Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Join us on:
We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board, ads are displayed, and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8
**NAIS**; also Codex Alimentarius, OIE, and WTO
Topic Started: Thursday, 29. December 2005, 11:26 (1,803 Views)
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Haven't seen the July issue of Horse & Rider, but evidently, there's a NAIS article in it also entitled "Your Horse Your Life."
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Equine Species Working Group Press Release
Contact: info@equinespeciesworkinggroup.com

Equine Species Working Group Offers Recommendations to the NAIS Subcommittee
August 8, 2006, Washington, D.C. – The Equine Species Working Group (ESWG) was created to review the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and the possible participation of the horse industry in the program, should it become mandatory in the future. The ESWG is committed to developing recommendations for a national equine identification plan which are in the best interests of, and protect the rights of, horse owners and breeders.

On August 1, 2006, the ESWG made recommendations to the NAIS Subcommittee on how the equine industry might reach NAIS compliance in the future. Each of the different species working groups report to the NAIS Subcommittee, which in turn reports to the Secretary of Agriculture’s Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases. There were two key points that were the focus of the ESWG report: movement and identification.

Reportable movements are a major concern and topic of discussion with the ESWG. Because of the extensive daily movement of horses not only intra- and interstate, but internationally, the ESWG decided to focus on those horses that are at the greatest risk of being exposed to and/or spreading disease. In recognizing the heavy burden that would be placed on horse owners or premises managers/owners by a reporting mechanism, it was recommended by the ESWG that the horse industry continue to rely on the current regulatory mechanisms in place for horses that move. These regulations that require a brand inspection, Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI), VS-127 Permit or International CVI prior to movement will serve as the starting point for trace back in the event of a disease outbreak.

“The recommendation not to report any equine movements was one that went through much discussion, and one that we feel is very important,” says ESWG Co-Chair Dr. Marvin Beeman. “Although it may not achieve the ideal goal of the NAIS, the current practices will cover those horses at the greatest risk. It is the most practical solution at this time, as there will be no additional burden placed on horse owners or premises owners and managers.”

Each of the previously mentioned regulatory documents are kept and maintained in either the state/country of origin, the state/country of destination or both. Each document contains information as to the horse’s point of origin and its point of destination. In the event of a disease concern, federal and state animal health officials would be able to access that information. Most importantly, with the exception of the one-time official identification of the horse, these are practices currently being met by horse owners who move their horses and therefore will not require the establishment of new business practices in the industry.

The other focus of the ESWG report was equine identification. Standardization of the identification practices in the horse industry is a major focus of the ESWG. With standardization, the horse industry would be able to ensure that the impact of an equine disease emergency could be quickly managed and controlled to benefit the veterinary welfare of the horse and re-establish normal movements as soon as possible. The ESWG recommends that states standardize requirements for Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (CVIs) and that, for NAIS compliance, horses should be identified with the ISO/ANSI compatible RFID chip (11784/85, 134.2 kHz), implanted in the nuchal ligament on the left side, in the middle third of the neck, halfway between the ears and the withers.

The ESWG also recommended that official identification is necessary when a horse is transported to any premises where a brand inspection, CVI, VS 127 permit, or International Certificate of Veterinary Inspection is required.

----------------
The ESWG is the designated United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) working group for horses on the issue of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It is the working group’s responsibility to review and evaluate the NAIS and the possible participation of the horse industry in the program, as well as developing recommendations for a national equine identification plan that is in the best interests of, and protects the rights of, horse owners and breeders.


Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Wonder what chips cost?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

I think they're projecting a cost of about $35 per chip. And of course, there are the vet charges.

Personally, if I have to chip my horses, I'd opt for one of those bio chips that monitor the horse's temperature too.

Anyhow, I'm glad they're not recommending reporting all movements. That was ridiculous!
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I agree. I thought we were maybe off the hook altogether until I saw the chip thing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Look who owns a part of VeriChip (the company they're recommending). The former Secretary of Health and Human Services IIRC. You don't think they're going to pass up a chance to make a buck do you? I doubt that they (our gov't) will pass up a chance to camp out on "Kickback Mountain." (Hmmm, do I sound disillusioned or what?)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think I was born disillusioned.
Life hasn't helped alot so far either. lol
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Joey
Aug 9 2006, 04:31 PM
I think I was born disillusioned.
Life hasn't helped alot so far either. lol

:ROFL

I KWYM.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LeLoo
Member Avatar
Wild At Heart

Joey
Aug 9 2006, 04:31 PM
I think I was born disillusioned.
Life hasn't helped alot so far either. lol

:ROFL

Quote:
 

I KWYM.


me too
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

http://nonais.org/index.php/category/alert-national/

Quote:
 
It is confirmed. As many of you know from first reading in the comments of articles here on NoNAIS.org and then in the discussion lists the USDA has slaughtered a large number of hogs at the Henshaw family’s place in Virginia. This is the nightmare abuse of power by the government we have all been fearing which is discussed starting on page 31 of the Government Accounting Office (GAO) document 05-214 regarding depopulation.

The claim is that the USDA did this because of Pseudorabies, yet the government did not follow it’s own standard operating procedures of testing as outlined in the USDA’s own documents. The USDA spilled bodily fluids from the slaughtered pigs all over the road where any disease could be transmitted to other farms and other animals. Slaughter is not required for testing for Pseudorabies. These issues seriously puts into question the validity of the disease claim and/or the competence of the government officials involved.

Please do not confuse Pseudorabies (a disease of livestock which does not infect humans) with the common disease of Rabies which is a totally different disease. By using the excuse of Pseudorabies, which sounds like Rabies, the government has already succeeded in confusing some people as to the disease.


More details on the website above. Warning: Keep in mind that some of the comments on this article are from citizens who are extremely upset. Some of their comments are very politically oriented and could be offensive to some.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061109/lath077.html?.v=76

Digital Angel Corporation Announces 2006 Third Quarter, Nine-Month Results

Quote:
 
Digital Angel President and CEO Kevin McGrath noted that, "..., our revenue performance was excellent, particularly with regard to livestock and companion pets.
...
Overall, we expect the fourth quarter of 2006 and the year 2007 will show great improvement including the continuing expansion of our global livestock business."


Quote:
 
The highlights of the third quarter and first nine months of 2006 included:


  •    
  •   The Company was the first animal tag manufacturer to have an electronic RFID livestock tagging system approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for use in the National Animal Identification System

       
  •   The Company announced an aggressive initiative to target the more than $100 million equine market for identification products with the patented Bio-Thermo(tm) temperature-sensing implantable microchip.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jennwarr84
Member Avatar
Esteemed Member

I would hate to see what the equine chip costs!!! With the word equine attached to it, it automatically makes it double in price.
"We have an obligation. We are their keepers." ~Roy Jackson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

The following are PDF files and require Adobe Reader to view:

Equine Biosecurity and Biocontainment Practices on U.S. Equine Operations (info sheet, 2 p., 12/06)

Equine Identification and Familiarity with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
(info sheet, 2 p., 12/06)

Highlights of Equine 2005 Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management, 2005 (info sheet, 2 p., 12/06)

Nonambulatory Equids in the United States (info sheet, 2 p., 12/06)

Vaccination Practices on U.S. Equine Operations (info sheet, 2 p., 12/06)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Info/post courtesy of FL Horses Group. If you don't have time to read the entire article, scroll down and check out the highlighted parts.

Quote:
 
Please read.  Mary encourages us to distribute this widely, in entirety.

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 below.


The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY  13617
315-386-3199


January 11, 2007

            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 January 29, 2007.  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 United States “grow vegetables;” and some 60 million people receive “government payments.”  (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 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 Helena, Montana 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, http://www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agricul...tions/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, January 12, 2007, 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, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri’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 December 20, 2006.  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.”[NASS]


            I won’t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey.  Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States 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.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

http://www.louisville-pets.com/microchip_cancer_study.html
Implanted Microchips Cause Cancer
By Jane Williams GFN contributing writer for Publication in the January 2007 "American Family Voice"

Quote:
 
At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer's Association President Michael Steenbergen asked, "What safety studies have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?" His question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know, or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that implanted microchips cause cancer?

Melvin T. Massey, DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) from Brownsboro,Texas, brought this to the attention of the American Horse Council when he wrote, "I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infections-increased risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses."
Quote:
 
It only seems logical to conclude that if carcinogenic tumors occur within one percent of animals implanted within two years of the implant that the percentage would increase with the passage of time.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Equine Species Working Group Press Release
Contact: info@equinespeciesworkinggroup.com
http://www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2/7/2007


USDA Seeks Comment on NAIS Documents

WASHINGTON, DC - The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have requested comments on National Animal Identification System (NAIS) documents that will affect how livestock, including horses, are handled within the program.

The NAIS is a voluntary identification system intended to control the spread of disease and to minimize the negative impact of a disease outbreak on the livestock industry, including horses. This would be done through the identification of premises that hold or manage livestock, animal identification and the recording of some animal movements.

This is a voluntary program, though some states have mandated certain parts of the system, such as mandatory premises registration in Wisconsin. Participation in one segment of the NAIS does not require participation in the entire program. It is possible to have a premises registered but not officially identify your animals or report their movements or you can identify your animals without reporting their movements.

One of the key recommendations made by the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG), the task force developed to evaluate the NAIS and offer recommendations as to how the horse industry might be able to participate in such a system, is that no equine movements should be reported.

Though some components of the NAIS are already being fully implemented, the program in its entirety is still in developmental stages and changing regularly. Many of the changes that have been made since the program has been introduced can be seen in the new documents.

The documents that the USDA and APHIS are requesting comments on include:
• A Draft User Guide
• A Program Standards and Technical Reference document
• A technical specification document for the animal tracking databases

The Draft User Guide is the most current plan for the NAIS, providing comprehensive information about participation in the program. It replaces all other previously published program documents.

The Program Standards and Technical Reference Document is a supplement to the Draft User Guide that is targeted to those involved in the administration of the NAIS. It updates the data element standards from the 2005 Draft Program Standards.

The Animal Tracking Database Technical Specifications Document contains the requirements for animal tracking databases for the implementation phase of the final NAIS component, animal movement recording.

These documents can be found at www.usda.gov/nais. Comments on any of these documents or any other aspect of the NAIS may be submitted to USDA through email (animalidcomment@aphis.usdagov) or by mail to the following address:

NAIS Program Staff, VS, APHIS
4700 River Road, Unit 200
Riverdale, MD 20737

###


The ESWG is the designated United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) working group for horses on the issue of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It is the working group’s responsibility to review and evaluate the NAIS and the possible participation of the horse industry in the program, as well as developing recommendations for a national equine identification plan that is in the best interests of, and protects the rights of, horse owners and breeders.

(For more info, reference NAIS Topic: http://z11.invisionfree.com/Mississippi_Eq...?showtopic=278)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

The ESWG (Equine Species Working Group) has posted a Second Edition of the their Booklet titled "NAIS and Horses: The Facts Surrounding the National Animal Identification System and the Horse Industry in the U.S." The PDF copy can be downloaded here: http://www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com/i...2nd_Edition.pdf
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

http://horsecouncil.org/legislation/identification110.html

Quote:
 
Federal Legislation
Two bills have been introduced this Congress dealing with Animal ID. The Livestock Identification and Marketing Opportunities Act calls for the establishment of a national identification system for livestock (that does not include horses). The other bill prohibits the institution of a mandatory animal identification system.

Livestock Identification and Marketing Opportunities (LIMO) Act (H.R. 2301): Representative Steve King (R-IA) introduced The Livestock Identification and Marketing Opportunities (LIMO) Act (H.R. 2301) in May 2007. H.R. 2301 is identical to a bill introduced by Representative King in the 109th Congress.

The bill calls for the implementation of such a national livestock identification system by 2009.

Horses Not Included
Participation in the system called for by this bill would be mandatory for “livestock,” which is defined to mean “cattle, swine, sheep, goats and poultry,” but does not include horses. Nonetheless, owners/producers of other livestock, such as horses, could participate in the system, but it would be voluntary.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Things are looking up (for horse owners, anyway).
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Animal ID: FFA to Promote Premises Registration
Press Release
June 04 2007

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National FFA Organization announced June 4 a partnership for a broad-based education in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for current FFA members and alumni. The cooperative agreement signed at USDA headquarters in Washington, D.C., will help promote premises registration across the country.

"Rapid disease response limits the impact of an outbreak on a producer's operation--or can stop disease spread before it reaches the animals," said Bruce Knight, undersecretary for USDA's marketing and regulatory programs. "Choosing to be a part of voluntary NAIS ensures a producer of needed information, when they need it most--to protect their animals and their investment."

The National Animal Identification System includes premises registration, animal identification, and tracing. State and federal officials can contain a disease outbreak or other animal health event more quickly and more effectively if they have timely, accurate information.

The premises registration component of NAIS makes available a nationwide communications network to assist livestock owners and animal health officials in the case of a disease event. More than 394,000 premises nationwide have been registered to date.

"The National FFA Organization stands ready to partner with USDA on this venture. Together we can combine our talents and resources to educate the agriculture industry about NAIS and to help promote premises registration," said Larry D. Case, FFA chief executive officer and national FFA advisor.

In February, USDA announced $6 million for cooperative agreements, subject to the availability of funding, to support nonprofit agricultural organizations to promote NAIS, and specifically, to increase participation in premises registration. USDA has awarded funding to the National Pork Board and is reviewing additional applications.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Joey
May 22 2007, 09:42 AM
Things are looking up (for horse owners, anyway).

Or perhaps not. This is from another horse list.



NAIS - original post
Date: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:15 am ((PDT))

Since we have had discussion on this topic I thought this might be of interest.

Horse Owner's Survey of the National Equine Identification System

Dear Horse Owner:

My name is Ann Swinker and I am a faculty member in the department of Dairy and Animal Science at The Pennsylvania State University. My colleagues and I are conducting a study on the impact of equine identification (IRB# 25658). Animal identification offers a valuable tool for horse owners whose horses move to locations where they come into contact with other animals. There is an increased potential for the horse to be exposed to or impact the spread of disease. Animal ID has proven to be a very valuable tool in disasters or if animals are stolen or lost. Your participation in our survey is voluntary and greatly needed.

Please completed the on line survey questionnaire by entering this URL site and answer the questions.

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-...=WEB226P5EVS4S4

or enter the survey through the PSU equine Sciences web page through this address: http://www.das.psu.edu/4h/horse/identification/
and click on equine survey.

If you want to visit the overall survey result at the end of your survey you may enter the pass word “psuhorse” one word.

We would like for you to participate in the Penn State University “Equine Identification Study” by answering the questions on on-line questionnaire and return it. It will take you about 15-20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Participants filling out the survey must be 18 years of age or older. Again, your participation is confidential and voluntary. You may choose not to participate at any time.

Confidentiality is important in research. I can assure you that your answers will not be associated with your name in any way. Completion and return of the survey is considered your implied consent to participate in this study. Please keep this letter for your records.

Thank you for giving your attention to this matter. I appreciate you taking the time to participate in this very important study. Please completed the on line survey questionnaire and pass this on to your equine friends. If you have questions about any aspect of the study, please feel free to call me at 814-865-7810.

Thank You,
Dr. Ann M. Swinker,
Extension Horse Specialist
Pennsylvania State University, 324 Henning building University Park, Pa 16802
Email: aswinker@psu.edu Phone: 814-865-7810

Survey Questionnaire Site is http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-...=WEB226P5EVS4S4
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

3a. NAIS

I really hate to clog up the list with this but it is so important I feel I must. Everyone who has not taken this survey:

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-...=WEB226P5EVS4S4

PLEASE reconsider at least answering question 13. Here are the latest results:

13. Are you in favor or opposed to participating in NAIS equine identification program?


In Favor ..... 137 ..... 36%
Opposed ...... 131 ..... 34%
Neutral ....... 70 ..... 18%
Unsure ........ 45 ..... 12%
Total ....... 383 ..... 100%


If you care about your ability to compete in this sport without reporting every movement to a govt database, speak now or forever hold your peace. Two people on other lists have been in contact with the adminstrator of this research project and received this in reply:

<< Penn State University is conducting a survey to provide information about how the United States horse industry feels towards NAIS. Our survey is anonymous; therefore no one participating in this survey will be registered for any type of program. Additionally, those of us working on the Penn State survey are neutral to the issue. We intend to present the results of this survey without bias. The information that we collect will present the voice of the people to the Equine Work Group, USDA National Animal Identification System (NAIS). We hope you recognize this as an opportunity for you to be heard. We respect your concerns.>>

I can tell you exactly what the USDA will do with this information - they will present it to Congress as evidence of "broad based support" just as they did with their NAIS "listening sessions" that only 45 people knew about and attended. Remember that the House Ag Committee is set to vote THIS WEEK on the 2007 Farm Bill which includes the Peterson amendment - allowing the USDA to create a mandatory NAIS. From there it goes to the full House and then the Senate.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

I just took the survey. Here are the current results from Question #13:

13. Are you in favor or opposed to participating in NAIS equine identification program?
In Favor......181 (24%)
Opposed.....429 (56%)
Neutral.........92 (12%)
Unsure.........63 (8%)
Total..........765 (100%)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I took it. :)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself _ until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.

http://www.comcast.net/news/technology/ind.../21/720260.html

Long read, but interesting.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

Interesting article Joey. Thanks for posting. I bumped our previous NAIS discussion. IIRC, you and I discussed the potential for chipping humans--at least I think it was in that thread.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I remember. :)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

I just merged these two posts into one thread Joey. Makes it a little easier to find all the info.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Cool. Thank you. :)

You know, I think it's going to be postponed for horses for a while.
Then, when we're not looking, they'll stick it to us.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
msequine
Member Avatar
Originator

You know they're just watching and waiting for an opportunity to get into our wallets.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Join us on:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Amazing, isn't it? The things folks will do for money.
That must be why i'm poor... or maybe it's because i'm lazy lol
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · News · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8


Use OpenDNS