MRJ said:
ocm said:
What you are missing is that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for there for be a consortium that represents all beef producers. In order for me to be represented I would be compelled to join some organization that is a member of the consortium. If I don't, then I am not represented. It is unconstitutional to require me to join any particular organization. That is freedom of association. That was Scalia's issue on the checkoff. It is a well established principle of law. It is similar to compelling someone to join a union in order to get a job. Remember, unions are private--not government.
NO private organization EVER represents ALL of anybody.
Please note how you say PRIVATE, but you're not allowing competition. There will be only ONE consortium. That is PRIVATE MONOPOLY.
If you want it to be private (my real preference) then it must NOT be mandatory and there MUST be competitive choice. Otherwise it is merely government by proxy--not private.
We don't need NAIS. State brand programs are improving and there has been no evidence presented to show us what they are unable to do. State brand programs are imperfect. But NAIS is costly and imperfect.
I'll ask you again. Who has authorized it. And while you're at it. Show me a cost/benefit analysis. NONE EXISTS. Why are we even going down this road if we don't know what we will get (above what we have now) and what it will cost.
ocm, are you saying that NCBA would be the ONLY cattle organization represented in a possible consortium to manage M-ID.
I do not believe that is what anyone is pushing. And I haven't been able to look up the info on the NCBA website yet, but am guessing it might be similar to SD BIC which has representatives of eight SD cattle groups to manage the Beef checkoff, which I believe is one of the broadest based state beef checkoff groups in the nation. Especially the SDLMA claims they represent all the cattle producers who do not join groups......though, of course, they have no vote in SDBIC. Back to the consortium, I would guess it might either cover ALL affected species with reps from their associations.......or it might cover only cattle with reps from various nationwide cattle orgs. But I'm speculating, since I haven't seen anything concrete on that aspect.
What I believe one of the most important aspects of M-ID is the danger of animal diseases deliberately or accidentally spread among our cattle, such as Foot and Mouth or some other serious and costly disease. Why would you be against having fast tracking for protection of our herds?
It is daily more apparent that the marketplace is going to drive M-ID if government doesn't. That is probably right along with disease prevention in cattle as reasons NCBA members are determined to be pro-active on this issue. The USA already is behind much of the rest of the world on this important issue.
It really is immaterial to me if you participate or not, expect for the fact that if your herd is carrying something that will endanger my cattle. That is my only reason for wanting mandatory, because the market place will sort out the value of ID and those using it will benefit while those not using it will be hurt. It will be by choice.
MRJ
You're missing my point. If every single cattle organization in existence were a part of the "consortium" it would not represent all cattle producers. It would only represent those who belonged to some cattle organization or another. What if I didn't want to be part of ANY cattle organization, then I would be unrepresented. It is unconstitutional to REQUIRE me to be a part of an organization in order to have representation in a mandatory program. As long as the program is voluntary, there is no issue. As soon as it is mandatory and is run by a single consortium basing its membership on belonging to one of its constituent organizations, it crosses the line. It is no longer constitutional. This is the right of association. I cannot be compelled to join any organization (or even my choice of one from an approved list) in order to gain the right of representation.
ANY cattle organization (or consortium of organizations) only represents its membership PERIOD (LMA included). When I talk about participation, I'm not talking about participation in an ID program. I'm talking about participating in an organization that is a member of the consortium. If I choose not to be a member then I am disenfranchised (lose my right to vote) with regard to something the government mandates. No government mandate, no problem. Government mandate--unconstitutional.
I am not against fast tracking diseased animals. I am opposed to instituting unneeded and unconstitutional solutions that are the best solutions.
Is 48hr traceback necessary? If so, can we do it with programs already in existence. If we can, then why do we need national ID?
Remember South Dakota traced some bulls in three hours. What if instead of spending millions on a national ID program we could spend thousands improving existing programs to meet the goals of animal disease tracking and control.
IF I can be shown a cost/benefit analysis that has covered and answered all of these questions and more, then maybe I would say there is evedence of need for national ID.
You like to talk about the private approach. What kind of private businessman is it that doesn't project both the costs and the benefits before spending money on improvements. Shouldn't we do the same with national ID?
Remember ID systems are not perfect. What if an ID system is 95% perfect. What if a current system is 90% perfect. What would it cost to raise the level of effectivity that 5%?
In actuality I understand tag retention rates may be as low as 85%. Are we going to spend money only to find that we have to fall back on our old systems for 15% of tracebacks? That would be nuts!!
Who has answered these questions? I haven't seen them answered anywhere. I heard from a pilot program supervisor that NO cost/benefit analysis has been done. That is unconsionable!! It is the blind leading the stupid.