Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 02/15/2006 11:15:31 AM PST by vrwc0915
Texans to face $1,000 per Day Fines for Possession of Baby Chick Alert - State — walterj 1:52 am With House Bill 1361 Texas legislators are determined to keep track of every single little baby chick in Texas. Each cutie must be tagged with a 15 digit number to identify it. All locations containing livestock animals must register as farms. $10 annual premise ID and premise registration fee will be required for all homes where any animal ever exists, even if just visiting. Anyone found not reporting a baby chick hatching, movement or death will face a fine of $1,000 per day for non-compliance. Similar fines for all other forms of livestock were also enacted.
With all this paperwork, fees and fines forget about 4-H. Forget about Future Farmers of America. Forget about that baby chick hatching school project. Homesteaders, you better eat your chickens now and don’t bother counting them. No more eggs. No more summer pigs. Slaughter that fatted calf. From now on plan on purchasing your food only at government approved distribution centers with sufficiently powerful lobbyists and friends in high places. Sorry small farmers - no more farmer’s market or farm stands in the future. The paperwork will destroy small farmers. So dies the Buy Local movement.
This monstrosity was originally brought to you by your friends at the USDA under the guise of NAIS - the National Animal Identification System. The Texas Animal Health Commission, which developed the rules in Texas, can be reached with comments on this absurdity by email until 5pm February 6th, 2006. The question is, are they really listening. Be sure that after that short “public comment” period they’re going to cover their collective eyes and ears as the food supply consolidates into the hands of the big producers. Do you think that will make the national food supply safer?
Perhaps our pseudo-elected Govi-Corp doesn’t have enough to do, so they sit around thinking up things like this. Remember: Idle hands do the devil’s work…
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/012906/business_20060129065.php
"Hey....look what I just bit down on! It's got some little number on it."
I agree, but House Bill 1361 was passed by the Texas Legislature.
Domestic cats, dogs and other household animals are exempt.
Which is it? Are dogs used for food in oriental restaurants exempt, or not?
Me too; if people don't love liberty enough to toss out simple stuff like this, we're ultimately doomed.
I think at some point they'll just make the penalties so severe (probably some "mandatory minimum" to be fair to all) that ignoring them will cost someone everything. Sort of "Zero Tolerance" run amok. $1000/day seems pretty harsh as it is. With Kelo and all it's not too crazy. Of course, I might just be tin-foiling.
Unfortunately, enforcement on any of these things is not done on a universal basis.
One can wind up being singled out for enforcement, then the SWAT team shows up.
Is this legit? I haven't seen any other references to it anywhere.
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/012906/business_20060129065.php
A little more info from the Bryan-College Station paper; The Eagle.
AUSTRALIA: Australian beef producers attack livestock identification system as they see U.S. move away from mandatory rules.
Australian beef producers have hit out at the imposition of a mandatory livestock identification system, which they say erodes the sector’s competitiveness. The producers are angry that they have a mandatory system when other leading beef producers are introducing voluntary systems.
“The USA will not be implementing a mandatory cattle identification program by 2009 and USDA has dropped a six-month-old plan for contracting with a privatized central database to launch cattle identification,” said Australian Beef Association Vice Chairman Brad Bellinger.
The ABA reports that in addressing the Ranchers-Cattlemen’s Action Legal Fund, Neil Hammerschmidt, USDA’s National Animal Identification Systems coordinator, laid to rest concerns that any mandatory system will be implemented. They said that Hammerschmidt said there is no one working on the rules to implement a mandatory program.
“This buries claims made by Cattle Council of Australia that America is on track to implement a similar NLIS as Australia,” Bellinger said. “There is as strong an opposition to implement such a scheme among America’s ranchers as there is among Australian producers, yet this time the American government has taken on board their concerns and implemented them.”
Bellinger called for an end by the Cattle Council of distributing inaccurate information about NLIS in overseas countries.
“Australia is looking more isolated in its implementation of NLIS, when the world’s largest beef-consumer country has rejected any such scheme,” he added. “Financial costs like NLIS and restrictions upon our management are seriously eroding our competitive advantage in supplying an increasingly contested world beef market.”
Web posted: February 15, 2006
Category: Legislation and Regulation,Trade
In Europe:Chris Harris, Editor or
In North America: Bryan Salvage, Editorial Director
>>>>All I can tell you, the lady said "pets" (dogs and cats) and other domesticated as in aquarium fish are exempt.
Did you miss my response to you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1579154/posts?page=98#98
They are playing on words with you.
Ever since this EU/WTO trade agreement got signed, the animals including pets have to be tagged. We signed on it. Docs are at my site.
http://nationalpropertyowners.org/nais.html
Now I'm all for flipping the NGOs the bird. I've no idea when we came under UN rule. I always thought we were sovereign.
Ok its official everyone else can stop trying from this day forth.You are now the all time freeper king of puns :-)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Hay registration press release has MONSANTO in it.
Dr. C. Ford Runge Against Trade Restrictions on Biotech Crops
Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document.
Notable economist cites significant potential benefits for poor
farmers in developing countries
(PRWEWB) February 14, 2006 -- In 2003-04, approximately $44 billion in
value was being produced worldwide from biotech crops, according to
research conducted by Dr. C. Ford Runge, Director of the Center for
International Food and Agricultural Policy (CIFAP) at the University
of Minnesota. The research appears in a consulting report for the
Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI).
"At the macro level, the impact of the technology is only beginning to
be felt. So every year, I would anticipate that that value figure will
grow. Biotech crops will play a more and more important role in the
global crop economy," Runge says in a new video available at
biotech-gmo.com.
"My only real interest is that plant biotechnology not become an
excuse for restricting trade that's a potential benefit not only to
our farmers in the United States, but especially to poor farmers in
developing countries," Runge continues.
Dr. Runge's research demonstrates there is increasing adoption of
biotech crops, with the potential for a major expansion of planted
acreage still to come. Research on new GM crops is also robust, with
efforts ongoing in 57 plant species across 63 countries, including
programs in Asia, Latin America and parts of Africa.
"It is an extremely powerful and important emerging technology. And
it's going to play its role and part depending on the degree to which
it can be made available, appropriate and friendly – especially to
poor farmers in developing countries," says Runge.
"The question that has been raised in some quarters is whether or not
transgenic crops are only for big, rich farmers." According to Runge,
the answer is no. "The reason for this goes back to the fact that the
advantages of the technology are inherent in the seed."
To view the short video featuring Dr. C. Ford Runge, visit Monsanto's
Conversations about Plant Biotechnology website:
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/new.htm
The opinions and information offered are those of Dr. C. Ford Runge
and not the University of Minnesota.
CONTACT:
Michael Doane
Monsanto Company
314-694-8351
www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo
Thanks for the ping!
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.