Showing posts with label Premises Registration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Premises Registration. Show all posts

December 29, 2008

R-CALF Wins Major Animal ID Dispute; USDA Cancels Mandatory Premises Registration Directive

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America “Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer"

For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator

December 29, 2008
Phone: 406-672-8969;
e-mail: sdodson@r-calfusa.com




Group Wins Major Animal ID Dispute;

USDA Cancels Mandatory Premises Registration Directive


Billings, Mont. – Just over a month after R-CALF USA sent a formal letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Services (APHIS-VS) demanding that the agency retract Memorandum No. 575.19 issued on Sept. 22, 2008, APHIS-VS officially canceled that particular memo on Dec. 22, 2008.


Memorandum 575.19 mandated premises registration under the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for producers engaged in interstate commerce and who participate in any one of the dozen or more federally regulated disease programs.


R-CALF USA told the agency in its Nov. 10, 2008, letter that the memo “constitutes an unlawful, final regulatory action initiated and implemented without public notice or opportunity for comment, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act,” and must be retracted.


“We caught USDA in the unlawful act of trying to convert what was promised to be a completely voluntary animal identification system into a mandatory NAIS, and the agency backed down,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “This goes to show how an organized group of cattle producers can effectively defend their rights if they stand and fight together.”


The cancellation memorandum issued by APHIS-VS on Dec. 22, 2008, states, “VS Memorandum No. 575.19 dated September 22, 2008, is hereby canceled.”


“This action by USDA confirms what we’ve been saying all along – that USDA does not have the authority to implement NAIS and it is using underhanded and unlawful methods to coerce independent cattle producers into giving up their rights to their property,” said Kenny Fox, who chairs the group’s animal identification committee.

“R-CALF USA encourages producers to not register their premises under the NAIS and to immediately request that their names and property be removed from the NAIS database if they had previously registered under USDA’s coercive actions,” Fox urged.


The new APHIS-VS memo further states that APHIS-VS “has an established procedure for producers who request their premises record be removed from the NAIS premises databases.”


R-CALF USA advocates that USDA should use and improve existing disease traceback methods including state-sanctioned brand programs that do not require individual producers to register their property under a national premises registration program in order to improve USDA’s disease traceback capabilities.


“There is no need to violate producers’ private property rights to accomplish this objective, and R-CALF will continue to work with Congress and USDA to improve our existing systems, but we will not tolerate the type of government intrusion on our industry that USDA envisioned with NAIS,” Fox concluded.


Note: To view/download R-CALF USA’s letter or the new APHIS-VS memorandum, please visit the “Animal Identification” link at www.r-calfusa.com or contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson to request copies.


# # #


R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located acrss 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

December 16, 2008

Under What Authority Can USDA Impose Premises Registration?

This is a question I have been asking for quite a few years. In truth, they have no authority under the Constitution.



Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA got word today that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has received a formal letter from the group that requests the agency to promptly answer several questions regarding R-CALF USA’s position that USDA has no authority to impose premises registration – utilizing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) – onto livestock producers who participate in federal disease management programs.

“The NAIS, as proposed by your agency, is shrouded with inconsistency and uncertainty,” wrote R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, who also chairs the group’s animal health committee.

“For example, your agency continues to publicly claim NAIS is completely a voluntary program, though it has simultaneously issued an official memorandum to state animal health officials directing them to register as a premises the real property of certain livestock producers – regardless of whether these livestock producers consent to the imposition of such registration,” the letter continues.

The letter requests USDA to state what authority it has to register real property as a premises and implement NAIS and also requests a complete disclosure by USDA regarding the potential ramifications of NAIS participation.

Some of the questions include:

* What is the specific authority that grants USDA the power to register personal real estate as a premises without prior consent, power of attorney in fact, or by persons lacking legal age or capacity?

* Does registration of real property as a premises become a permanent assignment to the affected property?

* Does registration of real property as a premises constitute a taking as defined in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

* Will those affected by premises registration of real property be compensated for any taking, in what amount, by what standard of evaluation, and frequency?

* Does an agency memorandum, on premises registration of real property, stand as an act of law?

* Where, by an Act of Congress as legislated within the bounds of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, has USDA been given authority to register real property as a premises or otherwise implement the National Animal Identification System?

* Where in the U.S. Constitution is USDA given authority to register real property as a premises or otherwise implement the National Animal Identification System?

* Will future land title and use of private real estate be impacted by implementation of the National Animal Identification System, resulting in further Federal regulation or authority?

“If your agency intends to proceed with its implementation of the NAIS proposal, including premises registration of real property, the cattle-producing members of R-CALF USA, who are directly affected by NAIS, deserve to know the specific authority underpinning your agency’s actions, as well as the potential ramifications from participating in the NAIS,” Thornsberry concluded in the letter.

R-CALF USA Animal Identification Committee Chair Kenny Fox praised committee members for the time and research they put into drafting this letter and said he hopes USDA will finally admit the agency has absolutely no authority to implement NAIS.

“USDA says publicly NAIS is a voluntary system, but their actions prove otherwise,” said Fox. “There’s a reason the agency chose to use the word ‘premises’ instead of ‘property,’ especially when you consider that producers’ information already is available to USDA. If NAIS becomes the law of the land, you can bet that registering your premises is the first step to ceding your authority over to the government when it comes to your business operations.”

Note: To view/download this letter in its entirety, please visit the “Animal ID” link at www.r-calfusa.com.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com, or, call 406-252-2516.

December 20, 2007

USDA Releases Business Plan and New User's Guide

The draft NAIS Business Plan has been released. It was published in the December 19 Federal Register.

And, as if it couldn't get any worse, a New Users Guide also has been released. Isn't the USDA genius with their timing, just around the holidays when they figure everyone is too busy to pay attention?

Just one more tidbit for you. This change was found in the Senate version of the Farm Bill, the one they passed.

Strike Section 10305 of Livestock title and replace with this section: (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations consistent with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, et seq., regarding the disclosure of information submitted by farmers and ranchers who participate in the National Animal Identification System. The regulations promulgated, which shall be subject to a public comment period before finalizing, should address the protection of trade secrets and other proprietary and/or confidential business information that farmers and ranchers disclose in the course of participation in National Animal Identification System.

Listen up, you people. You better wake up before you find that there is no local food available. WAKE UP!!!

October 17, 2007

The Rebel Cow Farmer

Finally a balanced article. It is long but well worth the read.

The Rebel Cow Farmer

Anne Stanton

Greg Niewendorp was a passing blip on the TV news last week, but it�s a blip that will likely balloon. Niewendorp has started a needed conversation about the industrialization of our food supply, and the liberties of people�both farmers and consumers�who don�t want to be part of it.
Last week, in an act of civil disobedience, Niewendorp forced the Michigan Department of Agriculture to obtain a search warrant before coming onto his farm to put radio frequency ID chips on his cattle and to test his cattle for bovine tuberculosis.

SHERIFF RIDES INTO COW TOWN
The scene was peaceful. Charlevoix County Sheriff George Lasater read the search warrant while Niewendorp and 10 supporters stood and listened on an unusually hot fall morning. Niewendorp�s supporters, including one woman who worked on a TB project in Nepal years ago, peppered the key state official, Bridget Patrick, with questions about the $10 million bovine TB eradication program. After about 30 minutes of this, the two techs and the state veterinarian hiked the hills of 160 acres of pastureland to find, catch, and do the skin test on the cattle. It took them the entire day.
Niewendorp lives in the middle of a very quiet nowhere in East Jordan, raising about 20 herd of dairy and beef cattle and one hog. He rotates his cows on 40 different pastures, riding his horse and using a herd dog. In winter, the cows eat hay. Like a lot of small-scale farmers, he slaughters the cows himself and �gives� to friends and family.
His homestead is reminiscent of the kids� tale of Old MacDonald�s farm - and starkly contrasts with the Kansas feedlots of 38,000 head of confined cattle. It wasn�t lost on anyone standing at Niewendorp�s farm that the nation just suffered its second largest recall of meat in history�more than 21 million pounds of frozen hamburger patties suspected of E. coli bacteria contamination �a byproduct of feedlot cows forced to stand in their own manure for months on end.
Niewendorp�s own farm began as a political rebirth. A fifth generation farmer, Niewendorp, 54, grew up on an Iowa farm and saw his father play by the rules in the 1960s, employing �modern management techniques.� His dad amped up his beef herd and each year, confined the animals, and tried to �manage� the pools of liquid manure, which created a penetrating stench on the farm. But �bigger� meant broker, and the family farm went belly-up.

GROWING RESENTMENT
There is no stench on Niewendorp�s farm because the cattle are not confined. Niewendorp said the factory farm system heightens the risk of disease, which has led to the birth of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Its goal is to track every animal from birth to death, and all the movements in between, with the radio frequency IDs that look like white buttons. Supporters say that tagging animals with a 15-digit ID will make the food supply safer. The USDA aims to register all meat producers by January of 2009.
The idea of the NAIS�voluntary in most states�is to quickly identify the source of an infected animal and to protect citizens from terrorists who contaminate the food supply. Farmers will have to log in every �event� of an animal�s life, such as going to a fair, trucking them to another farm, or participating in a rodeo. Not just cattle, but also pet ponies, 4-H animals, and backyard chickens (not fish, though). Scanners at the slaughter house read the chips, much like a grocery store wand reads the price of milk.
Niewendorp said small farmers can scarcely afford the burden of logging and reporting every event of every animal�s life.
The state switched to the RFIDs in March, but was already tracking cattle with metal tags. Niewendorp believes they are using the bovine TB issue as a guise to comply with the NAIS, although state officials say it�s simply quicker, with less room for error.
�These tags make me part of the system, and I have never agreed to that,� he said.
David Gumpert, a writer for Businessweek.com with the blog, thecompletepatient.com, has followed Niewendorp�s story since last winter. He calls his actions �a rebellion of the factory food system.�
�This all ties into nutritional freedom and the growing resentment and suspicion of our country�s whole food supply. A bigger issue than NAIS and raw milk and bovine TB is the integrity of the food system. What you�re seeing is the reaction of increasing numbers of people buying local. What Greg really does is sell directly to local consumers. Unfortunately, the state�s view will take away the individual�s right to self-police, and to knowingly buy meat from cattle that hasn�t been tested for bovine TB or injected with antibiotics or hormones, precisely because that meat is clean.�

TEST OR CONSEQUENCES
On the other side of this issue is Bridget Patrick, the bovine TB eradication project coordinator from the Michigan Department of Community Health and liaison MDA.
She believes that Niewendorp has a right to his opinion, but says it�s a straightforward issue: the state simply wants to protect the public from the risk of contracting bovine tuberculosis, and to stop its spread from wild deer herds to domestic cattle. The test is free, she said, and Niewendorp owes his customers the assurance of safe meat. (As a note, all commercial cattle have been federally inspected for TB at slaughter facilities since 1959; no one, to Patrick�s knowledge, has been sickened by eating a TB cow.)
�The thing is, we have to test for TB because it is in the deer herds, and if we don�t find it in the cattle, it can go from cattle to healthy deer. So although this person doesn�t want to participate in the testing program, he�s jeopardizing the cattle farms and the deer herd,� Patrick said.
There�s a real fear that bovine TB has spread from the northeast part of the state to Antrim and Emmet counties. Yet the devil is in the details. One wild deer tested positive in 1999 in Antrim County. Neither cattle nor deer have tested positive in Charlevoix County where Niewendorp lives. Two cattle tested positive in neighboring Emmet County, but that was five years ago. Two cattle tested positive in farms somewhat near Niewendorp�s farm, but were imported from different parts of the state. The only animal to definitively contract TB in the area was a dairy cow, which tested positive in May of 2006, but it was 15 miles from Niewendorp�s ranch (the range of a wild deer is seven miles). Extensive testing of wild deer turned up nothing.
When pressed at last week�s event, Patrick said this: �If we don�t test, our farmers would lose their ability to market their cattle. It would impact the entire country.�
And her point is valid. The USDA can impose heavy consequences on Michigan farmers if the state does not meet its testing requirements. Since Michigan lost its TB-free status, farmers have sold meat as usual, but Wisconsin farmers stopped buying the state�s live cattle.
Since testing began a decade ago, the numbers of one or more cows testing positive in a herd have dropped from a high of eight herd in 2001 to four last year. Only one cow tested positive this year so far.
Wild deer tell a different story. It peaked at 78 in 1998, with numbers bouncing generally down. A total of 41 deer tested positive in 2006, about twice the number of 2005, and they continue to heavily cluster in the Alpena area, home to exclusive hunt clubs of the rich and powerful (see sidebar).

ONE COW, TRIPLE THE HASSLE
If a single cow is diagnosed with TB, the entire herd is �depopulated� as Patrick would say. The reasoning: the bacterium is very slow growing. Infected cows might test negatively, yet spread it to deer who are nuzzling them through the fence. Producers receive fair-market value, the testing is TB free, so Patrick is wondering why Niewendorp is complaining.
Patrick�s words sound soothing. But Niewendorp�s act of civil disobedience has prompted farmers to speak up.
There is Doug Kirkpatrick, a farmer outside of Alpena, who had his 50 cattle and 10 pigs �depopulated� after a single cow was diagnosed with TB. The herd was condemned a year ago, but the USDA took months to remove. Kirkpatrick told the Petoskey News Review that he spent $6,000 to feed animals considered already dead. The state also killed 231 cattle owned by Kendall Sumerix of Alpena because a cow he bought from Montana tested positive. The MDA went even further and destroyed another 26 cattle of his brother-in-law, Kim Sumerix, in June of 2006. Why?
�Because we bought 13 of the Montana cows from Kendall two and a half years before they ever found the reactor cow in Kendall�s herd,� said Neva Sumerix, who is married to Kim. �But our cattle never tested positive. We were blown away. They told us we had to destroy any relation to his cow because of the possibility of exposure. There was also an issue of what to do with the 13 calves, but my husband and I both work full-time and we didn�t have the time to bottle feed the calves, so we said, take them too. We tried to get along. If we didn�t, our herd would have been quarantined and we wouldn�t have been able to sell our cattle to make payments on the farm. It doesn�t make any sense.�
The MDA says it gives market value for the cows that are �depopulated,� but Sumerix said she had to pay more money for the 11 new cattle than the total she received for the 26 killed. The farmer can�t restock the farm until the last exposed cow leaves the premises, and then it�s another several months to disinfect the farm. That�s time the farmer loses to make money.
Kim Korthase, who lives 10 miles from Niewendorp, said after a steer tested positive, it took �months and months� for the USDA to remove the 259 cattle.
�They found one deer in Antrim County in 1999. Are we going to kill everything for one deer? They have to treat each area for the actual risk. I say, get rid of the deer in the (Alpena area) and let the deer herd come back healthy.�

A BETTER WAY?
Whole herd testing began in Charlevoix County after the MDA declared Antrim County as a �high risk� area in a July 2003 memo. Niewendorp went along and allowed his herd to be tested for TB, but he began researching the disease, believing there was a better way. He discovered that bovine TB bacteria thrives in high-acid, high-iron soil that�s common in Northern Michigan. The iron percolates into the water and into grass and herbs, which are eaten by deer and cattle. With high iron levels, the deer and cattle are more susceptible to the invasion of bovine TB. Bait piles also throw off the deers� natural diet and drive up iron levels. Medical studies show that TB bacteria thrives when a host has high iron supplies. Niewendorp gives his own herd calcium-enriched water, which helps keep iron levels normal for very little money.
He also came across a 1997 Michigan State University study of M. paratuberculosis, in which Michigan farmers were asked to apply lime to pastures as a protective measure. This particular bacteria causes Johne�s Disease. It is a mycobacterium, the same as bovine TB, but not a strain of bovine tuberculosis. In that study, researchers saw a ten-fold reduction in odds of herd infection in pastures applied with lime.
Dr. John Kaneene, a study author and an MSU professor of epidemiology, said he believes it would be a good idea to conduct a similar study with the bovine TB bacterium. One reason is that three Michigan farms found with infected cattle were re-infected, despite attempts to disinfect the grounds.
�The question is, why? Obviously there are many, many reasons. Maybe the farmers don�t do what we recommend�disinfecting and cleaning their farm before bringing in new animals. But the one key question is, are we destroying the organism from the environment from the farm.�
After hearing of Niewendorp�s approach of reducing iron levels of the cattle with calcium supplements, Kaneene agreed that it might serve as an experimental approach. The only caveat was getting permission to expose healthy animals with a dangerous bacteria.

ODD BEDFELLOWS
Along the way, Niewendorp has collected an odd mix of bedfellows�organic food activists such as author Stephanie Mills; stay-off-my-land property rights activists in Antrim and Charlevoix counties; and Amish farmers who feel the same way as Niewendorp about getting their animals tagged. The Amish oppose the tags because of a prophesy in the Bible�s Book of Revelation, which says the �beast� forced everyone to �receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark.� In this case, the computer that scans the ear tags would be the beast.
Niewendorp also had long talks with Ted Beals, a pathologist who taught at the University of Michigan Medical School for 31 years. Beals� own research showed that it is extremely rare for a person to contract bovine TB in this country with current safeguards (although some elderly may harbor the bacteria from earlier days).
In fact, since the big TB scare ten years ago, the MDA has identified only two people with the specific strain of bovine TB. One was a hunter who was dressing a deer in Alpena County. He cut into a TB nodule and the bacteria seeped into a cut in his hand. The cut was badly infected and it took nine months to heal with the help of antibiotics, Patrick said.
The other was an elderly man, who died of other causes shortly after the bacteria was discovered in a medical workup. No one knows how and when he got TB.
The chances of contracting bovine TB by eating meat is so remarkably low, it�s almost impossible, Beals said.
�The animal would have to be very, very sick, and you�d have to eat an infected part of that animal. If the animal had active TB, it would be very obvious to the farmer it was very sick. It�s unlikely that the animal would get past an inspector, and if it did, you�d have to eat the part of the animal that�s actively infected (the lungs, stomach or lymph nodes), and that�s even less likely.�
How about drinking milk from a TB cow?
Possible, but again, highly unlikely. �I am unaware of any documented cases in which a human became infected with bovine tuberculosis by drinking milk that contained the bacteria. It may be technically possible for the bacteria to be present in milk (in those countries with lots of infected and sick cows) and technically possible for a human to drink that milk and have bovine tuberculosis in the intestine, but I do not believe that it has ever been documented. And that is not even conceivable in a country were bovine tuberculosis is seen only rarely in cows, and sick cows are not being milked,� Beals said.

EXTRAVAGANT WASTE
The bovine TB eradication program in 1996 cost several hundred thousand dollars. Now it tops $10 million.
Niewendorp said that one reason he refused testing last year, and again this year, was that the program is an �extravagant waste of money.� A state law says testing must stop if there�s no positive finding within three years in a �high risk� area (Patrick said Charlevoix County is not �high risk�). He contends that the state has not refined or pared down the program and that�s because it would lose $5 million in federal matching grants.
Meanwhile, many hunters are still using bait piles because it hasn�t affected them. Only one deer has actually been found dead of TB, perhaps because critters eat the weak and infected deer, or the deer are shot before getting sick. Whatever the reason, herd numbers are steady.
Beals supports common sense herd management, but said that testing Niewendorp�s herd is unreasonable.
�He is a very good farmer and he knows his animals very well, unlike some situations. There are some big factory farms, where the actual owner may never see the animals. He�s not like that. He knows their health. If any are sick, he knows about it. They are his equity. He�s extraordinarily careful when milking his animals to avoid contamination.�
But wouldn�t examination on a farm-by-farm basis be too difficult?
�The inspectors do know Greg personally and they know all the farmers personally � I don�t buy that argument. You need to do something wrong before you�re arrested or issued a ticket. We expect from our civil servants a fairly high degree of judgment.
Author Stephanie Mills agreed that the state must act in a measured way or risk bankrupting small farmers.
�I must tell you that having consumed beef and milk and cream from Greg�s animals, I discovered what those things really taste like. I did so knowingly. We weigh the risks of the vanishingly small possibility of getting TB from these grass-fed critters against the risks of getting something worse from poorly inspected slaughterhouse beef that�s been re-reddened by exposure to carbon monoxide to keep it salable on the shelf, or encountering hormones in milk that�s come from scores of big dairies to be processed and mixed. I can imagine there being small farmers who are real slobs and who try to get away with shabby practices and sick herds, and I wouldn�t knowingly trade with them. But I know Greg and I know his standards.�

So how did the TB skin tests come out? Two of Niewendorp�s young calves tested positive, meaning they could have avian TB, which is harmless to cattle, or bovine TB. It also could be a false positive. A blood test will provide answers on Tuesday. Stay tuned.


Is The Feeding �Ban� a Farce?

By Anne Stanton

Back in 1994, there came a troubling sign that Michigan was no longer free of bovine tuberculosis. An infected deer was found on the grounds of the ritzy Turtle Lake Club, a 23,000-acre deer hunting club that�s home to 19 multi-millionaire members and cottage mansions.
The 1994 discovery led to the state�s effort to eradicate bovine TB both from cattle and deer. But one farmer in the �hot zone� surrounding Alpena County said the state won�t win the war until it stops going easy on the powerful hunt clubs.
If you�ve never heard of the Turtle Lake Club, an Outdoor Life article describes life on the other side:
�Hunters at Turtle Lake are taken to their blinds in horse-drawn wagons. The deer are driven to the hunters by locals who walk through the woods squeezing rubber bulbs on horns like those used in antique cars,� * wrote Eric Sharp in the September 2007 article.
State officials realized that deer eating and breathing together at bait piles triggered the bovine TB problem. That led to limiting bait to two gallons per hunt site; it must be spread out, not piled.
But farmer Kendall Sumerix, also a biochemist, said enforcement of that rule is a farce. The number of bovine TB deer found in 2006 was about double that of 2005. That�s because the state became lax, he said.
�Stores are selling sugar beets in bulk again; they haven�t done that in five or six years. They�re advertising again and they�re selling the stuff by pick-up loads,� said Sumerix.
Sumerix suggested increasing the current fine of bait pile violations from $100 (it was originally a wrist-slapping $25) to a $500 fine. Maybe half the fine could reward the one who reports it, he said.
Sumerix said the state won�t get tough on bait piles or force a thinning of the infected herd because it would mean mixing it up with the rich and powerful.
�If it involved unimportant people such as us, they�d take out all the deer,� Sumerix says. �But look who hunts there - Governor John Engler. They (the hunt clubs) give politicians free perks and free hunting trips. I�m a Republican, and I think it�s disgusting. It�s all politics, there�s nothing scientific about this program.�
One study shows an outright ban on bait piles would be effective. An extensive MSU study completed in 2001 showed that any amount of bait can be expected to �sustain and spread a disease like bovine TB, but smaller quantities tended to be even worse than the large ones.�
A Danish study gives another compelling reason to eliminate bait piles. Wild deer, in winter, eat moss containing usnic acid, a natural antibiotic for TB. Captive deer won�t eat it because they aren�t hungry enough, Sumerix said.
DNR wildlife biologists for years have told the Natural Resources Commission that bait piles help spread the disease, but the NRC has repeatedly blocked an outright ban, said outdoor writer Bob Butz.
Keith Charters, who heads the NRC, is a long-time friend of former Governor John Engler. A ban on baiting piles would drastically reduce deer numbers and make it much harder to snag a deer.
DNR biologists in the field have told Sumerix that it would be best to drastically thin the infected herds, and let the herd rebuild with a healthy stock. Those in the DNR�s higher echelons say they can�t do that on private land�not even when the deer are fenced in. But that�s exactly what they�re doing with cattle herds on private land when they find just one infected animal, Sumerix said, whose herd was �depopulated� last year.
Is it possible to skin test deer?
No, because the stress would kill them, said Bridget Patrick, bovine TB eradication project coordinator. DNR biologists observe captive deer herds periodically. The DNR is also field testing a blood test that provides an instant result, said DNR spokeswoman Mary Dettloff.
If the state doesn�t get serious about bait piles, bovine TB will continue to seep to other areas of the state, Sumerix fears. The deer are like firewood: hunters kill them, take them downstate, butcher them, and often throw the bone into the bushes. Small animals could eat the guts and spread TB to cattle and deer. The DNR doesn�t believe that small animals can transmit the infection, but many farmers differ.
Sumerix is more than a little concerned. �It�s spreading now! How long are they going to wait?�
Dettloff said that while the incidence of bovine TB spiked in 2006, the state is much better off than it was 12 years ago. �In 2006, the prevalance rate for Bovine TB (in the hot zone), was 2.3 percent. In 1995, it was at 4.9 percent. Eradication efforts are working.�
Tom Cuorchaine, who heads up enforcement, said the department has written 150 citations in the core area and conducted 100 flight patrols since 2004. It plans to step up enforcement this fall.
�I know we haven�t made progress in the last year or two, but it�s not because we haven�t been trying. It goes back to public support�the people who own the property, the people who hunt deer, and the courts.�

September 25, 2007

Daily Yonder

Speak Your Piece: Tag EVERY Animal?

Pork and ChopSharon Zecchinelli's hogs, Pork and Chop, would have to be individually tagged.
Photo:Vince Zecchinelli

As my friends and I rode our horses the other day in the Cold Hollow Mountains of Vermont, I tried to savor the moment. Besides hearing the grunt of a moose, whose retreating tracks we saw on the ride back down the mountain trail, there was sign of a big deer alongside a set of canine tracks. I made note of the place where some partridges rose up out of the bush. Here and there fall colors were beginning to appear in the sugar bush.

I sighed, as I always do, thinking about how these days of having the freedom and liberty to own and ride horses with friends could be slipping away due to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

NAIS is a mandate – not a law – dreamt up by various federal acronyms: the USDA (United Stated Department of Agriculture); the APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services); and the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture). The idea of NAIS is to supposedly trace back disease in the “national herd” within 48 hours of its discovery.

Read the rest of it here.

March 30, 2007

NAIS "How To Handbook" Discovery

USDA Internal Handbook Advises Animal-Identification Staff to Address Farmers “at the Sixth Grade Level”

The USDA’s confidential “NAIS How-To Handbook,” intended for non-public distribution to Federal and State NAIS personnel, reveals an aggressive campaign to implement NAIS in the face of farmer opposition by strictly controlling communications, manipulating media coverage, concealing the original NAIS program documents, and discrediting opponents.

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com


March 29, 2007

A USDA “NAIS (National Animal Identification System) How-To Handbook,” most recently revised in February 2007, instructs all State and Federal NAIS staff aggressively to promote the supposedly “voluntary” premises ID program. The goal of the campaign and the How-To Handbook is to “increase . . . premises registration results” and to promote during 2007 not only “continued growth in premises registration,” but also the “adoption of animal ID and tracing.” (Handbook, p. 1; USDA’s NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, Feb. 2007, p. 1.)

The Handbook demands uniformity and strict adherence to four “key messages” that staff are to present to audiences of farmers when promoting NAIS. As described by the USDA, these “key messages” “are organized into topic categories and supported with concise sentences. They are designed for an audience reading at the sixth grade level.” (Handbook, p. 41.)

The Handbook originally was designed for a meeting in Kansas City in late October 2006, attended by a total of 132 “State ID Coordinators, Federal ID Coordinators, and members of various livestock industry associations.” (NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, Dec. 2006, p. 1.) The meeting was designed to train all NAIS personnel to adhere strictly to “a communications campaign currently being implemented at the National level.” (Handbook, p. 3.) After the original USDA mandatory NAIS plan, set forth in the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards of April 2005, met with an unexpected level of strong opposition from farmers and animal owners, the USDA hired a public-relations firm to analyze the opposition and repackage NAIS with a more congenial-sounding message. (Presentation by Dore Mobley, USDA/APHIS information officer, at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture’s “ID Expo,” August 2006.)

The apparent upshot of the professional public-relations advice was USDA’s completely new marketing campaign for NAIS, implemented in the fall of 2006. Crucial components of the marketing campaign included the Oct. 2006 Kansas City meeting, the Handbook and related promotional materials, and the release of the “NAIS User Guide” in November 2006.

When the USDA launched its new public-relations campaign for NAIS in the fall of 2006, the agency at the same time removed from its website the original NAIS documents, i.e., the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards of April 2005. The common criticism of NAIS as “Orwellian” relies in significant part upon the USDA’s expungement of the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards from the USDA site. The November 2006 “User Guide” stated that it superseded all previous program documents for NAIS. (User Guide, front cover.)

The “new” NAIS approach: emphasize “voluntary,” but aggressively pursue the maximum number of premises IDs and prepare for individual animal ID and animal tracking. The declared purpose of the Handbook is to “increase . . . premises registration results” (p. 1). Its primary goal is to “contribute significantly toward NAIS premises registration totals,” and reach “NAIS premises registration goals” (p. 4). Animal ID staff are told to emphasize “which messages hit home,” that is, which messages increase premises registration (p. 6). Staff are told to avoid wasting effort on strongly anti-NAIS audiences and instead direct effort toward “On The Fence” or “Pro-NAIS” “targets,” to maximize the number of premises signed up (pp. 7-8). Staff are advised not to “invest[ ] time” in “Anti-NAIS producers” and instead “locate and motivate more favorable individuals” (p. 9). While staff are to tell farmers that participation in premises ID will not compel them to participate in either individual animal ID or animal tracking (Handbook, p. 42), at the same time, staff are to pursue the second and third components of NAIS, “adoption of animal ID and tracing,” during 2007. (NAIS Outreach bulletin, Feb. 2007, p. 1).

USDA promulgates a unified, monolithic message to be used by all NAIS staff. The main purpose of the Kansas City meeting, the Handbook, and the USDA-promulgated advertising and outreach materials has been to focus the NAIS State and Federal staff on a consistent strategy and to prevent staff departures from the USDA-mandated NAIS “message.” As the USDA tells Federal and State NAIS staff, “The Handbook is designed to complement a communications campaign currently being implemented at the National level” (p. 3). The goal is to “change the perceptions of individuals who may be misinformed or confused about the details of the NAIS program.” Staff must use “uniform messages” (p. 4) and carefully follow the instructions on the “APHIS-led communication and information network” (p. 5). Federal and State NAIS staff must conform to “the key messages USDA will use at the national level” (p. 12). “USDA spokespersons are using the messages provided in the Appendix [of the Handbook] to provide consistent information at the national and local level. These messages will be used in speeches, print materials, media interviews and elsewhere” (p. 14). With apparent unconscious irony, at the very time the USDA is enforcing staff adherence to the precise assigned “messages,” the agency simultaneously acknowledges that a common objection voiced by farmers to NAIS is that the program “sounds like Big Brother government” (p. 7). Should it appear that all government presentations on NAIS are beginning to sound alike -- well, they are all alike, precisely alike, and it’s by careful design.

USDA instructs Federal and State staff on how to manipulate media coverage of NAIS. The USDA makes clear to NAIS staff that spontaneous responses to the media are not acceptable. As to Federal NAIS employees, we are told, “Federal staff are not authorized to handle media interviews.” Federal staff must refer all media matters to the USDA Legislative and Public Affairs Office (p. 16). Staff are encouraged, however, to use such controlled channels as op-ed pieces, letters to the editor to correct “misinformation,” and canned interviews with experts; the USDA urges staff to rely on the “complete message control” available by communicating through a NAIS website (p. 17). The properly authorized expert communications staff are encouraged to pitch canned pro-NAIS stories to the media, to attempt to influence media editorial content through attending editorial board meetings, and to compose “opinion pieces” “to explain the value of premises registration” (p. 19).

USDA reveals results of its NAIS “Opposition Analysis” and creates standardized responses to the NAIS opposition. The NAIS How-To Handbook’s treatment of the “NAIS Opposition” carefully portrays this opposition as nameless and faceless, and avoids specifying the exact points upon which the opposition arguments are based. The USDA implies that the opposition consists of insignificant “groups and individuals” who are just somehow “mistaken”: “The opposition’s information is largely based on misinformation and misunderstanding, but their zeal and emotion appeal is real” (p. 22).

Although the USDA studiously avoids naming its NAIS opponents, in fact they include: a growing list of groups such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association, R-CALF, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, the National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Community Farm Alliance of Kentucky, Rural Vermont, Cattle Producers of Washington, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. Some of these groups have sponsored the introduction of antiNAIS legislation in at least 9 states in the 2007 legislative session. Similarly, the unspecified “individuals” opposed to the USDA’s implementation of NAIS in fact include medical doctors, information-technology professionals, financial planners, entrepreneurs, lawyers, public-interest lobbyists, and former government employees.

The USDA’s Handbook repeatedly refers to NAIS opponents' “misinformation,” but fails to specify any statement of the opponents that is other than completely accurate. The USDA’s most detailed list of “opposition” statements, on pp. 23-24 of the Handbook, dates from January through August 2006 and does not identify any specific individuals as sources for the statements. The websites from which the statements are taken permit comments and postings by visitors, and the USDA’s quotations are not attributed to random visitors, more formal opposition statements, or any other particular source. One statement, the last under “Theme 3: Civil Liberties” (p. 23), obviously refers to the Real ID Act (a common ancillary topic of discussion on many NAIS opposition sites), and not to NAIS at all. Indeed, nearly all the statements the USDA quotes under “Opposition Themes” (pp. 23-24) are in fact quite accurate for their time frame of Jan. - Aug. 2006. During those months, the operative NAIS documents were the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards, which did indeed impose a fully mandatory NAIS by 2008/2009 and did indeed require the participation of all common livestock species, the microchip or RFID individual identification of nearly all animals except factory-farm chickens and pigs, and the reporting of all animal “movements” and changes of status (birth, death, sale, purchase, slaughter, and all travel off-premises) within 24 hours. Only in subsequent documents did the USDA begin to waver as to some of the original requirements of the Draft Strategic Plan. And not until the USDA’s release of the User Guide in November 2006 did the USDA’s stated policy become “voluntary” rather than “mandatory” NAIS.

Even the USDA’s most comprehensive public-relations campaign can’t sell a bad NAIS system to justly skeptical farmers. The USDA’s Handbook, like its User Guide and its present NAIS approach generally, repeatedly speaks of needing to “correct” or adjust farmers’ attitudes or beliefs about NAIS. Why doesn’t the USDA actually examine the possible flaws in the design, the reasoning of, and the justification for NAIS, and abandon this unwanted and unwarranted intrusion of bureaucracy and technocracy into the lives of farmers and animal owners? Why is the USDA, as is so obvious throughout the Handbook, concerned only with appearance or “perception,” and not with reality?

For all that the USDA may think that farmers function “at the sixth grade level” (Handbook, p. 41), farmers seem to be just too smart to be lured by even the USDA’s most prettily baited NAIS hook. In January 2007, the USDA conducted NAIS “focus groups” in Sacramento, California, Springfield, Missouri, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, March 2007, p. 1.) The participants in the “focus groups” were all livestock producers. The purpose of the “focus groups” was to gauge farmers’ responses to elements of the unified USDA NAIS public-relations campaign, particularly, the new NAIS promotional brochures and the USDA-imposed “key messages” for promoting NAIS. These farmers thus received only the USDA pro-NAIS messages and no “opposition” information. By the USDA’s own admission, these farmers, even after intensive exposure to the USDA’s well orchestrated campaign, would not accept premises registration. The USDA’s “key findings” about the attitudes of the focus-group farmers after they had received the USDA’s (and only the USDA’s) side of the NAIS story are:

“Respondents view NAIS as unwanted government intervention.”
“Current NAIS messaging and brochures will not necessarily motivate producers to register premises.”

So, after several years and multiple millions of dollars’ worth of pro-NAIS propaganda, farmers still want no part of NAIS. Perhaps the USDA should begin to entertain the notion that farmers might not be so “misinformed” after all. Maybe farmers are simply justifiably mistrustful of a government agency that insists on treating the very people it is supposed to serve like children.

February 3, 2007

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.

#

January 28, 2007

Premises Registration Statistics as of 23 Jan

To see the real deal, click here. It's a PDF.

Challenge: Find the state with over 100% compliance. Right, more than 100%. Go figure. And those highly paid professionals didn't find anything odd about that. I'll tell ya, that USDA, a real crack team of deep thinkers.