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