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
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.