Posted on 03/08/2006 10:35:07 AM PST by pubwvj
I don't think anyone here is...the angst and objections arise from people being all too aware of the power of information technology. As I've stated elsewhere, I generally see technology largely as amoral; it can be used for good or bad. Americans who value their freedom need to remain aware of and vigilant toward the fact that the more powerful it becomes, and the more rapidly it becomes more powerful, the point will arrive where it need only be abused or misused once to spawn irreversible conditions.
It's not unlike why we should have nukes but allowing Iran to have them is probably not a good idea.
You are simply amazing. Are you so fearful of life that you would have us all under the thumb of some govt bureaucrat 24/7? Your type is always willing to give away everyone elses rights under the guise of security. Put on your straight jacket and report to your rubber room immediately before you get hurt.
And before someone jumps in saying that we are evil people to let our cats roam free, let me put it this way.... What if someone's dog gets loose and runs around the neighborhood. Is that person expected to know each and every property their dog has come into contact with? Puhleeze. This whole thing is frightening and an abuse of power.
Next thing you know the nanny state will require you to give notice when you leave your house. Please report at all times when you cross a property line...
I don't understand that either Hair. One of my horses does have an e-ID tag but that was done before I bought him. It is through a private company.
Looks like the only thing that will stop this is a general uprising of horse owners like you and me letting our Senators and Representatives know just how upset we are.
I'd like to know how I became a "farmer" and acquired a "farm". All I have is an acre and a half with 2 pleasure horses on it who will never be "processed" anywhere.
We already have to comply with EIA laws, and that is one too many for me.
What is the BCHA position on NAIS? As an avid trail rider, I was intending to join BCH, I emphatically support your efforts on behalf of trail riders on public lands, but I am alarmed to see that Alan Hill is among the Equine Species Working Group members who are recommending horses be included in this program.
My fears are:
First: Upon the discovery of a communicable disease in an area, the animals nearby could be taken, rounded up and killed, perhaps without cause, process, or compensation.
Second: And this one affects our freedom in the outdoors... since a premise has to be registered with an ID number before animals can be taken there, they could refuse the public access to state parks, state and national forest, and other public lands for recreation, hunting, trail riding and hiking, all in the name of "prevention of disease".
Sounds paranoid, but how ELSE could databases of premises and movement of horses be used to prevent disease?
---------------------------
One of those issues that doesn't impact me much, yet, but I'd be inclined to go with my neighbors who own an occasional donkey (why aren't they on the list?), duck, chicken or goat, and are opposed. However
Which animals are covered?: …may also be extended to include dogs…Which animals are covered?: …may also be extended to include dogs…Why are they doing this?: NAIS began as way to open up foreign meat markets…
Why are they doing this?: NAIS began as way to open up foreign meat markets…
If the government would say that, this would die in a heartbeat.
Thanks for posting this. Is this going on in all the states or just some?
It's federal.
Sorry, My brain's been fried today. This will seriously throw a wrench into my getting a horse! :(
No need for that. Get a horse... This is just a pain in the ass thing we have to fight against.
Maybe the Knoelks are right!
She ~was~ a cocker mixed with something else... not sure what.
She was a great dog, and I miss her.
Thanks, I love dogs. She looked like an American Water Spanial, but was the wrong color.
I'm not buying this for a minute.
I ignored it as paranoia for a long time, but I read the draft at the USDA site. It's linked at the top of the article.
OK... but it just doesn't make any sense. Nobody drinks from a firehose, not even government bureaucrat control freaks. The quantities of data in any such proposal are of epic proportions and questionable usefulness.
I agree.
The data quantity would be astronomical, even at a local level. I outlined my fears about it above, but from a functional standpoint, I don't see how they could ever digest all the data if they got even fractional compliance.
Cattle that live one or two places and are butchered young are easy to track this way. Horses that sometimes travel weekly and live 20-30 years are another story.
I have no doubt that the UN and the USDA may want this to happen, but they don't get to make laws.
Can you, or anyone else, show me where this is a law that was passed??
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.