This is why I think you haven't read the documents:
"I don't have to read the ALL documents to form my opinion." and, "No matter what you think, I will rather form my opinion based on information from organizations such as Farm Bureau, the National Cattleman's Assn,"
Which USDA documents have you read? I've read all of them that pertain to NAIS. And, you are forming your opinion based on information from organizations that have accepted millions of dollars from USDA? That means they have a conflict of interest. Of course, they are going to sell NAIS as a great idea. That's what they are being paid to do. A smart person looks for an independent source for information. You don't have to believe me personally, but over 90% of respondents to unbiased polls and persons attending the listening sessions are opposed to NAIS. The only proponents of NAIS at the sessions have been members of industry groups receiving funds for promoting it, which makes your defense and nasty attitude to those who are trying to give you information very suspect. It also puts you in the minority, not the mainstream. You need to look outside your box.
Perhaps saying "read between the lines" was too difficult for you to understand. Let me rephrase. Read exactly what is written and don't assume it means anything other than what it says. An example of this was when Mike Johanns stated, "NAIS will not be mandatory under my tenure. I repeat will not!" He then quit two months later. I'm sure you've also heard that NAIS is voluntary on the FEDERAL level. That's another way of saying it will be made mandatory on the state level.
I guess I'll have to give you an explanation of force and bribery, since you can't differentiate between the two concepts. Forcing you to do something means against your will. Bribing you to do the same thing means you become a willing partner for the right price. Understand now?
Are you the arbiter of what constitutes a violation of the First Amendment? Who are you to say that the Amish and similar groups don't have a valid concern about the violation of their religious beliefs? I've personally heard several of them say that they are very upset about NAIS and what it will do to them. Anyone telling you anything different is lying.
I referred to you as dense because you referred to me as an extremist for defending my civil rights. Perhaps you prefer the term "traitor" instead. It really saddens me to see Americans treat their fellow citizens so shabbily for defending their right to privacy. You are the one who is advocating for a complete disruption of the beliefs this country was founded on. And for what? A false sense of security? A higher profit at someone else's expense? Please tell me.
I stand by my comment to you. I've done my research. According to your own statements, you haven't.
JLS, I hate to say anything derogatory, but since you insist on referring to anti-NAIS people as extremists, why are the pro-NAIS people so dense? We've given you links to government documents and told you where to look for info. You have to read them for yourself, we can't do that for you. You like to bash livestock owners who aren't big businesses. NAIS does not discriminate between hobby farms and CAFOs, and as long as they include hobby farms, small businesses, and PET goat owners, we have every right to protest being included in a plan designed for big business. If NAIS were truly VOLUNTARY, thre would be no argument going on here, but USDA representatives at meetings I've attended, have made it quite clear that they expect horse owners to line up and sign on, or be forced into the program by new regulations concerning the sale or movement of a horse. This is in the Business Plan if you bother to look at it. We don't eat horses in this country and most import/export horses are done on an individual level,not by big business. Why are they so concerned about them? Someone, somewhere is going to make a profit off of this and it won't be the average horse owner.
Now, as far as this same old nonsense you've been spouting:
FACT- States may have their own rules, regulations and laws. FACT- if the USDA were forcing a state to pass laws such as Wisconsin, they would be forcing ALL states.
USDA is not forcing states to pass laws. They are bribing states to pass them with cooperative agreement money, and a majority of legislators have no clue about any of this, so they get their info from groups like Farm Bureau who have also been bribed to promote it. I'm tired of telling you where to look for this info. Why don't you just use a search engine and find it yourself? It's out there.
FACT- Most of the posters on here against NAIS have not based their posts on facts concerning the NAIS.
Since you haven't read any of the documents, how do you know what the facts are? It is always smarter to do your own research than to trust someone else to tell you what you should know. If you haven't learned that yet, you will one day.
FACT- Disease traceability is much more stringent and all-encompassing for people than animals, yet extremists are more concerned about their animals.
This statement doesn't even make any sense. I'm not even going to try to guess what you are suggesting.
conspiracy theory 1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group. 2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
The first definition does not apply because USDA is not a covert group. The second definition does not apply because we can document the reasons for NAIS. It isn't a secret.
pops, I suggest if anyone ever asks you to sign a contract, that you have someone else look it over for you. Have you never heard of a loophole? Do you believe everything you are told by our gov't?
I've stated twice already what animals are backyard pets. I suggest you go back and re-read.
Government is more concerned about documenting our livestock than the wild animals because there is no way to extract money from, or control a wild animal's behavior.
Do me a favor, pops. I've listed all types of documentation for my arguments. What is your information source? Remember, it was Ronald Reagan who said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
JLS, I guess you didn't read one of my previous responses to your question. Backyard pets do not include dogs and cats - those are household pets. Backyard pets are those livestock animals that people treat as pets - such as miniature horses/donkeys, goats, pot bellied pigs, etc. Please don't make me repeat this again.
It's interesting that you have formed such strong opinions about a topic when you haven't read the documents yourself. You have put your trust in Farm Bureau and your livestock associations. All those organizations have received funding from USDA to implement NAIS and therefore have a conflict of interest. If you are really interested, I'll see if I can find a link to the list of who got what.
If it bothers you that people whose livelihoods don't depend on market access for their livestock are opposing this, then maybe you should ask yourself, why are we included in this plan, and why should we participate? If I created a plan for selling more horses, would you mind helping to pay for it even though there is nothing in it for you except being a "good neighbor"? (That's one of the reasons that horse owners have been given to participate in NAIS.)
BTW, are you aware that every non biased poll shows 90%+ of livestock owners are opposed to NAIS? Are we ALL conspiracy theorists?
Exzaktamente, Thank you. Obtuse is exactly the word I was looking for.
JLS, If you don't like letters to the editor, perhaps a view of the actual complaint will convince you of the validity of my statement. http://members.ftcldf.org/wp-content/...
As Exzaktamente pointed out, the State of Wisconsin has made this law because they have taken money from USDA to enact NAIS. Surely, you don't think that Wisconsin, and 49 other states and 12 tribes, miraculously came up with the idea to create a NAIS system independently of each other at the same time. Wisconsin just happens to be one of the first to mandate it because their legislators didn't realize that DATCP wouldn't grant exemptions to the Amish.
VS Memo 575.19 did not refer to disease outbreaks after a disease is found. Did you read it? It referred to issuing PINs to any farm that had a veterinarian present for any activity concerning a CFR listed disease. That included vaccinations, testing and inspections. The only reason it was rescinded was because NAIS opponents recognized it as an underhanded way to mandate NAIS and called them on it. It is for actions like that, that USDA has lost the trust of small farmers across the country.
It makes no difference if my horses are my livelihood or not. NAIS does not make that distinction. But either way, my horses are better off without NAIS which will only give a false sense of security while permitting horses from countries with FADs to enter the US without adequate quarantine and inspection. I hope you realize that NAIS is designed to open up our borders even wider.
You don't seem to comprehend the difference between disease control and NAIS. NAIS is a disease tracking plan - not a disease control plan. In a FOIA request from October 2008, Dr Adam Grow, DVM - Director of Surveillance and Identification Programs - USDA,APHIS,Veterinary Services, stated that NAIS is not a disease control or eradication program. http://nonais.org/2008/10/31/depopula...
I most certainly do know what the Fourth Amendment says, and having a PIN removes that right because it would make it legal to enter my private property without permission or a warrant for any reason that USDA or the state ag dep't could create. I've personally asked that question of my state coordinator and the USDA coordinator. I never got a straight answer.
If you think people protecting their own civil rights is the same thing as trying to award rights to animals, you need a civics lesson. I can't help it if you don't understand the Bill of Rights.
And as for those organizations that you feel have more credibility, every last one of them has taken bribe money from USDA to implement NAIS. They all have a conflict of interest. From the sound of your arguments, I would guess that you do too.
"If you know of one single livestock producer who is being forced to participate in the NAIS, let us know..."
You might want to look at this lawsuit against USDA and the Michigan Dep't of Agriculture on behalf of several farmers who were forced to register. http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-11sep...
Now, I never said that dogs and cats are included in NAIS. However, ponies, miniature horses, pot bellied pigs, goats, chickens and ducks, etc can all be kept as backyard pets, and are all included in the 33 species that NAIS calls livestock.
NAIS is not mandatory NOW. The original draft plan wanted it that way by Jan 2009, but the opposition to it forced USDA to back off and say it would be voluntary. My definition of voluntary doesn't includes coercion like requiring a premise ID for children to show livestock at the CO State Fair, or requiring a premise ID to be eligible for drought relief in NC. There are more examples, but those two stick out in my tired mind right now.
VS Memorandum 575.19 dated Sept.22, 2008 required veterinarians to register their clients who refused to "volunteer". http://www.libertyark.net/APHIS-PIN-M... That memo was rescinded after a storm of protest.
And yes, I live on a horse farm in PA. You may not consider it to be a real farm, but the USDA does. My horses get proper veterinary care and I pull Coggins tests as needed, and require them from new boarders. If USDA ties Premise ID numbers to Coggins testing, they will force me to choose between taking proper precautions against disease, and my Fourth Amendment rights. I shouldn't have to do that in this country.
FYI, the members of AAN have nothing in common with PETA and HSUS. We are fighting to retain our civil rights, not animal rights.
JLS, I've read every document put out by USDA including the Business Plan and the full Cost Benefit Analysis. I own horses, and Coggins testing is the disease control program USDA is targeting for them. The producers you refer to who volunteered are the same ones who proposed this system. NAIS benefits vertically integrated industries that deal internationally. If the government isn't interested in tracking every animal in the country, why are there no exclusions for small farms,homesteads,and backyard pets? What about the Amish who are opposed to this due to their beliefs? Why did John Weimers tell Sharon Zecchinelli in 2006 "that he would drive every back road to find every backyard flock and tag each chicken."? The government isn't concerned about the financial and regulatory burden on small farms who will have a higher cost per animal in exchange for little or no benefit. The Cost Benefit Analysis was focused on benefits to industry while dismissing individual livestock owners as too insignificant to include in the study. Well, as one of those insignificant "stakeholders", I want no part of your plan, and as long as USDA attempts to impose it on me, I will fight back. And, I've seen USDA's "myths" and they ignore the real questions being asked. For that matter, I could give you a list of myths that USDA is spreading.
Be sure to read between the lines. For example, from p.3 "Voluntary participation NAIS provides the opportunity for producers that are not part of a disease program to freely participate in national animal health safeguarding efforts.
You'll notice that participation is only voluntary if you aren't already part of a disease program. The majority of livestock in this country do participate in disease control programs. Those that don't, are the ones that USDA can't find.
pops, If the government ran a program to tag and track your pets, it wouldn't be to help you find a lost dog. (Which still has to be found before it can be identified.) If dogs were part of NAIS, you would register your property into a database with your contact info. This would mean that a government agent would be able to enter your home anytime they want without permission or a warrant to check your veterinary records, and confiscate or destroy your dog if they think its been exposed to a disease of concern. This registration number will stay with your property even when it is sold - so you would have to tell the buyer that he isn't protected by the 4th Amendment either. Next, you would be required, at your expense, to chip your dog even if you are concerned about possible health problems or you don't have enough extra money to pay the vet. When your dog dies or is sold, you would need to file a report within 24 hrs to let the database know where the dog is. You would also need to file a report if you take your dog for a walk, or to the vet and he meets another dog. And, when your dog is lost, you will file that report also. Of course, there will be a charge for filing the report since someone will be paid to key in the information. Now, if your dog is found, someone will need a wand to read the chip. Since wands are expensive, a good samaritan would have to take your dog to a vet or a shelter to identify it. That is, if the wand is the same frequency as the chip, and it hasn't migrated to another part of the dog's body. Now, if all that is OK with you, you need to project what might happen in the future if the gov't has this information. First, it could be used to tax you for the privilege of owning a dog. If you have two dogs, double the tax. If you breed a dog, you'll be charged extra fees for making puppies. It could be used as an enforcement tool if someone who doesn't like you reports that you mistreated your dog. An animal rights activist might be able to access your info and use it against you - esp. if you own a breed of dog they think needs to be banned or controlled with extraordinary means. Gov't has been very good lately at finding new ways to raise funds. This type of database would be a useful tool to them, and there is no limit to their imaginations or size of the fees, or punishments. Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.
Your letters, June 25, 2009
This is why I think you haven't read the documents:
"I don't have to read the ALL documents to form my opinion."
and,
"No matter what you think, I will rather form my opinion based on information from organizations such as Farm Bureau, the National Cattleman's Assn,"
Which USDA documents have you read? I've read all of them that pertain to NAIS.
And, you are forming your opinion based on information from organizations that have accepted millions of dollars from USDA? That means they have a conflict of interest. Of course, they are going to sell NAIS as a great idea. That's what they are being paid to do. A smart person looks for an independent source for information. You don't have to believe me personally, but over 90% of respondents to unbiased polls and persons attending the listening sessions are opposed to NAIS. The only proponents of NAIS at the sessions have been members of industry groups receiving funds for promoting it, which makes your defense and nasty attitude to those who are trying to give you information
very suspect. It also puts you in the minority, not the mainstream. You need to look outside your box.
Perhaps saying "read between the lines" was too difficult for you to understand. Let me rephrase. Read exactly what is written and don't assume it means anything other than what it says. An example of this was when Mike Johanns stated, "NAIS will not be mandatory under my tenure. I repeat will not!" He then quit two months later. I'm sure you've also heard that NAIS is voluntary on the FEDERAL level. That's another way of saying it will be made mandatory on the state level.
I guess I'll have to give you an explanation of force and bribery, since you can't differentiate between the two concepts. Forcing you to do something means against your will. Bribing you to do the same thing means you become a willing partner for the right price. Understand now?
Are you the arbiter of what constitutes a violation of the First Amendment? Who are you to say that the Amish and similar groups don't have a valid concern about the violation of their religious beliefs? I've personally heard several of them say that they are very upset about NAIS and what it will do to them. Anyone telling you anything different is lying.
I referred to you as dense because you referred to me as an extremist for defending my civil rights. Perhaps you prefer the term "traitor" instead. It really saddens me to see Americans treat their fellow citizens so shabbily for defending their right to privacy. You are the one who is advocating for a complete disruption of the beliefs this country was founded on. And for what? A false sense of security? A higher profit at someone else's expense? Please tell me.
I stand by my comment to you. I've done my research. According to your own statements, you haven't.
July 2, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
JLS,
I hate to say anything derogatory, but since you insist on referring to anti-NAIS people as extremists, why are the pro-NAIS people so dense? We've given you links to government documents and told you where to look for info. You have to read them for yourself, we can't do that for you. You like to bash livestock owners who aren't big businesses. NAIS does not discriminate between hobby farms and CAFOs, and as long as they include hobby farms, small businesses, and PET goat owners, we have every right to protest being included in a plan designed for big business.
If NAIS were truly VOLUNTARY, thre would be no argument going on here, but USDA representatives at meetings I've attended, have made it quite clear that they expect horse owners to line up and sign on, or be forced into the program by new regulations concerning the sale or movement of a horse. This is in the Business Plan if you bother to look at it. We don't eat horses in this country and most import/export horses are done on an individual level,not by big business. Why are they so concerned about them? Someone, somewhere is going to make a profit off of this and it won't be the average horse owner.
Now, as far as this same old nonsense you've been spouting:
FACT- States may have their own rules, regulations and laws.
FACT- if the USDA were forcing a state to pass laws such as Wisconsin, they would be forcing ALL states.
USDA is not forcing states to pass laws. They are bribing states to pass them with cooperative agreement money, and a majority of legislators have no clue about any of this, so they get their info from groups like Farm Bureau who have also been bribed to promote it. I'm tired of telling you where to look for this info. Why don't you just use a search engine and find it yourself? It's out there.
FACT- Most of the posters on here against NAIS have not based their posts on facts concerning the NAIS.
Since you haven't read any of the documents, how do you know what the facts are? It is always smarter to do your own research than to trust someone else to tell you what you should know. If you haven't learned that yet, you will one day.
FACT- Disease traceability is much more stringent and all-encompassing for people than animals, yet extremists are more concerned about their animals.
This statement doesn't even make any sense. I'm not even going to try to guess what you are suggesting.
June 29, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
pops,
You just aren't worth the effort any more. An ignorant person can learn, but since you can't, I won't suggest that you are.
June 28, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
conspiracy theory
1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
The first definition does not apply because USDA is not a covert group.
The second definition does not apply because we can document the reasons for NAIS. It isn't a secret.
pops, I suggest if anyone ever asks you to sign a contract, that you have someone else look it over for you. Have you never heard of a loophole? Do you believe everything you are told by our gov't?
I've stated twice already what animals are backyard pets. I suggest you go back and re-read.
Government is more concerned about documenting our livestock than the wild animals because there is no way to extract money from, or control a wild animal's behavior.
Do me a favor, pops. I've listed all types of documentation for my arguments. What is your information source?
Remember, it was Ronald Reagan who said,
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
June 28, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
JLS,
I guess you didn't read one of my previous responses to your question. Backyard pets do not include dogs and cats - those are household pets. Backyard pets are those livestock animals that people treat as pets - such as miniature horses/donkeys, goats, pot bellied pigs, etc. Please don't make me repeat this again.
It's interesting that you have formed such strong opinions about a topic when you haven't read the documents yourself. You have put your trust in Farm Bureau and your livestock associations. All those organizations have received funding from USDA to implement NAIS and therefore have a conflict of interest. If you are really interested, I'll see if I can find a link to the list of who got what.
If it bothers you that people whose livelihoods don't depend on market access for their livestock are opposing this, then maybe you should ask yourself, why are we included in this plan, and why should we participate? If I created a plan for selling more horses, would you mind helping to pay for it even though there is nothing in it for you except being a "good neighbor"? (That's one of the reasons that horse owners have been given to participate in NAIS.)
BTW, are you aware that every non biased poll shows 90%+ of livestock owners are opposed to NAIS? Are we ALL conspiracy theorists?
June 28, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
Exzaktamente,
Thank you. Obtuse is exactly the word I was looking for.
JLS,
If you don't like letters to the editor, perhaps a view of the actual complaint will convince you of the validity of my statement.
http://members.ftcldf.org/wp-content/...
As Exzaktamente pointed out, the State of Wisconsin has made this law because they have taken money from USDA to enact NAIS. Surely, you don't think that Wisconsin, and 49 other states and 12 tribes, miraculously came up with the idea to create a NAIS system independently of each other at the same time. Wisconsin just happens to be one of the first to mandate it because their legislators didn't realize that DATCP wouldn't grant exemptions to the Amish.
VS Memo 575.19 did not refer to disease outbreaks after a disease is found. Did you read it? It referred to issuing PINs to any farm that had a veterinarian present for any activity concerning a CFR listed disease. That included vaccinations, testing and inspections.
The only reason it was rescinded was because NAIS opponents recognized it as an underhanded way to mandate NAIS and called them on it. It is for actions like that, that USDA has lost the trust of small farmers across the country.
It makes no difference if my horses are my livelihood or not. NAIS does not make that distinction. But either way, my horses are better off without NAIS which will only give a false sense of security while permitting horses from countries with FADs to enter the US without adequate quarantine and inspection. I hope you realize that NAIS is designed to open up our borders even wider.
You don't seem to comprehend the difference between disease control and NAIS. NAIS is a disease tracking plan - not a disease control plan. In a FOIA request from October 2008, Dr Adam Grow, DVM - Director of Surveillance and Identification Programs - USDA,APHIS,Veterinary Services, stated that NAIS is not a disease control or eradication program.
http://nonais.org/2008/10/31/depopula...
I most certainly do know what the Fourth Amendment says, and having a PIN removes that right because it would make it legal to enter my private property without permission or a warrant for any reason that USDA or the state ag dep't could create. I've personally asked that question of my state coordinator and the USDA coordinator. I never got a straight answer.
If you think people protecting their own civil rights is the same thing as trying to award rights to animals, you need a civics lesson. I can't help it if you don't understand the Bill of Rights.
And as for those organizations that you feel have more credibility, every last one of them has taken bribe money from USDA to implement NAIS. They all have a conflict of interest. From the sound of your arguments, I would guess that you do too.
June 28, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
"If you know of one single livestock producer who is being forced to participate in the NAIS, let us know..."
You might want to look at this lawsuit against USDA and the Michigan Dep't of Agriculture on behalf of several farmers who were forced to register.
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-11sep...
And at this article detailing how Wisconsin is suing an Amishman for not complying with Premise ID.
http://newsofthenorth.net/printFriend...
Now, I never said that dogs and cats are included in NAIS. However, ponies, miniature horses, pot bellied pigs, goats, chickens and ducks, etc can all be kept as backyard pets, and are all included in the 33 species that NAIS calls livestock.
NAIS is not mandatory NOW. The original draft plan wanted it that way by Jan 2009, but the opposition to it forced USDA to back off and say it would be voluntary. My definition of voluntary doesn't includes coercion like requiring a premise ID for children to show livestock at the CO State Fair, or requiring a premise ID to be eligible for drought relief in NC. There are more examples, but those two stick out in my tired mind right now.
VS Memorandum 575.19 dated Sept.22, 2008 required veterinarians to register their clients who refused to "volunteer".
http://www.libertyark.net/APHIS-PIN-M...
That memo was rescinded after a storm of protest.
And yes, I live on a horse farm in PA. You may not consider it to be a real farm, but the USDA does.
My horses get proper veterinary care and I pull Coggins tests as needed, and require them from new boarders. If USDA ties Premise ID numbers to Coggins testing, they will force me to choose between taking proper precautions against disease, and my Fourth Amendment rights. I shouldn't have to do that in this country.
FYI, the members of AAN have nothing in common with PETA and HSUS. We are fighting to retain our civil rights, not animal rights.
June 27, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
JLS,
I've read every document put out by USDA including the Business Plan and the full Cost Benefit Analysis. I own horses, and Coggins testing is the disease control program USDA is targeting for them.
The producers you refer to who volunteered are the same ones who proposed this system. NAIS benefits vertically integrated industries that deal internationally.
If the government isn't interested in tracking every animal in the country, why are there no exclusions for small farms,homesteads,and backyard pets? What about the Amish who are opposed to this due to their beliefs? Why did John Weimers tell Sharon Zecchinelli in 2006 "that he would drive every back road to find every backyard flock and tag each chicken."?
The government isn't concerned about the financial and regulatory burden on small farms who will have a higher cost per animal in exchange for little or no benefit. The Cost Benefit Analysis was focused on benefits to industry while dismissing individual livestock owners as too insignificant to include in the study.
Well, as one of those insignificant "stakeholders", I want no part of your plan, and as long as USDA attempts to impose it on me, I will fight back.
And, I've seen USDA's "myths" and they ignore the real questions being asked. For that matter, I could give you a list of myths that USDA is spreading.
June 27, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
This isn't a conspiracy theory. I just described to you how NAIS is intended to function from USDA's own information.
Don't believe me? Read this.
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/n...
Be sure to read between the lines. For example, from p.3
"Voluntary participation
NAIS provides the opportunity for producers that are not part of a disease program to freely participate in national animal health safeguarding efforts.
You'll notice that participation is only voluntary if you aren't already part of a disease program. The majority of livestock in this country do participate in disease control programs. Those that don't, are the ones that USDA can't find.
June 27, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Your letters, June 25, 2009
pops,
If the government ran a program to tag and track your pets, it wouldn't be to help you find a lost dog. (Which still has to be found before it can be identified.)
If dogs were part of NAIS, you would register your property into a database with your contact info. This would mean that a government agent would be able to enter your home anytime they want without permission or a warrant to check your veterinary records, and confiscate or destroy your dog if they think its been exposed to a disease of concern. This registration number will stay with your property even when it is sold - so you would have to tell the buyer that he isn't protected by the 4th Amendment either.
Next, you would be required, at your expense, to chip your dog even if you are concerned about possible health problems or you don't have enough extra money to pay the vet. When your dog dies or is sold, you would need to file a report within 24 hrs to let the database know where the dog is. You would also need to file a report if you take your dog for a walk, or to the vet and he meets another dog. And, when your dog is lost, you will file that report also. Of course, there will be a charge for filing the report since someone will be paid to key in the information. Now, if your dog is found, someone will need a wand to read the chip. Since wands are expensive, a good samaritan would have to take your dog to a vet or a shelter to identify it. That is, if the wand is the same frequency as the chip, and it hasn't migrated to another part of the dog's body.
Now, if all that is OK with you, you need to project what might happen in the future if the gov't has this information. First, it could be used to tax you for the privilege of owning a dog. If you have two dogs, double the tax. If you breed a dog, you'll be charged extra fees for making puppies. It could be used as an enforcement tool if someone who doesn't like you reports that you mistreated your dog. An animal rights activist might be able to access your info and use it against you - esp. if you own a breed of dog they think needs to be banned or controlled with extraordinary means.
Gov't has been very good lately at finding new ways to raise funds. This type of database would be a useful tool to them, and there is no limit to their imaginations or size of the fees, or punishments.
Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.
June 27, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )