|
Questions submitted to Gary Wilson NAIS Coordinator for the
Ohio Department of Agriculture with answers provided by Gary Wilson
in Red 1. How much money has NAIS in Ohio received as a result of cooperative Agreements during 2004-2008 from the USDA?
Year
Funded Returned
Actual Expenditure 2. Either the USDA Business Plan or the technology document it references discusses reporting a "move-in" and a "move-out" event. Define these events and the reporting requirements under NAIS implementation. How the movement is reported will be up to the individual. If the investment in electronic readers and software is feasible for the producer, boarder, sale manager, etc, then electronic scanning technology will offer a quick, efficient and accurate method for reporting the movement. However, reporting the movement can also be supplied with written pen and paper or copy of a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) if provided in a timely manner.
Forms of reporting may
include: 3. Boarding facilities where livestock is owned by many different owners. Would that premises have one number and report all arrivals regardless of who owned the animals? Or is it up to the owner of the animal to report the movement? In general it is the responsibility of the receiving premises to report movements unto that premises. Therefore, in this scenario the owner of the boarding facility would report the official ID of all horses residing at the premises number assigned to the boarding facility. 4. I do not have 24-hour surveillance of the coming and going of my boarders. What is my liability if a boarder takes her horse to an event and fails to (a) notify me or (b) to make a report? In general it is the responsibility of the receiving premises to report movements unto the premises. Therefore, under this scenario the responsible sponsor of the event to which the horse was taken would be responsible to report the movement. In addition, the owner of the horse may also report movements. State and federal animal health officials really do not care who makes the report as long as the movement is reported. Hopefully as producers learn more about NAIS they will see the value in reporting movements as an enhancement to disease surveillance and monitoring for their local area. 5. How do I tell a boarder he/she will have to chip his/her horse and submit to government surveillance without losing him/her as a customer? As long as NAIS is voluntary you need not require that boarders chip or provide you with any of the other types official ID of the horse. If NAIS becomes mandatory, the playing field is evened because all boarders will require the same official ID documentation. 6. As the owner of a boarding facility am I required to purchase an RFID reader? NO—written documentation also serves as a method for reporting animal movements.
Forms of reporting may
include: 7. How is reporting in the 24 hour time frame accomplished? Electronically over the internet; Faxed; Mailed (We know we will not get mailed reports within 24 hours but if the movement date on the report is within 24 hours of the postal stamp date, the individual has met the goal for such reports.) 8. Will I be required to have an internet connection to report movements? NO—see #6 and #7 above. 9. What is the cost of the internet connection? Varies from region to region, but relative to NAIS an internet connection is not required. 10. What software will be required for the reader to interface to the computer and reader? It’s called an electronic wedge. 11. What will be the expected cost of the software? Approximately $250.00 for the electronic wedge. This enables the reader to deliver the number read to basic word or excel software and/or farm/livestock production software. Basic word and excel software is rel [Gary Wilson left the rest of the sentence unanswered…] 12. Who is going to compensate me for the cost of software, hardware, and time to manage the comings and goings of my boarders? Per the specie [sic] working group discussions/consensus, such investments would be considered the livestock industry’s contribution to the implementation of the NAIS. 13. Since the database is in private hands, will be a service charge for reporting? That is a likely assumption. Currently all private database providers are charging for their services. 14. If the database is in government hands, what will be the service charge for reporting? During the development of NAIS it was the general consensus that data management would be the government’s contribution to the implementation of NAIS with no charges for reporting animal movements. 15. If a horse owner did not keep any livestock at his/her residence, would his/her residence need premises ID #? NO, only locations where livestock and poultry are produced and held are encouraged to register their premises. 16. What happens when a premises does NOT have a Premises ID number and therefore is not required to report any arrivals, yet the arrival animal has a NAIS Animal ID#? Nothing—NAIS is voluntary, [sic] no one has to do anything. 17. If a vet comes to my farm to do Coggins tests, under what circumstances will he be required to record the Premises ID # of that location, regardless of who owns the animals or who pays for the tests? NO, NAIS is voluntary; no one has to report anything. However, if all parties agreed to it, or if NAIS was mandatory; [sic] yes, the veterinary would report the premises number where the horse resides. In general, state and federal animal health officials really do not care who owns the horse or who pays its bills. Their primary interest is where is the horse, did it go anywhere and if so was it exposed to disease or did it expose other horses to disease? 18. Animal ID #s go with the animal. Ownership information attached to that number changes when a sale occurs. Who is responsible for updating the system? Who pays for the updated information? In general it is the responsibility of the receiving premises (the buyer) to report movements to the new premises. However, in order for the seller to be assured that the reporting of the change in ownership and subsequent responsibility for the horse has occurred, the seller may too elect to report the movement/change in ownership. The seller and buyer, as a condition-of-trade, may decide who will report and assume any cost. 19. Suppose a state like Oklahoma or Massachusetts becomes a mandatory Premises ID state, that is, no horses can enter the state or move around within the state unless they are coming from a location with a Premises ID#. Does this fact mean that no horses coming to the Grand National or the New England Morgan Show can participate unless they are coming from a location that has Premises ID#? Now, how is my participation voluntary? States have the right to set their own rules and procedures in protecting the health status of the herds and flocks that reside in that state. 20. Is the premises ID# something completely new or will NAIS be using the numbers assigned to farms under the USDA FSA (Farm Service Agency) program? In the spirit of do-not-reinvent-the-the-wheel, this option was discussed in the early stages of NAIS development. Two key reasons for not following through were the fact that certain producer information is held confidently [sic] by FSA and can not be shared between agencies (just as proposed under NAIS) and the second is the fact that not all livestock producers participate in FSA programs. 21. Has there been or will there be and [sic] impact study before implementation, considering the already depressed condition of Equine from the loss of secondary markets, the down economy, the rising cost of fuel, and the recent and ongoing droughts? Yes, a cost/benefit analysis is currently being conducted by Kansas State, Michigan State, Colorado State Universities and the University of Montana. 22. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. While recognized limits apply to the free exercise of religion, particularly when criminal activity is involved, a mandatory identification program would conflict with the religious belief of numerous groups (most notably the Amish) that participation in government programs violates Scriptural teachings. Will these groups have an exemption from participation? Most states, including the Ohio Department of Agriculture, have numerous Amish producers participating in animal disease programs. Participants are required to provide basic contact information of name, address, species of livestock on the farm, number of animals tested each year including the official ID number of the animal. In addition, all dairies, milk and cheese plants in Ohio are license and have been for years. Over the years ODA has had some animal health issues within the Amish communities/counties and we have always been able to discuss and implement procedures that controlled the animal health issue while respecting/upholding the Amish position/belief. We can do the same in implementing NAIS. 23. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any covered livestock is kept, and the requirement of RFID of every animal raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Indeed, the “premises” that USDA plans to subject to GPS satellite surveillance and RFID includes the private homes of citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot use sense-enhancing technologies to invade the privacy of citizens’ homes. Likewise the Court has ruled that the sanctity of the home is entitled to greater privacy protections than are industrial complexes. In an agricultural context, the question of what is the “home” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment involves how far the “curtilage” of the home extends. Case law illustrates that curtilage can include farm buildings, outbuildings, and associated land areas — anywhere there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the Fourth Amendment will smaller-sized, non-industrialized family farming operations and hobby farms be exempted form a mandatory NAIS? “Surveillance” as used in animal health is the procedures for detecting if a disease is present in a given location or area. We do that through random blood and sometimes tissues samples from sale barns and meat packing plants, milk samples from milk plants and through annual herd test of those livestock and poultry producers participating in official animal health disease programs. “Monitoring” as used in animal health is the procedures used in determining the level/degree of infection once a disease has been detected during surveillance procedures. The first step is locating the herd of origin from which the animal in question came from [sic]. Under our current traceback system that represents weeks of work and about a 40% chance of success. NAIS is about upgrading our current animal disease surveillance, monitoring and control system’s capability to keep up with today’s speed of commerce of the livestock and poultry industries. Historic animal disease outbreaks have shown us that animal disease does not care if you are a big producer or small or if you raise animals for profit or fun. Quite frankly, the owner of a single horse that travels from state=to=state showing or racing is a greater disease threat than the owner of 100 horses that never leave the farm. 24. The proposed NAIS is the first attempt by the federal government at forced registration in a large, permanent federal database of individual citizens’ real property (the homes and farms where animals are kept) and personal property (the animals themselves). Presently, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States involve systems for motor vehicles and guns — two items that are highly dangerous if misused. It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the USDA to subject the owner of an animal (except, perhaps, those that are highly dangerous) to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun or automobile. Although the owner can use guns and motor vehicles without notifying the government, a mandatory NAIS would require the reporting within 24 hours of any instance of an animal’s leaving or returning to the registered property. A mandatory identification plan would be in violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in situations involving the constant surveillance of a premises where the owner is only attempting to raise food for the household or for a limited local area and has no intention of distributing the food on a wider scale. Will there be an exemption based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? The NAIS Equine Working Group has determined that all current options for officially identifying horses remain, including the use of micro-chips. The types of official ID for equine are: OFFICIAL ID for Equine
The NAIS Equine Working Group has determined that the reporting of equine movements be associated to those events that currently require a Coggins test. Those events are: REPORTING EQUINE MOVEMENTS
Of all the species involved in NAIS, the horse industry is impacted the least. In fact, official identification procedures and reporting of movements will remain the same as those instilled years ago 25. Producer liability: Another significant issue is whether a national identification program will increase the possible legal exposure of livestock producers for events that occur after the livestock leave the farm. While livestock producers are responsible for the livestock produce, and the USAIP does not change any existing liability rules, enhanced traceability may provide the ability to more readily track problems quickly and provide documentation to determine whether appropriate methods and measures were followed to avoid disease contamination. That could result in greater potential liability at the producer level. In other words every step in the supply chain will share the same level of liability. How do you propose to shield the individuals in the supply chain from harm while pursuing the individual who is responsible for causing/correcting illnesses? As stated before, NAIS is designed to upgrade current animal disease surveillance, monitoring and control procedures. Included in the control procedures is the authority of the Director of Agriculture to place quarantine on facilities/animals of known disease status. Once surveillance or monitoring procedures determines that a disease has traceback to a particular farm then that farm can be placed under quarantine until such time the herd/clock test negative for the disease or the herd/flock has been sacrificed. Quarantine and test procedures are presented to the producer in the spirit of cooperation to help them address the disease situation and to work together in deciding the best mode of action. Precautions are taken to protect the reputation of the producer and the test status until test results are complete. The only way a producer subjects himself to increased liability if [sic] he breaks quarantine and knowingly sells diseased animals. 26. Whether any eventual national animal identification plan is voluntary or mandatory may determine whether the collected information can be obtained by the general public. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows access to government agency records that are maintained by agencies with the executive branch of the federal government. Agency records that are subject to disclosure under the FOIA are those that are either created or maintained by an agency and under agency control at the time the FOIA request is made. In addition, it is possible that private records could be accessed via litigation pursuant to a court’s subpoena power. Even if particular information is exempt under the FOIA, it may still be obtained through the discovery process in a legal proceeding if the party’s need for information exceeds the government’s need for confidentiality. That said, what protection does my information have? If steps would be taken to make NAIS mandatory it is the consensus of the specie [sic] working groups and animal health officials alike that a FOIA exemption should/will be sought through state/federal legislation. 27. When, where, and how will NAIS participation become a mandatory situation in Ohio? Governor Strickland has proclaimed that NAIS will remain a voluntary program in Ohio. 28. Under what circumstances will premises registration, horse identification, and recording of all movements off premises become mandatory relative to horses? As outlined in question 24, given the fact that official ID options for horses remain the same as they currently exists [sic] under rule, and reportable movements are linked to existing rules for Coggins test; [sic] the horse industry already is conducting two of three component parts of the NAIS. We just need to get horse owners to register their premises and NAIS will be complete. Premises registration will enable animal health officials to alert horse owners when surveillance and monitoring procedures detect an equine disease threat in their township or county. A Brief History of the development of a National Animal Identification Plan The original push for a nationwide animal
identification program came from the National Institute for Animal
Agriculture (NIAA), a private group of major agribusiness and
pharmaceutical corporations (and their lobbies, including Cargill
Meat Solutions, Monsanto Co., Pfizer Animal Health, Ltd., and the
National Pork Producers Council. In 2002, the NIAA organized a task
force of 70 representatives from more than 30 stakeholder groups to
produce a National Identification Work Plan to ensure the health of
the “national herd,” improve response to biosecurity threats, add
value to meat products, and compete in world meat markets. The work
plan was drafted and accepted by the US Animal Health Association,
which also passed a resolution requesting USDA’s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to establish a national animal
identification development team and a national ID plan (USAIP). In
the spring of 2003, the development team completed a 74-page United
States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). 2 November 2006 |
