NAIS - Please Educate Yourself

[Randi]

To all - If you don't know about what the USDA is proposing with the Nataional Animal Identification System - please educate yourself and then, write letters to your congressman if you feel that this is wrong.

The USDA says that it is only proposed at this time, but individual states are going ahead and putting their programs into effect, on a voluntary basis - for now. "http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml" On this site, on the right side of the page, you can check and see what is happening regarding this program, in your own state.

In Texas,what it means is that for all horse owners, all horses will have to be microchipped (mandatory), you must register your "premise" (location of horse's home) and each time your horse leaves the property, you must fill out a form, whether on-line or on a post card, with in 24 hours of the horse leaving or getting back home. You must do this EVERY time - to the vet - to a trail ride - to a horse show - to go visit a friend. You must state the destination "premise", the "premise" that the equine left from, etc. Right now, until July 2006, our (Texas) registration of the premise is free and voluntary - after that $10.00 per year, to be paid every two years. Only registration of "premise" is being asked for at this time and is considered voluntary, but if people aren't aware and don't speak out, it will end up being passed, becoming mandatory and cost casual horse owners a lot of time and possible invasion of privacy issues, with registration and microchipping being made mandatory. It will cost rescues dearly in manpower that most don't have to spare, possibly even causing some to close down, due to the burden that simply can't be met. This is for cattle too, and may possibly put many smaller operations out of buisness, as they have to register their cows and do the same thing each time they move the herd, for each individual cow.

Please educate yourself and if you have questions or concerns, let your congressman and senators know, before the laws get passed in your state. In Texas, even though it was basically unheard of, our deadline for comments to the "proposed legislation" was two days ago. With most people being unaware of it in the first place.

[Morganslil1]

Randi I am against NAIS simply because I feel it is a major invaision of privacy
Why should we have to report to big brother every time we go on a trail ride with friends.Guns must be registered however you dont have to report it when you leave home to go hunting so why must you report going on a trail ride.

[azgirl]

My Vet told me that even if every horse gets microchiped there is no budget right now ( in Arizona ) for scanners. Only a handful of Vets, BLM and Border patrol have them. :confused:

[justbcos]

What a pain in the rear! And there's NO WAY that Texas (or any other state) has the budget or manpower to deal with that level of paperwork. Every time you go to a show, go to the vet, go trail riding, etc.? What about the ranchers who go help each other move cows? Gimme a break...

I don't have a problem with microchipping per se - it could be useful for retrieving a lost/stolen horse, but the paperwork that you describe is a real problem. What will happen is people will say "yeah, right - they won't catch me"... and move the horse around anyway without filing the paperwork. But I can see filing paperwork if you sell the horse, so that the microchip is now registered to a different owner/locale...

Very interesting premise...

[Raffles_Mom]

I kind of like the idea of microchipping as a way to deter horse theives especially if scanners are used at every slaughter house. I do find the rest disturbing and I wonder why this is even being considered?

[Raffles_Mom]

Hey I heard in arizona that when you get a hauling permit that a member of the livestock board doesn't even come out to look at your horse you just send in a picture and the request for a hauling permit. I heard this from a member of the livestock board in NM because we were discussing the reasons for hauling permits.

[azgirl]

You heard right. But!
Your Vet does an inspection and fills out all the paperwork.
He sends it out and the Arizona Department of Agriculture and they will send you a copy and the hauling Card.
Effective August 22, 2002, participation in the equine hauling card program is "Voluntary" in Arizona.
I have my horses registered.

[Randi]

Yes, there are lots of problems with this system. Moving cattle, for smaller ranches and farms that simply will not have the manpower for the registration, each time a cow/herd is moved.

The Amish community - this would no doubt go against their beliefs and way of life.

Scanners - Even as it is now scanners are not universal, so even if your horse is mocrochipped, unless the scanner works for that brand of chip - does no good. Not to mention the equipment that would be necessary to purchase - again for those that are barely hanging on as it is. Rescues, small farms and ranches, individual "pet" owners, etc.

Compliance - Not everyone will comply and there is not enough manpower to oversee this program.

There are many other concerns as well. Another thing that I really don't like about it, is that it has not really been made public knowledge, so when there are deadlines for public comment and there is not much - since many are not even aware of what is happening - it appears that there are no complaints and it is looked at as being accepted.

Randi

[scabbitin2004]

Randi I am against NAIS simply because I feel it is a major invaision of privacy
Why should we have to report to big brother every time we go on a trail ride with friends.Guns must be registered however you dont have to report it when you leave home to go hunting so why must you report going on a trail ride.

I am right along with you. It is a major invasion of privacy. Not only that it is a BIG hassle. Anytime any thing is moved anywhere is has to be recorded. For farms like us who move animals all over the place it is a nightmare even thinking about it. All it is, is a way for the goverment to get there little greedy paws in everything that we do. If people would raise animals the way the God intented them to be raised we would not have these problems that they are having with things like BSE and dieses like that. These diesases have only come about since people have been altering the way that the animals live. Enough for now. More later

[Randi]

BSE and other diseases is precisely what they claim that this will help control and monitor. There are systems in place for this type of thing already, that you shouldn't need to now include small operations and individual "pet" owners.

That's not to mention how irritating it is when the government, whether it be local, state or federal, want to classify my horses as "recreational", so that I can not claim an agrictulrure exemption on our property for having them, but classify them as "livestock", when there is a program such as this that I will have to pay for, in both time and (though not much -for now) money. It's not right that these animals be classified according to whatever way benefits Uncle Sam. They should be one or the other (recreational or livestcock), across the board.

[Randi]

There is a meeting on this in Austin, Texas on Feb 16 and you must register for it beforehand, if you want to attend and be heard. There are no contact people that we can call, or email. Either attend the meeting, or that is the way it will be - however they decide. They claim that it is all just "proposed" at this time, but it is "written" and being implemented through the premise registration that is still voluntary, but won't be after July 2006. After that, the mandatory microchipping will start, if this all goes though and is not stopped somehow.

That is why I posted for others to get involved in what is going on in their own states. The USDA claims to have abandoned the idea of a national program, but has left it up to individual states. Please find out what your state is doing, before it's too late. If other states don't follow suit, my hope is that the states that are implementing this, will abandon it as well.

Randi

[scabbitin2004]

[QUOTE=Randi]BSE and other diseases is precisely what they claim that this will help control and monitor. There are systems in place for this type of thing already, that you shouldn't need to now include small operations and individual "pet" owners. [QUOTE]

Ok I am going to get on my soap box for a little while. Show me an ID system that is going to stop BSE and diseases like that from spreading. No ID system will ever stop those diseases from spreading. Its what they are doing to the animals that is making the get it. First maybe we ought to not feed are animals other animal parts that they were not inteded to eat. If the goverment would not be so bent on this bigger is better stance and concentrate more on making agriculture a worth while career then we would not be fighting over this. Why is the gov concentrating there efforts to mega agriculture when they are constintually fighting the problems that they make and are putting people out of business and bankrupting people left and right? Why do they not concintrate on something that they know will make rural america a viable place to live and make a living? Because all of the Tyson, IBP mega farms like that, that are common nation/world wide are pushing this. They want this to stop all of the small farmers from ever exsiting because they know that if the small farmer gets enough support from the consumer (which is happening and they are starting to feel it) they will go right out of business because no one will buy there $.39 per pound soybean feed, boneless skinless, chicken breast. By the way I would stay away from any mega style of food and all processed foods, if you want to know why PM me and I will be glad to "talk" to you. Ok enough for now, I will now step off of my soap box again, but only to soon be back on :D

[banat]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both " -Benjamin Franklin
I'm amazed at the lack of outrage regarding this proposal. :mad:
"www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/animal_id/"
Everyone, not just horse and livestock owners, will be affected by this proposal.
The following sums up the problems with this proposal
"The NAIS proposals as embodied in the Standards and Plan are unworkable
because of economic costs, the huge burdens of reporting, and enormous and needless complexity. Their justifications based on animal diseases and food
safety would not be served but in fact would be harmed by the NAIS. The
Department has failed to consider numerous alternative methods that might actually further animal health and food security without the vast problems of the proposed NAIS. The Department has limited any input on the NAIS
chiefly to a small group of parties with a preexisting bias toward
mandatory animal ID; the Department did not make its plans known to small farming interest groups and did not seek any input from such groups. Last, and first, the most fatal flaw of the proposed NAIS is its disregard for fundamental human rights enshrined in our Constitution: the right to
religious freedom, the right of property ownership, the right of privacy.

Not since Prohibition has any government agency attempted to enshrine in
law a system which so thoroughly stigmatizes and burdens common, everyday behavior and is so certain to meet with huge resistance from the citizens it unjustly targets. Therefore, the Department should: (1) withdraw the
present Standards and Plan as failing to embody a fair or workable system; (2) reconsider whether, particularly in light of the present effective
measures against BSE, any animal I.D. scheme is warranted at present; (3) consider implementing the low cost and easily undertaken measures that
would more effectively protect animal health, human health, and the food
supply; (4) review its procedures for development of programs such as NAIS to correct the limitation of input to self-selected groups and the failure to notify the vast majority of affected parties; and (5) institute
procedures to assure that, in the future, proposed programs will not be
permitted to threaten the constitutional rights of citizens."

[Randi]

People aren't as outraged as they should be because these meetings are being held and decisions made without public awareness, in some cases. Due to the meeting in Austin, in February, and interested parties going to voice their concerns (they only allowed so many people to speak, although there were many more there that wished to) the State of Texas has put anything further on hold temporarily. The first part of the system - registering your "premise" will still be mandatory, starting in July of this year. This is in effect in two or three states now, and still people aren't aware.

Antother issue is the threat of terrorism and hackers getting into this system and knowing about our food supply (farmers, cattle, etc.) locations.

Thanks for bringing this up again Banat. Everyone should realize that this will affect them and that it is not simply something going on in some other state. Originally it was to be a national effort, but it was soon realized that was too big an undertaking, so it has been left up to each individual state to implement their own form of ID system, which they are all busy doing.

[Houdini]

OKay, I must be dense about this issue. Am I right that the government wants everyone who owns horses and cattle to have them micro chipped so they can monitor where these animals go? And that if you go on a trail ride you have to write to them and tell them that you went on a trail ride? That you took your horse to a horse show? That you rode your horse up the street to visit a friend? That you took your cow to the FFA or 4H Fair? My question is why? Why does the government want to know everytime you take your horse or cow off your property? Is it because the government can milk more money out of the little guy? What about sheep or goats or pigs? Are dogs and cats next? Our kids? Us? I was actually going to have my horses micro chipped only because of in case they got stolen. I keep hearing that more and more horses are being stolen and ending up who knows where. But now I am reconsidering having it done. I just don't understand the logic as to why they want it to be mandatory.

[justbcos]

I believe it was started because of Mad Cow disease - this will allow the government to trace every cow back to when and where it was born, who all has owned it, etc. so that they can figure out where the cow got the feed that gave it mad cow disease. I'm not sure why this has spread to horses, and I don't know why they want to know every time the horse leaves your property for a day (that seems like overkill, and impossible to properly manage). Typical bureaucracy - people who aren't even in the situation make rules to impose on other people without having any idea of the impact or even the feasibility of enforcing the rules.

[Randi]

Houdini - here is the page on the NAIS site for Oregon - "http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/AHID/animal_health/national_id.shtml" I didn't look, but it might be that you guys are also almost manadatory for premise registration. Ours in Texas is voluntary until July, after that it's mandatory. The premise registration is only the beginning of a three or four phase process. Once premises are registered, they will then require animal registration, then individual animal registration through microchipping. No telling what the fees for any of this might be. They are only saying now that premise registration is required and what type of animals you have on the premise.

They want to know each time a horse (or other livestock) leaves it's premise and goes to another premise, so that if there is an outbreak of infectious disease at either premise, it can quickly be tracked as to where the disease may spread to, or what it's origin may be and all animals exposed or possibly exposed be able to be known and checked.

For anyone wanting to see what is going on in their own state - "http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml" On the side of the page, it says "Contact Your State or Tribe" click on your state or tribe and each has a link to it's own state animal ID website. There you can read about what your state is implementing.

[*Paula]

I was about to start a thread on this topic when I saw that it had already been brought up. So now I'd like to bring this back to the top and add some comments. I think this is a very important subject and we animals owners have got to step up and put a stop to it.
I am convinced that the NAIS program is a money grabbing scheme being worked up by the beef industry and the USDA. It's the only thing that makes sense. The beef industry has been losing money for the last several years and they have been trying to make it up in foreign markets. Unfortunately the BSE (mad cow) scare has caused some big overseas markets to stop buying North American beef. So the USDA and the beef council conjured up this ridiculous plan in order to show the foreign markets what a fabulous food safety system we have. Now this is the interesting part..........the USDA is conveniently allowing large (i.e. corporate :mad: )producers to use one ID number for an entire herd of animals, while us small folks will have to pay to register every singe horse or livestock animal we have. This includes sheep, goats, chickens, pigs and possibly even farmed fish. All that registration money is going to go into a system that will have NOTHING to do with food safety and will only benefit big agri-biz by expanding their foreign markets.
Those of you who raise market animals like my husband and I do, when this plan becomes mandatory we will not be able to sell our animals to market because the USDA will not allow unregistered animals to be slaughtered. That is how they will force compliance. They have no jurisdiction over individuals but they do control the slaughterhouses. I just hope we can all get this thing stopped in time!

[*Paula]

Just wanted to add something else. Someone asked why the USDA came up with NAIS and why they would make it madatory. They are doing this under the guise of the Bioterrorism act and also the Patriot act. They site mad cow disease and the threat of bioterrorism as the two biggest reasons for needing a national ID program. What they eventually want is a system where an animal can be traced back to it's original place of birth within 48 hours after a disease breaks out. I have two major problems with this. First cows get mad cow disease from feed contaminated with cow parts. Seems to me they should be putting ID tags on the feed bags, not the cows. As far as bioterrorism, if someone wanted to contaminate the food supply would it not be easier and more effective to do it at the processing plant, not some ranch in the middle of nowhere where you are likely to be shot at by the rancher?
The only reason I can think of as to why they would include horses is $$$.

Okay I'm done ranting for now. This subject aggravates me, as if you couldn't tell!

[Randi]

Thanks for bringing this up again Paula. It is important, and I don't think people realize that it WILL have an effect on everyone, eventually. In Texas, they have suspended talks, and have made no firm decisions - for now. From what I understand, we are allowed to only register our premise for now, then later (in the next "phase"), register animals as a herd, then it goes to individual animals once the mandatory microchipping is implemented. We are still suppose to register our premise - free until June, but for now that is as far as it has gone, until talks or more meetings occur. It will make it impossible for some smaller operations to stay in business. There are many theories as to the reasoning behind this. Some folks that I know, spoke to the USDA about it and when asked how they would enforce compliance, they were told that it would be almost impossible. Whatever the case, it simply makes no sense for horse owners - especially pleasure horses! Most horse owners seem to be against it. Thankfully, I have been seeing more articles about it recently.

[DreamRider]

Personally I feel all horse owners should start this immediately....why??? because it would overwhelm the government so bad they will abort the idea. They have no Idea the cost of such plan. Yes, Washington State is big on microchipping pets, most vets do have scanners as well as animal controls, but not all. Your small town vets don't feel the need for such as they know the owners of most pets around.

Do they realize that there are more horses per capita than cattle? I agree with microchipping and am thinking about freeze branding them with their microchip number just so it's visiable. All my dogs were microchipped and it's paid off more than once. Though I am not sure about once I get to Wisconsin. I am going to a small town where chances of them having a scanner is nil.

[Gisela]

I hope you dont mind me posting this very important piece of information to your attention. Its regarding Surveys. Part one

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.

Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if there is any relationship between the survey and the data being collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As we shall see, although USDA personnel won’t admit it, NASS data is the foundation of the USDA’s aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

To my great surprise, in this morning’s mail I myself received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I say “to my great surprise,” because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever. I have never before received any type of communication from NASS.

The envelope states in very large letters, “YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” The envelope further states that the due date is January 29, 2007. As explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not in fact “REQUIRED BY LAW” to answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn’t actually required to respond.

The form itself begins with several general questions, such as “Do you own or rent any land?” “Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?” “Do you receive government payments?” The questions appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer “yes” is among those “REQUIRED BY LAW” to fill out this form. The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who is not homeless “owns or rents” real estate; some 75 million people in the United States “grow vegetables;” and some 60 million people receive “government payments.” (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)

Now, perhaps it is possible that this “wide net” might not be as intrusive as it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach. This morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDA’s Helena, Montana call center. According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a “horse magazine” might have been included in the database.

[Gisela]

Part 2

Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of “horse magazines”? Why and how are “horse magazines,” or, for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question? During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people’s incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a trivial question.

Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever wider. The form states: “Many people who don’t consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture.” “We need your completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural activity.” Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the “REQUIRED BY LAW” language of the envelope:
“ ‘Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks – the threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of “quoting” something to make it appear extra-important.) One senses evasions aplenty here — the form has referred to the “definition of a farm or ranch” but nowhere tells us that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not meet the definition of a “farm.”

Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the definition of a “farm” and the possible legal penalties for not responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition of “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was correct. (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs, HYPERLINK “http://www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1″ www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1.) Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC § 2204g (d) (2), namely, that a “person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,” I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician. First we addressed the question of the “farm” definition. Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the “farm” definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also conceded that the basic definition of a “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain “point values” for particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000, your operation would meet the definition of a “farm.” When asked for an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she explained that each equine equals 200 points.) When asked how many cattle equal a “farm,” Ms. Sprague said she did not know. At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list. But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she would “advise” anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire, although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses would not meet the definition of a “farm” and therefore would not be required to fill out the survey.

We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS mailing list are “confidential.” I noted the call-center woman’s reference to a subscription to a “horse magazine” as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growers’ associations, such as the Wheat Growers’ Association and Barley Growers’ Association, were examples of sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any, claiming that some are “confidential” and some are “not confidential.” She explained the overall process of list building thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are “possibilities of agricultural activity,” NASS incorporates those names into its mailing list.

We returned to the subject of “point values” for different livestock. Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold for a long while. Subsequently, she gave me the following point values: beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head. (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on the point values. For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5 horses, “because it wouldn’t be ethical.” (But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly “ethical.” And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states’ continued receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine. Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer’s failure to answer any or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine. She also said that the fine is “rarely enforced” and that if any “producer” “chooses” not to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, “Absolutely none.” I asked her if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASS’s database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, “Absolutely not.” And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2204g (f) (3), “Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.”

Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri’s solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Dr. Goff provided written answers on December 20, 2006. When asked where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr. Goff stated: “the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.”

I won’t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey. Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States Senators. I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS’s compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will I do this? Because I don’t live by the USDA’s false code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.

Copyright 2007 by Mary Zanoni. The following article may be distributed solely for personal and non-commercial use without prior permission from the author. Non-commercial distribution and posting to assist in disseminating information about NAIS is, in fact, encouraged, so long as proper credit is given and the article is reproduced without changes or deletions. Any other distribution or republication requires the author’s permission in writing and requests for such permission should be directed to the author at the address/phone/e-mail address below.

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY 13617
315-386-3199
mlz@slic.com


posted by Gisela