Re: NAIS
- From: "CanopyCo" <Junk74020@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Jan 2006 07:17:34 -0800
rot13 Kevin Miller wrote:
> "CanopyCo" <Junk74020@xxxxxxx> pontificated wisely that:
>
> >So, is this chipping going to cut in on your cattle rustling
> >activities?
> >
> >Or are you so lousy a cattle man that you can't afford the $10 a year
> >fee.
> >
> >Or maybe you are such a louse cattle man that you will have to pay a
> >vet to insert the chip instead of just doing it yourself.
> >
> >Just trying to pen down just what your complaint is.
> >
> It's not the cost of the actual chipping that's going to get most small
> farmers and those that keep livestock as pets or for their own use, but
> the cost of reading, registering and reporting. Putting a chip in is a
> relatively cheap one-time cost for most livestock. The problem is that
> anyone who keeps, processes or handles livestock will need to register
> with the state, purchase reader(s) to read chips, read the chips
> whenever any animals comes or goes, and report all of this back to the
> state. Readers are not cheap, and the additional labor will impact the
> small farmers.
Why do you need a reader?
You can't tell one cow from another already from your present marking
system?
And the reporting part will not cost a small farmer anything but time.
And that will only happen when he buys, butchers, or sells his stock.
>
> And then for poultry even the cost of chipping will be prohibitive.
> Also, what will be done to guarantee that the chips don't enter the food
> chain, particularly for large production line operations.
I believe that poultry will be tracked by leg tags and large groups can
be tracked by the chicken house.
>
> What is going to be worse is the cost to run the system. The states and
> federal government are going to have to set up massive data handling
> systems, processes and bureaucracies to collect and operate on this
> data. That ain't cheap. It's either going to come out of every
> taxpayers wallet, or by registration, reporting and handling fees on
> those with animals (or both most likely). And the data being collected
> will make it very easy, dare I say irresistable, to levy taxes and fees
> on all animals. Not much incentive to keep costs down.
Like they won't take our tax money anyway.
At least this way they will be spending some if it on something useful.
>
> All these additional costs will be passed on the buyers by the
> producers, or have to be absorbed by those that do not sell their
> animals for production use.
>
> Which brings up my final objection on Constitutional grounds.
> Admittedly this is a bit of a slippery slope argument, but it seems to
> be to be contrary to the US Constitution to be required to give the
> government an accounting of our private property.
I register my gun, house, car, and land already, so I think that
argument is pretty much dead.
>
> Changes to NAIS and other processes that would go a long way to help
> include setting a lower threshold in herd size, only apply tracking to
> animals destined for and entering the commercial food chain, use the
> least intrusive and lowest cost tracking mechanisms (that already
> exist), and keep "downer" animals out of the food chain for both humans
> and feed.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NAIS
- From: Neon John
- Re: NAIS
- Prev by Date: Re: Joys of rural living
- Next by Date: Re: netiquette and freedoms (was Re: NAIS)
- Previous by thread: Re: NAIS
- Next by thread: Re: NAIS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|