Replies

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.

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.