Below is a letter that FARFA sent to the Texas Extension Service on May 1, 2006.  Among other complaints, the Extension Service had provided false information on its website and through printed materials, misleading Texans into believing the premises registration was already mandatory in Texas.  While the Service changed its materials, to FARFA's knowledge, no steps have been taken to inform those who registered under false pretenses.

Letter: 

Dr. Pete G. Gibbs
TAMU
249 Kleberg
College Station, Texas 77843-2471

Dear Dr. Gibbs:

I am writing to object to the email sent by an Extension Agent, Jason Ott, to a large number of individuals and companies.  The email is copied below.  It contains numerous false and misleading statements and shows a remarkable lack of respect for many citizens of this state.  The Extension Service is a government entity funded by our taxes.  It is inexcusable for a public servant to use his position in such a manner.  Moreover, Mr. Ott’s email does not appear to be an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior on the part of the Extension Service.

 Mr. Ott appears to be responding to an email, and I unfortunately do not know the source of the original email.  While the original email does make an incorrect assertion – i.e. that rabbits will be included in NAIS – it hardly rises to the level of being a “hoax”, as Mr. Ott labels it. 

This letter cannot address every misleading statement in Mr. Ott’s email, so I will focus on the most egregious.  Mr. Ott makes the following statement: “The organizations/people that oppose it [NAIS] are Howard Garrett ‘The Dirt Doctor’, Organic Growers Groups, and a host of anti-government groups opposed to any government legislation.”  His connection between the organic growers groups and “anti-government groups” verges on being slanderous.  Neither Howard Garrett nor the Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association have ever taken a position that opposes any and all government legislation.  Since when is a person or organization considered to be “anti-government” simply because he or it opposes one specific proposed program? 
 
Mr. Ott also shows great disdain for small farmers and ranchers.  He states:

Small farmers and ranchers are not making any money anyway!  And a $20 biannual fee will not break them.  Small producers are doing it because they enjoy the lifestyle not because they need to put food on the table.  If they are in production to put food on the table that is good too, then they don't have to participate in the system!  Only livestock that is commingled with other livestock needs to participate, as commingling allows opportunity for disease spread.  So, if a cow or chicken is going to live and die on your farm it need not be a part of the system.

This statement has so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to begin.  First, there are many individuals who are raising animals to put food on their own table.  It is not practical to expect everyone to own their own breeding stock and do their own processing, either from an economic or a logistical standpoint; in reality, they will have to buy young animals from other people, and will almost certainly have to take animals off the premises for slaughter.  Indeed, even those with their own breeding stock cannot maintain a closed system for long without developing genetic problems in their animals.  So NAIS will affect people who are simply trying to raise their own food.  Second, the concerns of those who are raising livestock because they “enjoy the lifestyle” merit respect, not the scorn Mr. Ott shows.  Does the Extension Service contend that people who are not making a living in agriculture should simply stay quiet and not have any say in regulations that will directly affect them?  Is it government policy now that only large farms and ranches are important?

Third, I have spoken with many farmers and ranchers who make all or a significant part of their living from livestock who are opposed to this program.  Indeed, even if the Extension Service was unaware of the opposition when the regulations were developed, there were several full-time farmers and ranchers who spoke against NAIS at the February 16th TAHC meeting.  Fourth, those who are objecting to the program do not contend that the $20 biennial fee, by itself, will “break” small farmers and ranchers.  Rather, many people have argued that (1) the fee will most likely rise and (2) the costs associated with the identification and tracking portions of NAIS will drive many farmers and ranchers, and not just small ones, out of business.  Overall, Mr. Ott creates an entirely false impression, both about the scope of the program and the objections of those opposed to it.

While claiming that he is an “unbiased source of research based information,” Mr. Ott fails to acknowledge why some people have labeled the Extension Service a “hired gun.”  The Extension Service applied for, and was granted, a contract with the TAHC to promote NAIS.  Specifically, the TAHC RFP stated the following as the purpose of RFP 554-6-059:

• Implementation and delivery of the Texas NAIS outreach plan to industry and all external stakeholders to encourage participation and registration of Texas premises
• Development and delivery of training for Texas industry and external stakeholders to understand the purpose of NAIS and how to register a premises
• Premises Identification and registration of at least 10,000 or more Texas premises in addition to those premises already registered.

Mr. Ott cannot honestly claim to be a source of unbiased information when his employer has a stated goal for enrolling premises.

Mr. Ott is also either misinformed about the law or chooses to ignore it.  He states: “The fact is NAIS is coming!  It is federal law and it has been around for several years.”  But there is no federal law that authorizes NAIS.  The USDA has stated that the Animal Health Protection Act is the source of its authority.  (USDA Draft Plan at p.9.)  But that statute contains no provisions that mention registration of every livestock owner’s farm or a nationwide or intrastate animal identification and tracking program, nor are there any provisions that would provide authority for such a program.  Indeed, there were multiple bills introduced in the last two Congresses to amend the statute to provide for an animal identification system and limit disclosures of the information collected under the Freedom of Information Act, and none were adopted.  Under well-established principles of administrative law, the USDA lacks authority to implement NAIS.

 Even if one were to accept the USDA’s perspective on the law, Mr. Ott’s statement is still incorrect.  The USDA’s position is that it has authority to adopt regulations to create a national animal identification system if it chooses to.  But USDA has not adopted any such regulations.  Indeed, the USDA’s most recent announcements state that it might not ever adopt regulations.  So there is no federal law or regulation that requires Texas to do anything.  Contrary to Mr. Ott’s argument, the local and state officials have a great deal of authority to accept or reject the program and to shape its parameters.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ott’s email is not simply the result of a single uninformed and biased individual.  The Extension Service appears to have taken no steps to ensure the accuracy of its public statements.  As of April 23, the Extension Service’s website included a Frequently Asked Questions section that contains misleading information.  Specifically, the FAQ document states: “In December 2005, the Texas Animal Health Commission announced that beginning July 1, 2006, premises ID will be compulsory in Texas.  In addition, beginning July 1, 2006, TAHC will begin charging $20/premises registered.”  (See http://tcaaa.tamu.edu/faq.pdf.)

This statement is, quite simply, false.  While the TAHC proposed regulations in December 2005, these were never adopted.  Hence, the statement that ID “will” be compulsory and that a fee will be charged was never an accurate statement.  It has been a false statement from the moment it was posted on your website.  Moreover, the TAHC tabled the proposed regulations on February 16, over two months ago.  I myself called Kenny Edgar at the TAHC several weeks ago, and informed him of a similar misstatement elsewhere on the Extension Service website.  There is no excuse for a government entity to be misleading people about the nature of a government program.

Nor are the problems limited to one agent and the website.  The Extension Service released an April 2006 newsletter in Caldwell County that states: “4-H Members Must Register Their Premises Under The National Animal Identification System ... The regulations call for premises registration to be mandatory for all livestock producers beginning July 1, 2006.”  (http://caldwell-co.tamu.edu/newsletters/AprilNewsletter.pdf, emphasis in original).  As with the statements on the website, this statement is not now, and has never been, true.  In addition, the newsletter states that premises registration is already required in Wisconsin and North Carolina.  While Wisconsin has indeed adopted mandatory registration, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture has stated that it has not adopted any such regulations.

 In Brownwood, Texas, the Tractor Supply Company has a stack of trifolds about NAIS available, published by the Extension Service.  And just like your website and newsletter, the front page of the trifold states that premises registration is free before July 1, 2006, and that there will be a fee after that date.  Presumably, these flyers were distributed to stores all over the state.

How many people have signed up for premises registration – a voluntary program – having been misled by your website and your agents into believing that it is mandatory or that it will become mandatory on July 1, 2006? 

 I demand that Mr. Ott make an immediate retraction of his email to all of the recipients.  Since I do not have their email addresses to provide the recipients with the correct information, this letter should accompany his retraction.  I also demand that the Extension Service immediately remove all references in its website and literature that state or imply that premises registration is mandatory or that there will be a fee imposed as of July 1, 2006.  Moreover, the Extension Service should take steps to notify all those who have enrolled their premises in this program through the Service that it is a voluntary program and that they have the right to withdraw from it.  Any other action constitutes fraud on the members of the public who have been misled by the Extension Service’s incorrect information.

 Sincerely,

 Judith McGeary

cc:   Dr. Robert M. Gates, Texas A&M University
 Kenny Edgar, Texas Animal Health Commission

 
______________
From: Jason P Ott [mailto:j-ott@tamu.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:59 AM
To: Mike Carr; Koch Ranch-Hog heaven hunting; Sean Nooner; Tomey Realty; Steve Trevino; Pam Lutz; Keith Lutz; Lorrie Davis; Pam Seipp; Hondo Area Chamber of Commerce; Lisa Wernette; Brenda Journey; Charles Rothe & Assoc. Inc.; Hondo Realty Inc.; James Danner; Mark Sunderman; Olen Thompson; Commerce Title Company; Medina Ag Products; James Barden; Chris Mitchell; Beverly Keller; Louis Rothe; Mark Howard; Beverly Gruber; JMAC Septic Service; Schuchart & Torres; Hondo Veterinary Hospital; Inc. K&W Mortgage; Home Range Real Estate; Rita Vance; Robert Byerly; Stacey Cross; Vance Real Estate; Stepen Long; Medina Co Abstract; Joyce Herndon; Opa Willie's; L.P. Lyssy & Eckel; Chris Kailipaka; Bob Heyen Realty; Lone Star Gun Works
Cc: Bobby Ainsley; Agri-Insurance
Subject: Re: Fw: The end of small farms and ranches

** Reply Requested When Convenient **

Folks,

This is a hoax by people that don't know much about production agriculture.   However, they are very well educated and use terms like HB 1362 to make them sound official. 

The Independent Cattlemen's Association, the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raiser's Association, and Farm Bureau are supportive and active in developing NAIS (National Animal Identification System). The organizations/people that oppose it are Howard Garrett "The Dirt Doctor", Organic Growers Groups, and a host of anti-government groups opposed to any government legislation.  They are taking a lot of the statements agency officials have made way out of contexts.  

The fact is NAIS is coming!  It is federal law and it has been around for several years. Our county commissioners and to some extent our state legislators have nothing to say about it.  Exactly how Texas will implement it is still evolving.  Therefore, nobody is an expert on the
NAIS.  There are many many disadvantages to moving to this system.  This web site, http://www.texasanimalhealthcommissionwatch.com/, is dedicated to pointing out every one of them, although, most on this site are very far fetched.  Guys, a cattle rustler does not need GPS coordinates to steal your cattle.  However, there are disadvantages to the system.  The
main thing is that it is going to be a hassle for livestock producers and especially the local auction barns.

There are also many advantages to this system.  Australia and Canada already have a similar system in place.  This gives their countries an edge over ours when our Secretary of Agriculture is out negotiating new import markets for our domestically grown beef.  A fact that is pretty
important to Ag producers' actually engaged in agriculture to make a living for their families.   

Small farmers and ranchers are not making any money anyway!  And a $20 biannual fee will not break them.  Small producers are doing it because they enjoy the lifestyle not because they need to put food on the table.  If they are in production to put food on the table that is good too,
then they don't have to participate in the system!  Only livestock that is commingled with other livestock needs to participate, as commingling allows opportunity for disease spread.  So, if a cow or chicken is going to live and die on your farm it need not be a part of the system. 

Disease does not respect herd or acreage size.  It only seeks out susceptible animals.  That is why large and small operations should participate.  The NAIS is mainly geared for Foot and Mouth Disease Control and to some level BSE "mad cow".  Foot and Mouth Disease is a
very scary and real threat all clove hoofed animals (cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, etc.) are susceptible to.  The system also needs to track horses because soil can cling to the hoof and spread the diseases to other areas.  Being able to control an outbreak could potentially save billions of our tax dollars.             

Rabbits will not be wearing ear tags (RFID).  There are working species groups that are determining how best to monitor animal movements for each species.  For cattle ear tags are common practice, so electronic ear tags are a logical choice.  It is correct that Group/Lot ID numbers will most likely be used on corporate farms.  These corporate farms raise swine and chickens and are vertically integrated corporations. Meaning, they do everything from farrow (birth) to finish to that animal.  The animal never leaves the group it was born into until after
harvest.  Again this is the standard operating procedure for these species and therefore the best way to implement the system.  Why monitor an individual when it will never leave a given group?  A calf may have multiple owners and be part of many groups as it move up the production chain.    

The NAIS is a three phase program.  We are in phase 1 premises registration.  Phase 2 is animal identification and the third is animal reporting and tracking.  We need to worry about phase 1 before we jump to 2 or 3.        

On the local level the Ag Science Instructors, a few folks on this mailing, and myself are working with our Fair Association and Stock show board to get a premise ID for our fairgrounds.  To my understanding of how the system is going to work this will cover all 4H and FFA kids whose families are not engaged in some other livestock operation.  If their parents have livestock the kid will operate his/her project on the parents premise ID number. 

I have written many news articles and spoken on the radio on this subject.  We have also had speakers at our Medina County Cattlemen's Association meetings on this subject.  Kenny Edger, the person heading up NAIS for the Texas Animal Health Commission has also spoke at my
October Range Tour.  Hondo Livestock Auction has also held workshops on the subject.  Our local producers have had numerous opportunities to learn about NAIS.  No doubt more needs to be done to educate the public on this system, but we just do not have the complete details on the
system yet.  Most of the folks against NAIS cannot be convinced of it benefit anyway.      

Texas Cooperative Extension has been labeled the "hired gun" of the Texas Animal Health Commission.  So let me reiterate, there are some bad things about NAIS.  There are also some good things about it.  At this time it is completely voluntary.  Nobody knows exactly what the system will look like in the end.  We are and will remain an educational agency here to provide an unbiased source of research based information. Please contact me for additional detailed factual information on NAIS. I will be happy to explain any part of the system to you in greater
detail.   

Hope this clears up some of the rumors out there.

Thanks,

JP Ott
County Extension Agent - Agriculture
1506 Avenue M
Hondo, TX 78861
phone:  830.741.6180
fax:  830.741.6182
E-mail:  j-ott@tamu.edu

"Hondo Area Chamber of Commerce" <hondochamber@ev1.net> 04/15/06
4:59 PM >>>
Will try to get more info......  Jason or Jim Barden ... do you have the
bill by any chance???
----- Original Message -----

Subject: The end of small farms and ranches

The National Animal Indentification System is a Washington D.C. idea that will make potential criminals of small farmers and ranchers.  It is supposedly a "volunteer" program, but read the fine print. A kid raising rabbits for an FFA project will have to have obtain a Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID $3-$20) number for each animal. Every time the animals are moved to a new location a report has to be filed. All of this is supposed to control the spread of disease.

And who will pay for all this red tape.  Tax payers of course and people who eat farm products - this is everyone. 

Just who is exempt from this wonderful program, corporate-owned factory farms!  They will need just one Group/Lot ID number to account for thousands of animals.  The odd thing is they are the most at risk for disease problems.

The website below has a form that allows you to contact your senator and representative.  Or you can contact them directly.  John Cornyn must be contacted directly. 

If you prefer a direct internet link, use the attachment, the links are hot.

Agriculture Department Imposing New Program to Drive Family Farms Out of
Business
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=46

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Honorable Kay Hutchison
United States Senate
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-4302
http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm

The Honorable John Cornyn
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-4304
http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=contact&lid=1
The Honorable John Cornyn  must be contacted directly at this above
website. 

http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=contact&lid=1

The Honorable Henry Bonilla
United States House of Representatives
2458 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-4323
http://www.house.gov/writerep/