[Foodcouncil] NAIS STINKS! Big government to the rescue again

[Rosanne Lindsay]

NAIS STINKS! Big government to the rescue again. By Henry Lamb

Some of the world's finest Texas longhorns live in Ohio. And they
love it. Rich grass grows belly high; fresh springwater feeds 16 of
the 17 lakes and ponds on the nearly 5,000 acre spread; 62 miles of
fencing separates 49 pastures; and the four seasons are as distinct
and different as the hills and valleys that define the Dickinson
Cattle Company.

Darol Dickinson is no newcomer to the cattle business. He grew up in
a cattle family in Colorado. He started raising registered Texas
longhorns in 1967. But Colorado's bitter winters and windy, dry
summers sent him searching for new land from Mexico to Canada, and
many places in between. He found in Ohio enough fertile land to do
justice to the business he envisioned.

Darol's cattle are prime breeding stock and home ranch for many
international champions. His business includes providing semen and
embryos to cattle producers around the world. Son Joel is the hands-
on cattle manager, in charge of daily operations. Darol's wife of 45
years, Linda, is in charge of administration. She's the one who
records everything about everything. She pays the bills, keeps the
shipments straight, monitors inventory in every pasture, and
documents every vaccination and individual health event.

A few years ago, Darol attended a USDA-sponsored "listening session."
A federal employee explained a new program: the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS). Darol was shocked to learn that the
ranch would have to be registered with a new seven-digit
identification number in a new government database. He learned that
each of his animals would have to have a new identification device
bearing a new 15-digit identification number, loaded into another new
government database. And he learned that every time one of his
animals was moved off the property, the event would have to be
reported and recorded in the government database within 24 hours.

"Well, that just left a horrible taste in my mouth," Darol says. "The
way it was presented, we had no choice. It was a done deal. We would
be forced to sign up."

The USDA spokesman talked about how foot-and-mouth disease would wipe
out an entire herd in a matter of hours, and how dangerous anthrax
is, and, of course, he talked about the dreaded mad cow disease. This
new USDA program would make it possible for the government to trace
back any diseased animal to its source within 48 hours, the groups
was told. Darol knew something was not right. "It did not pass the
basic hubcap sniff test," he says.

He contacted a specialist at Texas A&M, Uvalde, Texas, who confirmed
that there had not been a case of foot-and-mouth disease in the
United States since 1929. He also learned that anthrax is no longer a
problem because ranchers can vaccinate against it for 80 cents a
head. Mad cow disease is not a problem because it is not contagious,
and the new system would do nothing to stop the disease even if a
case were discovered.

Darol's cattle, like most livestock inventory, are already identified
quite thoroughly. Every new calf is weighed, given a vitamin shot and
tagged, the same day it is born. At weaning, each animal is branded
with the famous Paintbrush-D brand, along with a unique
identification number and the year of birth. In addition, the USDA
tags every female with a number that is recorded in a USDA database,
along with an ear tatoo. The other ear is tagged with the critter's
registered name, so the cowhands can easily identify the cow by
sight.

Wtih all of this proof-positive identification on each cow, and on
the ranch computer, why in the world would USDA require another 15-
digit number linked to still another database?

Darol sees the NAIS program as a direct and serious threat to his
business. The proven growth of the family business is providing
foundation stock for new producers.

"Every year, we help about 75 new producers get into the business,"
Darol says. "I can sell them on quality stock, but I CAN'T SELL THEM
ON HAVING TO COMPLY WITH THESE NEW REGULATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO
REQUIRE THAT THEY ALSO BUY A COMPUTER, AND TAG- OR CHIP-READING
EQUIPMENT, AND REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT EVERY TIME THEY TURN AROUND."

Darol thinks the NAIS would destroy the family business in five years
or less. That's why he has become an outspoken critic of it. He
spends from two to eight hours a day doing everything he can to
oppose the program. He's even set up his own website: NAISstinks.com.
It is full of articles and press releases and other information that
traces the flawed development of the program back to 2003.

Darol is not going to surrender to this program without a fight. His
resistance, along with a near rebellion by the majority of animal
owners, caused USDA to abandon its initial plans to make the program
mandatory and, in 2006, the agency announced that the program would
henceforth be voluntary. But what USDA means by "voluntary" is
anything but voluntary.

Judith McGreary is working on a lawsuit that challenges the authority
for the USDA to even engage in the National Animal Identification
System. Part of the argument deals with how USDA is funding
organizations and states to force participation in the NAIS, while
USDA claims that the program is voluntary.

Judith was perfectly content living with her husband, Mike, on their
40 acres just outside Austin, Texas. Mike retired from the Coast
Guard, and Judith turned her Stanford BS into a degree in
environmental law from the University of Texas. Life was great. They
had a couple of Quarter Horses, several lambs, a bunch of barred rock
chickens and turkeys, and were well on their way to developing a
business providing eggs and poultry and lamb chops to a growing
neighborhood market.

"I remember it well," Judith says. "Mike came in and told me he had
learned that the government was going to require us to put a
microchip into every one of our chickens." That was the day Judith
discovered the NAIS. "I told Mike it had to be an internet rumor; not
even the government can be that stupid."

Chickens do not require a microchip under the NAIS plan, but they do
require an individual 15-digit identification number, along with each
of her horses and lambs and turkeys.

"It's just ridiculous," Judith says. "My chickens range over the
pasture. They produce far better eggs than the caged factory hens.
How am I going to report the death of one of my chickens within 24
hours, if I don't even know about it? When a fox gets a chicken, I
might not even find a pile of feathers. It's just ridiculous."

Judith was already concerned about government regulations that seemed
to be squeezing small farmers, especially farmers who are trying to
use responsible, sustainable, best practices. She had talked to Mike
and to some of her friends about the need for an organization to try
to deal with some of the legislative issues. When she discovered that
the state of Texas was ready to make the NAIS mandatory, the decision
was made. She formed Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

(http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/).

Almost simultaneously, she got involved with the creation of the
Liberty Ark Coalition (http://libertyark.net) as a founding member of
the steering committee. She began researching, writing and helping
others get informed about the impact this program would have on all
livestock owners.

"It will put us out of business," she says. "And it's not just the
cost and aggravation this program will put on us personally, because
it will have the same impact on thousands of other small operators.
USDA should be encouraging small farmers and homesteaders to produce
what they can for local markets. Instead, THEY ARE DELIBERATELY
TRYING TO DRY UP ANY COMPETITION TO THE BIG GUYS."

Along with Sally Fallon, president of the Weston Price Foundation,
Gary Cox, and a few other attorneys, farmers, and activists, Judith
helped to form the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
(www.ftcldf.org;). In May, the group sent a 25-page Notice of Intent
to Sue to USDA, alleging that the NAIS has not followed proper rule-
making procedures, has not met environmental impact assessment
standards, has not been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, and a
variety of other short comings.

There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of livestock
owners who do not yet know they are subject to the reach of the NAIS.
Everyone who owns even a single horse or chicken or pig or sheep or
any of 29 different species will be subject to the NAIS. Even though
the program is said to be voluntary, no one believes it will stay
that way. In fact, the FORMER SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE HAS SAID THAT THE USDA RETAINS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE
PROGRAM MANDATORY WHENEVER IT DEEMS IT NECESSARY.

USDA apparently is not concerned about the Fourth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee that every citizen
is "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures..." A mandatory NAIS would force
individuals to surrender private, personal information about their
property and their movements to the government without probably
cause, without a warrant, and for no good reason, as far as many
people can see.

Bert "Nevada" Smith is one of those people. Bert is a western rancher
who has seen it all. In his part of the country near Layton, Utah,
ranches are measure in sections, not acres. His cattle have no need
of a government-assigned number, and his ranch has no place in a
federal database. Just ask him.

"My brand is enough identification," Bert says. "Every load I sell is
certified healthy by a state veterinarian. The USDA's got no business
poking its nose around my ranch and my cattle." And he's not at all
bashful about telling the USDA so. Bert has been quite outspoken at
cattle association meetings in both Nevada and Utah. USDA big wheels
invited to promote the NAIS don't escape Bert's withering
condemnation of the program."

He has seen the USDA's shenanigans over the years. He is especially
skeptical of its claim that the NAIS is voluntary. He remembers when
USDA said that signing up for grazing allotments was voluntary, and
how ranchers all over the West lost both their water rights and
grazing rights when voluntary became mandatory.

Bert really gets upset about the money USDA is paying organizations
to promote the NAIS. "Why, it's bribery. What else can you call it
when USDA gives the Future Farmers of America $600,000 to teach the
kids to persuade their parents to register their premises in NAIS?"

He's even more upset with the major trade associations for taking the
government money. "THEY'VE GOT THEIR HAND IN THE HONEYPOT, AND
THEY'VE SOLD OUT THEIR MEMBERS," he says. "THESE TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
AND BREED REGISTRY ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE HELPING THEIR MEMBERS SHUT
DOWN NAIS, INSTEAD OF PROMOTING IT."

There has been a lot of internet speculation that use of the
word "premises" in USDA's registration forms somehow strips
constitutional protection from the property owner, or converts the
property owner into a "tenant" of the federal government.

Jim Burling, director of litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation,
says, "I can see no way that the use of the word "premises"
versus "property" has any impact on the ability of the government to
enter property without a search warrant. The underlying nature of the
property rights cannot be changed by a label. Referring to a property
as the "premises" in no way converts a fee simple property into a
leasehold."

Bert's not so sure. He is in full agreement with R-CALF, USA
(Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund), one of the few livestock
organizations that opposes the NAIS. R-CALF advises its
members: "REGISTERING A PREMISES WITHOUT ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT
THAT EXPRESSLY LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY OVER THE
PREMISES MAY RESULT IN SUBJECTING THE PREMISES AND ITS REGISTRANT TO
ALL FUTURE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY LATER DECIDE TO IMPOSE UPON SUCH REGISTRANT."

Aside from the possible legal hocus-pocus, Bert is convinced that the
NAIS is just not necessary. "Animals are already identified with a
brand, and they have to be certified healthy before they can be sent
to the slaughterhouse. All the NAIS is going to do is put the little
guy out of busines," he says.

The opposition to the NAIS expressed by Darol, Judith and Bert is
just a sampling of the sentiments expressed by animal owners across
the nation. Already, at least 15 state legislatures have responded to
appeals from animal owners by entering legislation to prohibit
mandatory NAIS at the state level. Four states (Arizona, Missouri,
Nebraska and Kentucky) have actually enacted laws to this effect.

USDA claims that the NAIS is needed to provide a mechanism to trace
the origin of a diseased animal within 48 hours. But the agency has
no evidence that the need for or benefit from this mechanism
outweighs the cost. When pressed, USDA EMPLOYEES ADMIT THAT AN
ELECTRONIC TRACE-BACK SYSTEM WILL OPEN NEW INTERNATIONAL MARKETS -
FOR THE LARGER MEAT EXPORTERS. But even when pressed, USDA HAS NO
ANSWER FOR WHY THE REST OF ANIMAL OWNERS SHOULD HAVE TO BEAR THE
BURDENS OF COST AND AGGRAVATION FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE BIG
EXPORTERS.

It was the big exporters and the manufacturers of the electronic tags
and tag-reading equipment - all members of the National Institute for
Animal Agriculture (NIAA) - that LARGELY DESIGNED THE PROGRAM AND
PREVAILED UPON THE FEDS TO IMPLEMENT IT.

USDA may have miscalculated the strength of the opposition to its
NAIS. When first introduced, USDA expected the program to be fully
implemented by early 2009. They anticipated that every premises where
a livestock animal is housed would be registered; that every
livestock animal would be identified, most with a computer-readable
tag or chip; and that every off-premises movement would be reported
to the government within 24 hours.

Obviously, this is not going to happen by 2009, if ever. The rate of
the new signups has slowed, and people were registered are beginning
to request that their names and premises be removed from the
databases. It's a sure bet that even more states will be introducing
anti-NAIS legislation next year.

But the federal government carries the big stick - MONEY. State
legislatures are aware that USDA can withhold federal funds if a
state fails to knuckle under to the demands of the federal agency.
Consequentlly, the anti-NAIS campaign continues to focus on Congress,
as well as on state legislatures.

The jury is still out on NAIS. Whether USDA will be responsive to the
expressed will of the animal owners who do not want it, or responsive
to the members of the NIAA who do, remains to be seen. One thing is
certain: Darol, Judith, Bert and hundreds of thousands of other
animal owners are not going to sit idly by and let USDA steamroll
over them without a fight. If you're a gambler, be careful which way
you bet.

Henry Lamb is founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization
and chairman of Sovereignty International.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wiscnet.net/pipermail/foodcouncil/attachments/20090112/707a3b8a/attachment-0001.html