|
NATIONAL
ANIMAL
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM
UPDATE
March
1,
2007
The
following
article
was
written
and
copyrighted
by
Mary
Zanoni,
PhD
(Cornell),
JD
(Yale),
Founder
and
Executive
Director,
Farm
for
Life,
P.O.
Box
501,
Canton,
NY
13617,
(315)
265-2800.
It
is
being
posted
on
NPGA’s
website
with
the
written
permission
of
the
author:
Monday,
February
12,
2007
“Joe
Cattleman”
Scores
Decisively
in
Round
One
Against
the
NCBA:
In
a
Rare
Example
of
a
True
“Free
Market,”
Nobody
is
Buying
the
Ridiculous
Government/Corporate
Scheme
for
Tracking
Everything
that
Walks,
Flies,
Swims
or
Crawls
(But
the
Fight
is
Far
from
Over
-
Get
Ready
for
Round
Two)
by
Mary
Zanoni
This
morning,
several
people
have
sent
me
the
article
that
appeared
on
CattleNetwork
late
last
Friday
afternoon,
“Animal
Tracking
System
Sidelined
for
Lack
of
Support,”
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=104957.
(Kathryn
Russell
of
Virginia
Independent
Consumers
and
Farmers
Association
[VICFA,
www.vicfa.net]
was
the
first
to
draw
attention
to
the
article,
with
Sharon
Zecchinelli
and
Doreen
Hannes
helping
to
distribute
it
to
the
NAIS
opposition
community.)
The
article,
by
Les
Aldrich
of
the
Dow
Jones
Newswire,
reports
that
the
U.S.
Animal
Identification
Organization
(USAIO)
has
been
“suspended
for
lack
of
interest
and
financing.”
The
USAIO
suspended
its
operations
on
January
31,
2007,
pretty
much
because
“no
producer
data
was
ever
entered
into
the
system”
and
“it
became
obsolete
before
it
ever
got
started.”
To
understand
the
significance
of
this
development,
let’s
briefly
review
the
history
of
the
USAIO.
One
of
the
chief
drivers
of
the
development
of
the
dream/nightmare
(depending
on
your
point
of
view)
of
a
National
Animal
Identification
System
(NAIS)
has
always
been
the
National
Cattlemen’s
Beef
Association,
because
the
NCBA
coveted
the
vast
wealth
to
be
gained
if
they
could
secure
a
monopoly
over
the
“animal
tracking
database”
(ATD).
The
ATD
was
the
NAISty
beast
which,
if
the
NCBA
and
USDA
had
had
their
way,
every
animal
owner
in
the
U.S.
would
have
had
to
feed
with
reporting
fees
every
time
any
“livestock”
were
moved
from
place
to
place,
sold,
bought,
died,
birthed,
what-have-you.
(In
the
original
plan,
“livestock”
included
everything
down
to
the
level
of
farmed
fish,
shrimp,
and
clams
-
no
kidding,
it
was
all
in
the
USDA’s
Draft
Strategic
Plan
for
NAIS,
published
in
April
2006.)
Now,
the
NCBA
would
have
loved
to
have
the
ATD
all
to
its
own
self,
but
whoops,
there
were
certain
obvious
legal
anticompetitive
problems
with
that,
plus
it
was
likely
to
cause
a
wholesale
revolt
of
livestock
owners
(particularly
cattlemen),
and
even
some
pretty
hefty
rival
livestock
corporate
interests
were
not
happy
with
it,
since
they
got
no
pieces
of
the
ATD
pie.
Thus,
the
NCBA
morphed
its
anticompetitive
animal
tracking
plot
into
the
so-called
“nonprofit”
USAIO
by
early
2006.
Then
the
so-called
“nonprofit”
USAIO
“partnered”
with
America’s
Monopolists-in-Chief
at
-
big
surprise
-
Microsoft
-
to
launch
a
so-called
“industry-led,
multispecies
animal
tracking
database”
with
much
fanfare
in
a
press
release
on
March
1,
2006.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/mar06/03-01AnimalTrackingPR.mspx
The
problem,
however,
was
similar
to
that
which
Microsoft
is
now
having
with
its
Vista
operating
system
-
nobody
wants
to
buy.
Animal-owner
resistance
prevented
the
USDA
from
imposing
“mandatory”
NAIS
on
its
preferred
schedule,
and
the
agency
now
is
saying
it
only
wants
a
“voluntary”
NAIS.
Legitimate
“volunteers”
have
been
few
and
far
between,
and
the
program
has
provoked
outrage
because
the
USDA
has
egged-on
many
states
to
fulfill
their
“premises
ID”
quotas
for
USDA
grant
funding
by
data-theft
from
pre-existing
state
livestock
programs.
In
other
words,
many
states
have
placed
animal-owner
records
into
the
USDA
premises
information
database
without
the
prior
knowledge
or
consent
of
the
animal
owners.
These
animal
owners
do
not
even
suspect
that
they
have
been
co-opted
into
the
so-called
“voluntary”
premises
registration
system
until
they
receive
a
letter
from
their
state
agriculture
department
“congratulating”
them
on
their
new
premises
ID
number.
Since
many
of
these
“forced
volunteers”
are
sworn
enemies
of
NAIS,
their
bitter
reactions
to
forced
participation
-
while
totally
justified
-
have
not
been
pretty,
and
have
not
gone
unnoticed
by
some
of
their
elected
representatives.
So,
in
a
marked
contrast
to
the
hoopla
surrounding
the
announcement
of
the
USAIO’s
animal-tracking
partnership
in
March
2006,
now,
less
than
a
year
later,
the
USAIO
quietly
slinks
over
the
horizon,
its
Jan.
31,
2007
suspension
of
operations
not
reported
in
the
livestock
media
until
over
a
week
later.
But,
as
the
antiNAIS
movement
has
seen
so
clearly
in
the
past,
this
won’t
be
the
end
of
it.
While
the
USDA
has
been
murmuring
“voluntary,
voluntary,”
states
such
as
Kentucky
and
Washington
have
recently
launched
“sneak
attacks”
to
try
to
impose
NAIS
against
the
will
of
farmers
and
animal
owners
through
minimally-publicized
rulemaking
proceedings.
Livestock
owners
may
not
yet
be
safe
from
a
sneak
attack
by
the
USDA
itself,
in
the
form
of
a
possible
“interim
rule”
that
could
impose
NAIS
with
no
prior
opportunity
for
comment
or
objection.
(See
http://nonais.org/index.php/2007/01/22/bad-premonition/
for
more
on
the
possibility
of
an
“interim
rule.”)
State-level
affiliates
of
the
Farm
Bureau
and
the
National
Cattlemen
-
and
their
legions
of
professional
lobbyists
-
quickly
have
mounted
smear
campaigns
against
farmer-supported
“no
NAIS”
legislation
in
many
states.
But
after
decades
of
farmers
and
ranchers
getting
the
boot-heel
from
the
NCBA
and
its
industrial-agriculture
friends,
winning
Round
One
is
at
least
a
start.
*
*
*
*
*
Copyright
2007
by
Mary
Zanoni.
The
above
article
may
be
distributed
solely
for
personal
and
non-commercial
use
without
prior
permission
from
the
author,
so
long
as
proper
credit
is
given,
the
article
is
reproduced
without
changes
or
deletions,
and
this
copyright
notice
is
displayed.
Any
other
distribution
or
republication
requires
the
author’s
permission
in
writing
and
requests
for
such
permission
should
be
directed
to
the
author
at
315-386-3199
or
mlz@slic.com.
In
granting
permission
for
NPGA
to
post
this
article
on
its
website,
Mary
Zanoni
stated:
“Yes,
by
all
means,
you
may
reprint
my
piece.
It
would
be
good,
however,
to
emphasize
that
the
USDA
and
the
states
continue
to
move
forward
with
more
and
more
involved
and
complex
programs
for
animal
and
farm
tracking.”
Ray
Hoyt
NPGA
President
NAIS
Coordinator
NPGA
HER
Committee
Member
|
|