Obama takes comments on NAIS

This came in my email today. One of them ends today supposedly but if you see this late double check it. Don't miss the second web site ---one is his "official" and the other is a more personal (if that is the correct way to say it) web site. Both are taking comments on Nais.
SPEAK UP.....now is our chance to be heard!!

Online Action Items! First round of voting on Change.org ends today Two websites are allowing people to speak up about the issues they want President-Elect Obama to address when he takes office. The first is his official website: www.change.gov. The second is a private website: www.change.org. On both sites, only the top ideas will be presented to the administration, based on a voting process. Both sites are currently running questions related to stopping the National Animal Identification System. The Change.Org site closes voting on the questions today! So as you make plans to ring in the new year, take a moment to make your voice heard.

Change.Org - Voting Ends Today! The private website, www.change.org, will present the "Top 10 Ideas for America" to the Obama Adminsitration on Inauguration Day. The first phase of the voting ends today, and the top 3 ideas in each category will be selected for the second round of voting. "Stop NAIS" is currently in third place in Agriculture, and the voting is very close! A few votes may make the difference between the Stop NAIS message making it to the next round, or not! Step 1: If you are not already signed up for the site, register at: https://www.change.org/admin/sign_up Step 2: Go to http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_nais Be sure to click the box labeled "vote!" to the left of the Stop NAIS! Simply leaving a comment does not count as a vote. Change.Gov The Obama Transition Team has set up a section calld "Open for Questions" on the official website. They have not specified the deadline for submitting or voting on questions, but said they will respond to the top issues "in the new year." Step 1: Go to http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/ Step 2: Type "animal identification" or "nais" into the box next to "Search Questions" Step 3: Click on the checkmark by the question to vote "yes". If you are not already signed in, you will be asked to, with a link at the top of the box.

We wish everyone a safe and happy New Year! Thank you for all of your activism and support in 2008. Sincerely, Judith McGeary Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance www.FarmAndRanchFreedom.org Phone: 512-243-9404 Toll-free: 866-687-6452

Legal Defense Fund---for farmers

A while back---at least a year ago but I think longer---I spoke with a lady that was part of a group trying to start a legal defense fund for farmers. The premise is similar to the home school defense fund in that money is pooled by yearly or monthly dues to help each member in case of need. Need being defined by harassment or actually suing by local, state or federal governments.
In both homeschooling and farming---"needs" seem to arise frequently. Going against the grain in society seems to create a certain amount of unease in those that are not---and they feel the need to punish people for being different.
Or if you just want to go completely conspiracy theory---then big business tries to monopolize us and force us into going out of business so we won't get a portion of or cut into their profits.
Anyway....we were interested and told them to contact us when they got their group up and running. And at one point we did get an email or something from them but at the time I must have had other things happening and it disappeared (probably into the trash bin of my email).
Today though as I strolled over to read Phelan's most recent post she pointed out something Caroline had told her about this group now suing the state of Michigan and the US government over National Animal Identification System.
Well lo and behold if it isn't the same group---now up and running and doing good deeds.
The group is called the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. They have both farmers and consumers as members and also take donations. The monthly/quarterly dues are not terribly high considering what good they may be able to do with them.
Wondering why a consumer might need to join?
Well if you just start with NAIS and then the stories of people losing their cow shares when the governments "attack" dairy farmers well...you have two good examples right there and unfortunately I am sure there are more.
So...even if you don't join or donate keep up with their site with their action alerts and maybe pass it along to a local farmer or another consumer if you can.

New Link

Sorry to get on my "high horse" yet again----but I still need to harp on and on about the NAIS issue. If you still don't understand it and wonder why you should bother calling your representatives to tell them NO----here is an article that will give you yet another side to the story. It come from the Rural Vermont site which has some other interesting articles on site too. Check it out if you have time.

Letter to the Editor: Disease Response Methods are Overkill

October 18, 2007
Mike Eastman
Addison, Vermont

To the Editor:

I recently attended a meeting in Sheldon, Vermont, called “Planning to Survive an Agricultural Bio-Disaster.” It featured Dr. Steve van Wie, a retired veterinarian who had been sent to England during the 2001 foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, to help kill livestock.

We learned that if one infected animal is found in a herd, then all cows, goats, sheep, llamas, alpacas and pigs within a 6.2 mile radius (the “Hot Zone”) are automatically killed, even if they are healthy and disease-free. We were shown a film taken while Dr. van Wie was over there, documenting the horrors of this response to the disease: livestock were killed and left dead, in barns or in outside barnyards, for “two or three weeks” until disposal crews could reach them. Barns and outbuildings were burned to the ground, to kill the virus. Six and a half million animals were killed, and over 80 farmers committed suicide.

We were told that there was a high risk of terrorists bringing FMD in, and that they’ve tried it this past winter. He said it was easy to do.

But what really made me angry, was the way farmers were treated afterward. They were paid a fraction of the value of their destroyed livestock, little or nothing for their burned buildings, and no compensation at all for lost income (it takes a year before a farm is allowed back in production, if it is able to recover at all).

After the meeting, I asked the speaker, “Shouldn’t you be giving this presentation to Congress, so that if it happens to us, we can be given the support we need?” He replied, “I like to stay out of politics, and anyway, it would cost our taxpayers too much.”

Well, this got me thinking. FMD is not a disease problem as much as it is a political problem. It seems to me that the “cure” is much more emotionally and economically devastating than the disease itself. Interestingly, Dr. van Wie said that during the 2001 outbreak in England, deer were not considered to be a problem because they just went into the woods, recovered on their own and apparently pose no risk of re-infection.

I can’t believe that, in the year 2007, we are still using such a Dark Ages approach to controlling a disease that poses absolutely zero risk to human health. In fact, it is only our “response” to FMD that makes terrorists want to bring it here in the first place. Hysteria, suicide, entire counties under lock-down and quarantine, flames and bullets flying everywhere: what else could a terrorist ask for? It is interesting that we have plenty of taxpayer dollars to fund the over-reactive, military style response our government says we need to control FMD, just none for the farmers.

According to agricultural experts, a system of national animal identification is the answer. This involves putting computer chips in all farm animals at birth, and entering them into a national database so their movements and location can be instantly tracked. That way, when it comes time to depopulate a hot zone, the pet llama or backyard beef won’t be overlooked, even as infected deer are allowed to roam free.

Aside from this absurdity, national animal ID will not stop repeated bioterrorist attacks on our agriculture or the illegal imports that might make it through our borders (pigs can get FMD from eating uncooked, infected meat).

I think Dr. Van Wie did an excellent job educating us to the horrors FMD would present to us as things now stand. Dr. Julie Smith of UVM, who was also speaking, outlined strategies she is working on to make Vermont biosecure, in the event FMD ever does reach the U.S. I thought this was a great first step, but until the government is required to fully compensate all farmers and livestock owners for the losses incurred to them by the “shock and awe” method of control we use now, a sane and nondestructive approach will never be found.

Sincerely,

Mike Eastman

The consequences of our (governments) actions

So, back in August a man named Greg Niewendorp refused to allow the mandatory (for the state of Michigan) NAIS officials onto his property to test and tag some cattle for TB. Not only did they come back with warrants but Mr. Niewendorp was forced to have his cattle RFID tagged.

Check out this link here for more of the story as it unfolded later---and in his own words.
Mr. Niewendorp was/is a well known farmer often lecturing and writing for various conferences and papers. (Papers/magazines that have to do with natural and organic grazing). Joel Salatin also wrote a letter to the Michigan authorities in regards to Mr. Niewendorp's situation: here

Do not take my yesterday's post lightly----we need ALL people to stand up and speak. Not just farmers. Even if you have friends not really into organic/natural----maybe they are into freedoms. Tell them. Share this. This is not some "blog/internet fantasy" or mis information campaign. This is real---and very very serious.

And please please please if you blog----write your own post on this. Use some of these links. I don't care if you do or don't link to me. Bloggers are a force of their own and we can create change especially when the national media will not pick up the stories.

Help is needed---Fight NAIS

Help small farmer's like me fight the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Unfortunately it has AGAIN been included in the new Farm Bill.
Time is imperative---they are close to finalizing and voting.

Remember---NAIS stops long before e-coli or salmonella gets into mishandled food---so it will NOT make us safer from the most food borne illnesses. That is only addressed by proper handling of animals during butchering and processing.

Remember- NAIS will not stop terrorists from contaminating our food. Computer chips are easily (EASILY) hacked and changed or turned off. Do you think if they "turned off" 100,000 ear tags on a group of cattle---that the company wouldn't STILL send it to slaughter and to local markets?
Local is the way to address this problem and also better care in the handling of grains and things needed in greater quantities. Local can also be translated into American---why trade our grain for another country's?

Remember ---NAIS WILL make it easier for local, state and government authorities to tell us how, when, where and why we can raise our own FOOD on our own PROPERTY. Property WE pay for and that the constitution gives us the right to do with pretty much what we want to.

Remember---Other countries have programs similar to NAIS. If they think there is an outbreak---they don't wait to find out for sure. They come in and kill (slaughter) all animals that can transmit whatever form of disease it is within a many many many mile radius. So....take good care of your animals? Won't matter if your neighbor two miles away doesn't---yours will still end up DEAD. And nobody pays you for it either!

Call Senator Harkin (D--Iowa) and tell him:

I want section 10305 taken out of the Farm Bill.  I do not want NAIS included in the Farm Bill in any manner at all.  While we appreciate Senator Harkin trying to protect people's privacy, the provision does more harm than good.  The Senate should not imply approval for any form of federally planned or funded NAIS.

You should also contact the ranking members of the Committee: Including my Senator Saxby Chambliss (R--Ga) and below I will list other members. Committee members DO take comment from those out of their states---they have to. Call them is the best way--or email them. Find them here by state. You can write up a little thing to say and cut and paste it into each of their sites. Start with Senators in your own state first---you have a bit more impact. Don't forget Harkin since he is the head though and work into the others if you have time. Thanks for your help!!

Other Members of the Committee:
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 202-224-4242
Kent Conrad (D-ND) 202-224-2043
Max Baucus (D-MT) 202-224-2651
Blanch Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 202-224-4822
Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Ken Salazar (D-CO) 202-224-5852
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 202-224-2315
Robert Casey (D-PA) 202-224-6324
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) 202-224-3244
Richard Lugar (R-IN) 202-224-4814
Thad Cochran (R-MS) 202-224-5054
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 202-224-2541
Pat Roberts (R-KS) 202-224-4774
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 202-224-5972
Norm Coleman (R-MN) 202-224-5641
Mike Crapo (R-ID) 202-224-6142
John Thune (R-SD) 202-224-2321
Charles Grassley (R-IA) 202-224-3744

Why we don't pay to be organic

Some one asked me not to long ago when I decided I would raise my plants (all plants not just my food) organically. I told her that I couldn't remember a day when I hadn't thought that way. I think she thought I was just saying that and I can understand how skepticism may ooze from anyone reading this. Truly though, I don't remember a time when I didn't think that way. I don't know if I read a book, if God "put" it into me, or maybe some genetic "thing" that is inside some of us---who knows. Not I for sure.
I also don't remember a time when I wasn't interested in plants. Of course like all children---I DID NOT want to weed the occasional garden my parents had. My parents grew mostly tomatoes, green peppers and squash---all of which I hated. Not anymore--but I did then (of course green peppers still hate me!)
Anyway my point of wandering through my early life is to give a base point on why I don't "certify" my animals and my garden to be considered organic.
Two reason---one of which is easy. Organic grain. Though I am careful about what I feed my animals I am not always able to get organic grain. Though we do not feed a lot of grain there are times when we have to as in droughts and when the ewes are pregnant. Yes, I would pay the extra price for it but when I ship it in, since it's not commonly carried around here, the shipping adds a lot of price to something I can not easily buy in bulk or store. It almost doubles the "per bag" price. Yes, I would love to use only organic grain and hay (MY grass IS organic) but shipping costs can kill you when you have a small farm leaving virtually no room for any profit---not even a little to buy shoes with :-)
Secondly is the biggest reason and it is this: why on earth would I PAY the government to certify my farm and garden organic when they won't make the others I would be competing against follow the rules? See the story of Aurora Farms here and on Boulder Belt Blog for more information.
One of the lawsuit and article points brought up are: exactly what does constitute organically raised animals (veggies, milk etc)? I know my ideas may not be exactly the same as others. I know my idea may be more or less even than other peoples.
Maybe instead of worrying so much as to whether we are purchasing organic we should instead worry about whether we purchase locally. That is were organic started----and that is were it hopefully will come back too and become "real" again. Why all this stupid legislation by the government to "protect" us from bad food---but in reality most of the bad food comes from big business and the government won't even do anything about it.
I would LOVE to buy local milk----even pasteurized-----but the government makes that impossible. To much legislation that's "for our own good". What are they? My parent and I am 11?
Even starting local with a pasteurized milk I could then say to the farmer: Ever though about going organic? or Ever thought about selling some of it raw?
I am, and have been, a big advocate of writing our congress people and senators. However I would like to add one more thing to those reading this: Talk with your neighbors. Don't bash them over the head with it though---just teach them where their food is REALLY coming from and what it is REALLY costing us.
Even our neighbors don't "get it" completely---but we are working on them. Friends and family that live far away---well they take even longer to educate since they are not near us to hear all that goes on. What better way to affect change than right at home with family and friends? THAT is democracy when we can all get together and tell the government we are sick of their crap---and now they need to clean it up. We expect, nay demand, wholesome food. We are not some corporate guinea pigs for their on going research with food.

NAIS---more action STILL required

I received this in my email today. Please read it and do as you feel you need to with the information. Though we MAY be making head way---we still have a ways to go. By the way---if ever you think NAIS may not be that big of a deal, find someone who blogs that raises animals in England and ask them about what it's like with their program there. You might find yourself un pleasantly surprised.

From Liberty Ark.



ACTION ALERT: Write your local newspaper about NAIS and the GAO report



On Friday afternoon, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its long-awaited report on NAIS. Although GAO was critical of USDA’s implementation of NAIS, the report was a disappointment. The GAO appeared to start with the assumption that NAIS would be an effective means of addressing animal diseases, something for which there is NO evidence at all! You can read the report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07592.pdf

Several news outlets have done stories about the GAO report, so now is a great time to get the press to pay attention to our side of the story! A good way to do that is with a letter to the editor. If you can get a letter in within a few days, they are much more likely to print it. Below is a sample letter. Use it, or write your own. Keep the letter short, to the point, and clear. It is helpful to mention specific Congressmen’s or Senators’ names in your letters, to get their attention!

As always, if you have any questions, contact us at noah@libertyark.net

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear Editor,

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report highly critical of the USDA's proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The report can be found on the internet at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07592.pdf. The GAO report faults the government’s failure to effectively implement the program, and noted the lack of a cost analysis despite the federal government having spent over $100 million already. Yet this only begins to scratch the surface of the problems with NAIS. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has failed to provide any evidence that the program will actually help control disease outbreaks, so there are no clear benefits to off-set the as-yet-unknown costs. Will NAIS actually provide any benefits over our existing systems? Should our limited resources be spent electronically tracking every livestock and poultry animal in the country, rather than inspecting imported foods from China or enforcing border controls to keep sick animals out of the country? What about the intangible costs in time, inconvenience, and loss of privacy for the millions of Americans who own animals as pets or for hobbies, as well as farmers and ranchers? Also, why will confined animal feeding operations (CAFO's) have less strict rules than local hobby or small farmers who are just raising a few animals for their selves? Considering that, unfortunately, a majority of our food still comes from CAFO's this should be a huge concern and smacks of favoritism to large corporations. Neither Congress nor the USDA have even attempted to answer these questions.

I urge everyone to ask Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss to hold oversight hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee to look into the full scope of the problems with NAIS. Non-government sources, such as the Liberty Ark Coalition (www.libertyark.net) have compiled significant evidence of the problems with NAIS.

Thanks everyone

COOL & NAIS update

Just an update to anyone who may have commented to their Senators, Congress persons or even heads of various committees in Congress: As of last Friday the national animal identification system had been separated from the Country Of Origin Labeling that was being addressed in the new farm bill. Knowing which country your food comes is a good thing, needing to tag every "farm" animal even if the person does not own a farm, is a bad thing.
Debate and complete passing is still not completely over yet---so write, write, write to make sure they get the message in Washington. We don't want them to re slip it in at the last minute of Farm Bill approval.
However even if the final Farm Bill had passed and Nais was not attached to it---the fight would still not be over. Mandatory programs (as in Wisconsin and Michigan) are still in on the agenda, so we still have work to do since it is not much of a stretch from "the neighboring state does it" to "we will now do it".
Please check web sites such as Nonais.org and libertyark.org for more updated information and PLEASE----keep sending those letters.

2007 Farm Bill

Now is the time as congress decides what to do with our farm bill for a few more years for EVERYONE to weigh in. Don't know much about farming? That's o.k. Contact your representatives and tell them you expect them to help support small and local farmers since that is one sure way to supply ourselves with safe food. Tell them to quit giving our tax payer money to CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). CAFOs destroy our water, foul the air around the area they are in, and are inhumane and disgusting.

Here is some more information that comes through PASA (Pennsylvania association for sustainable agriculture). By the way: PASA has a very nice sight and offers classes throughout most of the year. They also send a nifty little newsletter to keep you up to date on "wutz happnin" The rest is directly taken from the email:

First, if you are interested in knowing more about the Farm Bill, and specifically some of the positions being taken by the sustainable ag community, you can find a wealth of information at the following website:

www.farmandfoodproject.org

This site details a comprehensive set of policy objectives that were developed over the past couple years by some of our policy partners across the country. It has been endorsed by over 400 organizations, including our own board of directors at a meeting earlier this year. You can also find some information there about how you can get more involved in the ongoing process.

However, a very quick and easy way to get involved it so go to another website, as follows:

www.healthyfarmbill.org

We encourage you to go to this site and follow the simple instructions there for sending a letter to your representatives in Congress...the whole process will take you about 5 minutes! The letter condenses many of the most important points of the Farm and Food Policy Project statement into a convenient format. As you can tell, the emphasis in this case is to generate a large volume of mail in favor of the general policy agenda, so we also encourage you to send a note about this website to your friends and associates who would be interested. It is hoped that the largest impact of this approach will be realized this week and next.

For those of you with an inclination to get more personally involved -- especially you farmers -- we have an excellent option as well. PASA's good friend Kathy Lawrence, who formerly directed the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, is now working with the Community Food Security Coalition on a national Healthy Food and Community Initiative. In a nutshell, the initiative is pushing for a package that includes:

1. Seed funds to support innovative projects that increase profitability for farmers and increase access to healthy foods for under- served markets.

2. Changes in procurement policy to make local purchase easier for school districts and other institutions.

3. Support for distribution (e.g. transportation, processing and marketing) of healthy foods to new markets in ways that ensure maximum return on the food dollar to the farmer.

Kathy is looking for farmers who are interested in these types of policy tools, and would be willing to call their Senators and Representatives to promote these initiatives during the 2007 Farm Bill process. She would be happy to get you more information on these three priority areas, and to talk with farmers about how she can assist you with background info, talking points and timing details so you can weigh-in during this critical phase of Farm Bill debates.

She knows this is an extremely busy season -- and will be careful to make the most of your limited time and vast knowledge.

If you're interested, please be in touch with Kathy directly at klgardensong@hvc.rr.com or
(845) 361-3205.

The process ahead for determining the next Farm Bill will be long and arduous, and believe me, there's already plenty of shenanigans underway in Washington as part of this process. Simply put, not all of the wealthy interests represented in our nation's capitol want to see local and community-based food systems continue to gain the momentum we have recently enjoyed. Your time and effort to communicate your opinion will be well spent, as we only have this opportunity to make a more significant difference once every five years or so. We at PASA will be careful not to overload you with emails on every minute detail of the process, but we also don't want to miss giving you this opportunity to get as involved as you wish to be.



As always, feel free to contact me or others here in the main office if you have further questions.



Take care,


Brian Snyder
Executive Director, PASA
brian@pasafarming.org
(814) 349-9856

National Public Radio

I listen to public radio every day. I think they have some of the better news since they don't do just local but national and international (without the weeks worth of angst over whether or not Anna gets to be buried in Bermuda).

So today when Liberty Ark sent me the following I was happy to contact NPR since I feel they would do justice to the issue AND it would help the cause.
Please contact them: it was an easy little form to fill out on line. Tell them to run the anti-Nais Texas rally story.

TAKE ACTION: ASK FOR NPR TO DO A STORY ON NAIS

We’re starting to get national attention! National Public Radio’s (NPR) All Things Considered did an interview about Texas’ anti-NAIS rally last Friday. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough time to edit the story and it was not aired. But their attention is on NAIS, so now’s the perfect time to ask them to do a story!!! Go to http://www.npr.org/contact/, click on "Recipient: NPR Program" and then choose "All Things Considered.” Tell them that, even though the rally is past, NAIS is a hot issue nationally, and one that their listeners want to hear about!

And here’s the link for submitting story ideas in general - http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/story.html

News coverage of the Friday even is here:
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;
jsessionid=74579E59860AA9FCF1204EDB0EB09397?contentId=2556671
&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

So quietly they come

Without much fan fare it looks as if Georgia is trying to sneak in their NAIS information with the following articles derived from the Georgia Farmers and Consumers Market Bulletin (nice market bulletin that allows state residents to advertise free—also viewed on line at www.agr.georgia.gov) Anyways here are the articles if you haven't seen them yet. Don't forget to write state reps!!

http://agr.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,38902732_0_74762488,00.html

and the follow up article to try and “soothe” us.

http://agr.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,38902732_0_74770926,00.html

Nais for non farmers

Someone sent this to me. Read this even if you think you aren't a farmer and don't have animals. You will be surprised. The government is taking public comment on nais until Monday Jan. 22nd. PLEASE comment. The contact info is at the bottom of this post.

Copyright 2007 by Mary Zanoni. The following article may be distributed solely for personal and non-commercial use without prior permission from the author. Non-commercial distribution and posting to assist in disseminating information about NAIS is, in fact, encouraged, so long as proper credit is given and the article is reproduced without changes or deletions. Any other distribution or republication requires the author’s permission in writing and requests for such permission should be directed to the author at the address/phone/e-mail address below.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com

Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if there is any relationship between the survey and the data being collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As we shall see, although USDA personnel won’t admit it, NASS data is the foundation of the USDA’s aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

To my great surprise, in this morning's mail I myself received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I say "to my great surprise," because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever. I have never before received any type of communication from NASS.

The envelope states in very large letters, "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." The envelope further states that the due date is . As explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not in fact "REQUIRED BY LAW" to answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn't actually required to respond.

The form itself begins with several general questions, such as “Do you own or rent any land?” “Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?” “Do you receive government payments?” The questions appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer “yes” is among those “REQUIRED BY LAW” to fill out this form. The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who is not homeless “owns or rents” real estate; some 75 million people in the “grow vegetables;” and some 60 million people receive “government payments.” (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the , Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)

Now, perhaps it is possible that this “wide net” might not be as intrusive as it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach. This morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDA’s call center. According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a “horse magazine” might have been included in the database.

Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of “horse magazines”? Why and how are “horse magazines,” or, for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question? During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people’s incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a trivial question.

Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever wider. The form states: “Many people who don’t consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture.” “We need your completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural activity.” Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the “REQUIRED BY LAW” language of the envelope:

“ ‘Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks – the threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of “quoting” something to make it appear extra-important.) One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has referred to the “definition of a farm or ranch” but nowhere tells us that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not meet the definition of a “farm.”

Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the definition of a “farm” and the possible legal penalties for not responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition of “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was correct. (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs, www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1.) Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC § 2204g (d) (2), namely, that a “person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,” I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

The next day, , I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician. First we addressed the question of the “farm” definition. Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the “farm” definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also conceded that the basic definition of a “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain “point values” for particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000, your operation would meet the definition of a “farm.” When asked for an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she explained that each equine equals 200 points.) When asked how many cattle equal a “farm,” Ms. Sprague said she did not know. At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list. But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she would “advise” anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire, although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses would not meet the definition of a “farm” and therefore would not be required to fill out the survey.

We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS mailing list are “confidential.” I noted the call-center woman’s reference to a subscription to a “horse magazine” as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growers’ associations, such as the Wheat Growers’ Association and Barley Growers’ Association, were examples of sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any, claiming that some are “confidential” and some are “not confidential.” She explained the overall process of list building thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are “possibilities of agricultural activity,” NASS incorporates those names into its mailing list.

We returned to the subject of “point values” for different livestock. Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold for a long while. Subsequently, she gave me the following point values: beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head. (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on the point values. For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5 horses, “because it wouldn’t be ethical.” (But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly “ethical.” And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states’ continued receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine. Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer’s failure to answer any or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine. She also said that the fine is “rarely enforced” and that if any “producer” “chooses” not to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, “Absolutely none.” I asked her if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASS’s database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, “Absolutely not.” And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2204g (f) (3), “Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.”

Several weeks ago, antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about ’s solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Dr. Goff provided written answers on . When asked where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr. Goff stated: “the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.”

I won’t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey. Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two Senators. I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS’s compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will I do this? Because I don’t live by the USDA’s false code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.

Email your comments and/or concerns (again if need be) to:

mailto:animalidcomments@aphis.usda.gov Please put "nais draft user guide" in the subject line.

Here is a very un eloquent comment I sent to them yesterday. You don't have to send anything "great" and "wonderful" just something. Here it is as I sent it:

I am writing to comment on nais.

I would just like you to know that nais will create a hardship for my family in the raising of our own food. We do not generally sell food animals to outside people. The few times we have it has been to our neighbors. As a country we can't get any safer than that in disease control as it applies to human health. Knowing the local farmer that raised your food is the best way to control problems. The government should be helping small individual farmers like me and others--- not trying to put us out of business so that large corporations and feed lots can reap even more government sponsored rewards.

Based on the "tentative" costs that different groups have said it will cost for each animal (on average $35 per animal) PLUS the rfd chip reader PLUS any documentation that we have to do for deaths, births, sales of breeding stock etc EVERY YEAR---we will have to double our flock of sheep to accommodate the costs. We don't have the land to do that so in other words: We will have to get rid of all of them. That doesn't seem very Democratic to me. Force me out of business and force me to purchase from the larger guys who get to have different rules under the nais proposal so their per animal cost is automatically lower than mine.

Food security in this day and age comes from LOCAL agriculture---not importation or transporting it from far across the country.
To sum it up: I say NO to nais. I feel I have a constitutional right to raise my food without the government monitoring me.