Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#65643 - 01/16/06 08:06 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
H. Cote Offline

Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 69
Loc: Massachusetts
I live in Massachusetts and our town just voted to establish an agricultural commisssion. I believe that this issue will be on the top of the agenda at our next meeting. If your town/city has an ag commission, I urge you to bring the topic up to them. They can be your local voice.

#65644 - 01/16/06 08:37 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Deb AZ Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 09/26/03
Posts: 452
Loc: Arizona
It is the responcibility of all of us to ensure the health and welfare of our animals and to be responcible when it comes to the safety of the public concerning our livestock, with that said though it is the general belief and the politically correct thinking that we are not. This program is not new neither is the idea of regulating pet owners. If one was to sit down with a map and track all of the state and local regualtions that have been voted and acted upon in regards to pet regulations one might be shocked. I personally believe and with all the information at hand that AI is the scapegoat for this inactment and is just bad timing. This is not a new idea. For years many of our animal associations have been toying with the idea of micro chipping animals for identification in the event of theft. For many of us we tatoo as ID keeping records and registering that tatoo with our associations.
We all must keep in mind it is not just poultry to be affected but all livestock including what is deemed as a pet. Many of the local humane societies are already implanting micro chips upon the adoption of pets which has rasied the cost of adoptions. So the cost is being passed to the consumer. They may not be able to keep you from seeking a pet or companion but they can make it darn hard to afford one. The cost here went from 40$ for a kitten including spay and first shots to 75$ including the micro chip. Seems pretty silly and costly for somthing that is not in place as of yet.
One of the areas and concerns is lifestyle. That would include those of us that enjoy riding our horses on range and trails. We would not be able to do so with out id. So something simple turns complicated.
Another point to keep in mind is those who own poultry many times own other livestock, those who show poultry often show other livestock. Regardless of what is being projected now in the infancy stage, history tells us the cost will be passed on to the owner. For those of us who keep flocks and herds or show cost and convenience will become a major issue.
More people move their animals than one might think. The wording includes "leaving the premisis". To take that literally and what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, this in all fairness must include any animal in public view and at any location other than the owners premisis.
A major concern for those who understand and see the future ownership of animals threatened is the idea and suggested implications for violaters. Not only the imposing of fines but the open suggestion that vets will report all violaters.
I read the lawyers letter and she is right the implications of something like this is far reaching and is in violation of our constitution. Two issues the 4th amendment , violation of our privacy by electronic devices and technology. the scantity of our homes. Regulations far greater than that of a gun owner, requiering one to report within 24 hours of leaving and returning to the premisis. The wording an implications of these regulations and thre proposed timing that this is to take place will create violaters. She rasied some fine points concerning just how far reaching and the technical ramificatins this would impose on individuals and their families.
Many do not see the full scope or magnitude of what is being asked of us, and we may not untill we are the ones who will implement the regulations in our lifestyle.


#65645 - 01/16/06 09:00 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?

Originally posted by tadkerson:
If we have an out break of the avian flu and people die from the disease, then the country will be blaming the government for not doing something about the disease. If the government suspects your flock of chickens of having avian flu they will come in and kill every chicken you have on your property. With a tracking system they could eliminate your flock as a source and you would not face years of work and breeding being eliminated..
The government currently IS "doing something". But, it's the type of things that the people don't know about. Understand that "if the government suspects... avian flu" it will be because it has ALREADY BROKEN OUT. Even bovine testing of "mad cow" is only sample testing, only one out of every batch. An infected cow may have already been released into the food supply. Their solution is containment by eradication of flocks/herds in the vicinity. This solution is necessary and unavoidable. But you will lose your flock and possibly your investment in time and money. If you believe in insurance and in the unlikely event that an eradication event will occur to you, you may wish to send out some "best of your breed" to other breeders as offsite backup.

The same thing goes for mad cow, one outbreak and the cattle industry will be in trouble because countries will not import our beef. The tracking system will help the government detemine where the cattle came from and what other cattle may be infected..
BTW, the NAIS program is administered and funded throught the Department of Agriculture. It does not document any indication of cooperation with the Department of Heath and Human Services (which contains the Center for Dsease Control - CDC) or the Department of Homeland Security. Government inter-agency cooperation is known to be lacking, in general. This program seems to be driven primarily to ensure that ANIMAL DISEASE is not transmitted between flocks/herds and between countries. This ensures that big corporation's "animal inventory" are not lost. But I also see that this program should also be used for human disease control.

The industry puts tracking numbers on all kinds of things. Anything that is shipped has a tracking number, your perscriptions, your social security number, your car, truck, trailer, boat, your house, your computer, your guns, health insurance, etc, etc..
We're a country of laws governed by the Constitution and created by legislators. Whether something is permitted to be identified by tagging or else tracked, monitored, or surveilled by tagging is also contained by the laws. Some items are tagged and monitored only after permission by the owner (ie. if the person elects to use the service). Other items can be tagged and monitored by law, for purposes of taxation and such. Either way, the laws are eventually thoroughly reviewed by the court system.

I personally think the less government we have the better off I will be but that is not what most people want. Many people in the United States think the goverment is there mother and father and want the government take care of them. They blam the government for everthing.
I believe that unchecked actions by the government can lead to gross violations of our civil liberties. I also believe that the govenment needs to do all it can to protect it's citizens and our way of live. As President Reagen once said "Trust but verify." Some aspects of this plan should be voluntary. Also, this plan does not seem well thought through. Notice that rabbits are not included in the ID/Tracking plan? As an edible food item (are they called livestock?), why are they omitted? Also, unintended consequences of this plan may harm the poultry hobby. Some protections against that would be for the government to outright pay for most aspects of this plan.

#65646 - 01/16/06 03:55 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
T. Adkerson Offline
Ruler of the Roost

Registered: 07/08/04
Posts: 895
Loc: Missouri

The grow up and shut up was not directed toward you.


#65647 - 01/17/06 09:57 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?

Gotit, thanks.

#65648 - 01/18/06 02:33 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?


Here is the text of the Wisconsin law requiring Premises Identification of all livestock in Wisconsin, to be implemented beginning Jan 1, 2006. The law states that there is no individual animal identification is required, that there is no premise identification fees, and that the cost estimate to be assumed by the state of Wisconsin is $918,000 per year. This cost includes three inspector positions.

Here is the link to the text and notice that to advance to successive pages, click on the "MORE" button on the lower right corner of page.

Also for reference, online text of Wisconsin Legislation is at this link

(click on 05 Clearinghouse Rules, it's CR04-103

#65649 - 01/18/06 03:04 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Rob2 Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 03/28/03
Posts: 3068
Loc: Pennsylvania
I really think this would be pretty tuff to halt if it really does get under taken.
property rights may not be an issue, there are already quite a few restrictions as to keeping animals. Illegal to have bulls or stallions on pasture after certain ages, some breeds of dogs are actually banned and/or restricted in some locales, its illegal to keep many animals in certain districts for public safety reasons. You can get busted for keeping animals in untidy conditions, the list could go on.

#65650 - 01/19/06 06:32 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
B. Buckbee Offline

Registered: 04/29/05
Posts: 31
Loc: Wisconsin

This is turning into a great thread!
I'm not sure we can do much to stop Dubya and his growing gov, anyway along with premice registration they send you a plastic card and tell you that you may need it in the future for purchase of identification tags!
I suppose I could use them to decorate the Christmas tree!

#65651 - 01/19/06 08:31 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
CJR Offline
Coop Master

Registered: 07/16/02
Posts: 8499
Loc: Montana
Our Poultry hobby/business seems to have an unusually large number of ministers involved, but I know of few Attorneys. Without legal advice and legal LEADERSHIP, any attempt to stop or contain this proposal will have little effect. You and I can sign petitions, but they have no effect on something like this, and we can write letters. Our Congressmen could help, but again, it takes influence and the small farmer or small livetock owner has no voice! But carry on, as someone may hit an avenue of action that will carry some weight! CJR

#65652 - 01/19/06 11:23 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Uno Offline
Lord of the Fowl

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 1283
Loc: Canada
I read this thread and can't help but think of our Canadian gun registration law. In short, with the stroke of a pen, millions of law abiding Canadians were turned into criminals overnight when it became law to register all guns that a person owned. If you had an unregistered gun, you were breaking the law.

This is the biggest ,in-your-face example of governemental abuse of power. This is a governement NOT governing, but playing to the uneducated masses who think that registering guns will stop gun related violence. Uh, wrong! But it sure looks good in the newspaper and at election time.

I feel the killing of 19 million birds here in British Columbia was a huge photo-op for the government who did all but beat their chest and crow about how fabulous and proactive they are at keeping our food supply safe. (see the thread on avian influenza cull)

My heart goes out to the small farmer and poultry hobbiest who is slowly being made to feel like they are harbouring criminals by having unregistered animals. Oh, there's a really good party line why this is necessary to keep us safe, blah, blah, blah. Don't you believe it. It's to keep governments safe and in power. Uneducated consumers, the very people we work to feed, may well turn out to be our worst enemy in this.

I hope ( but am not hopeful) that this can be defeated. The cost, passed down, may very well make backyard poultry keeping the pleasure of the wealthy, or those blessed with quota. If this is brought to pass in the USA, I doubt that Canada will be far behind. I'd like to think our government is smarter than that. ( sorry, fell out of my chair laughing at that one, ha, ha!)

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  Admin @ The Coop, Foehn 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 53 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box