Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#65633 - 01/12/06 11:59 AM Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Doesn't the NAIS program violate a grey area of the "searches and seizures" amendment of the US Constitution? I'm not a lawyer, but isn't anyone looking into that?

Also, if this program is so crucial and important, why is it initially being introduced as voluntary? Are people being coerced into participating? It seems that if a legal issue is currently unresolved regarding it's implementation, then any voluntary participation would mitigate the issue. If people are uncomfortable with this program, they should not sign up.

Personally, I think that a NAIS-type program is probably necessary in our country but my guess is that it violates the US Bill of Rights. For me personally to be OK with something like NAIS would require that written legislative guarantees be incorporated to ensure no financial burden be imposed which could severely impact the poultry hobbiest or the fancy. Otherwise, it seems very likely that yearly cost increases and impact can be imposed to slowly choke off people's poultry interests and livelihood.

Top
#65634 - 01/12/06 02:12 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Rob2 Offline
Classroom Professor

Registered: 03/28/03
Posts: 3068
Loc: Pennsylvania
Well, the way I see it is that our govt. has stepped far beyond the reach of its intended duties. The gun thing of the last administration really woke me up and caused me to learn more about government and especially the constitution. When you begin to study the Federalist and the anti federalist papers you get a eye opening. Anyhow, this probably fits under the govts. responsibility to protect the good of the whole, we(not meaning ME) expect out govt. to protect us from foreign armies and other threats which can effect our national well being- a possible pandemic could be considered a national threat by reasonable people. Due to greed, sefishness, etc., individuals may not be willing to "do the right thing". So we have demanded the govt. set price contols, make cheap food, fuel, medicine/health etc. available. Thus the idea to protect the nation from a disease(s) which could lay waste to several industries and cause billions of dollars to be lost. The idea with NAIS is to assure other nations will purchase our meat products as a short term + while also making it easier/quicker to pin down disease.
I really thoink the basic idea is sound, but, the presently planned operation stinks, is unworkable and would be VERY expensive to undertake. IF it is infact to benefit the nation, then the nation(all taxpayers) must contribute to the cost. Until then, they can kiss my___. There are those who are spreading false and just wrong info, those who dont have a grasp, and the everyday nutballs ready to run to other countries, call our leaders Fascists and generall act silly. Boy, they really help the cause ! It is the show people who will be most effected as they are most likely to make the most movements of animals. There reall needs to be some better system to enable this aspect of the industry w/o their being unduly harmed.But they must also bear more responsibility than those who rarely move animals. We are gonna have to define better our right to a pursuit of happiness!! It is my feeling that we should all just resist this effort untill a better working plan is designed, cant throw us all in jail.

Top
#65635 - 01/12/06 07:30 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Anonymous
Unregistered


In my opinion, the government has no constitutional right to require that I obtain a site ID number for purposes of tracking my poultry pets. They have no constitutional right to require that I place a electronic tag under my poultry pet's skin for tracking and identification purposes. They have no constitutional right to require that I report movement of my poultry pet to a poultry show and back home again.

Top
#65636 - 01/13/06 05:21 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
B. Buckbee Offline
Feather

Registered: 04/29/05
Posts: 31
Loc: Wisconsin
musaland,
I agree with all your statements. Here they made it manditory Jan 1st, so I complied and now have a premice ID#. Either register or face fines,what choice do we have? It's the last thing I wanted to do!

Top
#65637 - 01/13/06 10:24 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Rogo16 Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 10/14/05
Posts: 439
Loc: Arizona
The government is changing the constitution as they go. This is where the problem is.

And if they can take your house due to some big business wanting to put a mall there, what's to stop them from taking your critters!

~Rogo
_________________________
Rogo

Top
#65638 - 01/14/06 08:03 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Mandatory? The constitution certainly gives the government authority to regulate commerce. For farmers that are selling livestock, there is a grey area as to how far they can identify, monitor, and inspect the product. But for farmers or hobbiests that are keeping poultry for pets, for home food use, or for giving eggs away, this is not commerce. If you're keeping livestock, let's say they can use that site ID number for that. But if you have a flock of chickens, horses, pot-bellied pigs, rabbits, or such pets then the government can't regulate them as commerce and the government can't use that site ID number towards those animals.

The government can certainly tax you for anything that they want. But my right, from the 4th amendment of the Constitution, supercedes all attempts of the government to take it away. The govenment cannot force me to put a monitoring device (even passive like a electronic tag) on my possessions even for the sake of national security (unless that person is a criminal or due cause). If they could, what's to stop them from putting a GPS device on every Muslim's car for purposes of tracking a potential terrorist. It's absurd, of course, but isn't that the same as putting a tracking device (even RFID tag) on my pet pot-belly pig or chickens?

Top
#65639 - 01/14/06 01:08 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Here's a opposition response to NAIS from a lawyer. It starts at the fourth post to the below link's thread.

http://homesteadingtoday.com/vb/showthread.php?t=113760

Another article, in pdf format, by the same author, in case the above disappears from the HT forum.

http://www.bantamclub.com/hobby/Why%20You%20Should%20Oppose.pdf

Top
#65640 - 01/15/06 09:43 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Yes, Wisconsin has passed a law requiring livestock SITE registration, by the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium http://www.wiid.org/ . But, I've not seen the text. I find it incredible that there is no legal opposition.

Also as I said before, requiring site registration IS QUITE DIFFERENT than requiring electronic tracking tags on animals. The surveillance would probably be contested in court, I would think.

There is further evidence that suggests a legal problem exists with animal surveillance. The Wisconsin consortium site has a page, http://www.wiid.org/index.php?action=tracking_about , that states that the Wisconsin Premises Registration Act does not require that Fairs and Shows register their location. Why is that? Probably because it can only be justified by using the "Animal Tracking" requirement, which may be the legal obstacle.

Top
#65641 - 01/15/06 06:13 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Rogo16 Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 10/14/05
Posts: 439
Loc: Arizona
=== requiring site registration IS QUITE DIFFERENT than requiring electronic tracking tags on animals. The surveillance would probably be contested in court, I would think. ===

Any legal eagles out there know if this is true? It sure would help.

~Rogo
_________________________
Rogo

Top
#65642 - 01/16/06 06:58 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
T. Adkerson Offline
Ruler of the Roost

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

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.

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 their mother and father and want the government take care of them. They blam the government for everthing. I say grow up and shut up.

Tim

Top
#65643 - 01/16/06 08:06 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
H. Cote Offline
Bantam

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.
Heidi

Top
#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.

Deb

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


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Top
#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
Musaland,

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

Tim

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


Gotit, thanks.

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


EDITTED ==> THE BELOW IS ONLY THE PROPOSED TEXT. HAVEN'T YET FOUND THE LAW'S TEXT

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.
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/o...ftpage=Document

Also for reference, online text of Wisconsin Legislation is at this link
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/

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

Top
#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.

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

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

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!

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

Registered: 07/16/02
Posts: 8489
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

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

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 1280
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!)

Top
#65653 - 01/20/06 08:19 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#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 !!

Top
#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.

Deb

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


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.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2003/data/acts/03Act229.pdf

Also for reference, online text of Wisconsin Legislation is at this link
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/

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

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

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.

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

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.

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


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.

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


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.

http://poultryone.com/articles/nais.html

It's a great introduction for beginners.

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

Top
#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.

Top
#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
http://www3.telus.net/OmegaBlue/

Pictures related to my blue eggers can be viewed at:
http://groups.msn.com/BCsBlueEggers

Top
#65663 - 02/10/06 09:22 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
BC Breeder Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 07/16/02
Posts: 434
Loc: Canada
>>>>>Uneducated consumers, the very people we work to feed, may well turn out to be our worst enemy in this.


you hit the nail on the head. I've been saying this for a while now, and mostly unheard, but the solution to our who problem is to educate people about what makes a food supply healthy. The people we feed ARE the voters and unlike the politicians, they have an agenda we can work with. If those voters become aware of the truth regarding the safe future of their food supply, they WILL be on our side. We provide healtheir food than the factories (who are protected by the incoming laws). If we are left unchecked in providing the healthier food, the factories will eventually have to start supplying healthier food.

JUst think, .... what if ALL eggs sold in america came from hens fed 10% flax seed. THe drop in heart attacks alone would be staggering. Now let's say they were able to remove "grain fed" from our beef and dairy supply, replacing it with "100% grass fed", the drop in american cancer cases would be staggering. Americans would also get to enjoy a reduction in obesity, dementia, and other common ailments. It wouldn't be that hard to do, the feedlots would just have to adjust from feeding grain in the feedlots to hay, haylage, alfalfa, etc.

The above are two simple steps the factories could do to improve the health of america's food supply. Without the natural pasture farmers providing options, competition, and education, where is the pressure for the factories to change going to come from? By protecting our rights to freely raise poultry, we are protecting the amercan voters from an unhealthy food supply. IN doing so, we will save millions.

OK, the conclusion needs work, buy you get the drift. Fight the battle where it can be won. Turn our potentially worst enemies into our strongest assets and allies.
_________________________
Omega Blue Farms
http://www3.telus.net/OmegaBlue/

Pictures related to my blue eggers can be viewed at:
http://groups.msn.com/BCsBlueEggers

Top
#65664 - 02/10/06 07:27 PM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
Uno Offline
Lord of the Fowl

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 1280
Loc: Canada
BC Breeder:

On the surface, this NAIS proposal seems innocent enough. THey simply want to know who has what animals ,where. What's the harm in knowing? And the food eating public agrees, yes, what's the harm in knowing?

Then, NAIS simply want registration and full disclosure and access too, just to keep American consumers safe. And the food eaters of America agree, yes, we like to have safe food.

But here is where the evil of unchecked Government shows its ugly face. It will listen to money. Remember this : money talks. And the huge, industrial producer will claim that his livelihood is threatened by the existence of so many, small, (probably diseased ) poultry at random in the country, that the Govt, for the love of money, will stamp out the rights of its citizens. Not outright, no, no, no, that would never do. Sneakily, bit by bit, by the outrageous cost of registering 6 pitiful chickens that give you six measley eggs a day. And we will look at the cost and say, forget it, these six hens aren't worth the hassle and cost. Bingo! The Govt wins! And so do the industrial producers.

But who loses? The very citizens who wanted to be safe. They are not safe, they are IMPRISONED. When all your choices have been taken away, even if for your own good, they are still GONE. When you have no free choice, you are not a free person.

I would be writing letters. I'd be making stuff up. I would say that my name is Dr. Omelletemaker, and I have conducted extensive studies on the cost of food where the Govt institutes such gross invasion of the farmer. I would say, for example, in the country of Moldahavia, the price of eggs went up 500%. The Moldahavians now have to save money for two weeks to buy a dozen eggs. There has been a rise in childhood diseases associated with reduced egg consumption. It is a well know fact that children who do not eat enough eggs get ringworm more frequently, and are more likely to have their teeth drop out of their heads.

I, as Dr. Omelletemaker, would warn America that they will most likely be toothless and covered in ringworm in about 15 years time. Why? Once the only people with a hen are the big producers, they will charge whatever they want for eggs, and like the Moldahavians, the average American will no longer be able to afford them. This is a well know fact. You can look it up for yourself at the very comprehensive website www.don\'tyoubelieveit.com This will be the final outcome of the NAIS.

For those of you not prone to bits of fiction in the editorial page, forgive me. But people believe what they read in a newspaper! Convince them that this will not make them safe, but POOR and you may get the action from the consumer that you need. (remember, money talks)

As BC Breeder so aptly points out, without diversity in the system, however small, there is no better standard the large food producers have to strive for. At this point it does not seem that the NAIS is trying to obliterate backyard hens, or non-quota egg/fryer sales. BUT...the thin edge of the wedge, my friends, the thin edge of the wedge. frown


The above website does NOT exist. If it does, I have no idea what it might be. I made it up. That's the point.

Top
#65665 - 02/11/06 11:09 AM Re: Isn't this NAIS unconstitutional?
BC Breeder Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 07/16/02
Posts: 434
Loc: Canada
You are preaching to the choir UNO.

Get the public educated about the agenda of the factories to deny access to healthier foods and then they will be more receptive to our perspective of the NAIS program, avian influenza hype, etc. Or any other governemnt plans to limit poultry in the name of safety.

As a fellow Canadian, I will tell you that I know how to win this. I am willing to dedicate my future free time to the cause. I know that we have no real or effective leadership options before us that can win this. Therefore, I'm willing to step up and help formulate such leadership on a national level. I know it will take a collaborative effort involving a wide array of national organizations such Rare Breeds Canada, 4H, Natural Pastured Poultry, APA/ABA, etc.

But I can't do it alone. I do need help and support in getting the ball rolling. This is a turning point in our right to access healthier food options, and freely keep poultry. It's up to all of us to decide which path we take.

bcbreeder@lycos.com
_________________________
Omega Blue Farms
http://www3.telus.net/OmegaBlue/

Pictures related to my blue eggers can be viewed at:
http://groups.msn.com/BCsBlueEggers

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  Admin @ The Coop, Foehn