National Agriculture Statistics Service

[John]

(I posted the following on http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Michigan_Against_NAIS/ the other day.  It is a forum for Michiganians that are against NAIS.)
 

I received a survey form from the NASS. I didn\'t look it over very well, but noticed on the envelop it said \"YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW\". I guess I never liked the government telling me what I have to do and with them wanting to take away more of my so called freedoms thru various forms of NAIS I didn\'t answer their questionnaire. I did however write a note to them, on their form, to remove my name and address from any of their databases and that what I do with my property is my business. A stamp wasn\'t needed on the return envelop, but you and I are paying for it thru taxes anyway.
Anyone want to bail me out of jail when they come for me?

Check out \"USDA Surveys - Mandatory?\" on http://NoNAIS.org.

[Jean]

Can you write, \"I plead the fifth\" or \"I don\'t recall\"?  I would be interested to hear what that little note said in graphic detail.

Jean :p

[bantamhill]

Missouri appears to be way behind the curve on the NAIS movement. I have been to a meeting, but poultry seems to be last on the list.

One interesting point made at the meeting I was at was that having a mandatory system is really not a marketing benefit in the long run because producers who can produce the origins, ect. of the livestock are currently getting better prices than those that don\'t.

Us poultry folks in Missouri are pushing for NPIP to be the standard for poultry.

Michael

[John]

but poultry seems to be last on the list

Poultry is also the last item on the Michigan list, but we need to stop this evil before it goes any further.  Also owners of rabbits and other pets that aren\'t listed yet should be fighting along side everyone else.  Once the Gestapo gets their boot in the door there will be no stopping them.  Don\'t believe the lies and half truths about \"voluntary\" propaganda that the Federales and Farm Bureau are spreading to pacify the masses.
Please surf the sites listed on http://baycitypoultryclub.org to educate yourself and take action!  

[John]

News from http://www.libertyark.net (a great group)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 16, 2007

Contact: Karin Bergener at (330) 298-0065, or
Judith McGeary at (512) 243-9404

Email: bergener@config.com or judith@farmandranchfreedom.org

Legislators in Multiple States Call for a Halt to the National Animal Identification System

Legislators in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington have filed bills to stop the National Animal Identification System, or NAIS, in their states, responding to a wave of public opposition from across the country.

The National Animal Identification System is an industry-government plan to identify and track every livestock animal in the country.  While big agri-businesses and technology companies support the program, individuals and organizations across the country have opposed it.  The objections range from invasion of privacy and property rights to the unknown, but probably high, expenses of the program.

Pat Stewart, Massachusetts Coordinator for Liberty Ark Coalition, contends that NAIS would harm local agriculture and the equine industry.  \"I\'m thrilled that this bill acknowledges the contributions of Massachusetts farmers and horse owners to the Bay State.  Consumers are seeking locally grown food and rural quality of life. This bill will enhance those possibilities.\"   Bernadette Barber, the Virginia Coordinator, speaks of the concerns of everyday individuals: \"We own just a small farmstead--a few cows and pigs for milk and meat for the family freezer, and a few backyard ponies and horses for fun.  NAIS will utterly \'Red Tape\' us to oblivion with unnecessary paperwork and costs.  When the federal government cannot even secure the safety of spinach, I really don\'t want them regulating and charging me for growing my own food.\"

In Washington, Celeste Bishop reflects on the growing grassroots movement: \"It has been a remarkable year of watching small farmers across the country not only bring safe quality food to their families and communities but go the extra mile to mold agricultural policy that is balanced and not fear-based.\"  \"Food security is a big concern for folks these days and the best protection for food security and safety is to know and support your local farmers,\" says Ms. Celeste.

Like the other states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington have been taking federal funds to implement NAIS.  The recently-introduced bills will bring this issue to the forefront of a legislative debate on whether the states should be implementing NAIS over the objections of their residents.

To learn more about NAIS, and what it means for farmers and consumers, visit http://www.libertyark.net.

[Guest]

\"Voluntary\" is only temporary. The 2005 resolution is still in effect. That makes NAIS mandatory in 2009.

[John]

The following article is lengthy, but informative.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY  13617
315-386-3199
mlz@slic.com



January 11, 2007

       Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).  Many people ask if there is any relationship between the survey and the data being collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  As we shall see, although USDA personnel won\'t admit it, NASS data is the foundation of the USDA\'s aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

       To my great surprise, in this morning\'s mail I myself received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS).  I say \"to my great surprise,\" because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever.  I have never before received any type of communication from NASS.

       The envelope states in very large letters, \"YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.\"  The envelope further states that the due date is January 29, 2007.  As explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not in fact \"REQUIRED BY LAW\" to answer it.  Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn\'t actually required to respond.

       The form itself begins with several general questions, such as \"Do you own or rent any land?\"  \"Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?\"  \"Do you receive government payments?\"  The questions appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer \"yes\" is among those \"REQUIRED BY LAW\" to fill out this form.  The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who is not homeless \"owns or rents\" real estate; some 75 million people in the United States \"grow vegetables;\" and some 60 million people receive \"government payments.\"  (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)

       Now, perhaps it is possible that this \"wide net\" might not be as intrusive as it appears.  After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers.  But in fact it was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach.  This morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDA\'s Helena, Montana call center.  According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture.  She stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these people have been sent the 2006 AIS.  When asked for some conjecture as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a \"horse magazine\" might have been included in the database.

       Now, that raises interesting questions.  How is the USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of \"horse magazines\"?  Why and how are \"horse magazines,\" or, for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

       Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question?  During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people\'s incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a trivial question.

       Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever wider.  The form states:  \"Many people who don\'t consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture.\"  \"We need your completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural activity.\"  Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the \"REQUIRED BY LAW\" language of the envelope:
\" \'Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.\' \"  (Emphasis in original.)  (Note the single-double quotation marks - the threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of \"quoting\" something to make it appear extra-important.)  One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has referred to the \"definition of a farm or ranch\" but nowhere tells us that definition.  It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not meet the definition of a \"farm.\"

       Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the definition of a \"farm\" and the possible legal penalties for not responding to the 2006 AIS.  Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition of \"farm\" as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was correct.  (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs, www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1. )   Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC � 2204g (d) (2), namely, that a \"person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,\" I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS.  These questions were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

       The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician.  First we addressed the question of the \"farm\" definition.  Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the \"farm\" definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS.  She also conceded that the basic definition of a \"farm\" as an operation with at least $1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain \"point values\" for particular agricultural activities.  If the points add up to 1000, your operation would meet the definition of a \"farm.\"  When asked for an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal a farm but 4 would not.  (Subsequently, she explained that each equine equals 200 points.)  When asked how many cattle equal a \"farm,\" Ms. Sprague said she did not know.  At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list.  But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she would \"advise\" anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire, although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses would not meet the definition of a \"farm\" and therefore would not be required to fill out the survey.

       We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list for the 2006 AIS.  First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS mailing list are \"confidential.\"  I noted the call-center woman\'s reference to a subscription to a \"horse magazine\" as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources.  Ms. Sprague said that growers\' associations, such as the Wheat Growers\' Association and Barley Growers\' Association, were examples of sources.  I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any, claiming that some are \"confidential\" and some are \"not confidential.\"  She explained the overall process of list building thus:  as NASS comes across lists where there are \"possibilities of agricultural activity,\" NASS incorporates those names into its mailing list.

       We returned to the subject of \"point values\" for different livestock.  Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or other non-equine livestock.  She put me on hold for a long while.  Subsequently, she gave me the following point values:  beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head.  (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

       Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on the point values.  For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5 horses, \"because it wouldn\'t be ethical.\"  (But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly \"ethical.\"  And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states\' continued receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

       We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine.  Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer\'s failure to answer any or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine.  She also said that the fine is \"rarely enforced\" and that if any \"producer\" \"chooses\" not to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

       Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, \"Absolutely none.\"  I asked her if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASS\'s database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, \"Absolutely not.\"  And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. � 2204g (f) (3), \"Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.\"

       Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri\'s solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA).  Dr. Goff provided written answers on December 20, 2006.  When asked where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr. Goff stated:  \"the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.\"

       I won\'t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey.  Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States Senators.  I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS\'s compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System.  Why will I do this?  Because I don\'t live by the USDA\'s false code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.

Mary Zanoni is a lawyer and small-farm activist in rural upstate New York. She publishes the Farm for Life Newsletter, a quarterly print publication covering the National Animal Identification System and related issues. Subscriptions are $25 per year, payable by check to Farm for Life, P.O. Box 501, Canton, NY 13617.\"

[John]

Attention Michiganians!

ACTION ALERT- PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING
On Monday, January 29 there will be a meeting in Lansing with the Michigan Department of Agriculture.
 
ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED

The MDA will have a presentation on the record regarding the Bovine TB eradication program.  They will then have a time for public comments and a Q&A.  It will cover the Bovine TB zones and RFID tagging.  The chance to have a question and answer segment on the record is very important!!  They will hear oral and take written comments and put both on the record.


CALL TO ACTION

1. PLEASE ATTEND

We need as many people as possible to come to this meeting. Make your
Voice heard!! Support small farmers, consumers, and recreational
animal owners who oppose RFID and NAIS. Please
prepare a written statement to leave for the record. The link below
has a good sample letter.
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/Nationwide%20flyer%2012.2.06.doc

Monday, January 29, 2007

9:00 am

The Library of Michigan
 
The Library of Michigan is located in the Michigan Library and Historical Center building two blocks west of the State Capitol between Allegan and Kalamazoo Streets at 702 W. Kalamazoo St. in Lansing.

Contact Lisa Imerman at 248-618-9266 or email at Lrimerman@comcast.net if you are planning to attend and/or for carpool info.

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE NOW!

If you would like to read more about NAIS you can check out the
following sites:

www.farmandranchfre edom.org

www.freetofarm.com

www.libertyark.org

Talk to people about this. Raise Awareness!.

[Guest]

John if it wasn’t registered id tosses it. They can\'t prove you ever got it...

Me, I would shred it up even if it were registered.

Charlie