http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSectionID=801&ArticleID=35681&TM=39740.63
National Animal ID System subject of legal action
Cookson
Beecher
Capital
Press
10/1/2007
Concerned about Washington state's involvement with the
National Animal Identification System, a small-scale
livestock owner in Western Washington has taken legal
action against the state's Agriculture Department.
In the motion filed with Superior Court in Thurston
County on Sept. 28, Celeste Bishop asked the court to
either order the department to produce the documents she
has requested pertaining to the National Animal
Identification System or explain why they haven't been
produced.
Under the Public Disclosure Act, Bishop made her initial
request on May 15, 2006. In her request, she told the
department she wanted to see all NAIS-related records
and documents from Jan. 1, 1997, to June 1, 2006.
According to information she received from the
department, the department has about 400,000 documents
on NAIS.
Bishop, who has met with department officials numerous
times about her request, said that to be fair to the
department, it has provided many records. But she also
said that by law, citizens have a right to know what
their government is doing and that the agency is
required to give full disclosure unless a specific
exemption applies.
In a telephone interview with Capital Press on Sept. 28,
State Veterinarian Leonard Eldridge said the department
has been working "very hard on this."
"We're making a huge effort to satisfy Celeste Bishop's
request," he said.
The court will make a decision on the motion early this
month.
Public information
Bishop is part of a group of concerned citizens that has
taken on the role of informing the public about NAIS and
about how it will affect them, their farms, and their
livelihoods.
Bishop intends to put the documents she obtains from the
department up on the website, NoNAISWA.org, where
livestock owners, policy makers, and other interested
parties will have access to them.
Once the motion and her declaration are scanned, they,
too, will be available on that website.
Pointing out that this is a complex and controversial
topic, Bishop said that people need to be knowledgeable
about it and have a resource they can turn to that
contains accurate information.
She also believes that it's important for department
officials to realize that people want to be informed
about any involvement the state might have in NAIS.
"There's a lot of miscommunication out there," she said.
"People need to have accurate information about this."
Mandatory, eventually?
Bishop said one of the group's main concerns is that
NAIS, currently a voluntary program, will become
mandatory in Washington state.
"The department is building toward this piece by piece,"
she said. "It's implementing it incrementally."
She points to cooperative agreements the state is
getting from various livestock organizations to
implement NAIS in Washington state as an example of
that.
Those who oppose NAIS fear that it will erode property
rights and individual freedoms and give the government
access to detailed information about their private
property.
More about NAIS
According to the USDA, the goal of NAIS - originally
proposed as mandatory but later changed to voluntary
because of the intense controversy it sparked across the
nation - is to prevent an outbreak of a foreign or
domestic animal disease from spreading and inflicting
devastating economic losses and serious animal and human
health problems.
But in her declaration to the court, Bishop said that
"while NAIS's purported goal of disease containment
appears to be beneficial, the requirement for American
citizens to register privately owned property for
tracking and monitoring purposes has very serious
implications for our privacy, rights and freedoms."
Species included in NAIS are bovine (cattle, bison),
swine, sheep, goats, equine (horses, mules, donkeys),
poultry, camelids (llamas, alpacas) and ratites (emus,
ostriches).
Under NAIS, both the federal and state Departments of
Agriculture were to be involved in three phases: premise
registration; animal identification; and animal movement
reporting.
A premise is a location where animals are housed, held,
or co-mingled.
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA)
began voluntary premise registrations in January 2005.
During the 2007 legislative session, Rep. Kirk Pearson,
R-Monroe, introduced a bill that would have banned the
state from participating in NAIS. At the time, he said
he was responding to the concerns of many of his
constituents - most of them small-scale livestock
owners.
In a Sept. 28 telephone interview with Capital Press,
Pearson said he believes that a mandatory form of NAIS
raises borderline questions about the potential
intrusion of government in people's lives.
Pearson's bill, in its original version, did not pass.
In his testimony on the bill, State Veterinarian
Eldridge warned that the bill would prohibit him from
continuing the voluntary NAIS program the state's
Agriculture Department has in place.
He also pointed out that the previous year the
Legislature passed a law that exempts all
animal-identification system data from public
disclosure.
Staff writer Cookson Beecher is based in Sedro-Woolley,
Wash. E-mail: [email protected].
Reader
Comments
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Article comment by:
Susie Stretton
Celeste Bishop is right on. National Animal ID may
be "voluntary" at the federal level but the USDA is
busy making cooperative agreements in all 50 states
to encourage states to make it mandatory at the
state leverl. She isnt the only one having trouble
getting her hands on those cooperative agreements
either. THey are the end run around the proper
disclosure and input of the people. Small farmers
cannot afford NAIS.
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
Aline Bright
Thanks to Celeste for fighting for us small farmers,
and 4H kids!
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
kim p.
Hopefully, little by little, this very dangerous
program (NAIS) will be exposed for what it really
is, then it will become history.
Our government needs a dose of reality, and the
factory farms, mega processors and poorly regulated
imports, who ARE the problem, must be handled as the
disaster in the making they are.
Traceback? What better traceback can a consumer have
than buying direct from the small farmer who raised
or produced the food with care. Can we say the same
for Cargil, Monsanto, Tyson and the rest....?
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
Joanne Rigutto
Celeste Bishop's suit is important for several
reasons, the most important of which is government
accountability and transparency. In an age of bigger
and more intrusive government post 9/11,
transparency in government is all important in
gaining the public's trust. In speaking with
government officials and animal health care workers
I quite often am asked the question 'Why don't they
trust us?' when we speak of the movement against the
National Animal ID System (NAIS).
What they don't realize is that actions such as
those of WSDA in failing to serve a FOIA request
like Celeste's promptly and in full, only serve to
indicate that their implementation actions and
strategy are such that they know or suspect that the
public would object to them. These behaviors, when
combined with the actions of USDA/APHIS in it's
design and implementation of the NAIS foster an
environment of distrust because those of us who read
the government documents released by both federal
and state agencies are able to see the conflicts and
misinformation set out in them. We hear that NAIS is
to remain voluntary at the federal level while at
the same time watching USDA hand out money for
cooperative agreements with public and private
agencies and organizations forcing those of us who
choose to keep livestock and poultry into
participation in the NAIS. Examples of this are the
mandatory implementation of the NAIS in both
Wisconsin and Michigan and the cooperative agreement
signed between USDA and 4H and the subsequent
forcing of children to register property not their
own in order to participate in fairs in Colorado.
Another example of less than honest implementation
of the NAIS is the NAIS Equine study being conducted
by PENN State university which also makes use of 4H
children. Premises are signed up and horses are
injected with PIT tags, also know as microchips, and
registered with NAIS databases. Are the participants
told that they are being registered with a database
that may or may not allow them to be removed? Are
they informed of the steps they need to take if in
fact they are able to remove themselves, their
animals and their property from the system? Must
they report the sale of a tagged horse and inform
the buyer that the horse they are purchasing is
registered with a federal or federally accessible
database? I have asked these questions and have not
received and answer.
These activities and more cause a great deal of
distrust in government in general and in USDA and
our state departments of agriculture specifically,
which can do nothing more than hamper those agencies
in the commission of their duties.
Celeste should be applauded for taking the time and
going to the effort and expense of obtaining these
documents for all to read.
Joanne Rigutto
Oregon Small Holders Alliance
Head - OSHA NAIS Working Group
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
Barbara
I applaud Celeste for her sticking to her beliefs
and principles for her rights in our now free
society.
NAIS is about agri-business putting small farmers
and livestock holders out of business or making it
illegal to own just one head of livestock if you
choose not to comply. There are NO exceptions.
According to the OIE, which the United States is a
member/partner, the Premises ID is necessary in the
case of a disease outbreak that all livestock in a
minimum 6 mile radius will be found, killed, and
left to decay on the owner’s property. The Premises
ID also takes away your personal property rights and
gives authority to government agencies to have free
access whenever they deem it necessary. Registering
and chipping your livestock also gives ownership of
the livestock to government agencies. Your animals
will now be a number in the “National Herd”. A
farmer (Greg N.) is suing the MDA in Michigan
because the MDA wants to do experimental research on
“his” cows. The MDA contends that since Greg signed
up for NAIS, MDA has the authority to do what they
want. Michigan is a mandatory state. This farmer did
not have a choice.
It will not matter if your livestock is healthy.
Should there be a validated USDA eradicable disease
6 miles away from you, you will be included. Your
daughter's pet pony, your son's pet goat, your mom's
laying hens and your dad's prize bull - no
exceptions. USDA will have the authority to come on
your property, seize and kill your animals, and if
you are lucky will give you diminished slaughter
market value for them. Documentation is available on
the USDA website about this. NAIS is not about
protecting your livestock; it is about murdering
your beloved animals.
NAIS strips Americans of 4 constitutional
amendments; the 1st, 4th, 10th, and 14th. Should
NAIS go through in any sate of this once great
Union, we as American livestock holders loose our
freedoms.
NAIS is NOT about disease control since nothing is
being done to stop the infections brought to the US
from: imported livestock (i.e. mad cow disease from
Canada, China); unsanitary conditions at factory
farms, feedlots, or slaughter houses (i.e. e-coli
recalls on ground beef); or feeds that inherently
spread infections (i.e. mad cow disease from the use
of disposable body parts from slaughter houses).
Consumers will not be protected at all with NAIS.
Once the animal is slaughtered and on a consumer’s
table, there is no way to trace it back.
NAIS is a boondoggle started by major meat exporters
in the US. When they found they could not afford the
system on their own or get compliance from
producers, they engaged the USDA to try and use
federal clout to initiate this plan. The USDA has
since backed off making it mandatory at the federal
level while it pumps millions of tax payer dollars
into state and related industries to force it on
livestock holders at the lower levels.
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
Henwhisperer
Ah, NAIS coming out from under the bushel basket
where it will not stand up to the light of day.
Educate yourselves about NAIS and then ask, Mr and
Mrs Consumer, what do I have that the government
will want control of next?
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
karen taylor
If the NAIS is realized then no one's livestock or
pets will be exempt from ID tags, and possible
errors in information in judgement and slaughtered
for no real reason. Example: Linda Faillace's Sheep
in Northern Vermont. See her best selling book, MAD
SHEEP.
NAIS was not our federal government. National is
just a word used to elude to the fact of
misrepresentation. NAIS is backed by the NIAA, The
National Institute of Animal Agriculture. All one
has to do is to check the NIAA website to see the
NIAA is comprised of large scale mono-culture
factory farms and chemical industries; the National
Pork Council, Monsanto, Cargill Meats, Digital Angel
Animal ID Tag, etc. One can devise from this list
who would benefit financially from small farmers
being put out of business. Monsanto is already
genetically changing seeds and has patents on most.
They have attempted to patent livestock. Courts
ruling life can not be patented.
Within a mono-culture of livestock that are housed
in cramped and inhumane living conditions, a virus
or bacteria can run rampant infecting and/or
killing. Many are fed antibiotics as a growth
regulator and as a result of feeding feces and other
mammalians in a pellet form, corn and other feed not
natural to the animals digestive system. Though
Great Britain has a mammalian to mammalian feed ban,
last I knew The United States only had a species to
species ban. Beef cattle are eating hogs in pelleted
form, chicken litter, ( feather, feces and bedding),
etc.
The small and backyard farmers have a very
diversified breeds of livestock. Most also feed a
more natural feed such as hay and grass that
ruminants chambered stomach was built to digest.
Many of us enjoy the taste of Heritage Breed
Livestock that are allowed sun and room to roam in a
non crowded manure laden environment. We do not
inject our meats with additives and tenderizers as
the meat bought in the store is.
Many of the new generations have no idea of the
difference in taste from a store bought factory
raised chicken egg compared to the flavor of a real
farm egg from chickens that live a more natural
life.
I as well as many feel the NAIS would be a large
step in Americans losing freedom by allowing a few
large companies to control the food source thus
controlling us
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
Sue Diederich
Tax payers and consumers, as well as farmers,
ranchers and hobbyists should read the USDA Handbook
on NAIS.
Here are a few questions (and comments) to remember
as you read:
What protection does the NAIS program offer
consumers?
(I haven't found any...)
Are there provisions to stop the illegal importation
of diseased animals?
(Most of the infectious disease cases in livestock
in the US have come from illegally imported
individual animals.)
Who benefits from the program?
(If small herds must individually tag and track each
animal, yet large feed-lots must only register a
single number, those with the largest herds and the
largest bank account will be the only ones who can
afford to raise animals for meat production.)
Who pays for the program and its continual
administration?
(The USDA states that it will pay a portion of the
costs, the balance to be paid by the state and the
animal owner. What does this mean for your taxes and
your food bill??)
Will NAIS stop people from getting sick on the food
they eat?
(NAIS does not cover the slaughterhouse nor the
packing plant, where most contamination occurs.)
If farmers are now legally only stakeholders, who
actually owns the livestock? Who owns the land?
(Legal definitions are important. Since the handbook
will be used to enforce program rules and
regulations, that makes it a legal document, with
all the ramifications.)
This program is voluntary at the federal level.
Why is the USDA giving grants to states with the
express purpose of making it mandatory at the state
level?
How much has the USDA spent in each state to garner
mandatory status?
Why are FFA and 4H now making premise registration
mandatory for kids to show their animals -
especially when the children do not own the farm?
Why are children being forbidden from showing their
animals without a premise ID at state and certain
county fairs if the program is not mandatory?
What provisions does the NAIS Handbook provide to US
farmers against the problems that every other
country has had with similar programs?
These are only a handful of the questions that need
to be asked. Some answers are in the Handbook.
Others are not.
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Article comment by:
Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals
C.L.U.B.- Freedom
There are only 2 allowable legal reasons to prevent
the release of government held information on a
"Freedom of Information Act" request also called
FOIA request.
1. Reasons of National Security.
2. Reasons of Law Enforcement use.
I do "not" see the National Animal Identification
System (NAIS)documents, in any way, fitting under
either of these 2 official excuses to withhold
government documents and NAIS information.
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007
Article comment by:
s barackman
Good for Celeste! The USDA has been less than
forthcoming about who NAIS will really help
(coporate agriculture) while the small producer and
pet owner of even one livestock animal will have
more surveillance on them than drug dealers,
illegals or convicted sex offenders. |
|