01-28-10 Oklahoma has introduced HB2781. Go to the Oklahoma page for more information
The USDA is holding listening sessions through out the lower 48. They have an introduction period, then allow, yes allow
only so many people via a lottery to speak against NAIS. The after noon sessions is putting you in a separate groups so you
can come to a consenus. Keep saying NO around the table. Read the Delphi Technique as they are using it. So far
the sessions have yielded a resounding NO to NAIS.
Its Critical that anyone who owns livestock to submit your comments against the
840 Tags and against the NAIS.
For information on the USDA’s proposed rule, see our previous alert. The deadline to submit comments opposing the draft rule is March 16, 2009. Click here to submit comments online.
Or mail TWO copies to: Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
See our sample comments here, or you can download them from here.
Be sure to personalize your comments!
It is critical that we get comments from the thousands of people opposed to NAIS in the formal record. Not only will that
impact the USDA rulemaking, but it will show Congress the depth of the opposition to NAIS. Congresswoman DeGette from Colorado
recently filed HR 814, which would require tracking of every place a food animal was kept, for animals in interstate commerce,
and potentially restrict access to USDA-inspected slaughterhouses for animals not part of the system. You can read the bill here.
No committee hearing has been set, and it is unclear if the bill will move forward at all. But it is a sign that some Congress
members continue to push for NAIS. Please take a few moments to comment on the proposed regulations now, so that we can send
a signal back to Congress that NAIS is not the answer to our animal health and food safety issues!
Has anyone ever figured out why all the recalls from foreign countries in the last 5 years and certainly
in the last 2 years. Here is why:
"Equivalency" is an obligation of several WTO agreements, as well as NAFTA. It is designed
to allow goods produced under different rules and regulations to be imported into another country with minimal inspection
at the border. Before the United States entered the WTO, the USDA required other countries to have standards
equal to the United States, and the agency inspected foreign plants eligible to export to this country. Now, the USDA declares
other countries’ meat safety systems "equivalent" based on a review of foreign government paperwork instead of a physical
inspection of all meat plants eligible to export to the United States.
NAIS- The Fourth Component: by Darol Dickinson
The National Animal Identification
System (NAIS) has been alleged as a three component program, however now a fourth component facade is starting to reveal itself.
The first step of NAIS is premises enrollment, next animal identification, and then coast to coast 48 hour animal
USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Bruce I. Knight has promised that the NAIS program
is easy to enroll and totally voluntary on the federal level, if . . . enough livestock owners enroll so it does not have
to go mandatory.
The NAIS program has distributed thousands of selling USDA press releases quoting Knight. The constant
controversy of NAIS has placed the Knight name among the top ten Internet bureaucrats according to Google, with Bruce Knight
or Bruce I. Knight showing up over 17,000,000 times.
The fourth Component is meticulously touched by Knight, if USDA
decides to make all or parts of the NAIS mandatory, APHIS will follow the normal rulemaking process. With rules, laws, inspections,
taxes, regulations, or licensing comes the fourth component......Enforcement.
Enforcement of NAIS is not a happy subject especially when the first component is still not
setting well with the majority of producers. However, it is a dead serious issue for animal owners who want to know what new
enforcements are involved, and their price tag, before they permanently enroll.
In 2007 the US spent nearly one trillion
dollars (from taxes and borrowed funds) in regulation enforcements, policing, investigations, and mandatory compliances. Although
this was a huge expense to the citizenry, the fines, collections, penalties, licenses, fees and private property confiscations
from all law violations was an equally swelling amount; a number impossible to locate from federal published data.
The current rule making process for USDA is found on line at Cornell University Law School,
Legal Information Institute, U.S. Code., Title 7 >Chapter 109> 8313. Penalties. #8313 (b) Civil Penalties, (1) In general
(i) $50,000 in the case of any individual, except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1000 in the case of an
initial violation of this chapter by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain;
in the case of any other person for each violation; and
(iii) $500,000 for all violations adjudicated in a single
Penalties appropriate to the violation is a cornerstone fundamental of the US judicial system. Enforcement
is totally capricious with USDA. One could be fined in county court $1000 for a 70 mph speed violation through a school zone,
yet $50,000 for crossing a state line with one number incorrect on a USDA issued livestock health certificate for a perfectly
healthy childs pony! Dr. Max Thornsberry, President of R-CALF USA says, The USDA is a run away agency out of control, with
total disregard for U.S. citizens.
Producers have been mystified by the massive amount of grants and funds (cooperative
agreements) doled by USDA to get NAIS closer to full mandatory mode. The nearly $150,000,000 invested to promote enrollment
looks large, but ..... it would only take 300 violations of $500,000 each to quickly earn it back.
US leaders watch
other government trends closely in creating new laws and taxation. Europe has been a leader in pioneering thought for US policy.
Government animal numbering systems have been urged in a few countries prior to the marketing of NAIS in the US. Australia
is the only country to have implemented electronic tagging and tracking as is proposed by the USDA. Australia is a prototype
for enforcement also.
Stephen Blair, a Director of the Angus Society of Australia was recently fined $17,300. He was
prosecuted by Australian Minister McDonald for moving cattle from one of his ranches wearing ear tags from his other ranch
to a livestock auction. No diseased or stolen livestock were involved. It was a matter of a government rule violation. This
is a small example of the enforcement USDA could wield over US livestock producers if NAIS was exacted mandatory.
of the title for Bruce Knight, is REGULATORY PROGRAMS. This probably helps explain his tigerish priorities for the income
generating fourth component of NAIS ENFORCEMENTS.
USDA enforcements are now, and will be a coerced obligation of all
licensed USDA veterinarians. Vets will be required to report all non compliance of their valued clients or be subject to immediate
licensing reviews. The USDA/APHIS policing division is the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) with headquarters
in Raleigh, NC; Fort Collins, CO; and Riverdale, MD. IES boasts of increasing thousands of clients with a 51% increase in
case load and “more than a threefold increase in the dollar value of civil penalties in one recent year. To enforce
the ever increasing number of regulations, the government seeks to make ordinary citizens into their enforcers. Even today
all neighbors, farm employees and friend or foe associates are encouraged on the IES web site to Report potential violations,
please contact IES. Wisconsin tried to use bulk milk haulers to enforce NAIS against Amish dairy farmers in 2007. The Fourth
Component is operational and extremely aggressive.
The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) printed an information
flyer to dispel negative NAIS exaggerations. Question: Reports say youre going to charge $1000 a day for not participating
if it is mandatory. Answer: The TAHC is a regulatory agency and has administrative penalty provisions in its law as a recourse
for persons who refuse to comply.
The Fourth Component is Enforcements It can be disastrously expensive. The majority
of US livestock producers dont like the thought of imprisonment and exorbitant fines.
NAIS, when mandatory, as proposed
by USDA, will require 100% computer movement documentation at the full expense of livestock owners. In a three year period
the total NAIS computer movement numbers in the USA will more than eclipse the number of all people living on the entire planet
earth. The whopping magnitude of this federal numbering burden will require a giant increase in USDA employees, facilities,
and, of course IES will explode with new clients.
Every livestock producer is encouraged to study the many intricate
details of NAIS. The large majority of livestock producers refuse to enroll their premises in NAIS. Oppose NAIS now, rather
than when it becomes scurrilously mandatory. There is a small amount of time remaining to politically react. For more information
www.naisSTINKS.com or www.NONAIS.org or www.LibertyArk.net.
Australian ear tag case:
Cornell Agriculture Law:
and Enforcement Services
WESTERN HORSEMEN NAIS POLL
Note: This data is the first in 6 years that has been offered
the entire USA for a bipartisan poll on NAIS. It was plain, simple and any livestock owner could vote in a few seconds.
USDA has ask for input about NAIS on their complicated federal site. Poll results are unpublished by USDA, but most are sure
the end result was within one or two percent of the Western Horseman national poll.
This poll clearly indicates the
feelings of a wide range of livestock producers. Western Horseman is an all breed publication clearly aimed at equine owners,
but also has the largest circulation of cattle producers of any publication. Over a half million livestock owners read WH
monthly. Is this a valid poll??
Our NAIS Poll
Our June issue included the story "Identity Crisis," which examined
the controversy surrounding a proposed national animal-ID system. Last month, we asked visitors to westernhorseman.com where
they stood on this subject. Long story short: horse owners hate this idea.
The USDA insists an ID program will one
day be implemented. We can assume the government doesn't intend to put it to a vote.
A. J. Mangum, Editor, Western
Here's how the poll results broke down:
|"We the People Voted"
And all done without NAIS, Testing is the key not premises Id, Not tagging, not reporting, but good
ole testing accomplished the job.
Alaska Farm Bureau site. http://akfb.fb.org/AKFB0308/REP%20CARL%20GATTO%202.doc
U.S. ACHIEVES CATTLE BRUCELLOSIS CLASS FREE STATUS
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that,
for the first time in the 74-year history of the brucellosis program all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands have simultaneously achieved Class Free status. Texas was the last and final state to be declared
“This tremendous achievement could not have
been accomplished without the combined efforts of state and federal agencies and industry,” said Bruce Knight, under
Secretary for USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area. “But our work is not done.
We must now focus our efforts on eradicating brucellosis from the free-ranging elk and bison populations in the grater
Yellowstone Area in order to protect our national cattle heard against future outbreaks of this disease.”
In 1934, the eradication of brucellosis was elevated to a national scale with the
formation of a cooperative state-federal eradication program to eliminate brucellosis from the country. Brucellosis
is a bacterial disease that causes decreased milk production, weight loss, infertility, loss of young and lameness in cattle,
elk and bison. The disease is contagious and can, though rarely, affect humans. There
is no treatment and depopulation of infected and exposed animals is the only effective means of disease containment and eradication
USDA Plans to Use Breed Registries to Implement NAIS
USDA plans to use breed associations to force NAIS registrations, beginning as early as March 2008, less than two
months from now. USDA's Business Plan calls for breed registries to start using an official Animal Identification
Number, or "AIN" in their registry. And since you must first register your property in NAIS before you can obtain an AIN,
this could effectively implement the first two stages of NAIS for anyone in those registries!
The breed registries for cattle, horses, sheep, and goats are potential targets, but the Plan does not
indicate which breed registries have agreed to implement NAIS.
Take Action: Contact your breed association or other livestock registry and find out if it will be implementing
Ask the registry:
- 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?
- Do you plan to require members to use the State's or USDA's premises registration system in order to obtain a breed registration
- Can you please confirm the registry's intentions in writing?
Tell them that you do not want them to be a tool for implementing the government's plan for NAIS!
- If they plan to force their members into NAIS, consider finding another association to meet your needs if possible.
If you do leave your association, be sure to tell them why.
- Spread the word! If you find out that your breed association plans to force NAIS on its members, tell
all the people you know who are in that association or considering joining. Post to the online groups that focus on
your type of animal. Let people know how the association is working against the best interests of its members.
- Email us to let us know what your breed association says. We'll post a list of organizations that are requiring NAIS and
those that aren't.
The USDA published its Business Plan in December of last year. You can download the Plan at http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/Government-documents
. The Plan sets aggressive targets for implementation of NAIS. One of the strategies for achieving those goals is "harmonization"
among various systems that already use individual identification. Harmonization involves changing the existing programs
so they use the NAIS-compliant Animal Identification Numbers (AIN's). (Plan, pp.28-29).
As part of its harmonization strategy, USDA lists having breed registries begin using NAIS AIN's in March 2008,
less than two months from now. (Plan, p.52). The AIN is a 15-digit internationally unique identification number. It
starts with "840" which identifies the animal as coming from the US. (Plan, p.30). In order to get an AIN under
NAIS, you have to register your property ("premises registration" under the NAIS plan). The legal effect of this registration
is unknown, because there has been nothing like it before - permanent federal registration of citizens' property, linked to
an issue (animal ownership) that carries potential liabilities.
With this harmonization strategy, USDA plans to use our private associations to force livestock,
poultry, and horse owners to register their property and tag their animals under a government program, despite
the continued protests of animal owners across the country.
| Contacts for more information|
Liberty Ark Supporters:
The Liberty Ark email system is still down. You can
contact the Coalition by emailing one of the Steering Committee members, Karin Bergener, at firstname.lastname@example.org
or calling her at 330-298-0065.
Working together, we can make our voices heard.
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
A important message to all livestock owners!
If you are opposed to NAIS, you can't hold back and not be involved.
The Government is doing a great "sell" job on the uninformed. You need to let others know what the NAIS is all about, in giving
up constitutional rights, property rights, and animals to the control of the USDA and state ag agencies. Writing, calling,
emailing your state elected officials, state veterinarians, and ag agencies to let them know you are opposed is a good thing
to start being involved.
Some may be thinking that if I say nothing, they won't know I exist and I won't
be forced into it. The states already know where you are if you have ever done state needed veterinary services. Once NAIS
is instituted most industries related to livestock will need your premises ID number to conduct business with you. So in the
future your feedstore, vet, hay grower, etc will want your premises ID number and without it you may be limited in the services
you can have preformed. Some of these industries will be forced by law to inform on you (veterinarians are already targeted
in the USDA documentation to report livestock if NAIS goes through). Fines will be placed on some for non-compliance to the
mandate. NAIS is serious and as stated many times, opposition will stop it. Even if you have been "forced" into the program
or illegally registered by your state, voicing opposition is still needed.
Thinking it will not happen or it will go away because a few are fighting it,
will not stop it. The fight calls for anyone that owns just one head of livestock to get involved and start working. The few
that are fighting as hard as they can to stop it need everyone's voice behind them to make the government see it will not
work. Some on these lists don't own livestock, but are consumers or retired from the livestock industry, your voice is just
as important to keep our food sources safe and healthy.
It is not working here in the US where states have already made it mandatory (lawsuits
are being registered against the USDA and states), it is not working in Canada because we are still getting diseased cattle
from there, it is not working in Australia (which was the country the US mirrored) because their farmers are as opposed to
NLIS as we are to NAIS - reading posts and newsclips coming out of these other countries could have easily been written by
any American. The USDA has to promote the NAIS as though it is on schedule and working, it is their best marketing tool. They
are concerned if the grassroots effort gets stronger, that it will fail. They try any and all deceit to push this through.
It is up to each livestock holder to stand up for their own livestock, get informed and try to let others know what NAIS is
about. It can be stopped if everyone does their part by getting involved. Efforts in states that are fighting hard have proven
IF NAIS should be established here in the US countrywide, it will be
impossible to reverse. The time to fight is NOW. In-roads are being made on individual state levels. There are some states
that have already pulled out and stopped the NAIS there, so it can be done if everyone gets involved. This is where it needs
to be fought from at this time. So IF you value the freedom you have to farm or own livestock now, fight for it and let
your bureaucrats know you are not in favor of any mandatory NAIS system of any kind.
Before you believe anything on any NAIS article, the wisest thing any person
could do is read the "Official" USDA Documents, all of them, including the State Cooperative Agreements then you will get
clear answers, the truth, but be warned once you learn the "Truth" you will be considered mis representing the facts.
What the USDA is promoting NOW is a bookend approach, but they are leaving you
to believe this is all there is to the program, leaving out very important information such as all the reporting of movements
of your livestock and it includes your one chicken, your one horse, your one llama etc. Did you know that the Premises Id
number carries with the land FOREVER unless its PAVED over?
Posted 07-19-07 Still think its Voluntary with a capital 'V"?
NAIS update from
Note the following final rule published
in today's Federal Register (under the misleading Table of Contents heading "Livestock improvement."
This is the final
version of an interim rule published in Nov. 2004 which first permitted the use of NAIS premises ID numbers and NAIS individual
animal ID numbers as "alternative" numbers for use in brucellosis testing, TB testing, scrapie, and Johnes disease programs.
background to the final rule now published states that as to all prior numbering systems, USDA/APHIS "anticipate[s] phasing
them out as we progress toward full implementation of the NAIS." (72 FR 39301.)
USDA/APHIS also (while not setting
a sunset date for older ID systems in this rule) "agree[s] with" the concept that "as soon as possible, a reasonable sunset
date for identification numbers other than [NAIS individual animal ID numbers] should be established and communicated to the
Still think NAIS is "voluntary"? Time to wake up.
Not Linked http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-13932.htm
Posted June 26, 2007
From Mary Zanoni:
The hearing originally scheduled for Thurs. 6/28/2007 in Landis v. Wolff has been cancelled. As described
in the article posted by Sharon, the Pennsylvania Dept of Agriculture apparently is now conceding that they had no basis for
demanding that farmers in their avian-influenza monitoring program accept a federal premises ID. This is a great victory not
only for Mr. Landis, who will now be free of the PDA’s efforts at coercion and the threat to his livelihood, but also
for other Pennsylvania farmers who participate in avian-flu monitoring, as the PDA has announced an intention to notify everyone
in the program that they need not have a federal premises ID.
I will let you know when I have more details about the apparent resolution of the Landis case and about
other developments which may assist Pennsylvania farmers who are opposed to premises ID.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Landis v. Wolff, first court challenge to NAIS premises ID
the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ordered that a hearing on petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction be held
on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at 9:30 am, in Courtroom Number One, Fifth Floor, Irvis Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
petitioner, Mennonite farmer James Landis, has been notified by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) that he would
no longer be allowed to sell the ducks he raises at his Lebanon County farm to their usual markets in New York as of July
1, 2007. The PDA is trying to compel
Mr. Landis to accept a federal NAIS Premises ID number for his farm. Mr.
Landis has a religious objection which prevents him from accepting the federal premises ID number and he faces the loss of
his family's livelihood because of the PDA's actions.
The PDA has been trying to compel farmers to accept federal premises
ID numbers despite the fact that a bill to require premises registration failed to become law during the 2005 session of the
Pennsylvania General Assembly.
At the federal level, the USDA maintains that its premises ID program is "voluntary."
Landis is represented by Leonard G. Brown, III, Esquire, of the firm of Clymer & Musser, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 717-299-7101.
Files have been downloaded for the following working groups:
Swine, Camelid, Sheep, Goats, Cattle, Bison and Equine.
If you own just one of the listed, you need to read the requirements to participate in NAIS.
The Poultry Working group recomendations have not yet been accepted by the USDA, but files have been
uploaded for the Poultry Working Group.
Unless you UNITE as a WHOLE GROUP and speak up LOUD and CLEAR nothing will
change.......They say silence is golden but in this case silence is not golden. Here is another article on cost,
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen3.htm I did my own cost on 4 horses last summer and I came up with over $3,000.00 and then the reporting
aspect of it, my figures on that compared to this article is much higher as everyone will want to make money.
All the money that will go into the NAIS is my hay money, so you do the math
and then tell me what has to go?.... then we have the fines for an OOPS, Can you afford it? I know I cant and I will not.
So what is the point in keeping livestock which in my case is horses if I cant ride them without the fear of being stopped
to check for Papers? Washington is facing the stiffest law that I have read... The fines are $1,000.00 per day per incident,
do the math on say 4 horses. You don't want to believe me then here is the proof. http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5204.pdf when reading this it follows what the Draft plan states.
The police have been informed and with the amount of the fines they will be stopping and enforcing due to the size
of the fines to increase the city bank account.
I have provided everyone the help from many very concerned livestock
owners, information on the Naisinfo site, information on horses and the deceit that is being used to clearly show that you
will have to report and with a capital 'V". All the information is taken from the USDA documents, committee meetings, so
there is no Mis-Information, No-Halt Truths but just the facts! The Cooperative agreements, the laws being written, the information
from the USDA also shows that the timelines are being followed to a T . I don't know what else to
say or do to get people involved.
The NAIS is not whether its right or wrong it is about your Freedom to come and
go with out being recorded and watched, what ever word you want to use. On the State of Alaska Vet
site http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/vet/nais.htm this was posted which I feel is very odd, the program is SUPPOSE to be to Located animals,
Why the location of YOU?
1) Why should I register my premise? So that the OSV and USDA know the location
of you and your animals.
Have you ever wondered why our disease list has changed to all FOREIGN DISEASES
through the OIE? I have said it once and I will say it again that the USDA will intentionally infect our healthy herds
due to TRADE. Case in point is the proposal to open Canada borders to allow Cattle in over 30 months of age. Was it
not one of the issues to implement NAIS was the first sighting of a BSE cow from Canada in 2003?. And now its up to 9 cases
just from Canada. This OOPS of allowing Canada cattle into the States will have severe consequences to our Healthy herds
call 'Stamping Out, Depopulation, Eradication once those cattle are commingled in with our cattle.
To end this I will say that I'm sick and tired of hearing the "NAIS is Currently Voluntary",
It wont be!!!!! Each one of our politicians have been briefed and its obvious they have been because they all say the same
canned response , "NAIS is Currently Voluntary". Its all being done via the backdoor methods via the State Cooperative
Agreements, The States then will be implementing NAIS... Sara Palin said her bible is the "Constitution" Lets see if in FACT
she will live by that. Lets see if she supports our freedoms which include the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
Back to this article, unless you have connected the Dots I see why they choose this chip.....Can
you? I also sent out an article from the UK concerning a farmer and the depopulation of his 564 cattle due to an OOPS, not
a disease but a big fat OOPS, and after reading this I can see an OOPS happening with this...
This will be posted on http://www.naisinfocentral.net
ATTENTION LIVESTOCK OWNERS -EQUINES
The Draft Plan and the Equine Species Working Group RECOMMENDS ISO 11784/11785, 134.2 kHz RFID
by Heather Smith Thomas
Horse owners have a lot of questions about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
plan that USDA wants us to comply with (premises registration, individual identification of our horses, and reporting the
movements of horses). We wonder whether we’ll all have to ID our horses and what kind of ID we’ll have to use.
Many horsemen already have their horses identified in some way, either for their breed registration and/or theft or loss recovery
or proof of ownership—with freeze brands, hot brands, lip tattoos, descriptions of identifying markings on registration
papers, DNA parentage, or microchips. Will we have to use an additional ID?
The NAIS plan (which is primarily geared toward
farm animals, but includes horses because horses are considered livestock) calls for radio frequency identification
devices—such as ear tags with microchips (for cattle, sheep, pigs, etc.) or microchips implanted directly into the
animal (for horses). Microchips can be inserted into the middle third of the nuchal ligament (the long, strong ligament
that runs from poll to withers) at the top of the horse’s neck. The NAIS plan also specifies a certain type of microchip:
the ISO 11784/11785 134.2 kilohertz chip.
THE EQUINE SPECIES WORKING GROUP
When the NAIS plan took shape in 2002-2003, the USDA, in conjunction with the National Institute
for American Agriculture (NIAA) created a task force—National Identification Development Team—representing 70
livestock industry groups and government agencies. This team decided they needed to create working groups within each species
to represent to USDA what is unique about identification in their species. The American Horse Council had already put together
its own task force to look into the NAIS plan, so this group became the Equine Species Working Group—the official
liaison between USDA and the horse industry. Its purpose is to evaluate the NAIS plan, recommend ways the horse industry
can fit into the NAIS, and develop standards for equine ID that will mesh with the NAIS if it becomes mandatory.
were originally 35 members on this group, volunteers from various breeds and interests within the horse industry, and people
from USDA and a few state departments of agriculture. The ESWG started out with enthusiastic efforts to identify goals and
create a working plan for the horse industry, but members have not always been in agreement and membership has kept changing.
A smaller number have continued to participate, and there’s been a small core group of members who have determined its
Early on this core group of people, for various reasons, decided it was best to go along with the USDA’s
plan—and try to make recommendations that would fit the horse industry a little better than if we wait and have the
government tell us what we have to do. As part of that “fitting in”, they decided that microchips would be the
best means of individual identification for horses, and that a certain type of microchip (being
pushed by USDA for the livestock industry) would also be the best one for horses. Their recommendation to horse owners to
use this chip is stated in their 20 page booklet “National Animal Identification System and Horses” published
in May, 2006 (available on the American Horse Council website and the ESWG website).
Jim Morehead, DVM (representing
the American Association of Equine Practitioners, on the ESWG) has taken an active role in the ESWG and was instrumental in
its formation and organization. He says, “We’re probably looking at microchips for future ID for our horses. It’s
the most practical, at this point, with current technology. The ESWG wants horsemen to use the
134.2 kHz (kilohertz) chip. The particulars on that chip merely say that it has 15 digits (the first 3 being a country code).
far, this is the only requirement for our horses’ microchips. There is a lot of talk about using bio-thermal chips that
also have capability of transmitting the temperature of the horse, rather than just having a number on it. This would probably
be more expensive, however, and we don’t yet know how well those chips work. At this point, what’s
important to the ESWG is that the chip have a number, and it has to be an ISO (International Standards Organization) number,”
This particular issue, however, has created a great deal of controversy within and outside the ESWG.
The ISO system is a foreign system that the U.S. has never used, up until now. The chips in this system operate
at a different frequency than those being used in this country. Many people are wondering why the USDA, and especially the
horse industry, suddenly decided to change to this system when we have been using a different microchip system in this country
for the past 15 years. At this point in time, there are already more than 800,000 horses and millions of pets microchipped
(for permanent and secure ID that enables them to be traced back to their owners if lost or stolen), yet the USDA and
ESWG want to throw out this system and start over.
THE “AMERICAN” SYSTEM
Horsemen and pet owners have been using RFID (radio frequency identification device) microchips
for a long time—for theft prevention, lost animal and disaster recovery, regulatory needs, etc. Owner contact information
(to recover lost or stolen animals, for instance) is kept in a private database and released only upon owner request. This
has been a very rapidly growing voluntary system for horse owners, with more than 100,000 scanners currently in place throughout
the country. The microchip system in this country operates at a radio frequency of 125 kHz.
state of Louisiana uses these microchips in efforts to control Equine Infectious Anemia. In order to get their annual Coggins
test, horses must have permanent individual ID. It can be a tattoo, freeze brand, microchip—anything unique to that
horse— but most owners have chosen microchips. Louisiana made it their official system in 1995. The state veterinarian’s
office purchases chips from Destron and distributes them to vets around the state. About 90 percent of horses in Louisiana
(more than 200,000 horses) are chipped. This was very helpful after Hurricane Katrina left hundreds of animals homeless. After
Katrina, 364 horses were gathered up, and owners were located for all but one, largely because of these microchips. If any of those horses had ISO 134.2 frequency chips, however, no scanners could have “read”
According to Dr. John Wade, a Louisiana veterinarian who has been in private practice since 1980 and has been
microchipping horses since 1988 (and head of AVID equine division, a company that makes chips for horses), says that
AVID, Destron and other makers of 125 kHz chips are sending out more scanners every day. “Every dog that’s
picked up, every horse that’s found, can be identified if it has a 125 kHz microchip. If you call the sheriff’s
department or your local pound/shelter, they will scan the animal and tell you who it belongs to within a few minutes,”
If a stolen horse might end up at a slaughterhouse, the plants that slaughter horses can be alerted. Federally
inspected packing plants that kill horses have scanners and will scan upon request. If there’s report of a theft, they
can be asked to look for a bay mare, for instance, and will oblige by scanning any horse that fits that description. If they
find that chip number, they’ll hold that horse and not kill it, explains Wade. “The Texas Rangers, brand inspectors
and other law enforcement agencies use scanners to identify recovered equines and return them to owners,” he says.
his company makes several kinds of chips, including a 134.2 kHz ISO chip (selling those to countries that use it), he doesn’t
want to see the U.S. change to this type of chip because it is not a “secure” chip for proof of ownership or animal
tracing. “AVID has 10 years of hands-on experience with this foreign microchip system and the problems that accompany
it,” says Wade.
THE ISO SYSTEM
|WHAT IS THE NAIS?
The NAIS plan and USDA’s strategy for implementing it can be found on USDA website:
www.aphis.usda.gov and www.usda.gov/nais. The NAIS is a State-Federal-Industry program administered by USDA’s
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The stated objective is an information system to enable animal health
officials to respond rapidly to emergencies such as outbreaks of foreign animal diseases or emerging domestic diseases, with
animal traceback to farm of origin within 48 hours.
USDA has made cooperative agreements with states and tribes, giving
them money to get all premises under their jurisdiction registered. USDA hopes to have 475,000 of the 2 million premises registered
by the end of this year. Animal ID began in March, and by June the USDA was making cooperative agreements with private and
state animal tracking databases hoping to have all databases functional by February, 2007. The system is voluntary until 2009,
at which time the USDA hopes for 100 percent of premises registered and animals identified. After that, the USDA has a contingency
plan to make it mandatory “if participation rates are not adequate.”
An RFID system used by some countries operates at 134.2 kHz frequency. The International
Standards Organization is a group that creates standards for various things marketed in the European community. Since
there are many different countries in a relatively small geographic area (similar to the various states in the U.S.) and many
companies manufacturing similar products, there needed to be standards between countries and companies. The ISO is made up
of representatives from the participating countries and the industries within them; the working groups within the ISO structure
are composed of company representatives (technical people).
The next level up are the SC groups, with national delegates
from the different national standards organizations that sit on these groups. Countries can opt into different SC groups,
where they vote on various standards. At this point there are more than 17,000 ISO standards, on everything from tractor parts
to paper sizes. The particular ISO standard in question for RFID equipment (radio frequency
chips and readers) is ISO 11784/11785.
Barbara Masin is part of a company (Electronic Identification Devices, Ltd.
and Trovan, Ltd, a British company) that has supplied electronic animal ID products for more than 15 years. Their technology
is the most widely used today in the field of RFID and has supplied 100s of millions of transponders (microchips) to more
than 100 countries, for use in pets, endangered species, fish and many types of animals. The company markets ISO chips as
well as “American” chips with other frequencies. As a representative of this company, Masin sits on the board
in charge of developing the ISO 11784/85 standard, as a U.S. delegate representing United States interests. She
has serious concerns about the use of this particular RFID system in a national animal identification program because of its
shortcomings for this type of application (providing unique identification).
The ISO 11784/85 committee has been
involved in addressing the problems that have arisen over the past several years due to use of these chips for animal ID,
since numbers on these chips can be easily duplicated. This particular chip system was originally developed in Russia to microchip
tractor parts. It came from the need to accurately identify machinery parts for an international community. A scanner in France
or Germany, for instance, could read the microchip and tell you what the part was. So the ISO accepted this system, which
is a low frequency 134.2 kHz chip. One reason they chose it was because it was a smaller chip and had no proprietary attachments
to it (no ownership, no patents) and was free to be used by anyone, anytime, anywhere.
“This standard was originally
developed for agricultural equipment, commodities and closed-loop application in livestock, such as individual animal ID in
dairy herds,” says Masin. “A farmer could utilize it to monitor the performance of individual animals.”
A dairyman using automatic feeding in individual stanchions, for instance, might want to know which cow was which, and which
part of the lactation cycle the animal is in, so the feed could be adjusted accordingly.
“In this situation it really
doesn’t matter whether or not these chip numbers can be duplicated or reprogrammed, because the farmer is in a closed-loop
operation and in control of what’s happening. And with tractor parts, you are merely updating things like maintenance
information—like when this item was in for inspection the last time,” explains Masin.
“When this system
was developed, the concept was for it to be an open standard. All the ISO standards are published, and any company that is
interested can then conform with the published standard. It works very well if you are using it for commodities like copier
paper, to make sure the products are the same and will work in various copiers. Then it doesn’t matter if you buy your
paper from Xerox or Weyerhauser; if you put it in your photocopy machine it will fit. The same with modem protocols; no matter
where I buy them, they can talk to each other. They all conform to the same standard and talk the same language,” she
But within the ISO standard there are reprogrammable chips and some can be reprogrammed
multiple times. In the beginning, the ISO concept was for unique ID codes for farm animals (one number, unique for life).
But ear tags (containing the chips) in cattle, sheep, etc. are often lost. In 2001, the ISO group responsible for standard
11784/85 decided that the solution to this problem would be to allow for retagging the animal with a new tag carrying the
same ID number as the lost one. But a farmer can’t wait six months to get a “duplicate” tag from the manufacturer
(who can’t stop production to make just a few transponders with duplicate numbers) so ISO allowed for OTP (one time
programmable) “blank” microchips that could be programmed with the number of the lost tag.
with identical numbers ISO allowed for “uniquely identifying up to 7 retaggings of an animal”. Then
reprogrammable tags were also allowed. In a May 31, 2001 ISO document describing their recommendations for replacing lost
animal transponders, they stated it would be disastrous if OTPs fall into the wrong hands; “they should be transported
in a secure way to issuing stations and must be safely kept. It is a national responsibility that the procedure is followed
properly.” Instead of trying to preserve the integrity of the system, they essentially said, “You can duplicate
and reprogram these chips, but we are not responsible.”
As Masin points out, problems arise when we begin using
this technology for something it was not designed for—such as an open loop approach where there are lots of different
animals. “Chipped animals may be part of a national system being used to control compliance (to make sure people are
actually doing what they say they are doing, pertaining to animal health, for instance) or to make sure that an animal is
indeed the individual with that number when it crosses a state line or goes somewhere else,” says Masin. USDA is not
being realistic in thinking we can use this system for dependable animal trace-back to farm of origin, in case of a disease
“The problem with using a published open standard like ISO 11784/85 for something that’s needed to
provide unique or secure ID is that it won’t work. It would be like our government publishing the standard for dollar
bills, telling people what paper to use, what color ink, etc. so anyone could do it,” explains Masin.
There are questions about cost (both to the individuals who must conform, and to the taxpayer)
and the huge expansion of bureaucracy the NAIS would spawn. The regulations will also be difficult to enforce. There are concerns
about having more government intrusions and more control over animal agriculture and horse ownership, and whether the sweeping
changes proposed by the NAIS plan are constitutional. Some lawyers are saying that it violates the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments (protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and protection of property rights and other fundamental rights).
The NAIS may also violate the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause (there are some religious groups who depend
on animal agriculture for their way of life and do not believe in using modern technology).
There were also concerns about
confidentiality of information on a government database accessible to anyone through the Freedom of Information Act, but there are also concerns about the present plan for multiple private databases (which will charge a fee
for this service); USDA lawyers are presently looking into whether they have the authority to require animal owners to report
information to a private entity.
The NAIS has not actually become law. The National Farm Animal Identification Record
Act (H.R. 1254) was introduced in the House but has been sitting in committee for more than a year. USDA claims it can enforce
the NAIS under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002, but that law does not provide for individual animal ID and tracking;
it addresses import and export of animals, interstate travel, quarantine areas and related programs. USDA is forging ahead
on the NAIS program, but time will tell whether they can actually make it mandatory.
THE PROBLEM OF DUPLICATE NUMBERS AND EASE OF COUNTERFEITING AND DUPLICATING ISO
The drawback in using this type of chip in a national system for purposes of disease
trace-back, bio-security or unique ID for proof of ownership or theft prevention/loss recovery is that there is no guarantee
of uniqueness of ID codes. There are several ways ID codes can be undermined in any open system. Chips can be ordered
factory-programmed, with desired numbers. Some manufacturers also sell reprogrammable chips which are programmable by the
user in the field, and indistinguishable from factory programmed chips. Some can be reprogrammed as many times as the user
desires, even after being implanted in an animal. Thus anyone can change the ID numbers in an
Since this is an open standard, even if the NAIS gets its chips from selected manufacturers and distributes
them through a single entity, this would not prevent ISO chips with duplicate ID numbers from entering the market, since ISO
does not enforce compliance with its standards. Three companies have already announced that they will make ID codes to order
when the ISO standard is put into place in this country—without going through the Brussels bureaucracy to have the numbers
In the ISO system, corruption of the ID numbering system is practically built-in. And even for manufacturers
who adhere to the ISO honor code, ID numbers can be recycled every 33 years. This is no problem for cattle or pigs but
might be a problem for longer lived animals such as horses. The ISO system also stipulates a two year “transition”
period (for any changes), which was adequate for the original purpose such as food animals that were marketed within 2 years
of life and cycled out of the system in that period of time. But this doesn’t begin to address the ID needs for other
animals such as horses or companion animals.
This spring Barbara Masin attended a USDA/APHIS hearing on microchips for
pets—the purpose of which was looking at changing the present ID system (the 125 kHz “American” chip already
in use) to the ISO 134.2 kHz ISO system. After the meeting she gave a demonstration showing how it is easy to reprogram
the ISO standard chip with any number you want.
“There were three people from the USDA and a number of speakers from
the companion animal community (various interest groups that represent veterinary organizations, animal shelter organizations,
local shelters), and one person from the American Horse Council— Amy Mann—who spoke on why she thought companion
animals should have the same ISO chips as horses. I spoke there, and after everyone finished speaking, I gave the demo,”
She showed that the ISO chips—whether programmed from the factory, or the OTP (one-time programmable
chips that come blank and can be programmed once) or the reprogrammable ones where you can change
the number after it’s in the animal—are visually indistinguishable; they look identical. You also can’t
tell them apart with a scanner because they all read the same way.
“There are only two ways to tell the difference.
You can dig it out of the animal and have it subjected to microscopic destructive analysis (which is very expensive). Or,
if you happen to have the right kind of programmer and the chip doesn’t have a password on it, you can tell. I had several
standard ISO chips made by various companies, preprogrammed. I also had reprogrammable chips. I shuffled them around and people
could not tell the difference.”
She also had a couple of chips inserted in stuffed animals, and used a programmer
(about the size of a deck of cards) to counterfeit (clone) one of the chips. “I scanned the chip in one animal, and
the programmer stored the ID number. Then I passed the little programmer over the animal with the programmable chip and duplicated
that number. So you don’t even have to key in the number; you just scan one chip and essentially put that number in
the other one,” she explains. Anyone with a programmer could make other animals pass for the one with the original number.
programmers are not expensive. Depending on where you get them, they can be purchased for as low as $160 to $200. “There are ads in various European publications and websites stating they can supply reprogrammable
microchips and low-cost programmers. There are classified ads in newspapers offering low cost confidential provision for duplication
of ID numbers,” says Masin.
An ad that appeared in the largest Swedish morning paper translates as follows: “We
offer a new chip service. We will change the ID number of the Kennel type chip according to your wishes. Inexpensive. Easy.
Fast. Total discretion. Also sale of ISO programming units.” A Spanish language ad in the veterinary publication VETECOM
reads: “Specialists in animal accessories. Collars, muzzles...ISO reprogrammable transponders. You can encode all the
ID numbers you require as often as you like. Can even be reprogrammed inside the animal. Conforms with ISO Standards 11784
and 11785. Compatible with all reader systems. Can be used in every kind of animal. Also readers for reprogramming.”
Thus anyone who wanted to could use this ISO system to their own advantage, for various purposes.
The chips themselves
are not very expensive. “If you buy them through a vet you might pay top dollar, but in an industrial market they are
less than $5,” says Masin. “I could take a $5 chip and put it in a horse that looks
like a valuable animal and, in essence, I’ve cloned the champion because my horse has its number. An animal from another
country could be made to look like one that came from the U.S. or vice versa,” she says.
“A person could keep several look-alike animals and register only one, or claim health insurance coverage
for 10 animals while taking out a policy on only one. Some jurisdictions require chips as proof of payment for horse vaccination
requirements. With ISO 11784/85 chips, horse owners could have just one horse vaccinated while 9 others sport the same identity.
By using a WORM (write many, read many) chip that can be reprogrammed as many times as desired, the same animal can change
identities throughout its life. In jurisdictions with a ‘dangerous dog’ law that requires an animal to be put
down after it bites three times, such a dog could easily have its identity changed by an unscrupulous owner,” says Masin.
enough time and money, people can duplicate anything, though it may take more effort to crack a secure system, depending on
how high the hurdles are. “With the ISO standard, there is no hurdle. The standard itself allows duplication of
a chip 8 times. There are many vendors, including us, that sell reprogrammable chips. The ISO standard stipulates this because
if an ear tag falls off, livestock owners want to give that animal the same number again. If you are restricted to preprogrammed
chips you’d be looking at having to go to a wafer fab plant, and they have lead times of six months or longer for computer
chips,” she explains.
Another thing to consider, in choosing this system for the NAIS, is that by using the ISO microchip
system, we are building in impending obsolescence. The ISO-based system is static and precludes the use of new technologies
and advancements because the technical parameters of this chip are rigidly defined. The ISO standard 11784/85, as defined,
leaves no room for innovation and improvement. If technological advancements become available, the USDA’s NAIS (and
people who chip their horses with this system) will be confronted with a difficult choice. They can continue with out-moded
technology or junk this standard and begin a new process of standardization (which took more than 5 years for the current
ISO standard) for the new technology for a national system.
Jim Gowan, ESWG member representing the Thoroughbred Racing
Protective Bureau, says the microchip issue was one of several things his group questioned about the ESWG’s recommendations
to USDA and the horse industry. “Chips can be replaced, removed or changed. With today’s technology, how long
will microchips be the system of choice? Maybe we don’t want to be locked into this, with chips in all our horses. If
something better and more feasible comes along, then we’d have to switch systems and that could be very costly,”
“I think ultimately the best means of ID will probably be instant DNA typing. You can’t tamper with
that. If you have a horse entered in an event or race (or traveling across a state line) you would simply prick the horse,
take the blood, put it in a scanner or reader, and it would instantly match that horse with its information,” he says.
This could be a simpler, more foolproof system, and might alleviate some of the political behind-the-scenes push from vested
interests who stand to gain from having all livestock producers and horse owners ID their animals.
THE FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM ARE RECOGNIZED IN EUROPE; WE NEED TO ALSO RECOGNIZE THEM
This is not the “universal” international system that USDA and the ESWG are
telling us it is. More than 60 countries besides the USA have not adopted the 134.2 kHz system, and some of the countries
that use it are not happy with it.
When it became clear what some of the problems were with this system—especially
for unique animal ID—and where the expansion in this market was heading, there was an official complaint by the Russian
standards organization (Gosstandart). They made a formal motion requesting that IS0 11784/ll785 be repealed. According
to Masin, the Russians said, “There’s a problem here. We don’t have unique ID. This standard is being
sold as something that claims to provide unique ID, but it can’t. It’s two mutually incompatible technologies
in one standard.” They submitted a long list of issues and said, “Based on these flaws with the standard, which
we believe are substantial, this standard should be retracted and sent back to the working groups so it can be fixed.”
Spanish Veterinary Association also filed a formal complaint with ISO, and the Australian Veterinary Association published
an item in its official bulletin outlining problems with the standard. Their list of problems included read distance (which
is shorter than other chips being used in Australia), ISO standards not taking into consideration longer life spans of horses
and pets, uniqueness of numbers not guaranteed, etc. “There were so many complaints and formal objections that finally
the highly unusual step was taken to put these standards to a vote,” says Masin.
The major flaws with the ISO
11784/85 system include the fact that this “standard” is actually two systems in one. The ISO process is based
on the work of a committee, and almost always the result of compromise. With a committee involving manufacturers with high-stakes
market interests this can be a lengthy political process, with results based on compromises rather than on things like performance,
cost control or technical feasibility. At present there are two very different designs involved in the low frequency 134.2
kHz ISO standard chips. Even though only one company markets one type (every other company in the business markets some version
of the other type), a political compromise stipulates that the ISO standard incorporate both technologies, which lowers the
read speed performance and reliability of the readings. This makes the resulting readers less efficient and more costly than
those designed to read a single type of technology.
Other flaws with the ISO 11784/85 standard are its inability to
ensure unique ID codes. Being an open standard (in the public domain), it relies on an honor system—with all manufacturers
agreeing on who manufactures which numbers, to prevent duplicates. But without legal teeth in the form of patents to thwart
production of unsanctioned chips, the ISO standard is susceptible to compromise by manufacturers. There
is no manufacturer accountability.
There is also the problem of transponder performance. Neither IS0 11784 or 11785 stipulates
any minimum performance requirements for microchips suitable for use in animals. Thus a chip that can read at “touching”
distance would be fully ISO compliant. Small animal veterinarians around the world have repeatedly expressed strong reservations
about systems with such short reading distances and users in the livestock business (and horses) need even greater read range
in order for microchips to be effective for them. Thus being ISO compliant is no guarantee of suitability for any given RFID
product for use in animals.
So ultimately this was put to a vote in the SC group for that standard, says Masin. “It
was a highly political process and very contentious. This group had their own problems with ‘hanging and dimpled chads’
in their vote. Only these were not chads; they were X’s on paper. But they had trouble seeing which columns the X’s
were in! They did revotes and recounts. Each vote/recount yielded more votes against the standard, but the last count, which
we still believe was incorrect, showed 50 percent of the nations for it and 50 percent against. It was a tie. The way the
ISO system works, for an existing standard to go back to committee to be retracted, it has to be at least 50 percent plus
1 vote against the standard. So it was very close. We believe that the entities responsible for doing the counting were beneficiaries
of one of the companies that was in favor of having the standard stay as it was,” says Masin.
it was short by one vote of having the standard cancelled. So if people say it’s a great international standard, this
is not true. In the ISO voting group, half the countries at the national standards level said this is a bad standard. They
realize this system is open to fraud,” explains Masin.
WWHAT ABOUT U.S. HORSES TRAVELING TO OTHER COUNTRIES?
One of the arguments we hear as to why our horse industry should use the ISO 11784/85
chips is that this is necessary for international travel. This might be true if horses in the U.S. were considered food animals
and were going to another country for human consumption, but the U.S. horses traveling internationally are doing so for sport
or breeding purposes and by some definitions would fall into the classification of companion animals, says Masin.
legislation passed in Europe (the “Pet Passport Law”) mentions the types of microchips that may be used. Airports
in all European Union nations, including the UK, are required to have readers on hand that are capable of reading Trovan ID-100
chips and 125 kHz unencrypted chips. “Today there are laws in place in the European Union, Japan and Australia—the
only jurisdictions that require microchips for companion animals—and all of them make provisions for 125 kHz chips (which
is the U.S. basis for horses today) to be read. There is a 125 kHz encrypted chip which is not used in horses (but used in
cats and dogs) that is not accommodated, but the ones used in horses (the unencrypted AVID 125 chip, Destron 125 chip, and
128 kHz Trovan chip) are all accommodated,” explains Masin. Basically, if the concern is being able to get your horse
into one of these jurisdictions that require chips, there is no problem; they are accepted with the chips they already
WHY IS USDA PUSHING FOR THE ISO 11784/85 SYSTEM AND WHY IS THE ESWG GOING ALONG
People who are aware of problems with the ISO system are wondering why the USDA is dictating
the use of this particular kind of chip. “This chip is really not suitable,” says Masin. “When this was
being discussed for livestock, our ISO board approached the USDA and attempted to communicate with everyone from Anne Venneman
(Secretary of USDA at that time) on down, and we got no return calls. They were not interested in hearing this. I went to
the USDA listening sessions and offered to show them the problem with duplication possibilities, but they didn’t want
to see it. The situation is very political. There are certain people involved within the USDA who have very close ties to
certain manufacturers. There is an underlying agenda, unfortunately, and this is not for the good of the country,” says
“The NAIS is being touted as an anti-bioterrorism measure, but it won’t
cut the mustard, especially using these chips. If USDA or our livestock/horse industries tell people this is what they have
to use, the first incidence of some serious disease outbreak after the NAIS is implemented will spawn litigation. We have
put the USDA on notice, in writing, that this is a problem (so they are aware of it), and if they persist with their plans
and use this type of ID anyway, it will be a field day for lawyers,” she says.
If horse owners and livestock
producers are forced into a national ID system and then find out it’s not workable because of these flaws, there will
be repercussions. There will also be more legal actions and suits by various microchip companies. As one member of the Equine
Species Working Group recently stated, “the legal actions will make this thing implode, and then we all will have wasted
our time and money working on this.”
The flaws have been well documented, as far back as 1995, says Masin. “It’s
very unfortunate that when the discussion at USDA was happening for the livestock standard, it wasn’t an open discussion.
Listening sessions were crowd control type; USDA didn’t want to see any information against
the system and didn’t respond to efforts to show them what was actually going on in other countries,” she says.
There are still many people who are not aware that this is a poor system and that other countries are unhappy with it.
frustrating thing about this whole issue is that USDA (and even certain members of the ESWG) seem to want to ignore the fact
there are problems, and want to press on with convincing everyone that this is the best system for livestock and horses in
This will take a while to download, hear what Dr Thornsberry, President of
R-Calf has to say and how the USDA plans on putting the American Farmer out of business using our tax dollars in South America
This must be known!!!!!
Go to the bottom of page
once that page comes up go to the next page
this will take a while to download, hear what Dr Thornsberry, President of
R-Calf has to say and how the USDA plans on putting the American
Farmer out of business using our tax dollars!!
“…we have many constitutional issues,” [Doug] Flack said of NAIS.
Should the government be able to come take your animals when there is little evidence of disease other
than proximity? Is it being implemented legally? Is it even constitutional to track the movements of private property with
the aid of a computerized system?
“Livestock animals are legally a form of personal property. It is unprecedented
for the United States government to conduct large-scale computer-aided surveillance of its citizens simply because they own
a common type of property,” writes New York lawyer Mary Zanoni. “Surveillance of small-scale livestock owners
is like the government subjecting people to surveillance for owning a couch, a TV, a lawnmower, or any item of personal property.”
Flack drew a comparison to the Red Scare and the culture of fear seen in Sen. Joseph McCarthy's time.
He said that fully-implemented NAIS would also turn vets, feed store operators and slaughterhouses into police for the system.
“Basically to turn us in or not do business with us,” Flack said. “This is an extremely serious thing. It's
about as bad as it gets.”
AK Governor Palin stated that her "Bible" is the "Constitution" , We shall see if she means
in it when it comes to Alaska No NAIS!!!!!!!And What are her thoughts on protecting us in
Alaska via the implementation of AGENDA 21 or should I say Sustainable development.. Come on Sarah be the first to tell the
people the "TRUTH". You keep saying you have an open and transparent office.