Shame on Senator Margaret Dayton, Utah District 15

Raw milk is under attack again. Utah's HB311

* It makes raw milk more available by allowing dairy operations to sell their raw milk in an outlet which is closer to consumers IF the dairy maintains total control of the milk under very regulated conditions and if the dairy owns at least 51% of the outlet.
* Wherever raw milk is sold, there must be an obvioius sign that the buyer is getting raw milk lest the consumer get confused that perhaps he is buying pasturized milk.
* It allows for raw milk to be sold ONLY in places where pasturized milk is not sold
* There are regulations and annual reports to the legislature required of dairys that sells direct to the consumer
* It eliminates the cow share program

Eliminates cow share programs! On her website the Senator says this about cow shares:

The Cow-Share Program operates this way: you want to buy raw milk and are told that you can only buy milk if you own a part of the cow. You agree to buy a part of the cow. You pay approx. $15 to buy a part of the cow. No designation of what part you own is necessary :) You can now buy raw milk - and you never have to meet your cow or her caretaker. This is the most unregulated part of the raw milk operation in Utah.

It is brazenly obvious that she has never known anyone in a cow share program. People who buy local foods know the farmer and know the animals. That's the reason to buy local.

So apparently, Rhett Roberts, President/CEO of Redmond Inc. (801) 361-9893 is behind this bill in consortium with Farm Bureau (oh, no, not them).

From an email exchange between him and Sally Fallon (Weston A. Price)

We have the full and genuine support of the department of agriculture - they have been very cooperative. Also the overwhelming support of the Farm Bureau - passing the annual meeting with a 95% + vote. We have the earned the trust and confidence of the top officials at each of these organizations - and of top legislators as well. There is a feeling of cooperation going forward rather than a "hope it fails" or "out to get you" attitude. And we have worked to get the Health Department and the Dairy Industry to a "no opposition" position as well.

So here we go again, Farm Bureau, Ag Dept, Health Dept, Dairy Industry. What's missing? Oh, yeah, those pesky small farmers who are trying like mad to earn a buck.

Because of this, I am boycotting Redmond Sea Salt, which I have used for years on all of my livestock animals. I encourgage you, dear reader, to do the same. Look above for Rhett's phone number and give him a call expressing your concerns, doubts and displeasure.

While you are at it, click through and read this North American Union - Raw Milk Action Alert so you can see how it all ties together.

Again, America it is time to WAKE UP!

Ewe don't want to be monitored by Govi-Corp!!!

Now is the time to make comments on the USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS). For details see the original post on this which contains the links. If my math is right the comment period ends February 28th, 2007. Don't miss it. Comment today!

Please pass this on. Tell your friends & family. Post a note on your blog. Post to discussion lists. Email to your lists. This is the end of an official comment period. Very important!

If you would like to add the NoNAIS.org logo to your blog, and there are many versions and sizes, then visit here to find out how. Sample code is given on that page.

(Hat tip to Walter)

The Many Headed Beast of the USDA

USDA to close BSE lab is headline on MeatingPlace article this morning. I think the USDA is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Where's the Beef?

Where's the Beef?

by Doreen Hannes

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation along with the House Ag Committee Chair Colin Petersen (D-MN) seem to think that we must "preserve our export markets" by trading our real liberty for other nation's false sense of security through mass registration of our livestock and property under the National Animal Identification System or NAIS. It's common for beef magazines to lament about the new "voluntary" approach to the NAIS as being harmful to our economy.

Finding this an interesting argument, I decided to research the actual numbers to find out the truth of the importance and value of our beef export market.

Oddly enough, what I found out first was that the USDA does not publish all pertinent information in a single document that jibes with other documents. They also don't publish the information necessary to ascertain solid facts about import/export in an apple to apple comparison, but consistently compare apples to oranges. For instance, one report on exports will address the amount of beef imported in millions of tons with no indication of whether this is live weight, carcass weight, or dressed weight, and then the amount of exported beef will be given in dollar amounts. After digging extensively through USDA documents this shouldn't come as any kind of a surprise, but it certainly is an aggravation. In order to be terrifically generous to the USDA , I decided to simply address all weights as dressed beef based on an average dress out of 770 pounds per carcass which seemed to be a fairly agreed upon average between industry magazines and university studies as well as government reports. So let's count the cattle.

In 2005, the consumption of beef in the United States was 27.8 billion pounds. This breaks down to 36,103,896.1 or 36.1 million head. The total poundage of imported meat from all sources was given in one report as 6.6 million tons, another report as 6.2 million tons and yet another as 4.8 million tons. Which was it? Who knows? The USDA obviously doesn't… which raises some terrifically interesting questions that may be addressed in other articles, but for our purposes we'll just use the average so we can't be accused of being unfair.

So imported beef is roughly 5.8 million tons (give or take a few million head depending on the stats) or11.6 billion pounds for 2005. That breaks down to over 15 million head of cattle.

Surprisingly, the revered export market had the same stats in many places. That is 272,000 tons of beef translating into 706,493 head.

Doing the math then, we find that for less than 2 percent of our total consumption we are told we must "get with the rest of the world" and implement an onerous program that will drive small farmers out of business and consolidate the production of food to corporate growers.

Even more incredibly, we are only producing 56% of the beef we consume including the paltry amount we export. So we have a 44% shortfall in production, which means we should be raising another 15.7 million head before we even think about exporting the first cow!

Other statistics indicate that 66% of our cattle herds have less than fifty cattle. Some say 80%, but never mind that, we'll stick with the most accepted percentage. For a herd of 50 cows it would cost $34.52 per cow to get into the NAIS system, or $1726. That is assuming that a laptop can be purchased for $123, which would be a wonder. I don't think I'd want that laptop myself. When you take into account that the average age of the cattle grower is nearing 60 years of age (55.3 nationwide) you have to wonder if people will want to jump through all these hoops just to keep making a few dollars a year. Now, let's have a little more fun with numbers and look to the 2002 Ag Census for some info.

In the 2002 Census, it shows that we have over 1,018,359 farms that produce cattle. Yet the USDA adjusted their estimate of the number of premises down from 2.1 million to 1.4 million last fall. Intriguing, isn’t it? Busting out the calculator again, if you add the total number of farms with less than 50 head of cattle you come up with 671,425 farms. Presuming those with less than fifty head won't find the idea of coughing up $1700 in order to keep their cows a financially brilliant move, many would probably quit. It's way too much of a headache with all the reporting and such. If those farmers bail, taking their thirty percent of the beef production with them, it means we would need to import an additional 10.8 million head. Hmm. If they all stayed in business, that 10.8 million head would translate into $372.8 million for the identification and technology companies. Finally, we see that someone will benefit from this system!

If USDA statistics are trustworthy, and we actually have 1.4 million premises that should be registered under the NAIS, then every sale barn, vet clinic, livestock hauler and backyard chicken raiser must grow another 11.26 head of cattle in order to meet our consumption. So the next time someone tells you we must preserve our export market, you should probably slap 'em upside the head.*******

sources:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
www.calbeef.org/index/pdf/About%20the%20Beef%20Business.pdf

ffas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/2004/04-10LP/beefoverview.pdf

www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/lsmkt/docs/mon111805.pdf
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_bigger_cheaper/
stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/a/pages/nais.html
- 21k -
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/livestockfarm.html

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/index2.htm



http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:W_QXpkGbStsJ:www.beef.org/uDocs/Econ%2520Impact%2520Beef%2520v2.doc+percent+production+herds+less+than+50+head&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us

Minor when the USDA does it. Time to dismantle the USDA

How does the USDA expect to manage NAIS?

USDA: Mistakes tracing Canadian cattle are `minor'

By Stephen J. Hedges
Washington Bureau
Published February 23, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Thursday that hundreds of cases of incomplete documentation of imported cattle from Canada, where mad cow concerns continue, involve "minor record-keeping" issues that do not endanger the safety of the U.S. food supply.

The cattle, many of which were missing ear tags for identification or whose health papers did not match their tags, have entered the United States from Canada in 2005 and 2006. They must be under 30 months old, which the USDA contends minimizes the risk that they have contracted cow disease.

"While we're still in the midst of the review, we're finding that the bulk of the violations appear to be minor record-keeping problems at the state level," said Andrea McNally of the agency's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. "We don't have a conclusion."

McNally said the USDA is still examining the documents, most of which consist of e-mails between Washington state agriculture officials and cattle feedlots and meatpacking companies. The e-mails show the industry representatives reporting about incomplete documentation of cattle from Canada.

The cattle ranchers who have been complaining about what they call lax enforcement of border controls by the USDA dismissed the department's explanation.

"I think this is passing the buck, ain't it?" said Lee Englehardt of the Cattle Producers of Washington, which filed a public disclosure request for the documents in 2006. "What's the point of an animal ID system if we can't keep the records straight on a select number of cattle from Canada?"

The documents, which were obtained by the Cattle Producers of Washington under the state's public disclosure law, suggest state and federal officials have had a difficult time tracking the entry of cattle from Canada.

Englehardt's group also contends that the mix-ups show that the USDA is incapable of administering a proposed federal cattle identification program to trace livestock.

McNally said the cattle trucks are checked at the border by a government veterinarian, and that so far the department's review has not found problems in that process. "If they don't meet our import requirements, they are denied entry," she said.

But some of the records, which Englehardt's group shared with the Tribune, suggest that some cattle came into the U.S. missing required ID ear tags and the appropriate health papers. In other cases, the ear tags did not match health certificates provided for the cattle.

One memo suggests that an entire truckload of cattle, usually about 60 cows, entered without required health certificates.

USDA figures show that about 182,000 Canadian cattle entered the U.S. for the year ending Feb. 17, 2007. The total U.S. cattle herd is about 95 million.

Consumer groups have raised questions about the USDA's decision to allow Canadian imports in the first place following the discovery of mad cow disease in Canada in May 2003. Mad cow in the U.S. was discovered near Yakima, Wash., in December 2003. The cow involved had been imported from Canada.

Canada announced its ninth confirmed case of mad cow two weeks ago. It discovered five cases in 2006 alone.

Mad cow, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), attacks a cow's central nervous system. It is believed that humans can contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a disorder that eats away at the brain, by consuming beef from cattle infected with BSE.

Senator Brent Steele of Indiana Betrays Farmers

An urgent alert from Mary Zanoni:

Please make people aware of a big problem in Indiana. The sponsor of what was once an antiNAIS bill has today offered an amendment that would make it a pro-NAIS bill. People must be told that the amendment (or the bill as amended) must not be permitted to pass.

On Mon. 2/19, the Indiana Senate Ag & Small Business Committee voted out to the full Senate a bill that at the time was an anti-NAIS bill -- the bill was originally sponsored by Brent Steele (R-44th Dist.) and the text as introduced and as voted out of committee would have essentially stopped the Indiana Board of Animal Health from continuing with their mandatory premises
ID program.

I received a forward of an e-mail dated Tues. 2/20 from Steve Bonney, president of an Indiana small-farming organization called Sustainable Earth, expressing happiness over the bill passing out of committee and urging people to contact senators to get them to vote for the bill.

However, today, there is a very, very ominous development on this bill. The sponsor himself, Senator Steele, has moved to amend the bill into a PRO-NAIS bill. I have spoken to Steve Bonney of Sustainable Earth and he reports that the state vet and the lone member of the Ag Committee who would not support the original bill "got to" sponsor Steele and made him offer the pro-NAIS amendment. According to Steve Bonney, at present all people can do is to urge Sen. Steele to withdraw the amendment to SB 486; (Sen. Steele's phone numbers are 317-232-9400 or 800-382-9467) or else, to tell their own senators to vote against the amended bill.

Below is the link to and text of the amendment. The amendment gives Indiana BOAH the green light for their mandatory premises ID and also sets the stage for them to conduct a coerced "voluntary" animal ID and animal tracking.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2007/SAMF/MO048603.001.html

SB 486-1_ Filed 02/22/2007, 09:01 Steele

SENATE MOTION

MADAM PRESIDENT:

I move that Senate Bill 486 be amended to read as follows:

Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SOURCE: IC 15-2.1-18-24; (07)MO048603.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 15-2.1-18-24
IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007]: Sec. 24. (a) As used in this section, "NAIS" refers to the
USDA's National Animal Identification System or any component thereof, including:
(1) premises or property identification by numbers (Stage I);
(2) animal identification (Stage II); and
(3) tracking or surveillance of domesticated animals (Stage III).
(b) As used in this section, "USDA" refers to the United States
Department of Agriculture, and any successor agency within the federal
government.
(c) The state may not require participation in the livestock
identification (Stage II) or tracking components (Stage III) of the USDA's
National Animal Identification System.
(d) The state may not withhold indemnity as provided under section 14 of
this chapter if a person does not participate in NAIS.
(Reference is to SB 486 as printed February 21, 2007.)

Use this link to email Senator Steele http://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/contact/contact.pl?data=Senate|Steele,Brent|s44|sr

Farm Food Voices 2007 Recap

A Very Brief Letter from Farm Food Voices DC 2007

Greetings dear wonderful activists,

It was great!!!

We will post a more full account of Farm Food Voices DC 2007 on the NICFA and VICFA websites when the aftermath flurry has settled a bit, but here is a 'note' for now. I imagine others who were there will post letters from the event--I know Sharon Zechenelli--who drove down from Vermont in the snow with Sally Beckwith--sent a "postcard" last night that Walter Jeffries has already posted (http://www.nonais.org), and Kathryn Russell, of VIrginia, has posted a brief write-up on several e-groups, including Americans_Against_NAIS@yahoogroups.com and sayno2nais@yahoogroups.com.

Our purpose for holding this event was for us, the local/sustainable/independent farmer/consumer world, to become real to the legislators in Washington, and we accomplished that. As Joel Salatin said in his inspiring talk, this marked the beginning of this "movement."

As best as we can figure, we had about 250-300 visit the reception. It was a somewhat mobile crowd, as is the nature of that type of reception, but it looked like about HALF of the people were legislative staff and congressmen. That's pretty amazing! A veteran DC lobbyist friend of mine who joined us said there were about 3 times as many people there as he had expected on a day like yesterday--in addition to the weather it was a very busy legislative day on the Hill (Capitol HIll). We suspect that probably five, or more, times as many of our people would have been there if the freak weather had not bound them in. Those who were able to come included folks from, Arkansas, Tennessee, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey and Florida, that we know of. Sid Sargent from Arkansas took a 31 hour bus ride to come, and waited in the Cannon Office Building from 8:00 a.m. until she could in to the reception; Karen Sylvester from Tennessee arrived by bus in DC yesterday morning at 4:00, stayed in the bus station until she could get in to the Cannon Building, then had to get back on the bus at 1:00 p.m. for her return home. Both Sid and Karen walked the halls delivering copies of the Talking Points to all the legislators. Thank you Sid and Karen!! We are hugely grateful for all the efforts everyone made to participate in this in any way. Every effort, from every person, matters. Those who did so much in preparation, only to be thwarted by a rare ice storm, need to know their presence was felt, even if their bodies were not there.

The Congressmen we know attended included Ron Paul, of Texas, who spoke with eloquence and passion; Virgil Goode, of Virginia, who proudly wore a VICFA button; Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, who also spoke briefly--and who has been talking openly with us about this since last summer; a congressman from New Jersey; and Congressman Salazar of Colorado. We are pretty sure there were others, so if anyone who was there knows who they were, pls. let me know. As mentioned before, there were dozens of staff aides and legislative assistants, representing their respective Congressmen and Senators. We had a great talk w/Curtis Ellis, aide to Rep. Steve Kagan (D-WI, member of the Ag. Committee) who asked us about the Farm Bill, and he sent us a copy of a press release Kagan put out last night that included the following: "The solution to our health care crisis will come from our farms and our diet as well as our hospitals and research laboratories. We must help our small farmers maintain their way of life." I don't know for a fact that our event was an influence, but I'm inclined to believe it was. Pete Thomson, aide to Bob Goodlatte, will become famous when we post our picture of him drinking raw milk (I must confess, I handed him a cup and said, "Drink this while we take your picture," and he did, squawking a bit after when I told him what it was, but since he later ate raw milk maple ice cream--all provided by the Amish farmers who came, I didn't feel so bad...).



Many folks had made appointments with their state legislators, and we would like very much to hear back from those folks!!!

The food was awesome. Jon and Nina White came down from New Jersey w/their artisanal raw, aged cheeses and fresh breads, and we overflowed with superb offerings from Weston A. Price folks in the DC area and dishes others drove in with from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and perhaps elsewhere. A group of about ten Amish farmers from the Lancaster, PA, area came with their exquisite raw milk, cream, butter, yogurt and ice cream. They blessed by their presence, as well as their food.

There is much more to tell. Planning is already started for next year....

Deborah Stockton, Editor
VICFA Voice

Off to see the wizards

Going to the lobby day in DC, Farm Food Voices. We have an appointment with Senator Leahy on Wednesday. Ron Paul is going to speak as is Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm. We got booted from the original reception room for a House Ag Committee meeting but got better space in the Cannon House Office Building Caucus Room. That room looks like it ought to be in a palace.

Pray for good driving weather.

Defining Controlled Opposition

An Open Letter to the NAIS Opposition Community
by
Mary Zanoni
P.O. Box 501
Canton, New York 13617
315-386-3199
mlz@slic.com

Does a Secret Pro-Corporate Agenda Intend to Co-opt the Anti-NAIS Movement?
Who Are the Real "Leaders" Behind Liberty Ark/FARFA?

A Sad Story of Concealed Interests; but With a Hopeful Ending

Many of us who are most strongly opposed to NAIS have noticed that Liberty Ark/FARFA and their de facto leaders, Henry Lamb, Judith McGeary, and Karin Bergener, have taken every opportunity: (1) to promote the type of "voluntary" system specified in the NAIS User Guide, which, as we know too well, inevitably will lead to a mandatory system; and (2) to quiet and blunt the NAIS opposition by touting the supposed "importance" of insignificant minor "victories" against NAIS, many of which are not "victories" at all, but just steps that bring us closer to NAIS.

Most in the antiNAIS community probably do not understand the concealed connections and actions of the main people working on behalf of Liberty Ark/FARFA. Karin Bergener of Liberty Ark works for a company called SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). SAIC is a prominent federal government contractor, the developer of the national DNA database and the gun-purchase background-check database. As described on its website, www.saic.com, SAIC also works in the areas of data-mining and biometric identification. SAIC has been a member of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), presumably because its product lines could be applied to animal identification. As we well know, NIAA has been the driving force behind the development and promotion of a fully mandatory NAIS. Henry Lamb is very much involved in Liberty Ark, but his name appears nowhere on their Steering Committee. In the past, Henry Lamb's various organizations have been funded and supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation. ( www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/12/gw_chart.html) Farm Bureau has been a relentless supporter of a mandatory NAIS. Judith McGeary consistently has supported a "voluntary" government-run NAIS program (such as that the USDA itself now promotes in the User Guide); she has chosen to have her own horses microchipped. As discussed below, McGeary, while sometimes trying to present herself as a proponent of "sustainable" agriculture, has, along with Bergener, secretly embraced support and funding from the anti-environmentalist Lamb.

All this is not to say that these people may not "oppose" NAIS on some level and for some motives; the question is the degree of their opposition, and the authenticity of their motives. NAIS is the very model of how an unresponsive Executive Branch agency can cooperate with a globalist industrial agriculture and a technocratic corporate elite to force an undesired program upon an unwilling populace. So ask yourself whether people aligned with those selfsame industrial/corporate interests are likely to be legitimate opponents of NAIS.

McGeary Supports "Voluntary" Government-Imposed NAIS

Judith McGeary of FARFA and Liberty Ark has made frequent on-the-record statements in support of a "voluntary" government-run NAIS. She testified on September 6, 2006 before the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) that FARFA does not oppose a "voluntary" NAIS program. (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/793/minutes/html/C5852006090610001.HTM ) In written testimony to a Texas Senate Subcommittee, McGeary stated, in response to a question concerning the viability of a "voluntary" Texas NAIS pending the implementation of a national NAIS, "FARFA does not oppose a voluntary state program." (Texas Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs, and Coastal Resources, September 6, 2006.) An Austin Chronicle article quoted McGeary as willing to settle for a "compromise" that would create a government-imposed "voluntary" NAIS: "McGeary . . . in negotiations with the TAHC [regarding NAIS] hopes to reach a compromise wherein small operations can comply voluntarily or be exempted altogether." ( http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A344517 )

Of course, we in the NAIS opposition community know all too well from the USDA's User Guide for NAIS, and from the actions of various states in forcing farmers into NAIS without their knowledge or consent in the guise of a "voluntary" program, that a "voluntary" NAIS cannot be tolerated, and is not consistent with the positions of groups completely opposed to NAIS, such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association – Massachusetts, Rural Vermont, or the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.

McGeary and the Massachusetts Coordinator of Liberty Ark Worked Diligently to Weaken State Legislation

In Massachusetts, Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts (NOFA/Mass) antiNAIS activists Ben Grosscup and Jack Kittredge were just on the verge of approaching their legislators with antiNAIS legislation to bar completely the Massachusetts premises ID program and allow Massachusetts farmers who had been unjustly placed in premises ID to get their information removed from the database. At this crucial moment, without the knowledge of Jack and Ben, Liberty Ark's Massachusetts State Coordinator, Pat Stewart, gave legislators a bill that would have established a "voluntary" state-run NAIS. (The truly harmful nature of such legislation is evident from the fact that Massachusetts presently has NO statutory authorization for any state-level NAIS.) When faced with Stewart's submission, the legislators, at that point unfamiliar with all the nuances of the NAIS fight, were on the verge of accepting this Liberty Ark pro-voluntary NAIS bill for filing. Fortunately, Ben and Jack really stepped up to the plate for all of us, fought hard to get their stop-NAIS bill filed instead, and thought they had this struggle behind them. But then Judith McGeary of FARFA/Liberty Ark contacted Ben and Jack repeatedly, insisting that they accept at least some part of the pro-voluntary NAIS Liberty Ark legislation. (One of McGeary's objectives was to get the word "sustainable" removed from the bill's title; Lamb and his ilk are outspoken enemies of "sustainability," claiming that the concept is some nefarious plot hatched by "environmentalists.")

Ben and Jack solidly stood their ground and rejected any weakening of the NOFA/Mass bill and made sure their legislators in both chambers would file the NOFA/Mass strong antiNAIS bill. Then Pat Stewart of Liberty Ark, again without telling Ben and Jack, approached a Senate aide with what she claimed was a "compromise" bill. (Remember, Ben and Jack had held their ground and refused to weaken the NOFA/Mass bill, so there never was any "compromise" version of a bill.) In the confusion of the last-minute deadline for filing bills, Stewart somehow got the weak Liberty Ark bill filed. Now NOFA/Mass had to work doubly hard to clean up the confusion and make sure the strong NOFA/Mass bill had been filed properly in both houses of the legislature.

In light of these events, one must ask, why would Judith McGeary and Pat Stewart deliberately work to introduce pro-voluntary NAIS legislation in Massachusetts (a state with NO statutory authority for any version of NAIS), and why would they be so insistent on promoting the weakened legislation, that they would use less-than-open tactics to get it filed?

Henry Lamb and the Early History of Liberty Ark

In early March of 2006, Henry Lamb called me and said that he wanted to sponsor and fund a national group to oppose NAIS. He wanted me to be the leader of this group. He asked me for the names of any people I thought might be suitable to be members of a steering committee for such a group; I suggested Judith McGeary and Karin Bergener, each of whom had independently contacted me and expressed their interest in opposing NAIS. I gave Lamb, Bergener, and McGeary one another's contact information and Lamb began organizing a series of conference calls for the group to discuss forming the organization that came to be called Liberty Ark.

My first contact with Lamb had taken place a couple of months earlier, when he had asked me if he could reprint one of my early antiNAIS articles in his "Ecologic" magazine. I had never heard of Lamb and, assuming that this was some small ecology publication, I gave him permission for the reprint. Now, in the larger context of the possible formation of Liberty Ark, I was motivated to look more deeply into Lamb's publications and other activities. It turned out that Lamb's magazine is in fact not an ecology publication at all, but rather, the opposite – a virulent anti-environmental publication. Lamb himself is best known as a voice for the corporate interests of polluting industries, working to defeat initiatives that would promote clean and livable rural areas for the good of the average people.
( www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/12/gw_chart.html)

As Bergener, McGeary, Lamb, and I continued to discuss the formation of Liberty Ark, Lamb added his son to the group. Meanwhile, I was also taking part in separate conversations among Bergener, McGeary, and myself, in which I was expressing growing misgivings about Lamb's motives for forming the group in general, and in particular, my fear that Lamb would use Liberty Ark to co-opt the antiNAIS movement into nothing more than an appendage of the pro-corporate, anti-environmental agenda. However, Bergener and McGeary insisted that Lamb's backing and funding were necessary to the group.

Just as the Liberty Ark website was about to be launched, Lamb told us in a conference call that he was not going to permit his name to be used publicly on the Liberty Ark website as one of the members of the steering committee (albeit he was going to continue to be the funding behind the organization). After that call, I resigned from the Liberty Ark steering committee and severed ties with the group, because I was not willing to participate in any venture that was not revealing the identities of all the persons behind it.

Henry Lamb's sponsorship of Liberty Ark is confirmed in public documents. If you do a "who is" look-up on www.register.com for libertyark.net , you will find that the Liberty Ark website is owned by a Tennessee company called Earth Work, Inc. In turn, if you search the Tennessee Secretary of State's corporate records for Earth Work, Inc., you will find that it is a for-profit corporation and that the registered agent for Earth Work, Inc. is Henry Lamb, 175 Shepard Cemetery Lane, Hollow Rock, Tennessee. (In case these records may be changed in the future to obscure the relationship, alternate sources of these pages are being maintained.)
The Talent/Emerson Bill and the Misleading of Missourians

During last fall's Congressional elections, the Senate seat in Missouri was very closely contested, with former Republican Senator Jim Talent ultimately losing to Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill by a thin margin. Missouri is a hotbed of opposition to NAIS and NAIS was definitely an issue in the Senate race. McCaskill, whose family business was a local feed mill and who therefore had ties to local and small-scale agriculture, consistently opposed NAIS from the beginning of her campaign. Talent, on the other hand, had developed ties to corporate and industrial agriculture during his incumbency and had been primarily a supporter of NAIS before the election. However, as the election season progressed, Talent began to take an ostensible position against NAIS. In early September, Talent suddenly introduced in the Senate legislation that would have given the green light to the USDA's establishment of a "voluntary" federal NAIS (remember, there has never been, and there is not to this day, any federal statute that actually authorizes ANY element or form of NAIS). Also, Talent's NAIS legislation would have been a frontal assault on the citizens' right to know, because it would have prevented federal freedom-of-information disclosure to citizens of information related to NAIS and also, in an outrageous assault on the autonomy of state freedom of information laws, would have prohibited states from allowing disclosure of state information under their own state laws. (109th Congress, S. 3862; companion House bill introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, H.R. 6042.)

Thus, it appeared that the Talent NAIS legislation was deliberately designed to offer false appeasement to potential Missouri antiNAIS voters, while actually facilitating the USDA's development of NAIS. In sum, the Talent bill was pro-NAIS, and was recognized as such by many of Liberty Ark's own state coordinators, by the antiNAIS organization Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA, www.vicfa.net) and their legislative counsel, and by me, among many others. Nonetheless, Liberty Ark insisted upon promoting the bill with press releases and an action alert urging their followers to contact legislators in support of the bill. Not surprisingly (now that you know Lamb founded and funds Liberty Ark), Henry Lamb "independently" promoted the Talent bill and for good measure threw in fulsome praise for Liberty Ark (without, of course, ever revealing that he is the force that created and maintains Liberty Ark). (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51996)

Liberty Ark, Bergener, and McGeary deliberately supported the Talent bill even though they were well aware of the terrible consequences if the bill should pass (thankfully, it didn't) – namely, the bill's potential to create the first-ever federal statutory authority for NAIS and its insults to citizens' rights to government information. Because Bergener and McGeary insisted on supporting the Talent bill against all objections, four of Liberty Ark's strongest state coordinators resigned over this incident. (Nonetheless, Liberty Ark, in its obsession with creating a misleading impression of its own influence – an obsession discussed in greater detail below – to this day has failed to remove the names of ex-supporters from its website.)
Liberty Ark Lures NAIS Opponents into Slumber with the False Comfort of "Opt Outs"

On January 29, 2007, Liberty Ark's Karin Bergener and Judith McGeary issued a "press release" loudly trumpeting: "In a dramatic reversal of policy, the USDA has decided to provide an 'OPT OUT' procedure for people whose premises have been registered" in NAIS. (On precisely the same date, Henry Lamb posted an article on his website about this "dramatic" development, almost identical in wording to the Liberty Ark "press release.") The Liberty Ark "press release" went on to suggest that Liberty Ark had somehow discovered or even obtained this supposed boon through a telephone call to the USDA on January 26, 2007.

The truth is that NOFA/Mass, not Liberty Ark, was the first organization to secure a possibility of "opt outs." NOFA/Mass accomplished this in the summer of 2006, six months prior to Bergener and McGeary's announcement of a "dramatic reversal." Moreover, in New York State, apparently as a result of complaints from individual farmers, the state began to offer "opt outs" during the fall of 2006 for animal owners who had been placed in the premises ID program through data-mining, without their prior knowledge or consent. Perhaps most importantly, as NOFA/Mass itself has always indicated, an "opt out" procedure, far from any "dramatic reversal," is really a very poor remedy of too-little and too-late, since the animal owner's information should never have been submitted to USDA/APHIS in the first place, and since the states using data-mining to secure "false voluntary" premises IDs did not offer to discontinue the data-mining.

This "opt out" incident is characteristic of two traits common to Liberty Ark, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. First, they continually overstate the importance of their own accomplishments and fail to accord credit to the actual accomplishments of other groups and people. (Consistent with Lamb's sponsorship of the group, they seem especially eager to omit mention of the accomplishments of such pro-environmental groups as NOFA/Mass.) Second, they invariably endorse and support weak compromises and half-measures such as accepting "voluntary" government-run NAIS or supposed "opt outs" for people who should never have been forced into NAIS in the first place. This behavior is affirmatively harmful to the legitimate movement against NAIS. It lulls into submission those opponents of NAIS who incorrectly may believe that part of the problem has been "solved" by a misleadingly-named "voluntary" program or by "opt outs." Further, it has the potential to defeat the antiNAIS movement altogether. Consider what would happen if Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener concentrated a large degree of power in their own hands by overstating their own "accomplishments" and never acknowledging the real accomplishments of others (particularly the real accomplishments of pro-environmental, sustainable farming groups). In that scenario, Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener might well place themselves in the position of appearing to have the power to agree to some defeatist "compromise." In other words, what if Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener act in ways that nullify the gains of those truly opposed to NAIS, by insinuating themselves into a position of influence with bureaucrats, legislators, and industrial farming interests such as Farm Bureau, and then obtaining less-than-desirable "concessions" or legislation to further their own agenda, despite the honest opposition of their "supporters?" Surely, we have not all labored tirelessly against NAIS just to have some unrepresentative, self-appointed group accept a result far short of what we really want – the complete eradication of any government NAIS program.

The Hopeful Ending: A Growing and Diverse NAIS Opposition Can Sustain the Movement's Truth

Many readers will be disheartened to learn of the tactics employed by Liberty Ark, FARFA, Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. But the revelation of these tactics will allow true NAIS opponents to combat the negative effects of these groups and their "leaders." Fortunately, at just the time when more positive direction is needed by the antiNAIS movement, many more groups are embracing the true NAIS opposition message or are moving toward a more effective opposition. For example, R-CALF, previously only a mild and partial NAIS opponent, soon may be forced by a member referendum to take a stance of complete opposition. Many other livestock and farming groups on the local, state, or even national levels have taken up the antiNAIS cause in recent months. Sustainable and small-farming advocacy groups organized at the state and local levels are beginning to work actively against NAIS.

Those who have been most effective and successful in fighting any form of NAIS have done so by adhering to the true interests of their local supporters, and becoming very active in educating both the public and their government representatives about the dangers of any government-run animal identification system. This is truly a grassroots movement, and dedicated individuals and authentic local groups are responsible for the progress that has been made in the fight. There are many well-informed and passionate people diligently fighting against NAIS. The fight against NAIS offers the first legitimate opportunity in years, perhaps decades, to turn back the tide of corporate globalism and the earth-destroying excesses of industrial technology, and restore the ethical and moral values upon which local, human-scale, peaceful, generous communities can be built.

Don't squander the opportunity. Join with your friends, family, and neighbors, reject greed and blind self-interest, despise the technocrats' divorce from Nature, take back the Earth, restore the Creation as the cradle of life.

Blogger, oh blogger

Blogger has been acting up the last few days and it has been impossible to post. Very frustrating. especially when you realize they don't care a bit.

So much is going on, Big Brother encroaches. And it seems that things are happening faster.

• In Texas they are going to mandate a vaccine for little girls that supposedly protects from cervical cancer. Follow the money trail between FDA and Merck. Ironically, there is an "opt-out" procedure...shouldn't it have been "opt-in" as in choice? I wonder if Governor Perry has little daughters or grand-daughters. Will he let them get the shot first or will he be like Tommy Thompson who promised to be first in line to get an RFID chip but then never got around to it.

• 34 States are rebelling against Real ID, including Vermont. "It's about the privacy." "This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are." Not "almost". It is a full frontal assault on our freedoms.
  

• Representative Koch (R) of Barre Town (VT) has introduced H.0126 titled Distracted Driving. H.0126 proposes to prohibit some activities that contribute to distracted driving. These high-risk activities are things you have to use your hands for instead of driving like "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, smoking, consuming any food or nonalcoholic beverage, playing a musical instrument, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo" and cell phones. The penalty would be less than $300.00 but not more than $600.00.

  These sorts of legislation drive me to distraction. Mr. Koch, the government cannot legislate common sense. It is these attempts to force on people what they may not already possess – common sense - that causes everyday citizens like me to flirt with becoming a criminal which I will become because I do not intend to give up smoking in my car. What are people who have to practically eat every meal in their cars because of their life commitments - jobs, kids, soccer, music lessons, church, etc. - to do?

  Here's an idea! Add a new component to the driver's test called multitasking ability. Have the person taking the test drive and talk on a cell phone or eat lunch or drink a soft drink, etc. and be scored on that performance. Then have that result indicated on their license like they do for people who have to wear glasses. Of course, Representative Koch isn't interested in real solutions, so I doubt a common sense approach to driving while being distracted would interest him.

• NY wants all dogs to be microchipped. I just can't get over the idea that mere MAN thinks he can control all in his domain.
  
• In California they are going to ban trans-fats in restaurant food. Hasn't that been done in another state or two? The funny thing is that they are going to replace trans-fat oils with vegetable oils that are made from GMO corn or soy or canola. Absolutely an example of the Emperors New Clothes. You just end up consuming a different poison. Eat locally grown food and then you don't have to even worry about it.
  

NAIS Shenanigans in Washington State

Subject: Monday They Want to Take Away your Consitutional Rights in WA

Calling Constitutionalists, freedom lovers, property owners, all shepherds and animal owners, NoNAIS’ers!!!!!

Here is the deal. We the people have submitted proposed legislation in both the House and Senate OPPOSING the NAIS. In testimony last week we outnumbered the pro-NAIS group 2 to 1. In House hearing on HB 1310 2/3 of the Agriculture Committee asked;
(1) What provisions were to be made for the small farmer, and
(2) They expressed that they did not want to turn ordinary citizens into criminals.

We have the pro-NAIS legislators and corresponding agencies so SCARED that they must resort to suspending our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Summary:

Another NoNAIS testifier and I had an interesting listening session last Wednesday night. We were forwarded by the Senate Ag Chair to Bob Lee. Mr. Lee was on the phone talking with someone about ‘when these NoNAIS people were going to go away’. We waited patiently for him to get off the phone and then politely introduced ourselves. Mr. Lee talked in circles for 2.5 hours. He is the man who drafted the proposed legislation that will take away your RIGHTS. Wake up and get involved. This is it. You don’t get involved we will be like any country without representation. What will we tell our children and grandchildren? How do we answer to those who have sacrificed their lives in war to fight for our freedom? How do we answer to the G-d?

Why is this proposed legislation DANGEROUS?

The Constitution in Washington is about to be suspended. The proposed legislation does not say:

a.. What the emergency is?
b.. Why WSDA has failed to inform the public on this supposed emergency.
c.. WSDA has failed to provide WSDA with scientific-evidence of an emergency to the public.
d.. How long is this emergency for?
e.. If there is an ‘emergency’ why is not take effect until June 30, 2007?
f.. What is the legislature stonewalling our bills prohibiting NAIS and pro-NAIS bills are steam-rolled through?
g.. If this is such a big emergency why was it deceptively cloaked in an innocuous piece of legislation?

This is important as it will crop up elsewhere. On Monday proposal to suspend the Right of Referendum and Constitution from the people will be introduced in Washington. This language was tucked innocuously into a bill to extend the Cattle Advisory Board (on implementing NAIS).

What does this proposed legislation say?

Here is the verbiage of SB 5811:

AN ACT Relating to animal identification programs; amending 2006 c 2 150 s 1 (uncodified); providing an effective date; providing an 3 expiration date; and declaring an emergency.

4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

[…]

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. This act is necessary for the immediate 17 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the 18 state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect 19 June 30, 2007.

With is Act your Rights are eliminated. Do you understand that? This state and possibly the others may have inserted this clause in ANY of its legislation.

We need to fight and fight, hard and NOW. Otherwise jump ship because the country you and I know is gone.

Who are the Traitors to our Constitution who support this legislation?

Senators Rasmussen, Schoesler, Shin, Morton, Hatfield, Kastama, Sheldon, Swecker, Hargrove, Jacobsen and Mr. Bob Lee.

The Legal Precedent:

2005 POLICY HIGHLIGHTER from The Evergreen Foundation

Right of referendum null and void?
Constitutional amendment needed to restore people’s rights
By Jason Mercier
In a 6-3 decision, the state’s Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s use of an emergency clause on SSB 6078 (amending Initiative 601). With this ruling, the people’s right of referendum is now severely compromised if not effectively eliminated.
In a strongly written dissent to the Court’s ruling, Justice Richard Sanders wrote:
The majority betrays the sacred trust the people of this state place in this court to preserve inviolate their constitutional right to veto unwanted legislation through referendum. A legislature determined to inoculate itself from referendum, a secretary of state determined to violate his statutory and constitutional duty to allow a referendum petition to at least circulate, combined with a supreme court openly hostile to the people's check on the legislature, brews a potent poison to the people's constitutional role in the legislative process.
Justice Sanders went on to say:
Where the legislature uses an emergency clause simply to avoid a referendum rather than respond in good faith to a true 'emergency' as defined by Washington Constitution article II, section 1(b); where the secretary of state declines to discharge a clear ministerial duty; and where the court essentially delegates its independent role as a constitutional guardian to the legislative branch of government in its power struggle against the popular branch of government; I find little left of the people's right of referendum.
Justice Tom Chambers also dissented, stating:
But I have come to conclude that this court has moved from an appropriate level of deference to the judgments of a coordinate branch of government, to a near total abdication of its constitutional responsibility to review legislative action. The referendum is a sword the people gave themselves to slay unwanted legislation. The people also gave the legislature a shield to protect certain legislation under certain circumstances from the referendum sword. It is ultimately and uniquely the judiciary's role to assure that both the sword and the shield are used only as constitutionally permitted.
Justice Jim Johnson also dissented, stating:
Even in this court, any doubt about the referenda power must be resolved in favor of the people.. When, therefore, the question comes whether the legislature has a right to declare an emergency which will take away the right of referendum, the doubt, if there be any, should be resolved in favor of the reserved power of the people instead of in the admittedly unwarranted declaration of the legislature.
Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution states, “All political power is inherent in the people” and Article 2, Section 1 grants the people the power of initiative and referendum. Denial of this constitutional right must be severely limited.
The lone loophole to people’s right of referendum is what is referred to as an emergency clause (See EFF PH 15-13). The emergency clause is supposed to be reserved for acts that are “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” The legislature used an emergency clause 98 times this past session. Now that the Court has left it up to the legislature to determine what constitutes an emergency regardless of the actual merits of such a declaration, the people should demand the Constitution be amended to restore the sovereignty of the people as reflected in the principle of being a co-equal branch of government.
To ensure the rights established by the Constitution are enforced and adhered to by Washington’s elected officials, Article 2, Section 1 could be amended by:
a.. Requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature to enact an emergency clause;
b.. Requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature, beyond the current two-year window, to amend an initiative; and
c.. Permitting the legislature to amend an initiative with a simple majority vote (not withstanding the two-thirds requirement above) if such changes are then referred back to the people for ratification.
A constitutional amendment reflecting these elements would ensure that if the legislature invokes the emergency clause, it would have to be declared by a supermajority vote. If a true emergency exists, both political parties will be able to recognize it. The people’s right of referendum should only be suspended in those instances of a real emergency, not for political expediency.
The legislature should also face a high threshold to alter initiatives passed by the people. By requiring a supermajority vote beyond the current two year window or allowing a simple majority vote with ratification by the people, the legislature will not be able to ignore the people’s laws.
It may sound like a catch-22 to ask the very legislature that is abusing the people’s right of referendum to pass a constitutional amendment restoring this right, but if the people rise up and demand such action, a legislator will either honor the will of the people or be forced to explain why the sovereigns of the state are not entitled to the political power reserved to them by the Constitution.
Should the legislature fail to initiate these constitutional reforms, however, the people could run an initiative that requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to enact an emergency clause.
Fight and write now, YOUR FREEDOM IS ON THE LINE.
Please either write all the Senators on the Agricultural Committee and demand that this be stricken down and say why. This time don’t ask the questions about but make STATEMENTS of FACT (you may use the questions above as a guide)
Senators Rasmussen, Schoesler, Shin, Morton, Hatfield, Kastama, Sheldon, Swecker, Hargrove, Jacobsen
WA Agricultural Committee:
Marilyn Rasmussen - Chair (D)
Brian Hatfield - Vice Chair (D)
Mark Schoesler - Ranking Minority Member (R)
Ken Jacobsen (D)
Bob Morton (R)
Paull Shin (D)
Here is what to do:
a.. Write, call between 8-9 AM Monday morning, e-mail, send hard copy letters but e-mail also.
b.. Put your contact information (who you are and contact info in case they have questions)
c.. Write under your contact information: FOR THE RECORD
d.. Say that you are submitting a “Memorandum of OPPOSITION to SB 5811’
e.. Write you concerns address the proposed bill and language. Provable facts are best (see questions above)
f.. Ask that your testimony be read and give a reason why you can’t be in attendance if can’t be.
g.. A conclusion
h.. Your personal position
i.. What you would like to Ag Committee to do (strike it down, kill it, whatever)
j.. PLEASE COME TESTIFY IN PERSON IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. IT MADE THE DIFFERENCE LAST WEEK, IT CAN THIS WEEK. REMEMBER 2-1 ON OUR FAVOR.
k.. Out of state input wanted: Put Our state is watching to see that you uphold the Constitution.
I know this sounds like allot of work but it really isn’t. I have attempted to lay out for you how to do it thanks to Bruno and Charlene and a man name Kim.
Go forth and blessings,

Real ID is NAIS for every person - You will be tracked

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10934036/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news

States Prepare To Fight National Driver's License
Maine Legislature Passes Resolution Objecting To Real ID Act

POSTED: 12:35 pm EST February 5, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.

The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.

Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.

"It's the whole privacy thing," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "A lot of legislators are concerned about privacy issues and the cost. It's an estimated $11 billion implementation cost."

The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.

States will have to comply by May 2008. If they do not, driver's licenses that fall short of Real ID's standards cannot be used to board an airplane or enter a federal building or open some bank accounts.

About a dozen states have active legislation against Real ID, including Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

Missouri state Rep. James Guest, a Republican, formed a coalition of lawmakers from 34 states to file bills that oppose or protest Real ID.

"This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are," Guest said in an interview Saturday. "That's going too far."

Guest a resolution last week opposing Real ID and said he expects it quickly to pass the Legislature. "This does nothing to stop terrorism," he said. "Don't burden the American people with this requirement to carry this ID."

Though most states oppose the law, some such as Indiana and Maryland are looking to comply with Real ID, Sundeen said.

The issue may be moot for states if Congress takes action.

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, filed a bill last year to repeal the law. Sununu expects similar legislation will be introduced soon.

"The federal government should not be in charge of defining and issuing drivers' licenses," Sununu said in a statement.

Privacy advocates say a national driver's license will promote identity theft.

Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Real ID ordered by Congress would require a digital photo and probably a fingerprint on each driver's license or state-issued ID card. That, he said, will make it more valuable to identity thieves because the ID card will be accepted as much more than a driving credential.

"It's going to be a honey pot out there that's going to be irresistible to identity thieves," Steinhardt said.

An identity thief, he said, could buy a Real ID from a rogue motor vehicle department employee with is own photo and fingerprint on it.

"The victim is never going to be able to undo this," Steinhardt said.

Other criticisms include:

-Some states will have to invest millions in new computer systems that can communicate with federal databases. That is something they probably will not accomplish by the deadline.

-It will be difficult to comply with the requirement that license applicants prove they are in the country legally. There are more than 100 different immigration statutes, Steinhardt said, which will pose problems for motor vehicle clerks unfamiliar with immigration law.

-It does not solve the problem of terrorism. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and some of the hijackers from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had legitimate driver's licenses.

-Even the requirement that applicants' full legal names appear on licenses will pose problems because some states limit the number of characters on the face of the card.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Arizona No NAIS Bill

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/sb1428p.htm

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Forty-eighth Legislature, First Regular Session

FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1428

national animal identification system; nonparticipation

Purpose

Prohibits State participation in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and similar federal animal tracking programs.

Background

NAIS is a federal, voluntary animal tracking program that requires premises registration and animal identification. It is a federally funded information system that aids in response to animal disease events in the United States. Currently, 48 states participate in NAIS.

In Arizona, NAIS is managed by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (Department). In FY 2005-2006, the Department focused on premises identification registration is now phasing in animal identification tags and microchips as premises identification is completed. According to the Department, of the estimated 5,170 premises in Arizona, 805, or 15.6 percent, have been registered under the program. In addition, Mohave, Yuma and Camp Verde fairs require NAIS registration before an animal may be entered to show.

Branding requirements for range livestock were enacted into Arizona law in 1905. Currently, every person who owns range livestock must adopt and record a brand or an earmark with the Animal Services Division of the Department to identify their livestock. Sheep must be marked distinctly with a mark or device sufficient to distinguish them.

The 2006 Legislature passed a bill that allows the director (Director) of the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with federal agencies in NAIS activities. The bill also determined that premises registration data, animal identification data and animal tracking data collected by the Director pursuant to NAIS are not subject to state public disclosure requirements.

There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of this bill.

Provisions

1. Removes cooperation with NAIS and its components from statute.

2. Prohibits the Director, Department or any other officer, agency or instrumentality of Arizona from participating in NAIS or other similar federal program and any registration of premises on which livestock is held.

3. Voids and terminates any agreement between an Arizona officer and any other state or the United States regarding NAIS, animal identification or registration of premises on which livestock is held.

4. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

Prepared by Senate Research

February 5, 2007

MG/JO/ac

The Useless Guide finally made it into the Federal Register

Published Thursday in Federal Register. At first they said 3 documents were available, but they didn't have them all on the website at that time.

National Animal Identification System (NAIS) official identification devices with animal identification number, 4680–4681 [E7–1719] [Text, PDF, Summary]

Note that this is an official comment period. Comment should be made within 30 days - do it ASAP:

Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8958.
:
Comments about any of these documents or other aspects of the NAIS may be submitted to USDA through the NAIS Web site e-mail address: animalidcomments@aphis.usda.gov or by mail to NAIS Program Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737

USDA announces a new Cooperative Agreeement aimed at breed registries

And they have $6,000,000 to fund it. Is there no bottom to their pocket?


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/02/NAISRFP.shtml

USDA ANNOUNCES PLANS TO EXPAND NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced a request for proposals (RFP) from nonprofit livestock and poultry industry organizations that wish to enter into cooperative agreements with USDA to advance the development of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). These cooperative agreements will support the efforts of such organizations to promote NAIS and, specifically, increase participation in premises registration--the foundation of the program.

“We have met our goal of having twenty-five percent of the Nation’s premises by the end of January, but there’s obviously a lot more work to be done,” said Bruce Knight, undersecretary of USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs. “Producer organizations are the key to securing the level of producer participation we need to make the premises registration component of the system fully functional for everyone. Making sure we have what amounts to an emergency contact list is the backbone of an emergency response system; we want this system to be there for producers when and if an animal health emergency arises.”

USDA will make up to $6 million available for the cooperative agreements, subject to the availability of funding.

Premises registration ensures the availability of a nationwide communications network to assist livestock owners and animal health officials in the case of a disease event. With the coordinated efforts of state, industry and federal partners, more than 350,000 premises nationwide have been registered to date.

Organizations that receive these cooperative agreement funds will not be responsible for the actual administration or processing of premises registration applications. Rather, the agreements will be limited to outreach and promotional efforts that result in new premises registrations. Cooperating groups will promote premises registration to producers and increase their respective sector's level of registration in secure databases maintained by state and tribal authorities. [My emphasis added. Breeder registries will be turned into USDA marketing arms. I am so glad I don't belong to a registry. Some are calling for a boycott of breeder registries who apply for the grant money. I support them.)

In order to qualify for one of the new cooperative agreements, an organization must qualify as one of the following:

• A nonprofit, nationally-based organization representing the livestock or poultry industry;
• A nonprofit tribal organization or association that did not receive funding from the NAIS for fiscal year (FY) 2007 through a cooperative agreement;
• An authorized agent working on behalf of a tribe, group of tribes, or inter-tribal council that received funding for FY 2007 to conduct premises registration, but that wishes to expand its existing outreach;
• An 1890 historically black land-grant college or university;
• A 1994 tribal land-grant institution.

The RFP can be found at www.grants.gov. The RFP gives more detail about the cooperative agreements, including the process for developing and submitting proposals and the amount of funding available. USDA encourages all interested organizations to submit proposals for consideration. Additional information about the NAIS program, along with a link to the RFP, is available at www.usda.gov/nais.

#