Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Welcome to Naisinfocentral and Animal Disease Traceability

Equine Working Group

Home
Animal Disease Traceability
Hot Alerts-New
NAIS "Official" USDA Documents
USDA MEMO
What is Premises Identification?
What is Animal Identification?
What is Animal Tracking?
Senators Response to NAIS
USDA Premises Registration Numbers
Camelid Working Group
Cattle Working Group
Equine Working Group
Equine Citizens Working Group
Goat Working Group
Poultry Working Group
Sheep Working Group
Swine Working Group
NAIS on YouTube
United Nations System
Alabama NAIS
Alaska NAIS
Arizona NAIS-NO NAIS State
Arkansas NAIS
Australia - NLIS
California NAIS
CANADA
Colorado NAIS
Florida NAIS
Idaho NAIS
Illinois NAIS
Indiana NAIS
Iowa NAIS
Kansas NAIS
Kentucky NAIS-Voluntary
Louisiana NAIS
Maine NAIS
Massachusetts NAIS
Michigan Nais-Mandatory
Minnesota NAIS
Mississippi NAIS
Missouri NAIS
Montana NAIS
NEBRASKA NAIS-Voluntary
Nevada NAIS
New Hampshire
New Mexico NAIS
New York NAIS
New Zealand-NAIT
North Carolina NAIS
North Dakota NAIS- Resolution
Ohio NAIS
Oklahoma NAIS *Bill introduced
Oregon NAIS
Pennsylvania NAIS
South Carolina NAIS
South Dakota NAIS
Tennessee NAIS
Texas NAIS
Utah NAIS-Voluntary
Vermont NAIS-No funding request
Virginia NAIS
Washington NAIS
Washington D.C. NAIS
Wisconsin NAIS-Mandatory
Wyoming NAIS-Jt Resolution to Congress against NAIS
NAIS Cooperative Agreements
Traceability Equals COOL
Digital Angel
GIS Mapping
Are we all Mis-Informed?
Boycott
Bruce Knight
Quotes with a Capital V
Quotes
USDA Blunders
Approved Tag Resellers
Is NAIS Voluntary?
Talking Points for NO NAIS
USDA OPT OUT
RFID Chips
RFID pg 2
Digital Angel
What will it Cost?
Articles of Importance to NAIS pg 1
Articles of Importance to NAIS pg2
Senators on NAIS
Hay Growers
USDA DataMining
National Agricultural Statistics Service-NASS
National Farmers Union
4-H & NAIS
FFA & NAIS
Bird Flu
Vets & NAIS
State Government is Watching
Pork Magazine
12 Questions to ASK about NAIS
Reportable Diseases
Depopulation
BSE
SPS Agreements
Sustainable Development and or Agenda 21
Codex Alimentarius
A visit from the USDA
Current Equine Outbreaks
Flyers
Real ID / NAIS Comparison
No NAIS Sites
Dogs going NAIS
The Paradigm Shift: Total Transformation
Eminent Domain
Food Safety
What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
Delphi Technique
Are your pet foods "scientifically" made like you think?
NAIS is Censored by the Media
Guide to Good Farming Practices

This is an  abbreviated version of the NAIS Business Plan.
This specifically  pertains to horses as people  were getting confused between documents!
93 pages consolidated  down into 4!!

click here to download file

Breed Registries are Included in NAIS
naisbusinessplanbreedregistries.jpg

div16.jpg

This tactic may sound reasonable until you realize that the dedicated "STAKEHOLDER GROUP" that organizes and oversees local transformation IS NOT ELECTED BY THE PUBLIC. And the people selected
To represent the "citizens" in your community will not present your interests. The chosen "partners", professional staff, and working groups are implenting a new system of governance without asking your opinion.

Quote from Bruce Knight  "Animal identification and tracing information will be kept in state and private databases, not with the USDA. It will ONLY BE ACCESSED WHEN THERE'S A NEED TO TRACE ANIMALS IN A DISEASE OUTBREAK SITUATION."
In 2007 the USDA used the premises ID to located farmers in Colorado during the blizzard to deliver HAY.  How is delivery of hay related to a disease outbreak? NONE, the fact remains the database was compromised by the very people who said your infomation was safe and private. Since when is it the Governments responsibility to deliver hay to private industry?
 

 

div16.jpg

Report of the Equine Species Working Group
Id Info Expo 2004
 
 

Equine Species Report 2004 download file

div16.jpg

****WARNING-DO NOT FILL OUT SURVEYS****
 
2005 - 2007 FIELD TRIALS AND RESEARCH PROJECTS
Page 52
PENNSYLVANIA PILOT PROJECT Participants: PA State University
Funding Expenditure: $205,856
TITLE Investigate Methods to Address Levels of Resistance to the Implementation of the NAIS in the equine industry

FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES The overall goal of the project is to develop an economically feasible method for identification of equine that is acceptable to horse owners and that can enhance the recording movements from activity to activity. Surveys completed by horse owners will help determine resistant factors
Livestock included: Horses

div16.jpg

Horses and NAIS - A Timeline  of the Inclusion of Horses by Karen Nowak

click here to download Horse and NAIS

div16.jpg

Equine Species Working Group Comparison

click here to download ESWG Members Comparison

div16.jpg

What is a CVI? New and important to READ, 2008 Updated to reflect new information taken from the USDA Business Traceablity Plan

What is a CVI? click here to download file

div16.jpg

Equine Working Group Recommendations

click here to download file Aug 1, 2006

div16.jpg

USDA Seeks Comment on NAIS Documents, February 2007
This comment is very disturbing as it is Miss-Information, Half Truths on the part of the Equine Working Group per the Cooperative Agreement.
 

The Draft User Guide is the most current plan for the NAIS, providing comprehensive information about participation in the program.  It replaces all other previously published program documents. 

 

Statement from the 2007 Cooperative Agreement;

 2007 Cooperative Agreement.

 
on page 11 in the CA
Projects must focus on implementation of premises and animal identification methods according to the standards defined in the NAIS Draft Program Standards
 
on page 16 in the CA
"Provide a brief overview of the work to be performed and how the plan builds upon the 2005 or 2006 cooperative agreement plan. Also, explain how this plan will support the timelines for full implementation of NAIS as outlined in the draft strategic plan.
This means the USDA has all intentions of following the Draft Strategic plan.
 
With a statement such as the above how can the Nais User Guide supercede all other documents? This is stated right from a USDA  2007 Cooperative Agreement.
 

click here to download file

div16.jpg

Equine Species Working Group Press Release

 

Click here for link: http://www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com

 

Contact: info@equinespeciesworkinggroup.com

www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com

                                             

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

11/20/2006

 

National Animal Identification System to be Voluntary

Equine Species Working Group Recommends No Movement Reporting

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is emphasizing that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) will be a voluntary program and that no plans are in place to make the program mandatory.

 

The NAIS has been a hot topic of discussion for the past few years concerning livestock - including horses.  It is a system intended to control the spread of disease and to minimize the negative impact of a disease outbreak on the livestock industry.  This would be done through the identification of premises that hold or manage livestock, animal identification and the recording of animal movements. Some states are mandating parts of the system within their state, for example mandatory premises registration in Wisconsin, but the NAIS as a national comprehensive program is not mandatory.

 

“I've been taking a hard look at the program, basically took it all the way down to the frame and rebuilding, trying to make it simpler, make it more evident of what it's all about, trying to dispel some of the misinformation and rumor and innuendo that's been associated with it," said Bruce Knight, the new under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at USDA in an article that appeared on October 20, 2006 on the Brownfield Ag Network.

 

"I think the most important thing for everybody to recognize is this is a voluntary program,” continued Knight. “So that means that we’ve got to have a program that a rancher can look at and say, ‘this is worth the extra cost on my operation.’” 

 

One of the key recommendations made by the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG), the task force developed to evaluate the NAIS and develop recommendations as to how the horse industry might be able to participate in such a system, is that no equine movements should be reported.

 

In their recommendations submitted to the USDA in August, the ESWG proposed that horses that move to a premises where a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI), Brand Inspection, VS-127 permit or International CVI are required should be officially identified and that the records maintained through those currently existing and utilized movement permits capture the high risk movements that pose the largest threat of spreading disease.  Animal health officials would be able to query the state databases in the event of a disease emergency to obtain the necessary records.

 

Other recommendations submitted to the USDA by the ESWG include the standardization of requirements for CVIs, that the equine-related components of the NAIS should provide definitive benefits to the horse industry that exceed the cost to stakeholders, that when practical, the NAIS should be compatible with other nations, especially Canada and Mexico, and that USDA-approved identification and movement databases must be exempt from FOIA requirements. 

 

If horse owners choose to utilize microchips for the purpose of official identification, the ESWG recommends use of the ISO/ANSI compatible RFID chip (11784/85, 134.2 kHz) and that RFID reader and scanner manufacturers and suppliers should make an immediate effort to provide readers and scanners that can read ISO/ANSI 11784/11785 microchips, and read or at least detect all 125 kHz frequency companion animal microchips.

 

For further information on the NAIS, please visit www.usda.gov/nais.  If you have any comments of questions, contact your state Animal Health Official or the USDA.  For information on the ESWG and their recommendations, please visit their website, www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com.

 

 

###

The ESWG is the designated United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) working group for horses on the issue of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  It is the working group’s responsibility to review and evaluate the NAIS and the possible participation of the horse industry in the program, as well as developing recommendations for a national equine identification plan that is in the best interests of, and protects the rights of, horse owners and breeders.   

 

 

div16.jpg

EQUINE SPECIES WORKING GROUP RELEASES NEW RECOMMENDATIONS

In recommendations that were just released, the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG) has apparently responded to the public outcry and recommended that equine movements not be reported. While this is a good development, it’s too early to celebrate.

First, the ESWG is only advisory and has no legal authority. USDA and the state agencies are not bound by the recommendations. The USDA has never formally withdrawn the 2005 published documents – the documents have been taken off the website so that the public no longer has easy access to them, but that has no legal significance.
These earlier government documents would require horse owners to report movements.

Second, the ESWG is still buying in to the NAIS program overall,
after an “initial voluntary period.” Horse owners will not be exempt from Stage 1 of NAIS, premises registration. So if you own a horse, you would still have to register your home with the government. Horse owners will not be exempt from Stage 2 of NAIS, animal identification. In fact, the ESWG recommends that horse owners be required to microchip their horses. The ESWG continues to endorse the ISO 11784/85 microchip, which is designed to be reprogrammable, making it easy for someone to steal your horse and change its identity.

The first two stages of NAIS, premises registration and individual animal identification, have not been shown to benefit horse owners or, indeed, owners of any livestock animals. Why should owning an animal be an event that must be reported to the government and place your property in a database? What happens if there is a disease outbreak and USDA chooses to depopulate animals, rather than testing and quarantining - in which case premises registration just makes it easier for them to find you and your animals? And why should people not be allowed to choose lower-cost means of identifying their animals that are not subject to the technological problems of electronic identification and, in particular, the ISO 11784/85 microchips?

Further, by endorsing the inclusion of horses in the first two stages of NAIS, the likely outcome is that horse movements will ultimately be tracked. The ESWG has not stated that tracking is unnecessary, merely that current forms of tracking for horses should be used. But once other animals are required to report every movement, how long will it be until the government says that the existing tracking of horses is insufficient and they have to be like other livestock? The slippery slope is too slippery.

These concerns are warranted by the ESWG’s history. For two years, the ESWG has recommended that virtually every movement of horses be reported to databases. In both 2004 and 2005, the ESWG recommendations stated that horse owners should be required to report to a database within 24 hours “when horses are transported interstate, *intrastate when commingled with other horses or livestock,* or to premises or events where a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) or other equine health papers such as Coggins are required.” These recommendations would have required reporting of every show, trail ride, trip to the vet or breeding facility, or essentially any other movement of a horse off one’s property. For two years, the ESWG has chosen to ignore the impact that such burdensome and intrusive requirements would place on horse owners. Now that they have chosen to flip their position, there is no guarantee that they will not simply flip back to their original plan as soon as the!
 public outcry has subsided.

The new ESWG recommendations are a step in the right direction. But horse owners need something more than non-binding statements to rely upon. And neither the working groups nor the government agencies have shown good reasons why _any_ livestock animal should be subject to the requirements of NAIS. Carving out limited, and most likely temporary, exceptions for individual species is not the solution.

Enter content here

div16.jpg

Anyone who reads this can do there own research on J. Amelita Facchiano,  The Horse.com refused to print Karens email. As you can see it would have made the Horse.com look bad as well as J.Amelita Facchiano. Now since after this posting to the Horse.com it will be very hard to see any titles after her name.

 Posted 06-21-07 

Almost a year later guess who has worked for the USDA and still is employed after she clearly stated she never worked for the USDA.   J Amelita Facchiano : You see only the  " Truth Prevails"

 Information about VSPS is available from Amelita Facchiano, USDA-APHIS-VS, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, 2150 Centre Ave., Building B, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117; or by e-mail, amelita.facchiano@aphis.usda.gov.

Many of us wrote letters to the editor of the magazine TheHorse.com in response to an article by J. Amelita Facchiano's article on NAIS.
Gisela Swift's letter actually made it into the magazine, which was very exciting.  However, the editors at TheHorse asked Facchiano to respond to Gisela's letter.
Below is exactly what appears in the magazine:
<<
Animal lD email sent   09-30-06
I certainly hope that you report the truths on the implications of the National Animal Identificafication system. This program is a license to raise livestock. No license, no livestock is what it boils down to. It will do nothing other then make the chip companies, the vets, and the states money.
Many questions are unanswered; our lives have been placed on hold due to this program. This program will have a down ward spiral effect should this program be implemented. Can't anyone see this?
Now to J. Amelita Facchiano, who is the chairperson of the NIAA Equine ID, she is on the Equine Species Working Group, works for the USDA, and is a former employee of GlobalVetLink. Of course she will tout the NAIS as a good thing, but for whom?
Gisela M Swift,
Palmer; Alaska .

Response
Editor's Note: We asked J. Amelita Facchiano to reply to Ms. Swift's letter:
Your heartfelt letter is appreciated sincerely. You are not alone in the maze of confusion related to NAIS. Your concerns-specific to the horse-have been heard by many and were taken into consideration by the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG) when shaping the recent recommendations to USDA in August.
We are all horse owners; none of us want any undue burden either. It's easy to read! hear cattle and think horse; however, species recommendations are vastly different as are individual state requirements related to animal health movement and NAIS.
The ESWG goal has always been to proactively seek solutions while keeping any ID need for disease prevention seamless for the industry. We are pleased that recent recommendations do not call for any additional burden to the horse and owner (www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com) .
On a personal note, I have never been an employee of GlobalVetLink or USDA.
My passion for Equine ID traces back to a horse theft incident 15 years ago where my AQHA registered, freeze-branded and RFIDed horses lived.  Since that time I have dedicated my life to the health and welfare of the horse by getting involved at state and federal levels at my own expense.
All royalties from my Handbook on Methods of ID for Theft Protection, Blood- Horse Publications, 1998, go to the American Association of Equine Practitioners Foundation.
For highlights for Animal Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) ID/Info Expo 2006, please see the online proceedings: www.animalagriculture.org
J. Amelita Facchiano, CEO
Marketing Communications Solutions  

>>
To say I am fuming is putting it mildly!  Here is the letter I just sent to the editor of TheHorse:
<<
To the Editor:
Re:  J. Amelita Facchiano's response to Gisela Swift's letter regarding Animal ID.
While I do not doubt Ms Facchiano's passion for Equine ID, I am surprised and dismayed that you did not check your own sources regarding her statement:  "I have never been an employee of GlobalVetLink or USDA".  One finds her variously listed as representing GlobalVetLink and the USDA/APHIS/VS on the American Horse Council and American Institute of Animal Agriculture websites, to name a few.  Even your own magazine lists her link to GlobalVetLink in the April 2005 story "Facchiano Receives NIAA Chairman's Award".  The link to that story may be found here:  http://www.thehorse.com/viewarticle.aspx?ID=5672
Below are just a few of the many links which may be found that refute Ms. Facchiano's claim:
Documents linking Facchiano to GlobalVetLink, LLC:
http://www.globalvetlink.com/includes/eHealth_Certificate_Announcement.pdf
www.horsecouncil.org/04ANPR%20Comments.doc
http://www.thehorse.com/viewarticle.aspx?ID=5672
www.uark.edu/depts/animals/newsletter_files/publications/021003-news_releas...
www.animalagriculture.org/equine/2002EHR/EHR_fall2002.pdf
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=212930519#ref286105347
http://www.aata-animaltransport.org/Publications/newsletters/AATA_1stQtr2004%20Newsletter.pdf
(Pg 17 lists her as Director of Sales and Marketing for GlobalVetLink)

Documents linking Facchiano to the USDA:
www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2005/report-id-2005.pdf
http://www.animalagriculture.org/proceedings/2006AMProceedings.asp
scroll down to:  Equine Health and Current Developments in Electronic Certification for Interstate and International Movement of Animals J. Amelita Facchiano, USDA, APHIS, VS
http://www.horsecouncil.org/equine%20id%20website/ESWG%20Comments%20on%20USDA%20Draft%20Plan.htm
Last, Ms Facchiano may be found in the USDA's e-mail directory for APHIS/VS. 
There are numerous instances of clear conflict of interest amongst individuals actively involved in the process of NAIS, as well as other USDA and FDA programs.  Ms Facchiano's response does nothing to allay those concerns.  Rather it fuels the fires of mistrust.
Karen Nowak
Brookfield, NY
>>
I have saved the above links to documents on my hard drive so they cannot suddenly "disappear", as some of the USDA and ESWG documents did.
I hope others will write letters to the editor as well.  The editor of TheHorse's e-mail address is: 
editorial@thehorse.com
Karen 

 

Update on J. Amelita Facchiano  posted 03-17-07 In her own words which is posted above on her response back to me that she has never worked for the USDA. It appears she DOES work for the USDA. http://ds.usda.gov/Search.aspx

No  Misinformation, No  Half Truths, Just Facts!!!

 

This email address was taken from the  205 USAHA Report Of the Committee on Livestock Identification Amelita.Facchiano@aphis.usda.gov.

Facchiano Amelita APHIS Amelita.Facchiano@usda.gov

 

Premises Registration will be an "Official" USDA unique seven Character identifier.
 
In the New User Guide it states on Page 22:
The premises identification number (PIN) is assigned permanently to a geophysical location. If an owner or entity sells his/her farm, the next operators of the premises use the original premises identification number that had been
assigned to that location. If the seller buys a new location to build a new operation that never had livestock, he/she would register that location and obtain a new premises identification number (PIN).

Premises Identification = Encumbrance

Proud member
                                    of the Read the Bills Act Coalition

Comments on the site are very welcomed.. If you see something that is in error, point it out, if you have a document that needs posting, provide the information and if its state specific post the state.. This site is for all livestock owners..