Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Area ranchers find National Animal ID System ‘oppressive'
By BUD CHAMBERS\Staff Reporter
More than 200 persons attended a Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance meeting Thursday night, its lead operative Judith McGeary suggesting the U.S. Department of Agriculture will develop a program that she considers “oppressive to the small farmer/rancher” in putting together a National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
While the USDA released a projected implementation plan in April that backs off some of its ideas, McGeary emphasized that “original 2005 documents have not, however, been withdrawn by USDA.”
Thus, this large audience - a great majority not enamored by visions of hefty doses of additional federal/state bureaucracy into their livelihoods or lives - reacted in heavy opposition to these 2005 USDA writings:
Premises registration - Every person who owns or manages locations where livestock, exotic livestock, poultry, or exotic poultry are handled will have to register in a government database, or a private database that the government can access.
Animal identification - Every animal will be assigned a unique 15-digit number by the government when they are moved from their herd of origin or commingled with other animals. Each animal will need to be permanently identified; for most species, requiring a radio frequency ID tag or microchip, rather than traditional, less expensive forms of tagging.
Animal tracking - The owner must report, within 24 hours, every time an animal is tagged or a tag is lost, every death or slaughter, every missing animal and every time an animal enters or leaves the property.
McGeary's invitation to Thursday night attendees - suggesting a letter to one's representatives at local, state and federal government levels - did, however, include the information that the “new” USDA plan is available for viewing/downloading at www.usda.gov/nais.
McGeary emphasized that - whether one is viewing original 2005 USDA documents or the updated April 2006 implementation plan, the bottom line is: “Never before in our country's history has a person had to report to the state simply because he or she owns animals."
“NAIS represents unprecented expansion of government bureaucracy into people's private lives and infringes on property and privacy rights,” she said.
McGeary's further provided this reading of the current situation: “The agency (USDA) still intends to require every person who owns animals to comply with the burdensome program considering federal regulations (rather than by states) unless 100 percent of premises are registered; 100 percent of animals under age one are identified; and 60 percent of animals have full tracking records, by 2009.”
McGeary concluded her 30-minute presentation - before opening the floor to questions and brief speeches by political officeholders/candidates present - with this summary: “This is a lot of momentum behind this (NAIS program), but it isn't set in stone counties and associations (as well as individuals) need to take a stand against this.”
And just as McGeary started to open the program to questions, James Lehmann, identifying himself as a 52-year catttleman, demanded the microphone and emphasized, “Wisconsin has had a trial program like this, and it has ended up in a mess. Look out, big brother wants you!”
Among the thoughts then presented, in a heavy Q&A bashing of the proposed NAIS program, included:
While the USDA has announced it will delay mandates, it is continuing to provide grants to states to implement NAIS.
A suggestion of a “diseased animal” on a farm/ranch would give the authorities an ability to invade people's property without a warrant.
Veterinarians would become policemen, and they couldn't treat animals if a premises wasn't registered and an animal tagged.
Feed stores would require people to show “a premises registration” before they would be able to sell animal feed to a customer.
When McGeary opened the floor to speeches by politicians, the loudest applause went to the very first participant - Hank Gilbert, a candidate for Texas agriculture commissioners on the Democratic ticket in November.
“I'm a cowman becoming a politician because I'm sick of politicians,” Gilbert said, suggesting that are already good record systems tracing animals from birth, plus a 49 cent per head “brand system that they aren't doing anything with. We've got politicians who want to control us.”
A strong suggestion by most questioners and speakers was: The big three meat packers started this and they along with big electronic firms “marketing their products” are on the committees making the rules that will drive small producers out of business with high costs.
When Brenham veterinarian Mike Wirtz, who spent two months in England battling that country's hoof and mouth disease outbreak, dared speak up relative to “the NAIS program's positives” concerning such as that battle against animal disease, he was shouted down by a man in the audience.
Wirtz suggested, “Let me talk with you about this one-on-one,” this individual screamed, “I won't talk to you.”
Several local/regional politicians, notably state Rep. Robbie Cook of Eagle Lake, in person - and state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, by letter (as she is away) - brought messages along the line that the “easy” Texas legislative passage of House Bill 1361 was something of a mistake.
This legislation, they indicated, was simply supposed to provide “more options to look at” but is now being taken “in the wrong direction” by some Texas agricultural public servants.
The bottom line: New, far differently oriented, state legislation in this arena will need to be considered in the Texas legislature, 2007.
Persons seeking more information on the NAIS program were invited to the sponsoring organization's Web site at www.farmandranchfreedom.org or to make a call toll-free to 1-866-687-6452.
While the USDA released a projected implementation plan in April that backs off some of its ideas, McGeary emphasized that “original 2005 documents have not, however, been withdrawn by USDA.”
Thus, this large audience - a great majority not enamored by visions of hefty doses of additional federal/state bureaucracy into their livelihoods or lives - reacted in heavy opposition to these 2005 USDA writings:
Premises registration - Every person who owns or manages locations where livestock, exotic livestock, poultry, or exotic poultry are handled will have to register in a government database, or a private database that the government can access.
Animal identification - Every animal will be assigned a unique 15-digit number by the government when they are moved from their herd of origin or commingled with other animals. Each animal will need to be permanently identified; for most species, requiring a radio frequency ID tag or microchip, rather than traditional, less expensive forms of tagging.
Animal tracking - The owner must report, within 24 hours, every time an animal is tagged or a tag is lost, every death or slaughter, every missing animal and every time an animal enters or leaves the property.
McGeary's invitation to Thursday night attendees - suggesting a letter to one's representatives at local, state and federal government levels - did, however, include the information that the “new” USDA plan is available for viewing/downloading at www.usda.gov/nais.
McGeary emphasized that - whether one is viewing original 2005 USDA documents or the updated April 2006 implementation plan, the bottom line is: “Never before in our country's history has a person had to report to the state simply because he or she owns animals."
“NAIS represents unprecented expansion of government bureaucracy into people's private lives and infringes on property and privacy rights,” she said.
McGeary's further provided this reading of the current situation: “The agency (USDA) still intends to require every person who owns animals to comply with the burdensome program considering federal regulations (rather than by states) unless 100 percent of premises are registered; 100 percent of animals under age one are identified; and 60 percent of animals have full tracking records, by 2009.”
McGeary concluded her 30-minute presentation - before opening the floor to questions and brief speeches by political officeholders/candidates present - with this summary: “This is a lot of momentum behind this (NAIS program), but it isn't set in stone counties and associations (as well as individuals) need to take a stand against this.”
And just as McGeary started to open the program to questions, James Lehmann, identifying himself as a 52-year catttleman, demanded the microphone and emphasized, “Wisconsin has had a trial program like this, and it has ended up in a mess. Look out, big brother wants you!”
Among the thoughts then presented, in a heavy Q&A bashing of the proposed NAIS program, included:
While the USDA has announced it will delay mandates, it is continuing to provide grants to states to implement NAIS.
A suggestion of a “diseased animal” on a farm/ranch would give the authorities an ability to invade people's property without a warrant.
Veterinarians would become policemen, and they couldn't treat animals if a premises wasn't registered and an animal tagged.
Feed stores would require people to show “a premises registration” before they would be able to sell animal feed to a customer.
When McGeary opened the floor to speeches by politicians, the loudest applause went to the very first participant - Hank Gilbert, a candidate for Texas agriculture commissioners on the Democratic ticket in November.
“I'm a cowman becoming a politician because I'm sick of politicians,” Gilbert said, suggesting that are already good record systems tracing animals from birth, plus a 49 cent per head “brand system that they aren't doing anything with. We've got politicians who want to control us.”
A strong suggestion by most questioners and speakers was: The big three meat packers started this and they along with big electronic firms “marketing their products” are on the committees making the rules that will drive small producers out of business with high costs.
When Brenham veterinarian Mike Wirtz, who spent two months in England battling that country's hoof and mouth disease outbreak, dared speak up relative to “the NAIS program's positives” concerning such as that battle against animal disease, he was shouted down by a man in the audience.
Wirtz suggested, “Let me talk with you about this one-on-one,” this individual screamed, “I won't talk to you.”
Several local/regional politicians, notably state Rep. Robbie Cook of Eagle Lake, in person - and state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, by letter (as she is away) - brought messages along the line that the “easy” Texas legislative passage of House Bill 1361 was something of a mistake.
This legislation, they indicated, was simply supposed to provide “more options to look at” but is now being taken “in the wrong direction” by some Texas agricultural public servants.
The bottom line: New, far differently oriented, state legislation in this arena will need to be considered in the Texas legislature, 2007.
Persons seeking more information on the NAIS program were invited to the sponsoring organization's Web site at www.farmandranchfreedom.org or to make a call toll-free to 1-866-687-6452.
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Water district puts system in place to limit watering | Expert to evaluate City Hall for use as possible police station |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of brenhambanner.com.
