NAIS They are at it again.

[wilds of pa]

Here's one that came into my email earlier today from a group i belong to.. Pennsylvanians_againstNAIS

USDA claims that NAIS is "voluntary on the federal level". That was after they originally said it would become mandatory after an initial voluntary period. While proclaiming to be "voluntary", (1)USDA has used coercion (2) and payola (3) to implement NAIS. So USDA has taken words with well known meanings and redefined them to suit their purpose. I think it is safe to say that USDA has not adhered to the standard definition of voluntary even though the word has been defined for them. If you can convince them to adhere to the meaning of the word they chose, we'd all like to see it.
Barbara

1.voluntary- adj. Done or undertaken of one's own free will:

2.coercion-noun Force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

3. payola–noun a secret or private payment in return for the promotion of a product, service, etc., through the abuse of one's position, influence, or facilities.

 

[ivan3]

Well, I'm a canary in the coal mine. Here in Missouri participation is `voluntary' (an iffy word certainly). I was finally able to sign up this year (previously they only wanted the big boys and the rendering plants).

I'm signed up as a `nonproducer' poultry owner. I don't mind their having my GPS coords as Putin and his buddies have had them for ages. What did I get? A Missouri Poultry Yearbook (NPIP related) and Rose Foster, at the Dept. of Ag. knew who I was when I called to arrange a necroscopy when one of our toms died suddenly (free necroscopy).

If I were a cattle producer I'd already have the herds tagged (read from page 5 of the first link below `voluntary' yesssss...) The second link is the last speech given by the outgoing director of program at APHIS and gives the agencies perspective.

I just wish they'd set up a simple database system linked through State Vet's offices so one could call up the map and location of outbreaks (I'd be more than happy to supply info that might be useful to others in the area). But this system is primarily concerned with international trade (primarily cattle), they've budgeted less, since the program inception, than is required to buy three Joint Strike Fighters and, barring something like H5N1 from showing up in a spread like spider cancer, the program will likely strike the commercial sector alone (what budget???).

If I were to actually start breeding and showing I'd be NPIP certified anyway.

If they come to get the girls I'll let you all know.

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/DeLauroSubMarkup06-19-08.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/speeches/content/2008/11/usaha_final_10-15-08.shtml

 

[muttipiemommy]

ivan3 -

My position is: If you want to join and be part of a voluntary program then you should be allowed. If you don't want to join - then one should not have to. I know Doreen Hannes fought hard for the past 3 years in MO, and finally had a state bill passed, so that individuals could choose whether or not to participate.

The only "sticking point" to the above is the 70% "Critical Mass" issue. Once 70% of the Premises are registered in the United States, then the USDA states here ( that this will no longer be voluntary. Pages 6, 7, 15, 19, 63. A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability - released September 2008.

As to this being a "food safety" issue (not that you stated that it is just part of the export/import process), the tracking ends at the end producer (render, slaughter, packing house, death). The GAO investigation identified that once the "product" (meat, etc) is moving about there is no traceability. That includes imports/exports.

There also is no SOP for removing said device or accounting for it. A large producer, Tyson perhaps, does not have to account for each individual animal, they get "group lots". So the cost of individual critters will be: Tyson = 10,000 poults = 1 report You and I= 15 critters = 15 reports. A bit wacky to put the cost upon small individual producers don't ya' think?

All in all we plan to continue to work against a mandatory plan. As to when they come your girls - you might want to read this

"This frightens me. They want to make us look like a violator," Mast said, adding, "I just want to be left alone."

Just curious - what did your attorney think of the contract that you entered into with the USDA and State Ag. Department when you signed up? Your liabilities?

Sharon Sabo
MilkNHoney Nubians
Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Association
http://www.iicfa.org/iicfa.htm​

 

[ivan3]

muttiepiemommy wrote:

The only "sticking point" to the above is the 70% "Critical Mass" issue. Once 70% of the Premises are registered in the United States, then the USDA states here ( that this will no longer be voluntary. Pages 6, 7, 15, 19, 63. A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability - released September 2008.

Here's a working link to that document: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/plans_reports/TraceabilityBusinessPlan%20Ver%201.0%20Sept%202008.pdf

Though, at 70%, this will certainly encourage those who sell commercially to enter the program, I see no cut off mentioned? I'm more concerned that the big producers will try to weasel around the COOL (country of origin labeling) and mark up Mexican beef as U.S..

The Amish gentleman is frying other fish.

The vet reference provided by APHIS is good reading: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/audience/vets/vets_toolkit.shtml

I'll be banging on their door, before they'll be bangin' on mine (imho). I have no problem with the concept of NAIS, the implementation does grate (want all databases open and online 24/7).​

 

[muttipiemommy]

Though, at 70%, this will certainly encourage those who sell commercially to enter the program, I see no cut off mentioned? I'm more concerned that the big producers will try to weasel around the COOL (country of origin labeling) and mark up Mexican beef as U.S..

Yes. That is another sticking point that the GAO pointed out. The suggestion (Summer 2007) was that this needed to be defined. Would it be 1000 chickens or 10,000. It is our belief that before more rules are implemented, that said rules be defined.

The Amish gentleman is frying other fish.

In what way? He is hoping to be able, by using the Constitution, to make an informed decision. Should we lay aside the Constitution when it is not in line with current system as now defined by the USDA?

The vet reference provided by APHIS is good reading

Well. It is a good "sales tool", but only to those who want to participate. If you read the R-Calf letter to Congress (which by the way was sucessful) APHIS memos one can see that the USDA consistantly attempts to bypass Congress and act as essentially a "rogue" agency. Originally APHIS Memo 575.19 (available the the Liberty Ark site PDF III.B.2 gave instructions on how a Vet should register those who choose not to comply. Wow - so not only do we get to be "involuntarily registered" if we choose to use a vet, but we get a "special annotation" according to III.C if we don't want a PIN. Wonder if it will be a yellow star?

Perhaps in my rambling post you missed the following question:

Just curious - what did your attorney think of the contract that you entered into with the USDA and State Ag. Department when you signed up? Your liabilities?

There will be no "on line" database accessible to the General Public (according to the FOIA) under which the information might be protected. And I for one am glad. Look at the situation with the recent CC debacle out of AZ. That information is compromised and millions of individuals will need to be on guard for their personal information.

What would happen if "Joe" at the second stage of data entry (there are 16 different "points of data entry/transmission" in this system) put YOUR number in as non-compliant with rule X? Or mixed up your vets reporting number with another vet and suddenly your area was "under the gun"? If this calls for reporting within 48 hours and "depopulation" in a 10km radius within the guidelines - one would be "out of luck". And then it is too late.

Again - I appreciate discourse on the applicable issues. If you feel that participating in this program will offset your cost to operate by helping set aside your fears for a "outbreak", then you should be able to do so.

We, and most small livestock owners, cannot afford more cost from this "free" program.

Sharon Sabo
MilkNHoney Nubians
Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Association
http://www.iicfa.org/iicfa.htm​

 

[digginchicks]

Man that would really stink there isnt anyway they could keep up with it all because you could hatch some eggs they would'nt have any micro chips in them so they would never know. Thats crazy are they really considering doing this

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

Quote:
My feelings exactly. We are struggling as it is, we sure dont need anything else.

 

[muttipiemommy]

Man that would really stink there isnt anyway they could keep up with it all because you could hatch some eggs they would'nt have any micro chips in them so they would never know. Thats crazy are they really considering doing this

That is true - our chickens might be able to hide. But our Nubians seemed to have bred for noise - we'd be found out!

(not to mention that if we cannot get meds in an emergency, how are we supposed to keep our animals healthy and avoid disease?).

Sharon S.​

 

[wilds of pa]

I will fight against it all the way, pa does nothing here for the back yard owners....
http://www.libertyark.net/NAIS-new/NAIS Clip/player.html
I certainly don't want the government telling me how to raise my chickens and i certainly don't want to report to them if i think i might have one for dinner..its none of there beeswax whats going on my table..Sorry for venting about it, i just cant stand nais..what more does the government want they already run all of our lives more than most know.

Heres your way out if your already in
http://www.libertyark.net/opt_out.html

http://nonais.org/2009/01/20/obama-stops-all-pending-regulations/

NAIS and similar programs must be stopped.

NAIS is a coordinated government-corporate attack on personal privacy, property rights, and religious freedom, on a resilient and diverse food supply, on good animal husbandry, and on human culture and American traditions.

NAIS will create a huge surveillance and monitoring system, that will be a dangerous and unprecedented intrusion by government, with the assistance of powerful technology corporations, into the private daily lives of citizens, and a heavy burden on their real and personal property rights. For some, this intrusion will go so far as to violate their religious beliefs.

The enormous economic costs and crushing recordkeeping requirements of NAIS, will make it impossible for small independent farmers and ranchers to survive, and will place control of our food supply firmly in the hands of a very few, very powerful, agri-industry multinational corporations.

NAIS, was designed by multinational corporations who have marketed to many countries that animal identification is necessary to sell those countries' meat on the world market. It is not needed to safeguard our food supply.

Under the guise of protecting animal health, NAIS will force farmers and ranchers to adopt practices contrary to the health of both animals and the land.

Finally, NAIS is an attack on culture - on the traditional agricultural and pastoral civilization, practiced for over ten thousand years since the founding of human societies, and the core of American culture: our farms, our land.


Charlie

 

[ivan3]

Just curious - what did your attorney think of the contract that you entered into with the USDA and State Ag. Department when you signed up? Your liabilities?

This is interesting (sorry I missed it). He and his wife have pot bellied pigs and emus, they are NPIP certified. I tend to take my cue from his example. Liability, for me, is in not having the state vet's number on the cell. I tend to co-opt the inevitable whenever possible and use it.

If anyone would be kind enough to list the dollar amount lost, thus far, owing to the program itself and not the spending required to lobby against I'd like to know.

I can only report from this location, with a non-producer backyard flock. I've received over $50.00 in value from the program thus far.

No "yellow star" or RFID or a fury of ag agents rushing around to off all the roosters in the neighborhood. The only RFID'ed cattle are a half mile to the east (poor guy had $375,000 worth rustled year before last and got busy). It is not that the extension agent hasn't had ALL the information for years.

I guess, funding being what it is, that the USDA/States will HAVE to modify the program further to get it done (will be more flexible). If I were lobbying against I'd be keeping my fingers crossed that no more cases of BSE turn up.

Have been getting their free calendars for a while, now (IRS doesn't send calendars

).