National Animal ID System

[John]

See the front page and page 43 articles in the Poultry Press, July issue.  Then check out the USDA website.

[philipu]

See the front page and page 43 articles in the Poultry Press, July issue.  Then check out the USDA website. :o

I hope all are signing in under the Hot Topics, on this issue. in opposition.
I saw somewhere, someone calling it  \"marking of the Beast\",
what...who....will they try next.
I think today is the last day to respond on the site.
you posted of the USDA site.

[faith valley]

This is a topic of much consern.  I had to attend a seminar on the National ID program in May, while I recertified for my Ohio Pollorum tester certificate.  It was presented as a done deal that all species would eventually have to comply with the ID program- that poultry wasn\'t due to go \"on board\" until 2009.  What a hassle this program will be. Why would anyone want to register their farm and the movement of all of their animals on a national computer?

Poultry shows will become a thing of the past as the small hobbiest folks will no longer exsist.  It will become too expensive to maintain this program.  I can\'t imagine putting chips on all of the birds that I hatch each year and then entering each sale into a computer.  I dont have that kind of time just laying around.

This fall I have to go back for an additional seminar to become a licensed state agent for Ohio.   I am sure that this topic will be one that will be discussed again.  I hope that everyone will voice their concerns about what the government is trying to do here.  Regulating and tracking the world\'s meat supply sounds a bit scary to me.  We were told that many other countries are already on this program or one similar to it.  

Each chip that is put on the animal would have the country\'s prefex number in addition to the originating farm, in addition to the individual bird\'s number.  They explain that this program is meant to track disease with in a 48 hour time frame.  I am not sure that is the only reason for doing it,  sounds like we are not being presented the entire package or entire reason for this plan.  It just seams like we are missing something in the presentation.

~Patty~

[Guest]

Sounds like \"Big Brother\' to me.

John for those who don\'t get the PP maybe you could give a condensed version of whats going on.

[John]

The PP article says you have until the 25th to submit, but Phil is right the USDA gives today as the deadline.  PLEASE take a minute to submit a comment.  Go to the website and click on \"Submit a Comment
(Closes July 6, 2005)\" under \"Hot Topics\".  A Docket Number will appear.  Go thru the prompts until you get to the page where you can comment.  Copy and paste the comments below, from the PP, to make it easy.  Under \"Subject/Title\" enter Exhibition Poultry.  Under \"Company/Group/Association\" enter your name and include APA & ABA.
Get everyone else to do the same before the night is over.  The more comments the better.  They will be used later when this goes to congress.

I am not in favor of adopting this program for identification of exhibition poultry.  This behemoth program will remove many of my rights to the privacy of enjoying, breeding and exhibiting purebred poultry without government interference.  Using current show statistics, exhibition poultry alone would require the reporting of over 1,800,000 pieces of data to comply with animal movement regulations.  If these proposals are implemented and made mandatory, my industry may be eliminated due to over regulation.  This will also remove the ability of any small-scale livestock owner to raise animals for food or for enjoyment as well as discourage youth participating in 4-H and/or FFA poultry projects.

[Guest]

, I made a comment to them as well. But I have to say I feel l kind of silly reading comment after comment that were just copies of other\'s comments.  Sort of makes us poultrymen look like robots, or idiots, Unable to think for ourselves..I wonder if the will actually read our coments?? or do like me and just move on, kind of boring reading the exact comment over & over.
 
here is what I wrote
 
APHIS-2005-0044-0372  
 
To Whome it may concern, I have been reading a bit about then new regulations being developed for all animals, and as much as I can agree it is good to know were animals come frome, and were they have been, I do not nessisarily agree with the proposed methods of identification. We currently use Wing bands on our birds. They are conciderd perminate, and are nicely conceled by the feathers, so as to not interfear with the aperance of the birds. We chose wing bands for several reasons, one being they can be applyed at a young age, and remain with the bird throughout it\'s life, and even on birds that are slotterd, the band stays intact, until the wing is removed. The bands are clipped into the wing web. I do not understand what the purpose of a 15 diget # would be?? our current system utilizes bands with 3-4 digets, and we choose to spend the extra $$\'s and have the farm name stamped onto the backs of the tags. Would not just recording of these identification numbers be sufficent?? Why do we need a number supplyed by the government?? and of your choosing?? I am sure these will be random numbers, that may have a government purpose, but would be sure to mess up the exhisting identification plan we use. Our number system not only identifyes the bird, but also serves as a date code as to the hatch year, etc. And with out flock name on the back, it also acts as an advertisement ofr out birds and products. Thank you for listening Rita Johnson McKee\'s Fowl Farm  

[John]

I would normally agree that it sounds odd to all send the same exact comments, but here is the main reason I suggested it.  In the PP article, by Dave Adkins, he said \"We believe it is important for all of us to speak with one voice and so request you stick to our prepared test.\"
When the government asks for public comments they are often looking more for how many are for and against whatever, along with different reasons.  Since we are basically all against their proposal we are kind of like adding our names on a petition by all sending the same comments.  Many PACs ask their members to do the same very often.
With the last minute urgency, I offered the \"copy\" & \"paste\" option to make it as easy as possible for others to comment.

 

[Guest]

Well, I have to say, that is aparently what has happend, as each group was made aware, comment after comment were published, all identical to their group\'s \"Blue-Print\" letter, intermixed with a few \"origional coments\" and several \"Job Aplications\", by far the largest group of coments is from the FSA offices and folks supporting them, and sadly their letters were not in opposition to the program, bur rather a plea to let them handle the transitions!!
What I thought was being asked for were suggestions and examples as to how we handle identifucation and notification issues now?? And although flawed, certainly no need exhists for further encomberances.
In NY we alfready have flock/herd id#\'s issured anytime we test or vaccinate for certain diseases, like rabies and Brucelosis.  The individual identification has been up to the farmer to provice, except in certain instances such as Pullorum testing and Brucellosis vaccination.  With Pullorum testing it is free, and they provide bands, unless you already have the birds banded, but with Brucelosis viccination in cattle, no matter what id system you use, a manditory State ear tag is also attached.
I am assuming that sinse we have to provide our Pullorum certificates to show, that the show secretary has a list of who plans to be showing at each show, and after the show, the show report should have a complete list of who did come, so for disease notification I would assume they could just use the show list , coupled by the show report to get names and addresses of flocks potentialy exposed to a certain disease.
To tell you the truth, I am mortified to find that some stated do not require individual identification and some do not even require testing.
And as mentiond before, No one even checks to see if your dog has his shots and papers up-to-date when you travel accross the usa..even though it is the law..there is the question of just who enforces it??
So while Big-Brother wants to Police us, if we just come up with better ways to Police ourselves, we could claime we don\'t need any further \"asistance\" frome Uncle sam!!

[John]

Check out the APA website:

Preserve Your Rights as a Poultry Fancier

http://www.amerpoultryassn.com/savehobby.htm

[Guest]

Here is another very informative website... http://nonais.org/

[Guest]

Howdy to All!

Now that NAIS is apparently on again, I would like to offer an argument for defeating it.

Recently several states have re-allowed the sport of cockfighting because of the federal definition of what a chicken is and is not. Poultry are exempt from humane dispatch and processing laws because they are not considered animals. Legal wrangling has allowed attorneys to claim that since they are not animals then the way they die is of no importance to the government.

Well if our government does not consider a chicken an animal, why does it need a track and surveillance system for them.

My $0.02 worth, Greg

[John]

The Michigan Senate committee hearing on NAIS was Thrusday from 8:40 until 9:55am.  Two guys from the state had a PowerPoint presentation explaining the program for cattle that goes into effect in March.  Then many opponents spoke in opposition to NAIS in general.  About 15 more people were scheduled to speak, but they ran out of time.  There were over a hundred in the room opposed to NAIS.  The only Senator that was there for the entire meeting was the Chairman, so about half the committee members didn\'t hear the testimony first hand.  They will hopefully read the minutes.  Kim Aldrich and I went together representing yourselves and the Bay City Poultry Club.
If you live in Michigan please contact the Senate Committee members with your opinions about NAIS.  They are:
Senator Jerry Van Woerkom: Phone: 517-373-1635, Fax: 517-373-3300, sengvanwoerkom@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Jud Gilbert: Phone: 877-445-2378, Fax: 517-373-1450, senjgilbert@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Ron Jelinek: Phone: 866-305-2121 Fax: 517-373-0897, senrjelinek@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Gretchen Whitmer: Phone: 517-373-1734, Fax: 517-373-5937, SenGWhitmer@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Liz Brater: Phone: 866-305-0318, Fax: 517-373-5679, senLBrater@senate.michigan.gov
 
Whether you live in Michigan or not letters and email messages to all your state and federal representatives are needed.  Write to your Gov. and the Pres. while you\'re at it.  It is real easy to do.  Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ and put in your 9 digit zip code.  Then click on the names to send messages.  Just write your letter once and copy & paste it in the message area on the website as you send an email to each person.  Use these websites to get some ideas to compose your letter: http://www.amerpoultryassn.com/savehobby.htm and http://nonais.org/.  
BIG agribusinesses are pushing for NAIS.  They have people to lobby for them, plus have money on their side.  We need to let all legislators know that the majority of farmers, ranchers and fanciers are opposed.  Letters to the editor and other means of informing and educating the public and media should be used also.
I prefer to argue this from an infringement on our civil liberties stand point above ALL the other reasons that make NAIS is bad law.  There is no reason for us to explain anything to them.  I have no problem with those that want to pay for and use this system privately as an individual or cooperative.  The government should stay out of it.  What I do with the animals that I own is my business only.  The government is out of control and this is one more step at taking more rights away from us.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

[John]

A few other links of interest:
http://ruralheritage.com/stop_nais/index.htm
http://freetofarm.com/1.html
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/
http://stopanimalid.org/
http://libertyark.net/
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml

[John]

re:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80
[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0096]
RIN 0579–AC72
Official Animal Identification
Numbering Systems
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

From Mary Zanoni:

On Tuesday, January 13, 2009, the USDA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would make two elements of NAIS -- NAIS Premises ID and NAIS individual animal ID -- effectively mandatory in several USDA animal disease programs.  A copy of the proposed rule is attached.

This rule, if it goes into effect, would be an enormous step toward creating a fully mandatory NAIS for all U.S. livestock.
 
The proposed rule directly affects cattle, bison, sheep, goats, and swine.  However, it will also bring a full NAIS closer for all species.  Therefore, all owners of horses, poultry, and other species should also submit comments and urge their livestock/farming organizations to submit comments.
 
Within a few days, I will be sending out a sample letter for people to consider as a basis for comments.  The comment period is scheduled to close on March 16, 2009.  Commenting on this proposed rule is extremely important.  Not only all animal owners, but also consumers of local/organic/ grassfed foods, and everyone concerned with preserving a place for family farms in a world increasingly dominated by Industrial Agriculture, is urged to comment.

In regard to advancing NAIS, the four most important aspects of the USDA/APHIS Jan. 13, 2009 rule are:

1.  As of the effective date of the final rule, the NAIS Premises ID Number (PIN) would be the only form of PIN allowed for certain official uses.   (Note on timing -- the comment period is open until March 16, 2009.  Then USDA reviews the comments and at some point can issue a final rule.  That date of issuance would be the effective date for the mandatory assignments of the NAIS Premises IDs.  However, a large number of unfavorable comments might result in the postponement, or even retraction or cancellation, of the rule.)

2.  Although the system announced in this proposed rule supposedly permits the continued use of the National Uniform Eartagging System (traditionally, metal tags) and a \"premises-based numbering system,\" in fact, these systems would be used in the same way as NAIS Animal Identification Numbers.  The older forms of eartags and individual IDs would all be connected into the NAIS Premises ID database through the Animal Identification Number Management System (\"AINMS,\" the USDA system that keeps track of what individual animal identification number is assigned to what farm or ranch).  In other words, under the system of this proposed rule, anytime a farmer/rancher has metal tags applied to livestock (such as for TB or brucellosis testing), the farm/ranch will be placed into the NAIS Premises ID system and the numbers on the tags will be tied to the farm/ranch through the USDA\'s AINMS system.

3.  Some requirements are being added for official eartags and these new requirements might make it very difficult or even impossible to obtain metal tags instead of the NAIS tags.  The additional requirements include a \"U.S. shield\" printed on each tag, and tags must be \"tamper-resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal.\"  The APHIS Administrator must approve all tags.  The NAIS tags now available already meet these standards.  It is not clear that metal tags have ever been judged by these standards, so it is possible that the APHIS Administrator could fail to approve metal and other non-NAIS tags.  Also, tag manufacturers will have a clear self-interest in abandoning production of cheap metal tags in favor of expensive NAIS RFID tags, so non-NAIS forms of tags may quickly become extinct.

4.  The addition of a definition of the AINMS to the animal-disease program rules in the Code of Federal Regulations is huge.  Previously the AINMS has only been defined in the non-rule NAIS informational documents (Draft Strategic Plan, User Guide, Business Plan, etc.) so it did not have any defined legal status.  Now this proposed rule adds a definition of the AINMS and also provides that eventually the AINMS will be used to tie all types of \"official\" tags -- not just the NAIS 15-digit tags -- to a NAIS registered premises.  The proposed rule accomplishes essentially a mandatory system for the first 2 elements of NAIS -- NAIS premises ID and NAIS individual animal ID.  The only difference from the original NAIS plan is that now the metal tags and other traditional forms of individual ID have become additional forms of numbering/tagging that are used as part of NAIS.

Note that even if your state has passed a law to keep NAIS \"voluntary,\" that will not necessarily save you from this rule.  The Federal Register notice specifically states:  \"All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted.\" (p. 1638.)  However, if you are working to pass a state law limiting NAIS in the present legislative session, keep working -- such a law could still be very important.  It shows the opposition of animal owners and consumers to NAIS, which may help get the rule postponed or rescinded.  In addition, the question of whether this rule would pre-empt contrary state laws in all circumstances may someday be open to legal challenge.
 
But for now, your best defense against NAIS is to make sure you comment on the proposed rule.  Watch for my sample letter to be distributed in the next few days.
 

Mary Zanoni
P.O. Box 501
Canton, New York  13617
315-347-1100

[bryngyld]

I suspect that the goverment (and PETA) want to eradicate small producers all together. Next will come gardens, because the income of the large producers and importers must be protected...

The reason that rabies vaccinations could no longer be given by owners was because the veterinarian lobby needed to protect their income.  Now people don\'t vaccinate for rabies as much.

Perhaps they want to have the ability to confiscate unwelcome farmers\' stock.  That essentially want licensing of pets allows.  You broke the law by not licensing your \"kennel\".  It will cost you $10,000 in fines to \"buy\" back your animals.  Voila!  One breeder eradicated.