Welcome to Naisinfocentral and Animal Disease Traceability

Michigan Nais-Mandatory

Animal Disease Traceability
Hot Alerts-New
NAIS "Official" USDA Documents
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
Colorado NAIS
Florida NAIS
Idaho NAIS
Illinois NAIS
Indiana NAIS
Kansas NAIS
Kentucky NAIS-Voluntary
Louisiana NAIS
Maine NAIS
Massachusetts NAIS
Michigan Nais-Mandatory
Minnesota NAIS
Mississippi NAIS
Missouri NAIS
Montana NAIS
Nevada NAIS
New Hampshire
New Mexico NAIS
New York NAIS
New Zealand-NAIT
North Carolina NAIS
North Dakota NAIS- Resolution
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?
Bruce Knight
Quotes with a Capital V
USDA Blunders
Approved Tag Resellers
Is NAIS Voluntary?
Talking Points for NO NAIS
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
Bird Flu
Vets & NAIS
State Government is Watching
Pork Magazine
12 Questions to ASK about NAIS
Reportable Diseases
SPS Agreements
Sustainable Development and or Agenda 21
Codex Alimentarius
A visit from the USDA
Current Equine Outbreaks
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

Get involved with your NONAIS State Group:
Subscribe: Michigan_Against_NAIS-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

State of Michigan Establishment of Zones for Bovine Tuberculosis ( Identification, Testing, Permitting and Movement requirements

click here to download file

Posted 09-23-07

East Jordan, Michigan

On Tuesday, September 18, Sheriff George Lassiter informed Michigan cattle farmer Greg Niewendorp that the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) has secured a warrant to go on Niewendorp’s property to TB test his herd and apply NAIS compliant radio frequency identification ear tags to the cattle.  Since February, when he submitted a letter to the MDA stating that he would not participate in the MDA’s dangerous experimental TB herd testing program, Niewendorp has refused to let MDA on his property.  On August 21, state police and an MDA representative came illegally onto Niewendorp’s property attempting to coerce him into having his herd tested, and Niewendorp politely escorted them off.

Sheriff Lassiter told Niewendorp and the MDA that, as the server of the warrant, he will give Niewendorp 72-hour notice before serving him the warrant.  The 3 day notice will allow time to notify supporters to assemble at Niewendorp’s. 

It is important that as many people as possible assemble at Niewendorp’s farm the day the MDA plans to trespass to test and tag the cattle. Niewendorp’s intent is that the cattle NOT be tested or tagged.  Niewendorp wants as many people as possible to come. Please be ready to assemble once the 72-hour notice has been given.  Niewendorp plans to “open the freezer” and have an all-day cookout for everyone who joins with him in standing up for his God-given divine rights and preventing the barbaric behavior of the MDA.

The MDA will have an undisclosed number of police "to assist."  In my conversation with Bridget Patrick, coordinator of the TB herd eradication program, she insisted the police were just coming "to assist."  Though she went through a number of verbal gyrations to try and eliminate any concerns I might have, she was quite evasive in answering my pointed questions concerning the nature of that "assistance."  The bottom line is, the more people who show up, the better off everyone will be.  There IS safety in numbers.

Please bring video recording equipment and cameras.

We will send updates (and directions) with any new information.

Greg Niewendorp is putting everything on the line for the freedom and rights of all of us.  Let us not fail him.


Greg Niewendorp

4185 Beishag Road

East Jordan, MI 49735


Non-Compliance Relief Fund

Taking a stand of non-compliance puts a tremendous toll on one’s resources.  The National Organization for Raw Materials (NORM) established the Non-Compliance Relief Fund to provide specific support for those like Greg NIewendorp who take such a courageous position.  To support Greg and others like him, please donate here or send a check made out to Non-Compliance Relief Fund to:

Non-Compliance Relief Fund

c/o NORM

680 E 5 Point Highway

Charlotte, MI 48813

Many thanks,

Deborah Stockton, Editor


The Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA)

Our purpose is to promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer trade 

that fosters availability of locally grown or home-produced food products.

VICFA opposes any government funded or managed National Animal Identification System.

Posted 21 August, 2007

Greg Niewendorp, East Jordan, Michigan

Last February Greg submitted a carefully written letter to the Michigan Department of Agriculture stating his position and informing them that he would not allow them onto his property to experiment on his carefully raised and managed herd of heritage breed cattle as part of their USDA overseen TB herd eradication program. This afternoon Greg escorted off his property state police and a representative of the Michigan Department of Agriculture who had come to coerce Greg into having his herd experimented on. After this program was instigated and the experimental nature of the testing procedure made clear, Greg refused to subject his herd to the experimental testing protocols. This afternoon, with no notice, they appeared illegally on his property, with a state vet lying in wait around the corner down the street. After conducting them to the property line, Greg spoke with them for several minutes, conversing with them about respect with regard to personal and professional conduct. They asked to have a meeting with him to "discuss this further" and Greg agreed to consider their request.

Greg immediately contacted the local sheriff, who should have been informed, and, in fact, who is the proper and legitimate authority on local law issues, and related to him the afternoon's happening.

Greg will not comply with Michigan's invasive, illegal experimentation on his herd of cattle.

May I ask .....What happened to VOLUNTARY??? 
Oh thats right Its only "Voluntary at Federal Level"
Michigan is Mandatory March 1, 2007 for Cattle, it won't be long until the rest of the "National Herd" is FORCED into this Legalized Theft of private property.
Can someone tell me what happened to our Constitutional Rights?   
Is anyone listening to public comment at Michigan Regulary Hearing on NAIS?  Nope!!! No one is home.
Read the story on how THEY are not Listening...
Each state is listening to the United Nations, The Who, The OIE thats Who. You no longer Count!!!!
Michigan snuck in the  NAIS under their TB program no input from the legal law abiding Michigan citizens.  

Posted 03-07-7 Following is a letter from Greg Niewendorp, the first “official” NAIS non-complier, to the Michigan Ag. Dept. For those unaware of Greg’s situation, please see David Gumpert’s blog: www.thecompletepatient.com

Gregory Lee Niewendorp
4185 Beishlag Road
East Jordan, MI 49735

To: State of Michigan
Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested

Department of Agriculture Certified
Mail # ________________

Mitch Irwin, Director Also by fax transmission
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, MI 48909

Your office indicated an intent to place a quarantine on my farm. Your authorized representative Mr. Kevin Lauterwasser on February 21, 2007 stated in the alleged QUARANTINE that I violated: “Annual TB Whole Herd Testing”.

PLEASE BE ADVISED, without obtaining the information requested in this communication, I am unable to acknowledge your alleged authority to place a quarantine on my farm, and therefore must insist that until you have shown me compliance with the statutory mandates (which must be met prior such a quarantine being placed) that you are from my perspective without authority to act.

Prior to your alleged QUARANTINE, I had voluntarily met with Dr. Dan Graham, DVM, who is head of the TB Eradication Program and expressed my concerns to him about TB being a contagious disease. I specifically verbally requested documentation from the Department showing that indeed Bovine TB actually is a contagious disease, MCL 287.703(12) which states

“Contagious disease” means an illness due to a specific infectious agent or suspected infectious agent or its toxic products which arises through transmission of that agent or its products from an infected animal, or inanimate reservoir to a susceptible host, either directly or indirectly through an intermediate plant or animal host vector, or the inanimate environment, or via an airborne mechanism.

Absent a clear showing that TB is a contagious disease as defined above, it is my position that you are without authority and indeed are exceeding your authority by attempting to Quarantine my Farm.

No response from the Department has been received. I am renewing that request by this communication in writing. I believe that I am entitled ascertain that you are acting within the scope of your authority since this action has a direct impact on my constitutional rights, and I am entitled to constitutional protections.

Further, you have alleged that my non-compliance with your request constitutes a crime involving a felony charge with a $1,000.00 to $50,000.00 fine and imprisonment of up to 5 years or both. Being threatened with a felony charge by the state, I am entitled to my full constitutional guarantees.

Please be advised that based upon the criminal consequences, my constitutional rights against self-incrimination prohibit me from signing the Compliance Statement.

You are aware that my farm is posted with No Trespassing signs and are subject to all legal consequences arising from any unauthorized entry. You are advised that your Department is not to enter onto my farm without a properly executed search warrant since any entry by your department would be to obtain criminal evidence which mandates a search warrant. My position against your entry onto my premises is not affected by the authority granted to the state veterinarian MCL 287.708(3) since all law enforcement agencies are required in such circumstances to have a valid search warrant.

Please provide written documentation (with specificity) how any disease you may suspect on my farm provides an “economic impacts” required by the general definition of disease, MCL 287.703(17).

The USDA has provided a Special Grant to the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station as reported in the MAES, January 7, 2007 publication. Please advise whether the proposed actions on my farm are part of a surveillance and or monitoring program.

Further, I make by a formal FOIA request that you provide the underlying authority which allows you to to carry out this surveillance and monitoring which must be present as required by MCL 287.708 (1)(e).

My review of the USDA Special Grants material appears to have established the Program without the requested epidemiology as reported in the MAES January 7, 2007 publication.

From my perspective this is nothing more than a research program carried out under the guise of fighting a contagious disease.

This program by mandating my cattle to be utilized in this research program, ordering a quarantine of my farm and without proper compensation to myself, or the giving right to not participate or opt out of this program constitutes a fraud.

This premise is based on the fact that your office has still not provided me with the epidemiological basis showing both the contagious nature of the disease and how my farm is directly at risk based on the Director’s determination.

Further, until such information is provided, it is my position that the Director by ordering an (alleged) Quarantine of my farm is acting fraudulently beyond the scope of your authority and are using my cattle without my express authorization in a experimental research project

Please be Advised, my refusal to allow the testing is based upon your department’s failure to provide me with the basis underlying your authority to so act.

Please Be Advised, it is my understanding that the state, as part of this experimental program, plans to inject my cattle with allegedly toxic substances.

Further, prior to any such injection, I require clear scientific evidence showing that there is no risk to any of my cattle by such experimental injections and an agreement by the state to indemnify and hold me harmless from any unseen or unintended consequences arising from such injection or some other reaction caused by such injection, this indemnity is not to be waived by the provisions my acceptance of any indemnity you might pay under this program where you require my total release of the state from all liability, MCL 287.714(6) which provision from my perspective is unconscionable making this provision unconstitutional.

Further, as part of a formal FOIA request, provide me with a copy of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication, Uniform Methods and Rules which you are following effective January 1, 2005 or any amendments thereto, and show the Number of CFT tests conducted and how these tests (on a consecutive time frame) have remained in compliance with those standards.

Further, it is my position that these standards do not constitute an epidemiological basis for the proposed action and are experimental in nature and I should not be required to subject my cattle to such experimental procedures.

Further, your proposed injection of my cattle with a toxic substance may have a direct adverse impact on my own long term study of alleviating mineral deficiencies and that effect on the health and improved immunology of my animals.

Further, I have orally indicated to Dr. Graham my willingness to become a test program to allow the Department to take tissue, blood and milk samples, and allow monitoring disclosure of my management program which will meet any of your objectives without the potential adverse impact caused by your proposed injections intended to be done without providing me with the supporting documentation. If you agree to this proposal we will enter into contract negotiations to set forth all protocols for such a program.

Further, it is my position that the statute MCL 287.742 (6) (b) makes correct reference to brucellosis surveillance but fails to properly cite 9 CFR 77 when referring to tuberculosis surveillance. Please advise if this is an incorrect reference or whether amendment has been made to the USDA applicable rules and procedures. Also as a formal FOIA request provide a copy of the applicable rules, procedures and guidelines for tuberculosis surveillance as conducted through the cattle identification program.

Further, I am informed and believe it to be true that a determination by Horizon Organic Milk does not approve the codifold tuberculin testing material for milk that they purchase.

Further, I make a formal FOIA request for any material obtained by or in possession of your department relating to the position taken by Horizon Organic Milk, and any studies or other research within your department or in it possession regarding the effect of these injected substances on organic milk and that this be provided prior to any ordered injection of my cattle.

I further request under this FOIA to be advised as to any studies regarding the long term effect of any such injection of my cattle.

This may adversely impact every animal so injected as to both its present and future viability in my farming operation.

All of my review of available material causes me to determine that this a fraudulent attempt to carry out research on my cattle without my consent and without offering a negotiated fair market value for involving my farm in experimental testing that could pose unknown adverse impact on my cattle, their offspring and therefore on my entire farming operation.

As a further condition of my willingness to proceed with this experimental program, I will require the state to agree to indemnify and hold me harmless both for damage to my animals caused by your experimental program and potential future damage to my farming operation due to unintended and unknown results from such experimental injections.

Please be Advised, I request a copy of the epidemiological review of the contagious nature of the Bovine TB, and, if one has not been done, I request such an epidemiological review be done.

Further, I request a waiver of the annual TB Whole Herd Testing as reference in the alleged Quarantine Notice (and throughout the state) by the Director pursuant to MCL 287.708(6) pending the completion of the epidemiological review.

Please be Advised, I do not have any suspicion that any animals on my premises are affected by any reportable disease.

In placing this alleged quarantine on my farm, you are maintaining that you do suspect such an animal being on my premises.

I am making a formal request that you immediately provide me with the scientific basis constituting your reason for making the determination that you suspect that such an animal is on my premises.

This must be given to provide a basis in law for infringement of my constitutional rights caused by imposition of the alleged quarantine of my property and threat of criminal allegations charging me with a felony. I take this as a very serious threat against myself, my family, my farm and my ability to provide for my family. All done without providing me with the necessary fundamental due process.

I am requesting a copy of the latest report which you filed with the legislature pursuant to MCL 287.714 (11), this is intended to be a formal FOIA request to your Department.

I am informed you have determined that my farm is in a high risk area under MCL 278.709 (11).

Provide me with the closest TB positive tested cattle to my premises and the number of cattle so tested, the distance to my premises and the disease vector factors upon which you are relying to include my property within this high risk area.

It is further my position that your current demand for whole herd testing of privately owned cattle farms appears to be an unfunded mandate since in the event you are taking an animal you must specifically request special funding from the legislature MCL 287.714 (5) which since this is part of a federally mandated program stands in clear violation of 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and also the Michigan Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act by discrimination against the agricultural and live stock producers and raisers.

Submitted this 28th day of February, 2007


Gregory Lee Niewendorp

cc. Animal Industry Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture,
Attn., Reg. Agent Kevin Lauterwasser, 16860 M-32 East, P.O. Box 758,
Atlanta, MI 49709-9900

NAIS Has Its First Official Resister--Michigan Responds with a Farm Quarantine and Threat of Jail


It’s been only a few hours since the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) made its voluntary-to-required debut in Michigan, and already a farmer is challenging its underpinnings. The Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) quickly responded by quarantining his farm.

Here is what happened: Greg Niewendorp, owner of a 160-acre farm in East Jordan in the upper peninsula, made good on his pledge, stated in my “Farmers Say No to Animal Tags” BusinessWeek.com article in December, to resist all MDA orders related to NAIS. So when MDA reps came around a few weeks back to test his 19 cows for bovine tuberculosis, he refused to allow the testing.

Since MDA has justified its requirement that all cattle wear radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to comply with NAIS on the basis of using the national program to fully eradicate bovine TB, Niewendorp decided that the time had come to make his stand. “Michigan is being used as a model to implement NAIS,” he told me.

“I have been under a whole-herd (TB) test program for six years,” he said. “This year I refused it.”

Why this year? "I made a decision I was going to refuse to comply, and bring this to a focal point and show that there are those of us who are not going to go along with" the government's agenda. The quarantine doesn’t have a practical effect on Niewendorp’s farm business, since he doesn’t trade cattle and thus doesn’t have animals leaving and arriving. He breeds his own cattle, and sells meat directly to consumers.

But the quarantine could have a huge legal impact on him, since non-compliance with the bovine TB test can lead to a felony charge, with conviction resulting in a jail sentence of up to five years and a fine up to $50,000.

Niewendorp responded to the MDA’s action with a five-page letter in which he demands that the MDA provide evidence that bovine TB is contagious, and that his particular farm is at risk.

He also warns MDA “that your department is not to enter onto my farm without a properly executed search warrant since any entry by your department would be to obtain criminal evidence which mandates a search warrant.”

He expresses concern that his cattle could be placed at risk by the bovine TB test for actually contracting the disease. “I require clear scientific evidence showing that there is no risk to any of my cattle of such experimental injections and an agreement by the state to indemnify and hold me harmless from any unseen or unintended consequences arising from such injection…”

Niewendorp is clearly a man of his word. One question: Will other farmers take a similar stand?
Now lets take you over to this site which belongs to Michigan Government
  1. What is the official date for using RFID electronic tags?
  1. Starting March 1, 2007, all cattle must be identified with RFID electronic ear tags prior to movement from premises.
  1. When do I, as a producer, have to tag my cattle?
  1. Cattle are to be tagged if they are leaving the farm to be sold or changing ownership. However, producers are encouraged to tag animals born on their farms while the animals are small.



Greg Niewendorp's plight is emblematic of how the government is actually harming its ability to manage livestock diseases by insisting upon the over-the-top approach of NAIS. Any number of livestock owners who, like Niewendorp, formerly were open to complying with government demands, now are resistant to government livestock programs because NAIS proves that the government knows no boundaries in interfering with our daily lives. If livestock owners unite in resistance to NAIS, the government will have to end this unrealistic program, which has been rightly called the USDA's "Katrina."
Mary Zanoni

ACTION ALERT: Michigan Mandatory Cattle RFID Tagging Program

The RFID program for cattle will go into full effect this week.  But if we work together, we can still make a difference.

We are waiting for the legislation in the house to receive a bill number and find out when it will be formally introduced.


•    Contact State Representative Jeff Mayes.  He is the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.  Ask him and the committee to support legislation to stop mandatory electronic animal identification programs in the State of Michigan.  See attached sample letter.  You can fax, mail, email or call his office to get your message heard.  Representative Jeff Mayes, S1285 House Office Building, P.O. Box 30014, Lansing, MI 48909-7514, Facsimile (517) 373-0158, Phone (517) 517-373-0158, email: jeffmayes@house.mi.gov 

•    Contact your State Representative and State Senator and educate them on the issues and urge them to support legislation to stop mandatory animal identification programs in Michigan.  You can use the attached sample letter to Jeff Mayes as a guide to send to other legislators.  You can find your State Senator at http://www.senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm  You can find your State Representative at  http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp 

•    Contact all members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.   The members of the House Agriculture Committee can be found here  http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=agriculture   The members of the Senate Agriculture Committee can be found here http://www.ciclt.net/wmu/main.asp?O_ID=misagr&PT=poc_detail&Client=wmu   
Ask the committee members to support legislation to bar mandatory electronic animal identification in Michigan.  You can use the attached sample letter with minor changes to contact these legislators.

•    Continue to contact the Governor and let her know that you oppose the Mandatory RFID Animal Tagging program.  You can find contact information for Governor Granholm at http://michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995---,00.html 

•    FARM BUREAU ISSUES—The National Farm Bureau has been integral in the building of a NAIS.  The Michigan Farm Bureau has supported the Mandatory Electronic Animal Identification system in Michigan.  They are lobbying hard to keep this program going.  If you are a farmer who is a member of Farm Bureau, you can try to push for change from within.  Or simply cancel your membership and tell them why you are doing so.  There are plenty of other insurance companies that can give you a competitive rate for all farm and personal insurance needs.  See this article for more information http://ruralheritage.com/stop_nais/farmbureau01.htm   (be sure to click through all the pages via the links at the bottom to read the entire 9 sections of the article).

•    Keep educating everyone you know.  This is to some degree a numbers game, the more we get people involved the better chance we have to stop the program.

•    Support groups who are working to stop mandatory electronic animal ID and other important agriculture issues.  Some of these groups are: Healthy Traditions Network (www.htnetwork.org ); Weston A. Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org ); Liberty Ark Coalition (www.libertyark.net );  Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (www.farmandranchfreedom.org ).  You can support them by joining, volunteering, signing up for action alerts on their websites and spreading the word of their missions.

For more information contact Lisa Imerman at Lrimerman@comcast.net  or go to www.libertyark.net 

Sample letter – be sure to personalize it for the greatest effect!  Talking points for phone calls are after the letter

Representative Jeff Mayes
S1285 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Via Facsimile (517) 373-0158

Re: Michigan Mandatory Cattle RFID Tagging

Dear Mr. Mayes:

I am a concerned citizen of Michigan who opposes the Mandatory Cattle RFID Tagging Program that is being implemented by the Michigan Department of Agriculture under the guise of the Bovine TB Eradication Program.  This mandatory tagging is part of the effort to introduce the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) into Michigan.  The United States Department of Agriculture has publicly stated that NAIS is voluntary at the federal level, yet the Michigan Department of Agriculture has continued to push it on the people o f this State.

I am opposed to both the Michigan Program and the NAIS for many reasons.  I agree that the Michigan Department of Agriculture needs to address Bovine TB in Michigan and protect our food supply.  Despite their statements to the contrary, however, this program will not achieve those goals and will hurt the State of Michigan.  This program does not address the cause, treatment or transmission of animal diseases. The current problem with Bovine TB in Michigan can be directly traced to the wild deer population.  There is no provision in this program or in the rest of the Bovine TB eradication program for dealing with the wildlife population and the reason why we still have Bovine TB in Michigan.  The current cattle tagging program is effective in allowing the MDA to trace disease outbreaks and to control herd information.   Disease control protocols that work are already in place.  The RFID tagging program has not been properly planned or tested, and is overly burdensome to the farmers and the Michigan economy.  

The Michigan RFID tagging program will not help increase food safety.  The tags are removed after an initial inspection is done at the slaughterhouse.  With or without an RFID tag, once the animal becomes food it is impossible to trace any type of contaminated food product back to the farm.  Moreover, most food safety problems, such as e.coli and salmonella, are due to problems in food processing and handling.  Increased inspections, better slaughterhouse conditions and moving away from the confinement operation model of farming will increase food safety.

The Governor's Michigan Food Policy Council has been working hard to increase the economic standing of the agriculture sector in Michigan.  The council has recommended that programs be developed to help small farmers stay in business.  The council wants Michigan Government to support and help grow the organic farming sector and take advantage of that rapidly growing market share.  The goal is to increase consumer spending of food dollars on locally grown agriculture and food products.  This RFID tagging program will do the exact opposite; it will force small, local farmers out of business and make them economically unable to compete for those local food dollars.  Agriculture is the second largest sector of the Michigan economy and this program will cut off an important portion of that sector.  Our state cannot afford to bankroll an expensive program that will cut off an important economic growth avenue and will not be able to achieve its stated goals.

There has been mention of an increased ability to export our cattle with an electronic identification system.  However, the market can implement a system that will benefit those farmers who wish to export.  There is no need for the government to be involved in such a market-driven system.  The government should not force the small farmers who have no interest in being a part of the export market to submit to such a burdensome program.

I urge you to listen to the citizens of the State of Michigan and this nation who are in ever increasing numbers expressing their objection to a mandatory electronic animal identification system.  I ask you and the House Agriculture Committee to support legislation that will protect the farmers and consumers from this state-mandated program.

Email, if you have it

Talking points for calls

Economic Damage.  NAIS and the Michigan's Mandatory RFID Cattle tagging program will drive farmers and ranchers out of business and hurt Michigan's economy

   o    There has been no cost analysis by USDA or MDA

   o    Costs of the program = the cost of the tags, hardware, software, and labor

   o    Small farmer and ranchers will pay these costs, and many cannot afford it.

   o    Service providers (veterinarians, feed stores, auction houses, meat processors, etc.) will be harmed when the farmers and ranchers go out of business.

   o    Remaining farmers will pass the costs on to consumers, lowering demand for local foods.

   o    The Governor's Michigan Food Policy Council recommended increasing the purchasing of Michigan-grown food products, supporting local farmers, to stimulate Michigan's economy.  MDA's program undermines these goals.

   o    Export isn't the answer for Michigan's local farmers.

No Scientific Basis.  Neither the USDA nor the MDA has scientific proof show that this will improve disease control

   o    It does not address the cause, treatment, or transmission of disease, in domestic or wild animals.

   o    It does not significantly improve on current methods for identification and tracking of disease.  Even with the RFID program in place, MDA recommends farmers still keep written field records.  So, farmers must now use two systems.

Not for Food Safety  The program will not improve food safety

   o    USDA itself has stated that this is not a food safety program

   o    Contamination of food with e. coli and other bacteria occurs at the slaughterhouse or afterwards.

Not About Terrorism  The program will not protect against terrorism.

•    The microchips chosen by the state can be cloned, destroyed, or infected with computer viruses, and reprogrammed. Any terrorist or thief can use this.

•    The database of information will be created by Michigan but available to USDA.  Government databases can be hacked into.
Unconstitutional The NAIS and Michigan's mandatory Cattle RFID tagging program infringes on people's constitutional rights, including due process, privacy, and religious freedom.  MDA's proposal to address religious concerns isn't fully defined. Voluntary Federal NAIS USDA states that NAIS is voluntary at the federal level, so there is no "federal mandate" requiring MDA to move forward with this program.

   o    The MDA has signed a Cooperative Agreement with USDA, however, and is also getting federal funds for implementing the cattle tagging program.  MDA is following funding, not the will of the citizens of the state.

   o    MDA also has a conflict of interest because one of the main officials implementing this program, Kevin Kirk, is the Treasurer for an industry organization (NIAA) that is advocating for NAIS.

No Legal Basis  MDA is implementing this new program via policy change, with no new legislation or the normal regulatory process.

   o    Without any pre-notification, the MDA simply assigned a USDA premises number to all people who had herds tested in the TB Eradication program, which may lead to expensive litigation over misuse of people's information

Enter supporting content here

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..