Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#65653 - 01/20/06 08:19 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?

CJR is right. The effective leadership will need to come from someone already in a leadership position or else someone who can influence indirectly by financing. Best would be someone in the ministry who has a very fair and balanced perspective. Petitions and forum discussions seldom provide desired results unless huge numbers are involved, which is difficult.

Many people are conflicted on NAIS. Much of the justification is reasonable. But as everyone knows, the "devil is in the details. That's where is mischief lies". Especially since the NAIS plan would need to be opposed in the legal realm, where most of us are unfamiliar. But it is our right and responsibiility to be knowlegable about the laws governing us.

At this time, there is finally a written, signed legal document available providing sufficient details. Wisconsin's law, statues, rules regarding it's NAIS implementation is the first in the nation and affords us the opportunity to see exactly what is envisioned, instead of guessing about proposals. But, it seems that the Wisconsin CR04-103 has not been updated online and is outdated. I cannot find the current version online, which is the legally inforcable version. It's useless to discussion a "Proposed Draft" version.

It's always healthy to vent frustration and discuss issues. But one must be realistic on what can be accomplished. No point in fighting a battle that can't be won (fighting legally). To me, it seems that a law that requires site identification of livestock premises will be hard to contest. It's already being done voluntarilly here and also in many other countries. But on the other hand, the requirement to track liestock and farm animal pets to any offsite location is not being done in any other countries in this manner. The government requirement's solution needs to be reconsidered and re-evaluated. ALternative solutions must be be evaluted.

Hopefully, someone in Wisconsin interested in opposition would evaluate these newly imposed laws.

#65654 - 01/20/06 08:50 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Rob2 Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 03/28/03
Posts: 3068
Loc: Pennsylvania
Buckbee, just thought I should let you know that this was into'd by Leahy(D), not exactly a good buddy of small government !!

#65655 - 01/21/06 09:46 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Deb AZ Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 09/26/03
Posts: 452
Loc: Arizona
The intrusion upon our civil liberties including our religious freedoms (this would include groups such as the Amish), our right to own private property and our right to privacy. Many areas covered by the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments should be of great concern.

There are groups and lawyers reading and interpeting this (if you read the letter put up) and offering alternative measures to satisfy those concerned about food safety to the threat of disease. One cannot help but notice in studying these proposed regulations that every area of owning any type of animal is covered and most importantly, definatly not to be over looked is what is done or the expectancy of that animal. Whether it serves a purpose for slaughter to just enjoyment. Every type of animal owner and the intent by which one keeps animals is covered.
Another area concerning privacy rights is premisis inspections, though true many organazations requier such information upon the adoption or purchase of an animal they are private organazations not funded by the federal govenrment. NAIS is a federal program yet will be intrusive upon ones private property. The conclusions the NAIS gathered concerning the premisis to co-mingeling issues of animal species was taken from a study of one targeted area, private citizens residence and cannot be compared to that of a commercial type enviorment yet no considerations were given. To some this study is viewed as prejudicial comparing in some ways the haves with the have nots. Short life expectancy to long term pets. Yet NAIS is relying on the comments and formulated opinions of the survey to defend their intent.
In reading through NAIS one may think this type of collective regestered data would serve a greater purpose, first being requiering more responcible ownership, from food safety to the health and welfare of animals ( that phrase is used alot in defence of NAIS) BUT one must remember in our great country not only do you have the right and priviledge to be responcible but you have the right to be irresponcible. The most affected, burdened and penalized group, that NAIS at this point targets is the responcible animal holder.

For those thinking this will be one of the biggest under takings, in part you are right but the success of such a program will be aided by the fact we already HAVE a tracking and monitoring system for many species requiering registration to documentation provided by owners and associations. These programs will be used untill NAIS finds a way to phase them out.

If you feel that NAIS as you understand it is not an intrusion upon your rights or lifestyle at this point due to the greater service it is to provide then visit the USDA site and click on the questions & answers. NAIS must not appear biased meaning not only is it targeting large herds to flocks but the one single animal holder. Regardless of type or numbers you will be requiered to report any and all activities relating to the birth, death or movements of that animal and any offspring. If you feel that tracking by radio frequency is science fiction at this point, there too you will find that untill cost is effective and the govenrment can find a way to not violate the consitution completely by implantation of technology, many of your questions covered.

Then there are groups looking at the law making aspect of this by the ag. dept? Others are looking at the envolvement of the stakeholders. So there are alot of loud voices as more and more is becomming understood.

I am not a lawyer but I know BS when I see and smell it. It is also not hard in reading over and over again NAIS regulations to start seeing just what is going to be asked of me. But it is the why that bothers me.


#65656 - 02/04/06 07:42 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?

For completeness, here is the law that Wisconsin enacted in 2003 that requires registration of all sites containing any farm-type animals within the state. They require reporting site related info and animal types. Animal tagging related info is not included.

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

(click on 03 Acts, it's Wisconsin 2003 Act 229 )

#65657 - 02/04/06 06:04 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
B. Buckbee Offline

Registered: 04/29/05
Posts: 31
Loc: Wisconsin
Thanks for all the input, for all of us in the badger state.
My question for you now is, if your roots and homestead were here in wis, what would you do?
Do you register? or do you face fines?
I don't agree with NAIS, I'm a homesteader not a criminal!
Your support on this issue has been a blessing.

#65658 - 02/04/06 06:38 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Mbkarsh Offline

Registered: 06/28/05
Posts: 17
Loc: Minnesota
I would face the fines, especially if it meant
either facing the fines or not being able to afford to keep my operation going. It's just wrong to impose this on people. I just live a bridge-drive away from Wisconsin.
I don't think NAIS will limit the negative impact of disease. Sounds like a plan that will limit diversity...not environmentally sound, not a plan for resiliency.

#65659 - 02/05/06 09:59 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?

If I lived in Wisconsin, this is what I would do. I would try to find a civil rights citizen group to try to find any legal standing to oppose this law I would oppose this plan as being unconstitutional and therefore illegal. I would not register my premise until much of this is resolved. I would oppose the NAIS concept through the media.

The NAIS concept mandates government tracking and monitoring of the movements of a citizen's animal property. This, to me, violates the constitutional right from unwarranted search of a citizen's property (4th amendment of the Constitution). I'm not a lawyer but this seems to be an avenue to legally nullify this Wisconsin Act 229.

Act 229 pertains to registration of livestock residing premises and does not specifically pertain to monitoring a citizen's animal's movements. But Act 229 does reference the national identification plan and specifically states that information from it is to be used as guidelines ("section 95.51 Livestock Premises Registration... using standards and guidelines from the national animal identification plan developed by the animal and plant health inspection service of the federal department of agriculture, to the extent practical."). Hopefully, this wording provides some means to argue that Act 229 is intended for use in implementing the full NAIS concept, including animal tracking and monitoring, again which hopefully can be argued as being unconstitional.

Frankly as I said before, I can't argue with the government working to protect our food supply. And personally, I don't have a problem with providing the government with my premise location information, for purposes of protecting our food supply. But the concept of government tracking all movements of any potential live food source is a rather extreme and absurd approach. And additionally, when accepting this monitoring concept we inplicitly accept the concept of future RFIDing guns, RFIDing cars, and in the distant future RFIDing all people.

#65660 - 02/09/06 09:22 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?

Musaland, you bring up some very very good points in regards to the NAIS being a slippery slope. Once we agree to rules like that, next thing we know they'll be tagging *us*. That's one reason why the Amish are fighting the NAIS so violently ("violently" being a figurative speech, what with them being Amish and all).

There's a short article that provides a summary of the issue.

It's a great introduction for beginners.

Thanks for everyone's intellegient posts. I found this thread *extremely* interesting. smile

#65661 - 02/10/06 05:45 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Rob2 Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 03/28/03
Posts: 3068
Loc: Pennsylvania
Its been a slippery slope since the mid 1600s when all animals had to be marked(within 3 months of posession) or be forfeited to the governor(in Pennsylvania). Then in the west cattle were to branded by government registered brands. 300 years later we are still sliding!!
The Amish around here, many, dont seem to be too upset, some dont know, some dont care, most seem indifferent. They are becoming more activist tho, the election issues of the 2004 election prompted many Amish communties to vote.

#65662 - 02/10/06 08:49 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
BC Breeder Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 07/16/02
Posts: 434
Loc: Canada
>>>>>>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?

Many in the poultry world have marvelled at the strength of the ARBC. They are strong in membership and suprisingly strong with their lobbying ability. The decision to leave them out of NAIS for now was well thought out. It will be easier to deal with the rabbits when they are the last ones standing nad it's too late for them to join forces with poultry and the rest.

If poultry leaders have any brains, they will be accepting and fully utilizing the rabbit organization's offer of cooperation, coolaboration, and help.
Omega Blue Farms

Pictures related to my blue eggers can be viewed at:

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  Admin @ The Coop, Foehn 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 50 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box