The American Horse Council (AHC) has played a key role in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). In 2002 the AHC appointed members to a task force, which later became the official Equine Species Working Group [see “Horses and NAIS,” Autumn 2006]. In September the AHC held an Issues Forum in Austin, which included a high-profile panel discussion on the NAIS. This event was not aimed at informing the general horse-owning public; the $100 entry fee discouraged most individuals, and only about 35 people attended the panel discussion.

The theme of the presentation was that the NAIS is voluntary now and no rules have been established. Yet the ultimate aim of the NAIS is the same as it always has been: all animal owners, including all horse owners, will have to register their premises, individually identify their animals with a standardized high-tech method, and report their movements to a database. Notably, the USDA has not withdrawn the 2005 and 2006 documents setting out this plan for all livestock, nor has it stated that horses will be excluded from the program. Indeed, the USDA documents specifically list horses as an included species.

The panel’s message was that horse owners should not worry right now, because nothing is in place at this moment. But with the documents clearly setting out what we can expect for the future, we would be shortsighted to ignore them. And the industry officials clearly aren’t closing their eyes to the future, either. In the forum’s opening statements, AHC president Jay Hickey spoke of his vision of what the horse industry would be like in 2025: All horses will be microchipped and people at shows, trail rides, and other events will drive by or through a reader to report their movements.

Neil Hammerschmidt, the USDA official in charge of implementing the NAIS, reiterated the USDA’s goal to have 100% of all premises with animals registered and 100% of all new animals identified by January 2009. “Today, USDA’s position is that NAIS is voluntary,” he said. Yet common sense dictates that 100% of animal owners will not volunteer, and that the government will have to take non-voluntary measures to reach its goals.

Indeed, Mr. Hammerschmidt’s superior, United States Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, recently said that the states may implement mandatory programs and the USDA will continue to fund such programs. Combined with the USDA’s stated goal of 100% participation, the message to the states is clear—implement a mandatory program or risk losing federal dollars.

Similarly, Dr. Hillman, Executive Director of the Texas Animal Health Commission, said that registration is voluntary and free “until at least 2007.” In other words, Texans have no guarantee that premises registration will remain voluntary or free unless the Texas Legislature takes action in the 2006 session.

Dr. Hillman’s presentation also discussed the ultimate goal of NAIS: registration of every premises, identification of every horse, and reporting movement. According to Dr. Hillman, if a Texan hauled a horse to a show in Oklahoma, that would be a reportable event. If the owner decided to sell the horse, even to a buyer within the same state, he would “report the transfer to the new premises.”

Dr. Hillman said the reporting will start with situations where a CVI (certified veterinary inspection) or negative Coggins certificate is required, but made no mention of where the reporting would end. A Coggins test is now required in many states for sales, shows, and other events. The message was clear—while the Equine Species Working Group has changed its earlier recommendations, and now recommends that horse owners not report to databases, it is only a temporary reprieve. The ultimate goal remains the same.

Even the current so-called voluntary state programs are not truly voluntary. During the question and answer session, one audience participant stated that Minnesota now requires people to have a premises ID to take a horse to an equine event. Owners of other livestock species have learned that their information has been taken out of other databases and placed in the NAIS database, without their knowledge or consent. And cattle owners in Michigan now face mandatory electronic ID requirements. All this has occurred without regulations or rules creating an explicitly mandatory NAIS.

Despite the repeated disclaimer that no rules have been established yet—so the officials can’t be specific about what the program will and will not require—Dr. Smith of the American Quarter Horse Association appeared comfortable reassuring the audience that the data will be kept in what he termed a Tier 1 database. He discussed the multiple layers of security used for such databases and said right now only about a dozen Tier 1 facilities are in the whole country. If these databases are so elaborate that they are used only in a handful of situations, can you imagine the costs associated with them?

After the meeting, when I asked him about the cost, Dr. Smith fell back on the claim that too many uncertainties remain to estimate costs. So horse owners should not worry, because the database will be secure, but no rules have been set forth and we don’t know the costs of such security. We cannot afford to rely on this type of reassurance.

Interestingly, while the speakers repeatedly mentioned the lack of rules, they felt confident contradicting other officials. One audience participant said the Oklahoma state veterinarian told her everyone would need a premises ID to buy or sell animals at her sales barn. If an animal was not chipped when it came to the sale, the sales barn would have to do it. Both Jay Hickey and Dr. Hillman dismissed this report as unfounded. They did not address why a state veterinarian—the official ultimately charged with enforcing the program in Oklahoma—would relate these requirements to animal owners.

Dr. Gibbs, the official at the Texas Extension Service charged with this program and who sits on the Equine Species Working Group, was the last to speak. He discussed several concerns the Extension Service has heard from the public and noted the need for education. In February he asked 100 broodmare owners how many of them knew that they might be expected to register their premises, and not one person knew about it. How can the government claim the program has broad support in the industry when so many horse owners don’t know anything about it?

The speakers encouraged people to comment to the working group and USDA. Yet what assurances do we have that our concerns will be addressed? The working group was appointed by AHC without input from the vast majority of horse owners. New co-chairs were recently appointed—Dr. Smith of the American Quarter Horse Association and Jim Moorehead of the American Association of Equine Practitioners—again without any input.

We are told our associations represent our interests, yet many organizations potentially have financial interests in the NAIS. Mr. Hammerschmidt noted, for example, that the USDA will allocate Animal Identification Numbers to approved manufacturers; these manufacturers may then establish marketing agreements with tag managers, who in turn will contract with tag resellers. Each company in the chain will obviously expect to make a profit. Veterinarians, service providers, and breed organizations can all be resellers of the tags, so they cannot be relied on for an unbiased perspective on this program. The breed registries may also be designated as the official databases, giving them yet another potential financial interest in the NAIS.

So what can you do? Talk to the directors of your breed registry or other horse-related association. Ask them what role the association has played in the development of the NAIS and what the group’s official position is. If you believe the NAIS is not in your best interest, ask them to take a position opposing the program. Don’t accept the excuse that we have to go along. As Americans, we have the right to say we oppose a government program and want it to stop. Don’t accept the excuse that it’s too early to take a position. The industry has been working on this program since at least 1988, the USDA has been working on it since 2002, and more than $84 million of our tax dollars have been spent on it. If we don’t stop it now, then when?

Judith McGeary is an attorney in Austin, Texas, and the executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, an organization representing independent farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, and homesteaders. This article appeared in the Holiday 2006 issue of Rural Heritage.