIS.
Regards,
David
Comment David Hannes — September 10, 2006 @ 8:49 am
This does sound promising, however, I am very skeptical about all this talk of “voluntary” or “not mandatory”, because everything I have seen in print still indicates that a premise ID would be required, even under a voluntary program. I am worried when I see organizations and those we have placed trust in, not speaking of our PROPERTY RIGHTS. If we were to be required to obtain a premise ID under a voluntary program, the rules could/would be changed later. I know the rules could also be changed if no premise ID was required under a voluntary system, also. I think we need to make it very clear to legislators and others that might represent us, that property rights are supreme! Anyone out there agree with me?
Comment Texas Goat Gal — September 10, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Me, again. Just went to Senator Talent’s wesite and printed an article about his measure to prohibit mandatory animal ID. I could not find the bill number on his website, and a search of Thomas did not give me any quick answers, either. The more I have thought about this legislation, the more it scares me. If this legislation does not address premise ID, and according to the article on his website, it possibly does not, and if this passes, or even before it passes, congress could say that they met us half way and we still are not pleased. Also, even if another congressman proposes legislation that would stop the entire NAIS, premise and animal, except on a voluntary basis, we all know that congress would, if pressured, vote for the bill that would “most likely pass”. This does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I think it is possibly only a feel-good thing, where they can pretend to be cooperative, and we can pretend that we made a difference. I don’t want to be right, but I don’t trust ANY of them. It does show that our efforts are being noticed, but I think we should all contact Senator Talent and tell him voluntary is not acceptable unless it means NO PREMISE ID!
Comment Texas Goat Gal — September 10, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Walter, after reading my comment #8 after it was up on the website, I have to say that in absolutely no way was I referring to you or nonais.org not talking about our property rights. You have, and you have allowed all of us, especially me, to go on about our property rights. Thanks a million times for that. I can’t imagine the unwavering dedication every day you devote to this effort.
Comment Texas Goat Gal — September 10, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Yes…I agree with Texas Goat Gal who quite correctly wonders if Talent-Emerson is as good as it sounds. One part of the proposed bill that worries me (and I’m sure it will worry Walter) is the reference to the Freedom of Information Act contained within the language of the bill. More analysis required.
And yes…private property rights are certainly one of the foremost reasons that I became opposed to the NAIS in the first place.
[Yes, the FOIA references is a huge worry. It is bad when governments get secretive. What we don’t know will hurt us. -WJ]
Comment Neil W. — September 10, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Texas Goat Gal, on Monday or Tuesday you should be able to go back to www.thomas.gov and search S-3862 and get the current version of the Talent Bill. The House version will be HR-6042. Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson is the sponser there I believe.
You’re correct that we should NOT trust them!
Also, they have to define “voluntary”. You can go to the National Ag Law Dictionary (Google it) and look up then word ‘voluntary’ and then look up the italicized words in the defintion, also. It’s lots of fun. :)
Comment David Hannes — September 10, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
I just got word from his assistant that Michael Pollan has recieved my email to him and will be *very* interested in it. Let’s hope so, and let’s hope he’s reading this site right now!
Comment Podchef — September 11, 2006 @ 10:29 am
Folks in Arkansas; I’m not sure what this is or entails but it may interest y’all!
link
Comment Lee — September 13, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Talent - Emerson bill? Remain skeptical friends…when your government uses words like
“coercive iterrogation” as a substitute for torture be very skeptical of the meaning of any word. Imagine being water boarded when the Chicken Gestapo comes to your homestead and you refuse to give up the hiding place of old Henny-Penny? Okay I’m kidding there…I think.
However as has been pointed out here how long does it take to change “voluntary” to
“mandatory”? I think we cannot regard the Talent -Emerson bill as a big victory as it gives credence to the idea that we even need NAIS, which on a fiscal responsibilty note we don’t and from a disease prevention stand point we don’t and the reason many of us are here certainly from a “liberty” standpoint we don’t. I’m off to the Common ground fair in MAINE to hand out NONAIS flyers…keep up the good work everybody!
Comment Bob Constantine — September 23, 2006 @ 5:09 am
Good points #15
- it gives credence to the idea that we even need NAIS
respects, Wm
Comment Mr Dirty Nails — September 23, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
I know today is the deadline for opting out of the NAIS program but I can’t find out how to do it! I probably received something in the mail but as we have only 8 sheep I didn’t it would apply to us. I was obviously wrong. What do I do? Amy Whitney
[I’m not aware of anything you need to opt out of by now for NAIS in Virginia (excuse me for peeking at your IP) which is still voluntary at this time according to their web site.
Having only 8 sheep won’t exempt you when the roll call comes but for now at least it is a voluntary program.
Indiana has somewhat implemented mandatory NAIS as has Wisconsin (”First in the Nation to Sell Their Souls!”, sorry.) and Mass. (Who won’t tell you that but they just sell your data to the USDA in a funny backwards sort of data sharing way). The last two have joined Vermont in rejecting the USDA as explained in this article. -WJ]
Comment amy whitney — October 2, 2006 @ 12:51 pm