NAIS

[Teresa]

Top 10 Reasons to Oppose NAIS' Premises Registration

Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer"

For Immediate Release                                                                Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
February 8, 2008                                                                      Phone:  406-672-8969; e-mail: sdodson@r-calfusa.com


Omaha, Neb. 
"I'm very excited that our Animal ID panelists will have the opportunity to educate cattle producers on all the problems with NAIS," said R-CALF USA Animal ID Committee Chair Kenny Fox. "Education is the key to fighting this battle, and each one of the speakers on our panel has helped us greatly in our fight. We hope everyone who's worried about USDA's efforts on this front will join us for the discussion at 1 p.m. CST on Thursday, Feb. 21."

"Judith McGeary, with the Texas-based Freedom Farm and Ranch Alliance helped us write resolutions to oppose premises registration that our members across the country have submitted to their county commissioners," Fox said.
" John Carter, with the Australia Beef Association has given us lots of information on the Australian animal identification program and how it's not working over there and the hardships it's caused producers.
And Roger McEowen, the director of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation.has written articles that point out potential constitutional problems with premises registration. He's a very well respected ag law professor, and that carries a lot of weight with our state legislatures when you pass out something he wrote.

"R-CALF's Animal ID Committee has numerous active committee members from all over the U.S., and the wealth of ideas that springs from this group is amazing," he continued. "Some committee members are from states where mandatory Animal ID has already been implemented, and they've helped us tremendously to watch out for all the pitfalls they've experienced with these questionable mandates."


Below is a "Top 10" list in opposition to premises registration, compiled by R-CALF USA's Animal ID Committee:

Registering a premises with the Federal government without receiving just compensation constitutes a voluntary surrender of any constitutional rights – right of property and freedom from unreasonable governmental searches – associated with registered premises.

Registering a premises with the Federal government without receiving just compensation constitutes a voluntary submission to any invasion of private property rights and government intrusion into private business operations associated registered premises. 

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 any and all future rules, regulations and policies that the Federal government may later decide to impose on such registrants.

Registering a premises under the guise of protecting against the spread of Foreign Animal Diseases effectively gives the Federal government a license to abandon the most effective means of preventing Foreign Animal Diseases in the first place – disallowing imports from disease-affected countries.

Registering a premises without entering into a contract that expressly prohibits the Federal government from allowing access to premises information could subject the registrant to unwanted exposure to other Federal and state agencies and animal rights extremists.

Registering a premises could result in greater legal exposure of cattle producers for events that occur after the registrant's cattle leave the farm or ranch. 

Registering a premises would result in the voluntary inclusion of the registrants' farm, ranch, home, and cattle to a general system of permanent registration of personal property that currently is only applicable to items that could be highly dangerous if misused – automobiles and guns.

A registered premises alone provides no greater disease trace-back potential than simply knowing the owner of the animal or animals in question, unless there is far more to the Federal government's plan than to simply obtain registered premises.

Premises registration is the foundational building block needed by the Federal government to immediately implement a full-scale, mandatory National Animal Identification System (NAIS), with little to no input from cattle producers.

Voluntary premises registration sends a strong signal to the Federal government that U.S. cattle producers give the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a high approval rating for all the agency's policies and actions that impact U.S. cattle producers – it demonstrates that U.S. cattle producers have the utmost faith and trust in the USDA's past, present and future actions.

[Teresa]

Fight NAIS Down to the Last Cowboy: Australia Beef Association



Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA was fortunate to again have former president of the Australia Beef Association (ABA), John Carter, recently speak at its annual convention about the numerous problems with Australia's mandatory National Livestock Identification System (NLIS). Below is Carter's presentation.



"ABA is R-CALF's sister organisation – we too, represent independent producers in the fight against multinational processors, feeble and corrupt bureaucrats and our sycophantic equivalent of your NCBA (National Cattlemen's Beef Association). I was appalled to buy the Los Angeles Times when I landed in the U.S. and read their headline article on the Chino beef recall. I worked with USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) men from 1983 to 1994. Their integrity was admired worldwide. It appears to have gone. There will be a backlash that will help our cause.



Australia, being a desert island in the middle of a huge ocean has the least disease of any continent. Despite this, Australia has had Premises ID for cattle since 1980. We used a paper or plastic wrap-around tail tag that had to be affixed before sale. Around 1990, I got individual animal numbers put on those tags for use in producer carcass quality discovery. It was hardly ever used.



Three years ago I spoke to you in Denver. I advised you not to allow mandatory RFID to be foisted on you because it would be very costly and it wouldn't work. I am back today to tell you that I was right.



In those three years, Australian cattle producers have been the fall guys for the international tag manufacturers. Follow the money. Put your money on self-interest – you always know that it is trying. ABA has no problem with voluntary RFID (radio frequency identification) use. If I were unfortunate enough to own a feedlot, I would use it in many ways to save (from) feeding inefficient cattle.



Mandatory tracing is an entirely different matter.



We have abandoned our efficient mandatory tail tag system for expensive chaos. No other large-producing country has mandated the RFID traceback system. All the reasons given for its introduction are now in tatters. Face-saving and blame have replaced them. Remember an ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure. Don't let anyone take you down this suicidal path because once you are on it, it will become the unchangeable custom and be used by your packers to discount your cattle. Its administration will cost you a fortune – all for no purpose but to increase tag-manufacturer profit and give jobs to bureaucrats.



In Australia, the tag manufacturers beat us with lies and propaganda. They provided letters to the papers signed by producers who didn't exist amidst a flood of propaganda. At one stage, the rural press did a poll on NLIS acceptance by producers on one of its farm polls on the Internet. On Day Three the poll showed 75 percent of producers voting the NLIS as being hopeless or a failure. About 10 percent were approving. In two hours, this was reversed. Fortunately, ABA had a computer fanatic following the vote and trying to boost the negative vote. We immediately did a press release stating that the poll was being fixed. It was withdrawn and hasn't been attempted since. Investigations showed that hackers had the poll alteration from the database team at MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia) – our Beef Board. We called for a full disclosure. MLA spent $81,000 of OUR MONEY on their auditors investigating, refused to release the results, and did not sack the two hackers. One can only presume that someone above had instructed them. A divisional head noted for his careful work resigned and was appointed as Integrity Officer by the packer organisation.



Reasons that the tag manufacturers used ,with their stooges in Government, the packers and our NCBA equivalent.



Market Access.
In 2003, we were told that we had to have mandatory RFID NLIS because the USA was getting it and we would lose market share to the U.S. in Japan and Korea. The U.S., with no RFID NLIS, is now regaining its market share in Japan and will get back into Korea despite your two cases of BSE. Australian producers are getting 60 percent of your prices. Brazil and Argentina – with no RFID NLIS – send many times Australia's small 6,000-ton quota to Europe.


Customers are demanding it.
This was a farce, as the system cannot trace beyond the packinghouse. Inquiries in Japan showed that no one was asking for it. Our packers claimed that McDonald's required RFID NLIS. Knowing the U.S. situation, I rang the McDonald's purchasing officer in Sydney. She denied ever making such a claim.

Disease control.
The inaccuracy of the system and its slowness has shown that it would be of little use in an outbreak of exotic disease. We are supposed to inform the database of any movement of any cattle off our ranches, including to another pasture. Very few are doing it. NLIS couldn't track a bleeding elephant through a snowfield.

Prevention of stock stealing.
Australia has decided that RFID NLIS is not a legal means of identifying livestock because the tags can be easily cut out and substituted. The recent severe floods in Queensland have seen police and owners rely on the firebrand to identify the thousands of stock on other ranches. However, enthusiastic bureaucrats are demanding the producers put orange RFID tags in the ears of cattle that they have identified as theirs on other ranches before they take them home. An orange tag indicates that the beast has no whole of life accountability and will be discounted by the packers.

Carcass feedback to producers.
Our packinghouses were supposed to supply feedback to the breeder who put his tag in the ear when the beast was sold for the first time. They eventually agreed to give a carcass or a live weight but many are not doing it.


The minute tag number on the outside (readable with glasses) is different to the computer number inside. Australia has been sold inferior tags by the multinationals – they think that we are stupid – I'm afraid that they are right.

It (mandatory livestock identification) hasn't been shown to work in any major beef-producing country. The UK Auditor General's Report on Livestock Tracking released on Nov. 12, 2003, should be compulsory reading for anyone involved. At that time they had 700 bureaucrats chasing 10 million cattle at an annual cost of $60 per head sold with 20 percent missing. The committee concluded that the system was "in complete chaos".

That is a paper trail system. The European Union's (EU's) IDEA trial on RFID had not found RFID to be feasible. Since then we have found the UK lamb RFID trial release (late 2006). They concluded that it would not work as well as the paper trail and would cost the lamb producers so much that they would lose their European markets. This has caused our sheep equivalent of your NCBA to say 'NO – not without a cost-benefit analysis', which we had unsuccessfully demanded of MLA. The sheep people don't seem to like the idea of paying $3 for a tag for a sheep that they may sell for $1.
This doesn't seem unreasonable.

I phoned the Canadian ID Agency on Monday (Feb. 18, 2008). I was told that their system of informing on stock movement is still voluntary and that few producers send in cattle movements to the agency, as they (the producers) are not computer literate! This fact was obvious to 'Blind Freddy' in Australia and was uncovered in the EU trials. You can have the best computer database system in the world but it is garbage in garbage out.

Monumental Failure.
When we began this war in Australia, I said that there were 200,000 who sold cattle every year. MLA and your NCBA equivalent said that there were only 60,000. We now have 160,000 on the database. We have around 27 million cattle in Australia, and the last figure on the database showed many millions unaccounted for.

Two weeks ago, I did an audit of my account on the database. In three years, I have bought 900 tags. They are on the database. I have bought 92 cattle – 79 percent are on my account. I have sold 618 (animals) – 74 percent have been taken off the account. I have had the required carcass weight at abattoir (packer) when killed on 58 percent. I have had fat depths – wildly inaccurate – given on 14 percent. I have had 20 cattle killed on my account that could not have been mine. I have had 22 recorded as deceased on ranch that never died.

I live in one of the better areas with higher stocking rates and a controlled system. I have the equal oldest registered firebrand in Australia (1853). I have tattooed every calf born with that brand since 1955. My experience would be better than most. Linda Hewitt, who addressed you last year and is now in serious floods, with her family runs 15,000 cattle. She has had error notices from the database on thousands of cattle.

We have an international embarrassment on our hands because the tag companies bribed, cajoled and fooled those in power. Those in power refused to do a cost-benefit analysis; they refused to do a trial. They mandated an impossible system and are now lying very low. They have had two small inquiries, which produced what they paid for, but with very heavy qualifications on what needed to change to make it work. No senior bureaucrat, politician or NCBA equivalent will stand up and say that it is a success. They know what any producer who goes into his account knows. It is as the UK Committee said of their system in 2003 – it is 'in complete chaos'.



Fight this one down to the last cowboy. With 900,000 producers in 50 different state legislatures, your bureaucrats have even less chance of making it work than ours have. That isn't the point though – you must stop the transfer of your money to multinational tag manufacturers. Follow the money and don't be fooled as we were. I think that you will win. Good luck and thank you."

[Teresa]

Open Letter to the American Horse Council
February 20, 2008
 
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) sent a public email last month alerting people to statements in a recent government document that call for breed registries to implement the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  We encouraged people to contact their breed registries (1) to find out if they planned to be part of this implementation and (2) to express the members' opposition to being part of NAIS.  Many horse owners acted on this information and contacted their registries.

Based on the government documents, if NAIS becomes mandatory, it will require anyone who owns or manages property with even one horse or other livestock animal to register their home in a federal database and be assigned a permanent premises identification number (PIN).  Next, each animal will be assigned an internationally unique 15-digit animal identification number (AIN) and be tagged, in many cases with electronic identification.  The last step would be to track the animal's movements, particularly any movements that involve  "commingling" (mixing) with other horses or livestock.

The American Horse Council (AHC) took exception to FARFA notifying horse owners of the issue of breed registries potentially implementing NAIS.  AHC sent a letter to breed registries claiming that: "misinformation has been going around regarding the USDA's business plan for the NAIS ....  This seems to be orchestrated in part by a group called the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance ...."  The full text of the AHC letter is included at the end of this response.

AHC has not contacted FARFA and their reasons for objecting to the FARFA alert are unclear.  After all, FARFA's alert is based directly on the USDA's published documents.

AHC seems intent on downplaying what the USDA has published in its most recent document.  The USDA's Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability: Through the Harmonization of State, Federal, and Industry Programs and Convergence with the National Animal Identification System was released on December 19, 2007.  In a table of planned actions and target dates, it states: "initiate use of AIN in breed registry programs," with an "action target date" of March 2008.  (Business Plan, p.52).  AHC's letter instead claims that "the timeline (below) states that USDA plans to initiate these discussions in March 2008."  Since when does "initiate use" of something mean "initiate discussions"?  If AHC is privy to information that has not been made public, it needs to share that information.

Perhaps AHC's objection is the statement in FARFA's alert that USDA plans to use breed associations to force NAIS registrations.  AHC continues to promote the claim that NAIS is voluntary, stating: "As the NAIS is a voluntary program, it is the choice of each breed registry for all livestock species to decide whether they would like to utilize the NAIS options of AIN and PIN, and whether that will be mandatory or voluntary for their specific program."

But while it may be voluntary for a breed registry to decide whether to require NAIS, it is not voluntary for the animal owners who utilize a registry that requires NAIS.  A coercive choice between being forced to participate in a government program to which one objects or having unregistered animals - which can have severe economic consequences - is not truly voluntary. 

AHC has not told horse owners about some of the non-voluntary and coercive measures already being used to force NAIS on people in several states:
Premises registration is mandatory in Wisconsin and Indiana;
Horse owners in New York have reported receiving letters thanking them for registering their property in the NAIS database after having taken their horses for routine Coggins tests;
Premises registration and NAIS-compliant electronic tags are mandatory for cattle in Michigan;
Drought stricken farmers in North Carolina are required to register their farms to obtain hay from the state;
Children in Colorado, North Carolina, and Illinois are required to register in NAIS in order to compete in the state fairs.

In addition, the USDA Business Plan contains several other measures that will affect horse owners that the AHC has failed to mention:
The Business Plan specifically calls for equine organizations and associations to implement NAIS-compliant electronic identification technology by January 2009:
"Implementation of the 840 AIN RFID [Radio Frequency Identification Device] technology by all industry organizations that provide services to horse owners/breeders."   (Business Plan,p.55)  (emphasis added)   
USDA's focus on horses is not limited to just competition horses.  "Horses that, when moved, require either a test for Equine Infectious Anemia or a health certificate, are also included in Tier 1."  (Business Plan, p.2).  That would cover almost every single horse in Texas and many other states.

USDA has plans to expand the requirements for Coggins testing nationwide, to capture more people into NAIS.  "Efforts are underway to develop a USDA national State-Federal cooperative program for the control of EIA that would establish national EIA (Coggins) testing requirements for (a) interstate movement and (b) change of ownership. ... Overall, establishing regulations to require premises registration in association with Coggins testing would substantively increase the number of both premises registered and horses identified."  (Business Plan, p.26-27) This means a national mandatory Coggins, for which horse owners will be required to provide a PIN and AIN.

To our knowledge, AHC has not alerted its organizational or individual members to these provisions of the USDA Business Plan.  Instead, the AHC directs people to the Equine Species Working Group's (ESWG's) website for more information on NAIS.  The ESWG is an advisory group that makes recommendations to the USDA about how NAIS should apply to horses.  The USDA is not bound by any of these recommendations and may choose to disregard any or all of the recommendations.  Moreover, the ESWG website fails to mention these coercive provisions of the USDA Business Plan, what is really happening around the country with NAIS, or the costs of the program.

For more information USDA's documents about horses and NAIS, go to www.farmandranchfreedom.org/content/horses-and-NAIS.

The American Horse Council claims to speak for horse owners across the country.  Yet, rather than inform its members of the contents of the USDA's documents, it attacks a grassroots organization for urging people to find out what their breed registries are planning.  It's time AHC answered some questions from horse owners.

Judith McGeary (horse owner)
Executive Director
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
www.farmandranchfreedom.org
866-687-6452


AHC's Letter to Breed Registries is Copied Below:



To: AHC Member Breed Registries
From: American Horse Council
Date: January 24 2008
Re: Inquiries on Breed Registry Involvement with NAIS

Many of you may have recently received inquiries regarding your breed registries position on and plans for participation in the National Animal Identification System. Misinformation has been going around regarding the USDA's business plan for the NAIS and its plans to work with breed registries to assist in implementing the system. This seems to be orchestrated in part by a group called the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, which calls for people to contact breed registries and ask the following questions:

   1. Do you plan to require members to use the USDA's 15-digit Animal Identification Number (AIN) to enter or maintain animals in your registry?
   2. Do you plan to require members to use the State's or USDA's premises registration system in order to obtain a breed registration number?
   3. Can you please confirm the registry's intentions in writing?

The business plan, titled A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability, was released by the USDA as a draft on December 19, 2007. It was developed to explain how USDA plans to continue the development and implementation of a voluntary ID system. It focuses on harmonizing existing animal health programs (both state and Federal regulated and voluntary programs), industry health and marketing programs, and various animal identification techniques.

One of the initiatives within the business plan is to harmonize animal identification programs, which includes working with breed registry and performance recording programs. The information from the business plan regarding this item can be found following this memo, and within the business plan which is available on the NAIS website - http://www.usda.gov/nais

USDA plans to work with breed registries of all involved species (beef, dairy, horses, sheep, and goats) by having USDA staff explain the details associated with the use of a premises identification number (PIN) and an animal identification number (AIN). If a breed registry decides to consider utilizing the PIN or AIN as part of their services and programs, USDA will support them accordingly with proper training/information, etc. The timeline (below) states that USDA plans to initiate these discussions in March 2008.

It is our understanding that USDA plans to contact breed registries following the species priorities that are identified within the business plan, which would start with cattle, the highest identified priority.

The key is that these are simply discussions, not agreements or mandatory initiatives, on how a breed registry might elect to provide an additional service to its members. As the NAIS is a voluntary program, it is the choice of each breed registry for all livestock species to decide whether they would like to utilize the NAIS options of AIN and PIN, and whether that will be mandatory or voluntary for their specific program.

If you choose to respond to some of the inquiries you may receive, you can state your position on the NAIS if you have one, or simply respond with your current status (example -- no we do not require a PIN or AIN). Also reiterate that the NAIS is a voluntary program and that if your registry decided to offer NAIS participation with the use of an AIN, this would be voluntary and advance notice would be provided to horse owners. Additionally, you can direct them to the NAIS website (http://www.usda.gov/nais) and the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG) website (ww.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com) for more information.

***AHC's letter then included pages 28 and 52 from the Business Plan***
***End of copy of AHC letter***


Please forward this letter to every horse owner you know.  It's time that the equine community heard the full story on NAIS!

Sincerely,
Judith McGeary
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
www.farmandranchfreedom.org
866-687-6452

[Teresa]

CHIPPING~~~
"This same technology they want to apply to NAIS will also be applicable to REALID and thus to tracking people and their interactions. Soo... What's your time out of the gate? Late for work?"

And some willing slaves are already signing up to be chipped because it will be *so convenient*.  See a bar-code on your kids forehead so the school can track them better???


One of the things the government and proponents of NAIS keep reassuring us is that the RFID chips can only be read close up so our privacy is safe. But here's an interesting article that makes a lie of that:

ZigBeef Offers Ranchers a Long-Distance Cattle Head Count


The long-range RFID system promises to provide ranchers, their commercial interests and rodeos an easier method for tracking their animals, through ZigBee technology.


By Claire Swedberg


Feb. 21, 2008­A new active RFID system is set to help ranchers and rodeos track animals from a distance, as well as measure an animal's movement during a rodeo competition, for instance, when it is difficult to track exactly when a bull came out of its gate, or when it was roped and immobilized. The solution, provided by a startup company called ZigBeef, is being developed to allow cattle ranchers and their financial backers to track each head of cattle on a daily basis. The system became commercially available two weeks ago.


By using a system based on the ZigBee (802.15.4) standard, users can capture an animal's unique ID number with a handheld interrogator from several hundred feet away. In this manner, says John Hassell, ZigBeef's president and CEO, ranchers can keep a much more accurate count of their animals, since the active system makes reading easy enough for ranchers to do so daily. The system is being offered as an alternative to the passive RFID tags approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).


By next year, Hassell says, the company plans to offer the system with ZigBee mesh capabilities so cattle tags can transmit data from one to another, thereby extending the read range depending on how many cattle are spread throughout the area, with one tag sending data to the next, and ultimately to a reader. [Cloud nets just as I predicted. -WJ] In the meantime, he notes, further research and development must first be conducted. "There are a lot of unique challenges with cattle," Hassell says. "Normally a hop-to-hop environment is stationary," whereas cattle are constantly moving.


Want more information on "chipping"? 

http://nonais.org/index.php/2008/02/23/long-distance-rfid-reading/

[Teresa]

Letter I have permission to post:

Editor,

     I am writing in response to USDA undersecretary Bruce Knight's letter Feb 27-08 edition of Western Livestock Reporter. This letter was nothing more or less than government smoke and mirrors, trying to fool producers. You can't seriously think we as producers think the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is for animal health traceback. We as producers ask for protection against BSE, the USDA opened the borders to over thirty month old cattle. From a country which has an ever increasing BSE problem. The same USDA fails the producers and consumers with incompetent inspections of packing plants. The same USDA pretends to be concerned about an outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD), while at the same time you want to open our borders to trade with countries who currently have FMD. To regionalize trade with Argentina would be as ridiculous as thinking FMD would not spread over a county or state line.

     Since it is obvious food safety and animal health are not what NAIS is all about, perhaps you would like to tell us what the true agenda is. While the producers are more concerned with animal health than the USDA is. Tell me why must the USDA pay large sums of money to breed associations, state and local stockmen's associations, state and local fairs, state boards of animal health, and others to prostitute themselves and their members in an attempt to get them to register premises?

     Until you can muster up enough intestinal fortitude to tell us what the true agenda behind NAIS is, your letters are nothing but nonsense. This cowboy has no intentions of putting my neck in your noose. Mr. Knight you could just as well have started your letter out by saying " Trust me, I am with the government, I am here to help."

Sincerely,
Mike Heaton
McKenzie ND

[Teresa]

With permission:

When packers loose control of the USDA, mandatory animal I.D. will disappear.

The animal I.D. situation is divided... in these ways.

The packers want animal I.D.  mandated so they can export our genetically superior, delicious, tender beef to meet the demand of foreign countries and the European Union requirement of  "geographical indicators"- trademark.

Packers do not have to pay for animal I.D.  This is in stark contrast to the  cow-calf producer who would be solely saddled with all animal I.D. costs..

The packers enjoy good profits for "Born and raised in America" beef they export. 

Cow-calf producers are price receivers, therefore do not realize any profit sharing benefit from the packers.
The packers have blocked enforcement of Country of Origin Labeling. Why?  They want to import cheap beef from countries that have cheap labor and furthermore government subsidized. Their sharing in the cost of COOL might decrease the profits they enjoy from importing such.

America's cow-calf producers reasons for wanting COOL enforced are twofold: 1) They believe strongly that consumers have the right to know where their beef comes from. 2) They're proud of the beef they produce.
Cow-calf producers are not opposed to packers import of cheap beef, they simply want it labeled as such.  No less demand than the EU's requirement of a geographical indicator.

History has proven that when  disease is found within a producers herd, they quickly alert a veterinarian. After all, that is protecting their livelihood.
The genesis of any notification must come from the person - if you'll pardon the pun - who is "holding herd." All the I.D.'s in the world won't change that.
The more serious problem is state's or federal's ability to respond with vaccine. This, after all, is what's  touted as the reason for mandated I.D.

It's common knowledge that the turn-around time is so lax, our cow-calf producer will most certainly have a mortality on his hands. And those wanting to mandate I.D., have no plan for dealing with mortality.

The tragedy? The exploitation of children for monetary gain. 
How?  USDA grants are based on sign up numbers, so certain entities have found a sneaky way to do so. They force a child to register the property housing their animal. as a requirement for showing their animal at a state fair (As one example.). This increases the enforcers stipend and unjust enrichment.

This matter should stay divided.  Those who want I.D. can  pay for it. Those who don't...will have their time honored brand laws and communications with state vets recognized. 

When  packers loose their control of the USDA, mandatory animal I.D. will disappear.
We can always hope for the best.

Roni Bell Sylvester
P.O. Box 155
La Salle, CO 80645
970-284-6874

[Teresa]

Why animal ID is a fraudulent rip-off of livestock producers


http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/03/10/why-nlis-is-a-fraudulent-rip-off-of-australian-livestock-producers/

[Teresa]

I saved the most alarming for the last!!
Read carefully!

FOOD/NAIS:    Feds/States Cracking Down on Home Farming-

NOTE: This from Illinois activist Joyce Morrison, who is also a farmer:
See bottom of page where Minneapolis will not permit gardening for human consumption.


WAKE UP ! ! !

PAY ATTENTION  !   !   !

YOUR NEIGHBORS MAY NEED YOUR HELP      N O W !!!!

If you live in the rural areas or raise your own herbs, vegetables, whatever, you NEED to read this !

The Feds are really busy using the local sheriffs/police to steal & Kill to control the food supply.

This will only take about 2 minutes to read.

Best WIshes,
Bill Keen





2-27-2008..........This now a planned implementation and will be done once all the states are ready.

All domesticated livestock must now be tagged, regardless of whether or not it is legal.
In Michigan, for example, the state and federal governments are systematically eliminating every farm with livestock that are not tagged with an RF-ID. The process is expensive and only the large corporate congressionally owned agri-companies can afford the procedure.
Last week a large dairy farm several miles from my home was euthanatized - about a 1000 head of cattle, and the owner who had court documents prohibiting the act was thrown in jail while his herd was put down by state law enforcement.
A couple of weeks before that it was a gentleman who raised other peoples animals organically for private use in a local
city. His was estimated at 100 head of cattle.
This is a deliberate and illegal destruction of small agri-businesses who cannot comply with the requirement.

By the time the crop measures are implemented the government will control all food production in the US directly.

The livestock issue is happening across the nation as I write and is not in the news. It is being published in local agri-pubs and is expected to peak at a level where the governments (federal/state) are able to implement individual animal control registration of residences with 1 or more livestock ... i.e. a chicken or rabbit, etc.
All the small organic businesses in the meanwhile are being systematically wiped out if they don't cooperate.
Acres USA is full of horror stories.
I can only hope that these initiatives self-destruct financially before this is complete. Your financial information lends credence to this, as well as reports about the bird-flu epidemic botch by the WHO. Acres USA printed a study on the bird-flu epidemic. Their researchers discovered a selenium deficiency in all the collected bird carcasses they tested at locals where a bird-flu epidemic
occurred. They then ran a test study with a test group that received selenium supplementation and a control group that was selenium deficient.

Both groups were exposed to massive quantities of the bird-flu virus for the period of the test.
Only the control group contracted bird-flu.
Also, home gardening is expected to come on the chopping block.
At present only Minneapolis has a law forbidding gardening in the city for human consumption that I am aware of. Supposedly because of high lead content in the soil - not a legitimate reason for such action or so I am told.

It is happening! And it is VERY alarming.

[Teresa]

This is a good website for several areas of becoming self sufficient ...
We very well may need to be thinking about these ways of doing things in the days to come.

www.go-self-sufficient.com


I am done for now.. .
Are you sorry you ask for information? I hope not.
I sincerely hope that a few of you read this and it gives you something to think about. feel free to copy and paste it in emails if you think others need to know the truth  of what is going on.

[Teresa]

Amendment to Block Animal ID—
How They Voted


In May 2006 the House of Representatives voted on the 2007 Farm Bill amendment authored by Texas Representative Ron Paul to block funding for the USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Only 34 Representatives voted "yes" to block NAIS funding.
Those 34 enlightened Representatives are on the farmer and ranchers side on this issue.  The remainder must be either educated or voted out of office.

Alabama
Aderholt—no
Bachus—no
Bonner—no
Cramer—no
Davis—no
Everett—no
Rogers—no


Alaska
Young—yes


Arizona
Flake—yes
Franks—yes
Grijalva—no
Hayworth—yes
Kolbe—no
Pastor—no
Renzi—yes
Shadegg—yes


Arkansas
Berry—no
Boozman—no
Ross—no
Snyder—abstain


California
Baca—no
Becerra—no
Berman—no
Bono—no
Calvert—no
Campbell—no
Capps—no
Cardoza—no
Costa—no
Cunningham—vacant
Davis—no
Doolittle—no
Dreier—no
Eshoo—no
Farr—no
Filner—no
Gallegly—no
Harman—no
Herger—no
Honda—no
Hunter—abstain
Issa—abstain
Lantos—no
Lee—no
Lewis—no
Lofgren—no
Lungren—no
Matsui—no
McKeon—no
Millender-McDonald—no
Miller—no
Miller—no
Napolitano—no
Nunes—no
Pelosi—no
Pombo—no
Radanovich—no
Rohrabacher—no
Roybal-Allard—no
Royce—yes
Sanchez—no
Sanchez—no
Schiff—no
Sherman—no
Solis—no
Stark—no
Tauscher—no
Thomas—no
Thompson—no
Waters—no
Watson—no
Waxman—no
Woolsey—no

Colorado
Beauprez—no
DeGette—no
Hefley—yes
Musgrave—no
Salazar—no
Tancredo—yes
Udall—no

Connecticut
DeLauro—no
Johnson—no
Larson—abstain
Shays—no
Simmons—no


Delaware
Castle—no

Florida
Bilirakis—no
Boyd—no
Brown—abstain
Brown-Waite—no
Crenshaw—no
Davis—abstain
Diaz-Balart—no
Diaz-Balart—no
Feeney—no
Foley—no
Harris—no
Hastings—no
Keller—no
Mack—no
Meek—no
Mica—no
Miller—yes
Putnam—no
Ros-Lehtinen—no
Shaw Jr.—no
Stearns—no
Wasserman Schultz—no
Weldon—no
Wexler—no
Young—no

Georgia
Barrow—no
Bishop Jr.—no
Deal—no
Gingrey—no
Kingston—no
Lewis—no
Linder—no
Marshall—no
McKinney—yes
Norwood—no
Price—yes
Scott—no
Westmoreland—no

Hawaii
Abercrombie—yes
Case—no

Idaho
Otter—no
Simpson—no

Illinois
Bean—no
Biggert—no
Costello—no
Davis—no
Emanuel—no
Evans—abstain
Gutierrez—no
Hastert—no
Hyde—no
Jackson Jr.—no
Johnson—no
Kirk—no
Lahood—no
Lipinski—no
Manzullo—no
Rush—no
Schakowsky—no
Shimkus—no
Weller—no

Indiana
Burton—yes
Buyer—no
Carson—no
Chocola—no
Hostettler—yes
Pence—no
Sodrel—no
Souder—no
Visclosky—no

Iowa
Boswell—no
King—no
Latham—no
Leach—no
Nussle—no

Kansas
Moore—no
Moran—no
Ryun—no
Tiahrt—no

Kentucky
Chandler—no
Davis—no
Lewis—no
Northup—no
Rogers—no
Whitfield—no

Louisiana
Alexander—no
Baker—no
Boustany Jr.—no
Jefferson—no
Jindal—no
McCrery—no
Melancon—no

Maine
Allen—no
Michaud—no

Maryland
Bartlett—yes
Cardin—no
Cummings—no
Gilchrest—no
Hoyer—no
Ruppersberger—no
Van Hollen—no
Wynn—no

Massachusetts
Capuano—no
Delahunt—no
Frank—no
Lynch—no
Markey—no
McGovern—no
Meehan—no
Neal—no
Olver—no
Tierney—no

Michigan
Camp—no
Conyers Jr.—no
Dingell—no
Ehlers—no
Hoekstra—no
Kildee—no
Kilpatrick—no
Knollenberg—no
Levin—no
McCotter—no
Miller—no
Rogers—no
Schwarz—no
Stupak—no
Upton—no

Minnesota
Gutknecht—no
Kennedy—no
Kline—no
McCollum—no
Oberstar—no
Peterson—no
Ramstad—no
Sabo—no

Mississippi
Pickering—no
Taylor—no
Thompson—no
Wicker—no

Missouri
Akin—no
Blunt—no
Carnahan—no
Clay Jr.—no
Cleaver—no
Emerson—no
Graves—no
Hulshof—no
Skelton—no

Montana
Rehberg—no

Nebraska
Fortenberry—no
Osborne—no
Terry—no

Nevada
Berkley—no
Gibbons—no
Porter—no

New Hampshire
Bass—no
Bradley—no

New Jersey
Andrews—no
Ferguson—no
Frelinghuysen—no
Garrett—no
Holt—no
LoBiondo—no
Menendez—vacant
Pallone Jr.—no
Pascrell Jr.—no
Payne—abstain
Rothman—no
Saxton—no
Smith—no
New Mexico
Pearce—yes
Udall—yes
Wilson—yes

New York
Ackerman—no
Bishop—no
Boehlert—no
Crowley—no
Engel—no
Fossella—no
Higgins—no
Hinchey—no
Israel—no
Kelly—no
King—no
Kuhl Jr.—no
Lowey—no
Maloney—no
McCarthy—no
McHugh—no
McNulty—no
Meeks—no
Nadler—no
Owens—no
Rangel—no
Reynolds—no
Serrano—no
Slaughter—no
Sweeney—no
Towns—no
Velazquez—no
Walsh—no
Weiner—no

North Carolina
Butterfield—no
Coble—no
Etheridge—no
Foxx—no
Hayes—no
Jones—no
McHenry—yes
McIntyre—no
Miller—no
Myrick—no
Price—no
Taylor—no
Watt—no

North Dakota
Pomeroy—no

Ohio
Boehner—no
Brown—no
Chabot—no
Gillmor—no
Hobson—no
Jones—no
Kaptur—no
Kucinich—no
LaTourette—no
Ney—no
Oxley—no
Pryce—no
Regula—no
Ryan—no
Schmidt—no
Strickland—no
Tiberi—yes
Turner—no

Oklahoma
Boren—no
Cole—no
Istook Jr.—yes
Lucas—no
Sullivan—yes


Oregon
Blumenauer—no
DeFazio—no
Hooley—no
Walden—no
Wu—no

Pennsylvania
Brady—no
Dent—no
Doyle—no
English—no
Fattah—no
Fitzpatrick—no
Gerlach—no
Hart—no
Holden—no
Kanjorski—no
Murphy—no
Murtha—no
Peterson—no
Pitts—no
Platts—no
Schwartz—no
Sherwood—no
Shuster—no
Weldon—no

Rhode Island
Kennedy—abstain
Langevin—no

South Carolina
Barrett—yes
Brown—no
Clyburn—no
Inglis—no
Spratt—no
Wilson—no

South Dakota
Herseth—no

Tennessee
Blackburn—no
Cooper—no
Davis—no
Duncan Jr.—yes
Ford—no
Gordon—no
Jenkins—no
Tanner—no
Wamp—no

Texas
Barton—no
Bonilla—no
Brady—no
Burgess—no
Carter—no
Conaway—no
Cuellar—no
Culberson—no
DeLay—vacant
Doggett—no
Edwards—no
Gohmert—yes
Gonzalez—no
Granger—no
Green—no
Green—no
Hall—no
Hensarling—no
Hinojosa—no
Jackson Lee—no
Johnson, EB—no
Johnson, S—yes
Marchant—no
McCaul—no
Neugebauer—no
Ortiz—no
Paul—yes
Poe—yes
Reyes—no
Sessions—no
Smith—no
Thornberry—no

Utah
Bishop—no
Cannon—no
Matheson—no


Vermont
Sanders—yes
Boucher—no
Cantor—no
Davis—no
Davis—no
Drake—no
Forbes—no
Goode Jr.—yes
Goodlatte—no
Moran—no
Scott—no
Wolf—no

Washington
Baird—no
Dicks—no
Hastings—no
Inslee—no
Larsen—no
McDermott—no
McMorris—yes
Reichert—no
Smith—no
West Capito—no
West Mollohan—no
West Rahall—no

Wisconsin
Baldwin—no
Green—no
Kind—no
Moore—no
Obey—no
Petri—yes
Ryan—no
Sensenbrenner—yes

Wyoming
Cubin—no