SPEAKER SAYS NAIS IS NOT DEAD: JUST RENAMED

     Contrary to what you are being told the National Animal Identification System is not dead; just renamed, reworded and still very much alive, This was the message brought to the Ozarks Property Rights Congress meeting in Gainesville Thursday, February 11 by Bob Parker who said he hated to bring that news. “Being one of those who has worked hard over the past four or five years to stop NAIS, nothing would please me and my co-workers more than to be able to report that indeed NAIS has gone away. But sadly it is still here under a new name and coming at us with a reshuffled approach”.  Parker read excerpts from a fact sheet released by USDA Feb, 5th which outlined the new approach.
    The animal identification program will now be called  the Federal Animal Disease Traceability System and premise identification registration numbers are  now “unique location identifiers.”  Parker pointed out that the USDA paper says that since so much tax payer money has been spent on efforts to implement NAIS that as much of the failed program as possible must be salvaged and used in the new program such as use of the NAIS”840″ ear tags. They say it would be fiscally irresponsible to disregard all elements of NAIS.
    USDA acknowledged that massive public opposition to their proposed NAIS program has caused them to revise the prior policy and offer a new approach .
    Parker noted that while USDA says the frame work for the new  approach will emphasize states participation, they are very clear and emphatic on one major point which seems non negotiable in their view. They intend to enforce animal identification at the level of interstate commerce as they said they would do under the original NAIS plan. This would force Missouri producers into their program as the state has practically no in-state feed lots or major slaughter facilities causing nearly all of the states livestock production to cross state lines.
    Addressing the issue of states like Missouri which have passed laws prohibiting forced participation in NAIS, the fact sheet points out that this program is no longer called NAIS and the new framework will spell out what states must do for their animals to be able to move in interstate commerce.
    Parker expressed disdain for those elected officials who quickly put out news releases bragging how they were instrumental in stopping NAIS. “They evidently didn`t read the rest of the story and were quick to make political hay. They do their constituents  a real dis-service by touting a hollow victory.”

OPRC president Russell Wood said links to the the fact sheet Parker was referencing can be found at  www.r-calfusa.com or http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf  under Questions and Answers: new animal traceability framework.

GROUP WARNED OF NAIS TAGS BEING PUT ON COWS AT SOME SALE BARNS

 Despite warnings of a winter storm approaching, the Ozarks Property Rights Congress  convened Thursday night, January 28,  in Mountain Grove to hear of the developing storm being perpetrated by the Missouri Department of Agriculture through local sale barns.
    Doreen Hannes spoke to the group about the practice started at some area sale barns, at the direction of MDOA personnel, of tagging cows with National Animal Identification System tags. She said according to all NAIS documents issued over the past several years, it is very clear that “840″ (NAIS) tags must be connected to a premise number of the producer where the animal was born and the premise number of the buyer of the animal. She said this is a back door attempt to bring unsuspecting sellers and buyers of cows into the NAIS premise registration program.
    Missouri passed a law (SB931) in 2008 which prohibits MDOA from forcing NAIS premise registration on citizens. At a hearing on the use of these tags held before Chairman Senator Chuck Purgason’s Government Oversight Committee recently, at which Hannes testified, state vet Taylor Woods and MDOA director Jon Hagler testified there was no official policy on use of the NAIS tags by these sale barn vets. “Some are using them and others are not . It`s up to the market veterinarian”.
    Hannes and others at the OPRC meeting told of sale barn owners and vets saying they had been told by MDOA personnel to use the NAIS tags in cows coming through the sale beginning Jan. 1   Other barns are saying they are not applying the NAIS tags.
    At the Jefferson City hearing, Senator Purgason instructed Woods and Hagler to submit their policy in writing, making certain that it reflects SB 931 requiring NAIS to be voluntary, and send the policy to  all sale barns as there is currently no policy that can be nailed down as MDOA is operating by word of mouth.
    “The sale barns are caught in the middle of this”, said PRC president Russell Wood. “They feel they have to do what MDOA tells them but at the same time they are going to have some mad customers who end up in the NAIS program just by buying or selling at the sale barn. Producers should ask their sale barn if they are using the 840 NAIS tags before they unload”
    Hagler stated in a letter to Senator Purgason that the NAIS tags being used have nothing to do with premise registrations. Hannes said, “Secretary Hagler is either ignorant about the NAIS program or misrepresenting the facts to the Senator. Tags starting with the number “840″ are official NAIS tags and must be tied to the premise of origin. Other wise there is no point in using them, as the stated purpose is trace back.”
    On another matter, a Douglas county property owner involved with a boundary dispute with the Department of Conservation reported that no headway had been made in resolving their differences.  At the Dec. 3rd OPRC meeting attended by department personnel it was agreed the two sides would meet and try to resolve the conflict. That meeting has not been held it was reported.

GROUP WARNED OF NAIS TAGS BEING PUT ON COWS AT SOME SALE BARNS

 Despite warnings of a winter storm approaching, the Ozarks Property Rights Congress  convened Thursday night, January 28,  in Mountain Grove to hear of the developing storm being perpetrated by the Missouri Department of Agriculture through local sale barns.
    Doreen Hannes spoke to the group about the practice started at some area sale barns, at the direction of MDOA personnel, of tagging cows with National Animal Identification System tags. She said according to all NAIS documents issued over the past several years, it is very clear that “840″ (NAIS) tags must be connected to a premise number of the producer where the animal was born and the premise number of the buyer of the animal. She said this is a back door attempt to bring unsuspecting sellers and buyers of cows into the NAIS premise registration program.
    Missouri passed a law (SB931) in 2008 which prohibits MDOA from forcing NAIS premise registration on citizens. At a hearing on the use of these tags held before Chairman Senator Chuck Purgason’s Government Oversight Committee recently, at which Hannes testified, state vet Taylor Woods and MDOA director Jon Hagler testified there was no official policy on use of the NAIS tags by these sale barn vets. “Some are using them and others are not . It`s up to the market veterinarian”.
    Hannes and others at the OPRC meeting told of sale barn owners and vets saying they had been told by MDOA personnel to use the NAIS tags in cows coming through the sale beginning Jan. 1   Other barns are saying they are not applying the NAIS tags.
    At the Jefferson City hearing, Senator Purgason instructed Woods and Hagler to submit their policy in writing, making certain that it reflects SB 931 requiring NAIS to be voluntary, and send the policy to  all sale barns as there is currently no policy that can be nailed down as MDOA is operating by word of mouth.
    “The sale barns are caught in the middle of this”, said PRC president Russell Wood. “They feel they have to do what MDOA tells them but at the same time they are going to have some mad customers who end up in the NAIS program just by buying or selling at the sale barn. Producers should ask their sale barn if they are using the 840 NAIS tags before they unload”
    Hagler stated in a letter to Senator Purgason that the NAIS tags being used have nothing to do with premise registrations. Hannes said, “Secretary Hagler is either ignorant about the NAIS program or misrepresenting the facts to the Senator. Tags starting with the number “840″ are official NAIS tags and must be tied to the premise of origin. Other wise there is no point in using them, as the stated purpose is trace back.”
    On another matter, a Douglas county property owner involved with a boundary dispute with the Department of Conservation reported that no headway had been made in resolving their differences.  At the Dec. 3rd OPRC meeting attended by department personnel it was agreed the two sides would meet and try to resolve the conflict. That meeting has not been held it was reported.

From Doreen Hannes: – This is an article written for distribution to any newspaper or outlet on the NAIS tags being used in Missouri at sale barns. I tried really hard to not insert any opinions on my part.

 There are still a lot of questions I would like the Department of Ag to answer, but we had no invitation to cross examine on behalf of the committee, so it was what it was.

 Thanks, and God bless!

Doreen

Listen to my radio show, Truth Farmer, every Saturday from 5-6pm Central time on libertynewsradio.com

Also check out www.newswithviews.com for my articles and many other excellent researchers on topics affecting your freedom…also my blog, www.truth-farmer.blogspot.com

Hearing on Use of NAIS Tags at Sale Barns

© Doreen Hannes

On Thursday, January 13th, 2010 there was a Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee hearing at the Capitol on the usage of National Animal Identification System “840″ tags by the veterinarians at sale barns across Missouri.

 The hearing was to allay the confusion amongst sale barns and determine whether or not the Department of Agriculture was following the voluntary parameters set for NAIS in Missouri by the usage of these “840″ tags.

 The NAIS  (National Animal Identification System) is a 3 part program. The first prong is Premises registration with a seven character number permanently assigned to a particular location housing or holding animals. The second prong is the use of these “840″ tags which necessitate a premise id number to be used. The third component is the reporting of movements from the ascribed premises and various other things such as vaccinations and tag replacements and “sightings”. 
 Near the beginning of December it came to light that many sale barn markets in the state of Missouri were using the 840 tags on cows going through chutes who had no official identification. It was reported that as of January 1st, 2010, all cows, with or without official identification, would receive the 840 tags when they went through chutes for health tests or pregnancy checks Different markets reported different criteria for this NAIS “840″ identification of cows. Some producers reported they were told they “had to” use the 840 tags in order to sell cattle at some sale barns.

 In 2008, the Missouri General Assembly passed SB931, prohibiting the Department of Agriculture from mandating or otherwise forcing participation in NAIS, and allowing for the immediate removal from the program of anyone who was assigned a premises id unless they were part of a disease control program or an ongoing disease investigation.

 This hearing was to clear up confusion on the law as it applies to both the state of Missouri and the veterinarians licensed by the state. Chairman, Senator Chuck Purgason, stated, “We want to clear up confusion, and to make sure veterinarians are not violating people’s rights regarding this program.”

 Missouri State Veterinarian, Dr. Taylor Woods and Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Jon Hagler, did not appear at the beginning of the hearing. A representative from the Department of Ag and a veterinarian with the State Vet’s office, Dr. Linda Hickle, appeared, but knew little of policy and stated that the Secretary and State Vet were not aware that they were to be present at this hearing.

 Three other individuals testified at the hearing and during the last testimony, the State veterinarian and Secretary of Agriculture came into the hearing room.

 They testified that they had no official written policy on the usage of the “840″ tags and had communicated with the market veterinarians by face to face contact regarding the allocation of the 100,000 “840″ tags the Department has received from the USDA. They stated they had no particular agreement as to the distribution and application of the NAIS tags, but that the application of the tags was to be at the discretion of the market veterinarian.

 The Department was instructed by the Committee to write and distribute to all market veterinarians instructions on the usage of these “840″ tags and to inform the market veterinarians that the application of “840″ tags was to be done solely at the request of the producer in compliance with the law of the State of Missouri.

 No instructions or inquiries were made into how any redress is to be achieved by those who may already have been put into the NAIS program without their knowledge or consent by buying or selling cattle through a market that was applying the tags to all cows from January 1st through the time of the distribution of the letter requiring compliance with the state law.

NAIS – Let the Enforcements Begin
©Doreen Hannes for R CALF USA

 In the state of Wisconsin, which has mandated the first prong of NAIS through agency rule making, the prosecutions of individuals opposed to NAIS has begun.

On September 23rd, an Amish gentleman, Emanuel J. Miller was taken to court in Clark County Court Neillsville, Wisconsin, for an evidentiary hearing on complex civil forfeiture for failing to register his premises and moved immediately to the first stage of trial. Emanuel Miller and his father as well as their Deacon testified in the trial as to their objection to the NAIS premises identification number. As the USDA has proudly proclaimed in many glossy brochures, premises registration is the -first step- in the National Animal Identification System. The Amish in Wisconsin have become quite aware of this.

On October 21st, in Polk County, Wisconsin, R-CALF USA members, Pat and Melissa Monchilovich are going to trial for the same charges of complex civil forfeiture.  Pat and his wife raise cattle in Cumberland, and have failed to register property as a premises with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection as DATCP has required by regulation.

This is the tip of the iceberg that is NAIS.  One could look upon Wisconsin as the sentinel case in the enforcement measures necessary to bring NAIS compliance in this nation.

Although the statute passed enabling DATCP to require premises registration, it did allow for exemptions. When DATCP wrote the regulations, they decided to disallow any exemptions. This is a major issue, particularly with the Amish community (and others) who hold religious objections to the program. As reported from the Miller hearing, the Amish say that although they cannot state with absolute certainty that the premises number is the precursor to the Mark of the Beast, they do know it is the first step of NAIS which leads to the individual numbering and tracking of animals, and believe that caution is in order to avoid discovering later that they had violated their beliefs and then have no recourse to remedy that error.

Despite a desire on the part of proponents of NAIS to negate the religious objections against the National Animal Identification System, the fact that it is a global program is indisputable. The enforcement measures and final details are left up to the member nations of the World Trade Organization.

In Australia, rancher Stephen Blair was fined a total of $17,300 for using the wrong tags on 177 of his cattle. Notably, the components of NLIS, the Australian animal identification plan, are the same as those in NAIS.

Another case where the identification of cattle was in violation of the identification mandate to facilitate global trade is the UK. In March of 2007, a dairy farmer, David Dobbin had an unspecified number of cattle whose tags didn’t match their passports. The EU regulations allowed DEFRA, the UK equivalent of the USDA, to confiscate both his cattle and his passports and require him to positively identify the herd within 48 hours or face their loss. It is a complete impossibility to positively identify animals without either the animals nor their paperwork, but that was the requirement. The case was put off for one month and then appealed on the basis that the agency couldn’t afford to keep feeding these cattle, so they were destroyed. Mr. Dobbin lost 567 cattle and was paid no indemnity at all.

At issue in the Wisconsin cases is that we are witnessing the first enforcement actions in the implementation of the National Animal Identification System. The fines in the charges brought against Emanuel J Miller and R-CALF USA members Pat and Melissa Monchilovich are between $200 and $5,000. Premises identification is just the first step of this program, then it’s individual or group lot identification and thirdly, the tracking of all movements. The final component is enforcement, which is now coming to bear in Wisconsin. More than 90% of attendees at the USDA listening sessions on NAIS said “No NAIS, Not Now, Not Ever!” If we mean that, we must stand in support of the people being charged in Wisconsin.

1) Miller trial
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/the-lost-people-part-ii/
2) Stephen Blair, Australia
http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/livestock/cattle/cattle-producer-ordered-to-pay-17300-for-nlis-tag-breach/798558.aspx )
3) DobbinUK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545862/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html

 
Used with permission of the author

For the results of Pat and Melissa Monchilovich’s trial

http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/look-what-1-5-million-can-buy-you-in-wisconsin/

A LITTLE TASTE OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE

by c.Russell Wood

    “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.”  At times it seems we have moved a long way from that concept of government held by President Lincoln. Today It`s more like we have government of the government by the government and for the government.  But once in a while we get a glimpse of what happens when a governmental agency realizes they “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence

    After the hue and cry raised by the citizens of Missouri when the Department of Conservation proposed new requirements for no cost hunting permits for landowners to hunt on their own land, the Department dropped most of their most egregious notions. But one bugaboo seemed to remain in place calling for “registration” and “legal description” of a hunters land if he wanted a no cost tag for deer or turkey.

    They had said in a published statement attributed to MDC director John Hoskins,  “The change envisioned . . .simply adds collection of the legal description of their land, i.e. township, section and range”. Their official website stated that hunters wanting to receive landowner deer and turkey permit privileges must first register their property with the Landowner Registry.

    The Ozarks Property Rights Congress joined in the opposition and in a letter addressed to director Hoskins, which was published in newspapers around the state and broadcast widely on radio, stated in no uncertain terms that the MDC proposals were unacceptable to landowners and would be met with vigorous resistance.

    When the announcement was made that the commission had reconsidered and was withdrawing their most contentious points, the part dealing with land registration remained but worded more softly. It was not clear what they had in mind but whatever it was it was still there.

`    As president of the OPRC I contacted the MDC and ask for a clarification about the land registration. This resulted in a conversation with Dave Erickson, an assistant director who identified himself as the one in charge of making the regulations I questioned. He quickly denied that the MDC had any need or desire for the legal description of a permittee`s land. He said all they wanted was the section, township and range so they can verify an applicant`s claim of land ownership in a county. He said this was a procedure they had followed up until 2005 when they switched over to an electronic system.

    As for the “Land Registry”, Erickson admitted that this idea and the term came from a system used in Iowa. He said he learned from the public in Missouri that this was an unwise choice of words and MDC has no intention of maintaining a land registry. I assured him that in the current atmosphere of people being tricked and coerced into premise registrations for the National Animal Identification System, landowners are especially protective of their property rights and suspicious of any suggestion that they register their property with any governmental agency. He said he`d never heard of NAIS and didn`t realize we were so sensitive to the issue, but as a result of the public comments he understands now. When asked if there would be a new name for the program, he emphatically stated there would be no such program.

    I asked Mr. Erickson to put what he had told me in writing and send to me, which he did.

    So that`s how things stand now. MDC dropped their proposal that required ownership of 80 acres instead of 5 to qualify for a no cost deer or turkey tag. They say they do not want a legal description of your land, just the county, township, range and section where it`s located and that there will be no Land Registry as they had touted before.

    One side note to all this is that some pointed comments about the operation of the Conservation Department were made in the letter to director Hoskins.

    Among them;

    *The proposed regulations were to raise more money, yet Missouri has one of the wealthiest departments in the nation.

    *Missouri spends three times as much per capita as any other state on its wildlife department.

    *The never ending 1/8 cent sales tax which goes unfettered to the department raises over $100 million each year contributing to a $150 million dollar annual budget

    *MDC is the largest single landowner in the state and has 2,300 employees

    *Director Hoskins with a tax paid salary of about $150,000 per year seems incapable of running his department within it’s means and goes back to the taxpayer trough for more.

    None of these statements have been challenged or denied by the MDC. Not a peep.

    We often think it is hopeless, and government agencies are just too big and powerful, and they are going to do what they are going to do.

    Well, not always. This is another case where the public said Stop! Enough is Enough!  and got results.

    A little taste of government for the people instead of government for the government.

    ‘Course we better continue to sleep with one eye open.

CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT CLARIFIES POSITION ON REGISTERING  LAND WITH THEM

An assistant director of the Missouri Department of Conservation has explained the department`s position on  requiring landowners to submit a legal description of their property to a “Landowner Registry” to qualify for  no cost hunting permits.  In a phone conservation and follow up letter, assistant director Dave Erickson responded to Ozarks Property Rights President  Russell Wood`s request for specifics of the MDC intentions.

The inquiry was made after MDC had withdrawn other proposed changes in hunting regulations effecting land owners but left  what had been referred to in Jefferson City releases and the MDC website as requiring “–collection of the legal description of their land—” and “–register their property with the Landowner Registry–”

Erickson stated that it had never been the intent of MDC to require the legal description of private property, only to revive a system used prior to 2005 which asked for property  location by  county, township, range and section. When it was pointed out that this conflicted with previous statements, Erickson called the original statement “poorly worded”.

The assistant director said the term “landowner registry” was adopted from the landowner hunting permit system currently used in Iowa. He said “this unfortunate title choice had implications –that went far beyond anything known by us at the time.” He emphasized that MDC has no plans for a land registry under this or any other title.

Wood said,” It appears MDC has dropped the proposals we vigorously opposed  which  were changing ownership minimum acreage requirements from 5 to 80, and the registering of the owner`s legal land description with a MDC landowner registry. They have sent us written confirmation to that effect.”

Alex Jones welcomes Russell Wood of the Ozarks Property Rights Congress (Ozarks PRC) in Missouri who is fighting property registration, hunting permit restrictions and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).