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.

Update: USDA announces an "opt out" procedure for NAIS

As I suspected. This is not the breaking news that Liberty Ark (cough cough) would have you believe. I called the chap at the USDA yesterday and spoke with him. What I learned directly from him is that what USDA will do is tell any caller who wants to opt-out that they have to contact the state's agriculture agency with a written request. The state will decide on a case-by-case basis. Case-by-case? Kaczmarski said he wasn't familiar with the criteria for case-by-case and again suggested that anyone wanting to opt out should contact their state agency. Another push onto the states, making them responsible for the program that they didn't write and, no doubt, is becoming a huge headache.

So, nope, no opt out procedure. Still, I'd call your state's ag agency and request to be opted out just to see what happens.

I annoys me that LibertyArk is acting just like a mainstream activist organization. I am starting to wonder who is funding them. I haven't trusted them since the Talent/Emerson bill debauchle. That was when I resigned as Vermont's state coordinator. Lately whenever they get involved in the crafting of a bill you can be sure that the word "voluntary" will pop up in the bill's language.

---

Original post 1/29/07
Unsubstantiated, but worth putting up anyway.

USDA announces an "opt out" procedure for NAIS

By Henry Lamb

Monday, January 29, 2007

In a remarkable turnaround, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided to provide an "opt out" procedure for people whose premises have been registered in the National Animal Identification System. Complaints have arisen in several states from people who say that their premises were registered without their knowledge. Until now, these people have been told the USDA has no provision for removing a premises once it has been registered.

Ben Kaczmarski, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, told the Liberty Ark Coalition late last week, that since the NAIS was now an "opt in" voluntary program, that it had decided to provide an "opt out" procedure. Even though the protocol has not yet been fully defined, the spokesman said the procedure would require that a person who wants to opt out, write a formal request to be removed from the NAIS, to the state NAIS coordinator. The state coordinator will confirm the validity of the request, and advance the request to USDA. The USDA will then, presumably, remove the name from the registry, according to Kaczmarski. State NAIS coordinators can be located here.

Carol and Calvin Whittaker are delighted to hear this news. They have tried unsuccessfully for several months to get their land removed from the NAIS registry. They are now filing the written request as specified by the USDA, and the Liberty Ark Coalition will monitor the process to measure the time required, and the bureaucratic obstacles, if any, that must be overcome.

This new policy is met with great enthusiasm by the many people who oppose the NAIS, but it is also met with a large degree of skepticism. Since the controversial program was announced in 2005, with a time-line for the program to become mandatory by 2007, opposition has grown steadily. The USDA had to release a new strategy in 2006, and renounce the "mandatory" provision of the program.

While proclaiming that the program is now, and will always be, voluntary, the USDA poured money into states to encourage them to make the program mandatory at the state level. But opponents have convinced legislators in six states to introduce legislation prohibiting any kind of mandatory animal identification program. And several other states are likely to follow with similar legislation.

Moreover, at its October 16, 2006 meeting, the United States Animal Health Association's Livestock Identification Committee issued a report (Page 14) that recommends that the USDA create a list of "consistent" states, which are states that:

"have established by law, rule, order, or other means a requirement that all breeding age cattle be officially identified by means of official tag or registration brand or tattoo at each change of ownership, other than movements direct to slaughter, or movements through one approved market and then direct to slaughter."

Should the USDA adopt this recommendation, animal movement in "non-consistent" states could be restricted, not only by the USDA, but by the states. To NAIS opponents, this appears to be another way the USDA is saying to the public that the NAIS is voluntary, while behind the scenes, doing everything in its power to force livestock owners to comply with the identification requirements.

The public relations campaign in support of the program claims it will stop, or reduce, animal disease outbreaks such as mad cow disease, by providing the ability to trace a diseased animal to its source within 48 hours. The Liberty Ark Coalition says this is a myth, because:

"Mad Cow disease is not contagious, takes years to develop, and is completely preventable. NAIS is designed to do only one thing: provide 48-hour trace-back of animal movements. This is simply not relevant to protecting our food supply from Mad Cow disease. Moreover, the USDA has stated that it estimates that there are only four to seven (4-7) cows in the entire U.S. that have BSE, or Mad Cow Disease, and that it's not even necessary to conduct testing to protect our food supply. Indeed, the USDA refuses to allow a U.S. company, Creekstone Farms & Premium Beef, to voluntarily test all of its cattle for BSE, in order to satisfy its customers' wishes. If BSE is not enough of a threat to justify (or even allow) testing, then certainly it cannot be the basis for requiring millions of animals to be electronically tagged and their every move tracked."

Opponents of the program contend that it was conceived by, and will benefit, only large meat packers and exporters, and the technology companies that provide the identification and tracking equipment.

Opposition has grown dramatically, as small farmers and ranchers realize that their horse, chickens, pigs or cows fall under the USDA's jurisdiction, and they will have to bear the cost and inconvenience of a program that will make no difference to animal health, and benefit only the large exporters and technology companies.

Burnt Orange Report - Don't Tag Texas

Interesting to see Texas rise up inspite of the We Want a Voluntary NAIS put forth by Liberty Ark and FARFA. I read that FARFA put a notice about this on their website but did not give credit where credit is due, typical of how they operate. I didn't check that out myself, so I don't know if they have changed it on the website or not.

I am glad to see the way the Lord makes it all work together for the good of all.

Don't Tag Texas! by: hank Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 14:24:49 PM CST

(Declare independence from the tag! - promoted by John McClelland) After a little rest and re-aquaintance with my family, it's now time to get back to work. Rather than taking "baby steps", I've decided to run the marathon. Let me explain. During my recent campaign for Agriculture Commissioner, I made a pledge to the people of Texas. Win, lose or draw, I was going to organize a march on the state capitol protesting the Trans-Texas Corridor and the National Animal I.D. System. This journal is to inform you about the upcoming event, appropriately named, "Don't Tag Texas!" On March 2,2006 (fittingly Texas Independence Day), the march will occur. It will begin at 2:00 p.m. with a march up Congress Ave. to the capitol. The rally will commence somewhere around 2:30 and go until 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. Every member of the house and senate, along with every member of the state executive branch, will receive a personal invitation. THIS WILL NOT BE A POLITICAL RALLY. It is a true bipartisian event to protest these two issues; Issues that will affect every citizen of our state and country. We are in the process of assembling speakers for the event. Many will be national figures, as well as leaders of some well-entrenched state organizations.

My goal is to garner national attention with this rally, so that the rest of the country can see what is going to happen to them if we don't stop this in Texas. I have already garnered support from other activists in outside states that have committed to attend. I will do a series of national radio shows between now and then to draw even more outside support. We hope to have national media and talk-shows present as well. In order for this to be succesful and make Governor Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst, Ric Williamson and others to understand, we have to have numbers. My goal for this rally is 250,000 to 500,000 people. We are working with over 100 groups in Texas to make this happen. We already have committments for tractors, horses and other farm implements in the parade march. We will be posting a web page in a couple of days to my website, www.hankgilbert.com, that can be linked to other sites and/or emails. We need the word to get out everywhere. I need your help to get this done. Just like you supported me during the campaign, I need you now. Help me to show the "powers at be" what we can do if backed into a corner. Together, we will "take back Texas!

Texas opts for a voluntary NAIS, totally predictable

80R2228 MSE-F

By: Hughes H.B. No. 637

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to making participation in an animal identification
program voluntary.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 161.056, Agriculture Code, is amended by
amending Subsections (a), (c), (d), and (e) and adding Subsections
(a-1), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
(a) In order to provide for disease control and enhance the
ability to trace disease-infected animals or animals that have been
exposed to disease, the commission may develop and implement a
voluntary animal identification program that is, to the extent
required by federal law, consistent with the United States
Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System.

Click here to read the rest of it.

Did we fight for over a year and a half against any government NAIS just so that Texas, under the leadership of LibertyArk, FARFA, Judith McGeary, Karin Bergener and the rest of the so-called steering committee could sell out to all the people that they suckered in? It was in Sept. 06 that Judith McGeary testified before TAHC that FARFA was for a voluntary program. That set more than a few of us on edge. And then they got their fingers into the Talent/Emerson Bill and that would have opened up a whole new can of worms making NAIS something legitimate for Congress to do. I think it was about that time when I and others resigned our state coordinators posts with LibertyArk because we could see they were not what they seemed to be. Now, I have a term for LibertyArk and FARFA - controlled opposition. They have been for NAIS all along.

There can be no government mandated National Animal Identification System. Period. Anyone who is for an even voluntary system is evil.

If I were a paying member of LibertyArk or FARFA, man, I'd get all over them. They are going to march your state right into the hands of the Farm Bureau and NAIS.