Contentious Animal ID
by Frederick Wilson

In response to Playing Chicken Little?: To those who do not believe NAIS is a blatant and excessive attack on private property rights and to those who believe Karin Bergener is “playing chicken little,” I encourage you to read the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002, 7 USC 8301 to 8320. You will find out just how much power the USDA is providing itself under this language, and all the while having neither the manpower nor the resources to carry out the duties it assumes. A government agency having problems is one thing; a government agency creating infinitely more problems for itself (and for those it supposedly serves), while amassing unprecedented power over you and me, is totally another.

Something I have not seen addressed much is the associated cost in terms of dollars and cents. The cost of this unnecessary program will be astronomical with the required chipping of our animals, vet checks, the maintenance, the fees, the paperwork, the regulations, and the list goes on and on. This expense could, and possibly would, place the mere cost of compliance into the hundreds if not thousands of dollars per year {per head} of livestock. We, you and me—those of us who own livestock—will bear the brunt of that price tag. It will come out of our pockets. I am afraid that if this program comes about, many of us will likely get out, simply because we will not be able to afford it.

And if you do not comply? Well, just look at what Texas had in place: animal owners subjected to $1,000 per day fines (Texas Straight Talk) or imprisonment (again check the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002, 7 USC 8301 to 8320).

The USDA website touts NAIS as the program needed to protect you and your livestock. What will truly protect you and your livestock is the sound and overwhelming defeat of NAIS. So therefore, if and when (hopefully never) that day comes that the USDA does come knocking and you have to stand helplessly by and watch your herd seized or, worse yet, slaughtered with or without reason (because this Act gives them the power to do this), do not say you were not provided with the information to make an informed decision. That will be the day, and again God forbid it ever comes, that you will have a reason to say: “It would be nice to have a little more farming and logging.”

Frederick Wilson lives in Washington, DC. His letter and the following response appeared in the Autumn 2007 issue of Rural Heritage.