Posted on 02/20/2006 8:10:08 AM PST by Calpernia
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Certainly no one likes gov't waste. Thank you for the non-hysterical and lucid answer.
Now if they never take a single animal off the registered premise they'll have to register the animal. That's EVERY chicken, hog, and goat.
If the concern is to be able to track outbreaks, I don't really have a problem with this. It is better that we know where diseased animals may have come from rather than shutting down the entire country's industry.
The big challenge will be if the proposed enforcement "events" occur. For example, Bubba Brown tries to take his hog to the slaughterhouse and they demand his premise and NAIS animal ID. If that starts happening, the law will fold like a cheap suit. You can't make instant lawbreakers of whole swarths of people without them seeking immediate relief from their representatives (who want to be reelected after all).
I can't get my car inspected without proof of insurance. I fail to see why this is any different.
What makes this a bad idea besides the fact that the gov't is doing it and some people may be ornery?
SD
What exactly is your complaint here? You want to be free to take an unvaccinated animal anywhere you please? Do you think that is wise? Help me understand your beef.
SD
OK. How does this do nothing to improve food safety? Wouldn't it be useful in identifying which animals had come into contact with which other animals for purposes of quarantining suspect herds?
If you inspected every carcass, you would certainly keep unsafe meat out of the market. But what does that tell us about possible cross-contamination of existing herds?
SD
This is not the government. This is not a federal program.
You cannot compare your care to it. You car is registered with the DMV.
This is registering your home, animals, location, all other data collected with a NONconus entity.
The monies from this are coming from grants that state ownership to anything the monies touch.
care = car
I will try and write a more detailed elaborate post about the current safegaurds and whatnot later
The USDA is not the government?
SD
This is NAIS.
Actually, USAIP and USDA created NAIS.
So why you deflect my questions with "this is not the government" baffles me.
You are obviously very much energized by something here. What you fail to do is to explain what that thing is, in a simple understandable way.
I googled USAIP and found this:
1. What is the U. S. Animal Identification Plan?
The U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) defines the standards and framework for implementing and maintaining a phased-in national animal identification system for the United States.
2. What is the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)?
On April 27, 2004, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman announced the framework for implementation of a National Animal Identification System (NAIS) designed to identify any agricultural premise exposed to a foreign animal disease so that it can be more quickly contained and eradicated. She further also announced that $18.8 million would be transferred from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to provide initial funding for the program during FY 2004.
“While many livestock species in the United States can be identified through a variety of systems, a verifiable system of national animal identification will enhance our efforts to respond to intentionally or unintentionally introduced animal disease outbreaks more quickly and effectively,” Veneman said. “This framework is the result of concerted efforts to expedite the implementation of a system that meets our goals and enables farmers and ranchers to adapt existing identification programs and to use all existing forms of effective technologies.”
3. What’s the difference between the USAIP and the NAIS?
The U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) is a detailed plan created by industry representatives over the course of two year to address national animal identification. The U.S. Animal Health Association accepted the USAIP as a work in progress in October 2003. Subsequently, USDA adopted the data standards of USAIP for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Moreover, USDA is using USAIP as a guide as it drafts other standards required for NAIS implementation. As NAIS is developed and implemented, the USAIP development team and species-specific USAIP working groups continue to provide input.
4. Why is a national animal identification system needed?
A national animal identification system is needed to help protect American animal agriculture from foreign or domestic disease threats. Fundamental to controlling any disease threat is a system that can quickly and effectively identify individual animals or groups; the premises where they are located; and the date of entry to that premise. Identifying all food and livestock animals will enhance disease preparedness by allowing the U.S. to identify and locate any animals exposed to disease and will facilitate stopping the spread of that disease. In addition, it will provide benefits to animal owners in terms of market access and consumer demand. The USAIP will help uphold the reputation of the U.S. of having healthy animals and will promote continued confidence in agricultural and animal products. Having a working system that allows for tracebacks to all premises that had direct contact with an animal with an animal disease within 48 hours of discovery will reduce the financial and social impacts of such a disease.
Back to me talking again. Nothing here sounds like a problem to me. Seems quite logical. If you want to create hysteria about it, you will need to provide lucid arguments and not paranoia.
SD
One could say, as liberals have many times, that there's nothing wrong with mandatory government health care, like in Canada and the UK. They could also argue that it would better ensure health for society as everyone will be covered and under a doctors care despite having the funds to pay or not. Why do conservatives then oppose mandatory government health care? Was it just because the Clinton's proposed it? Of course not! There's many good arguments against government imposed health care, but without it we ARE at an enhanced (small but increased) risk of disease outbreak among the uncovered.
If the concern is to be able to track outbreaks, I don't really have a problem with this. It is better that we know where diseased animals may have come from rather than shutting down the entire country's industry.
So that brings me to my first point of contention, will the NAIS prevent outbreaks of animal diseases? Europe and Japan actually test the meat, NAIS wouldn't. NAIS simply identifies every single animal in this country that leaves its place of birth. Or should I say attempts to identify every animal. I contend it won't work; people simply won't go along with it. I can see it as a perfectly good tool for stockyards, large beef and chicken producers, and meat packers. But not small town USA folks.
I can't get my car inspected without proof of insurance. I fail to see why this is any different.
As far as your argument about registering your auto, well believe it or not, there are far, far more ducks, chickens, cows, horses, llamas, geese, turkeys, quail, deer, elk, horses, mules, donkeys, goats ,sheep, emus, etc, etc in this country than automobiles. And automobile registration has been with us in every state as a mandate (not the fedgov) for decades.
I could certainly catch many more tax evaders, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, murderers, in other words, law breakers, mild to heinious, by simply installing listening devices, monitored by computers of course, in everyone's homes.
If I have to explain why I don't think that level of government intrusion into people's lives, were it didn't exist before, is desireable, even if it MIGHT save a life from a disease, I don't know that we'd ever agree.
Suffice to say I can't extrapolate a full blown animal epidemic coming from the small time, raise it to eat it themselves, type animal owner. The argument that the NAIS, applied to every living creature edible, is necessary to prevent disease outbreaks that threaten us severely is just not credible. Since the government has already agreed to exempt the small livestock holder from participating if the animals never leave the premises, I think we can all reach a compromise here without jeopardizing national health. I'm also concerned about the small time producer who simply can't afford to implement all the high tech gagetry. I'm generally opposed to the government applying new fees and taxes anywhere without attempts made to show true fiscal constraint elsewhere, especially when those taxes are applied to the middle and working classes (even though I do think the rich deserve to keep their hard earned cash, also).
I don't have any animals (just a dog and a cat) but I do own a large acreage place in the country. The people before me had goats, pigs, and chickens here. They took all their creatures but left one rooster and one hen, because they couldn't catch them. The crowing woke me up early every sunny morning and I finally let some poor folks I know take the birds, after we had run after them all day! It wasn't easy! Those birds could jive, weave, leap-fly, etc all over the place. If I just wanted to shoot them that would have been easy, but we were trying to keep them alive. I can only empathize with Joe Citizen trying to do this so he doesn't get a thousand $ fine and think that's just rubbish. Failure to comply won't be the cause of avian flu or BSE either.
Bottom line is I think there will be no increased risk to national health if the government exempts (which they've done to some extent) people who raise their own animals for food, or have horses or other pets even if they need to take the animal to the vet or slaughterhouse or ride Silver in the local rodeo. That will also cause us to still appreciate a hopefully (perceived to be) non-intrusive government, as it should be.
What makes this a bad idea besides the fact that the gov't is doing it and some people may be ornery?
Well, you left out the costs, from my previous post. It would be in the billions of dollars. Not just from the taxpayers in government funds, but all the people who own animals. The big producers can pass these costs on to the consumer, but Mom and Pop can't (they don't have any, except perhaps hungry young'uns).
Also, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Sam Adams, I guess you could call them all ornery, too, from one perspective. I guess it depends on your level of tolerance concerning government intrusion into our lives. Some people will grab their forelocks and grovel, others will look 'em in the eye and say "No!" I was against David Koresh's interpertion of faith, and the alledged child abuse at his compound, but the government could've got him peacably when he went out weekly to get gas, instead of tearing into the place with guns blazing. Sadly, that kind of Barney Fife, gotta follow the rules at all costs, people are perps attitude is not unknown in government. It could happen again. We should be vigilant about government. Not scournful, nor hateful, just justifiably suspicious. As Ronald Reagan said, governemnt isn't the solution, it's the problem.
But really, ALL this is besides the point. As people are finding out about NAIS, they're getting fired up over it. I still contend the harshness of it I've illustrated above will be modified out of, well, harshness.
I have provided arguments. You won't read them. You want me to read it for you.
That I will not do.
>>>>The argument that the NAIS, applied to every living creature edible...
Not just edible, it is across the board.
>>>people who raise their own animals for food, or have horses or other pets even if they need to take the animal to the vet or slaughterhouse or ride Silver in the local rodeo.
Add in therapy and educational animals.
You hatch chicks for class observation, you bring animals to therapy sessions, kids take a goat to pull a cart, parties, 4H, FFA....animals are more interwavon in daily life then people realize. It isn't just big companies that sell overseas.
Thank you for the detailed response. Such a system, if in place would indeed help to isolate outbreaks, which is its stated goal.
I contend it won't work; people simply won't go along with it.
Then it won't work. If people don't see the benefit in it and engage in civil disobedience, even the best idea won't work. I can't argue with you there.
I can see it as a perfectly good tool for stockyards, large beef and chicken producers, and meat packers. But not small town USA folks.
The way I see it, if they are placing food into the nation's food chain, they should all abide by the same rules.
As far as your argument about registering your auto, well believe it or not, there are far, far more ducks, chickens, cows, horses, llamas, geese, turkeys, quail, deer, elk, horses, mules, donkeys, goats ,sheep, emus, etc, etc in this country than automobiles. And automobile registration has been with us in every state as a mandate (not the fedgov) for decades.
We could certainly make a constitutional case that this is in the purview of the states and not the federal gov't. But I don't think that will bear much fruit. The USDA runs the show right now and I don't see that changing.
Suffice to say I can't extrapolate a full blown animal epidemic coming from the small time, raise it to eat it themselves, type animal owner. The argument that the NAIS, applied to every living creature edible, is necessary to prevent disease outbreaks that threaten us severely is just not credible
It certainly sounds like a monumental task. I can buy an argument that it just will never work. Canada could not credibly and efficiently register inanimate objects (guns). Not to compare the two, but you get the idea, I hope.
Since the government has already agreed to exempt the small livestock holder from participating if the animals never leave the premises, I think we can all reach a compromise here without jeopardizing national health.
Seems reasonable to me.
I'm also concerned about the small time producer who simply can't afford to implement all the high tech gagetry. I'm generally opposed to the government applying new fees and taxes anywhere without attempts made to show true fiscal constraint elsewhere, especially when those taxes are applied to the middle and working classes (even though I do think the rich deserve to keep their hard earned cash, also).
I can understand this as well. The costs should be borne by both the producers who profit and the consumers, who are theorhetically protected. It is not unknown for big interests to combine with big gov't to regulate their smaller competitors out of business.
Again, thanks for the explanation. I feel I have taken away something from this that was not evident from the original posting.
SD
And what do you feel you took away?
I do! And to think, after all, these were law loving, obedient Canadians! That it failed surprised me, actually.
Calpernia, we must make our CASE to folks. It must be logical and fair. In other words, the CONSERVATIVE way!
I'm still wondering where you saw small business/farms are exempt.
That this is a monumental undertaking that, while based on a good idea, will probably fail after much consternation and wating of money. I could be in favor of a program tracking the largest providers and processors. Making it universal down to the tiniest of local producers seems futile.
SD
I agree that it is futile down to the small business.
But the points you missed is that the monies are being funneled in through grants with owner clauses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.