• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

R-CALF 100 % Right on this Issue!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
(Billings, Mont.) – Please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA Region V Director Chuck Kiker, of Beaumont, Texas:



“R-CALF USA was extremely disappointed on Tuesday to learn Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided that a single, privately held animal-tracking repository will track and maintain animal-movement data for the agency’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS).



“USDA is headed down the wrong course in a matter that is vitally important not only to the U.S. cattle industry, but also one that is truly a legitimate health issue with significant implications for the general public.



“It concerns us greatly that USDA would entrust such a sensitive responsibility to private organizations that may have political motivation and aspirations, and the desire to profit or otherwise benefit from access to proprietary producer/production information. This arrangement could lead to potential abuses and intentional misuse of information that could damage individual producers and potentially harm the markets. If USDA insists upon a mandatory animal identification program, it should be as far removed from the political process and from the profit-generation process as possible.



“This kind of responsibility should fall to animal health officials in the USDA, state animal health authorities, and tribal governments who are already charged with maintaining both the health and welfare of livestock and the American people. Tribal and state animal health authorities have a long history of providing exceptional animal disease control for our industry. USDA’s action demonstrates a lack of confidence for these animal health officials. Only these publicly accountable officials should have access to this information for controlling a disease outbreak.



“Today’s announcement leaves many unanswered questions, like what costs producers will be expected to shoulder, and what benefits can be expected to producers who incur that cost.



“R-CALF is looking forward to USDA’s cost-benefit analysis before implementation gets underway.



“Additionally, because protecting U.S. livestock from disease outbreaks is a national security issue, and because only official governmental departments can be held accountable to the public to properly administer such a program, it then becomes obviously appropriate that the animal identification program and its objectives remain in the public domain and be funded with public monies.



“R-CALF is committed to encouraging USDA to do the right thing for the U.S. cattle industry and shift this critical task back to the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which has previously held the position that such data repositories would best be managed internally.”
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
CattleCo said:
(Billings, Mont.) – Please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA Region V Director Chuck Kiker, of Beaumont, Texas:



“R-CALF USA was extremely disappointed on Tuesday to learn Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided that a single, privately held animal-tracking repository will track and maintain animal-movement data for the agency’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS).



“USDA is headed down the wrong course in a matter that is vitally important not only to the U.S. cattle industry, but also one that is truly a legitimate health issue with significant implications for the general public.



“It concerns us greatly that USDA would entrust such a sensitive responsibility to private organizations that may have political motivation and aspirations, and the desire to profit or otherwise benefit from access to proprietary producer/production information. This arrangement could lead to potential abuses and intentional misuse of information that could damage individual producers and potentially harm the markets. If USDA insists upon a mandatory animal identification program, it should be as far removed from the political process and from the profit-generation process as possible.



“This kind of responsibility should fall to animal health officials in the USDA, state animal health authorities, and tribal governments who are already charged with maintaining both the health and welfare of livestock and the American people. Tribal and state animal health authorities have a long history of providing exceptional animal disease control for our industry. USDA’s action demonstrates a lack of confidence for these animal health officials. Only these publicly accountable officials should have access to this information for controlling a disease outbreak.



“Today’s announcement leaves many unanswered questions, like what costs producers will be expected to shoulder, and what benefits can be expected to producers who incur that cost.



“R-CALF is looking forward to USDA’s cost-benefit analysis before implementation gets underway.



“Additionally, because protecting U.S. livestock from disease outbreaks is a national security issue, and because only official governmental departments can be held accountable to the public to properly administer such a program, it then becomes obviously appropriate that the animal identification program and its objectives remain in the public domain and be funded with public monies.



“R-CALF is committed to encouraging USDA to do the right thing for the U.S. cattle industry and shift this critical task back to the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which has previously held the position that such data repositories would best be managed internally.”

Just curious..,.Since R-calf now says we cannot trust private entities and they say they do not trust the USDA in virtually every post whom do they suggest should manage this data? Are they by default suggesting that only they are trustworthy? Who would believe that?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
CattleCo said:
(Billings, Mont.) – Please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA Region V Director Chuck Kiker, of Beaumont, Texas:



“R-CALF USA was extremely disappointed on Tuesday to learn Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided that a single, privately held animal-tracking repository will track and maintain animal-movement data for the agency’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS).



“USDA is headed down the wrong course in a matter that is vitally important not only to the U.S. cattle industry, but also one that is truly a legitimate health issue with significant implications for the general public.



“It concerns us greatly that USDA would entrust such a sensitive responsibility to private organizations that may have political motivation and aspirations, and the desire to profit or otherwise benefit from access to proprietary producer/production information. This arrangement could lead to potential abuses and intentional misuse of information that could damage individual producers and potentially harm the markets. If USDA insists upon a mandatory animal identification program, it should be as far removed from the political process and from the profit-generation process as possible.



“This kind of responsibility should fall to animal health officials in the USDA, state animal health authorities, and tribal governments who are already charged with maintaining both the health and welfare of livestock and the American people. Tribal and state animal health authorities have a long history of providing exceptional animal disease control for our industry. USDA’s action demonstrates a lack of confidence for these animal health officials. Only these publicly accountable officials should have access to this information for controlling a disease outbreak.



“Today’s announcement leaves many unanswered questions, like what costs producers will be expected to shoulder, and what benefits can be expected to producers who incur that cost.



“R-CALF is looking forward to USDA’s cost-benefit analysis before implementation gets underway.



“Additionally, because protecting U.S. livestock from disease outbreaks is a national security issue, and because only official governmental departments can be held accountable to the public to properly administer such a program, it then becomes obviously appropriate that the animal identification program and its objectives remain in the public domain and be funded with public monies.



“R-CALF is committed to encouraging USDA to do the right thing for the U.S. cattle industry and shift this critical task back to the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which has previously held the position that such data repositories would best be managed internally.”

Just curious..,.Since R-calf now says we cannot trust private entities and they say they do not trust the USDA in virtually every post whom do they suggest should manage this data? Are they by default suggesting that only they are trustworthy? Who would believe that?

Political Action Groups (NCBA) should not be in charge of federally mandated programs-- stinks to high heaven.......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I saw the same hypocrisy in a recent article in the RCJ quoting the local R-CULT supporting SD Stockgrowers president.

South Dakota Stockgrowers Association officials also worried about confidentiality in a national ID system, but they say confidentiality would be better served by having USDA maintain the database.

Stockgrowers president Ken Knuppe of Buffalo Gap said USDA did a good job running the brucellosis program for example. "I don't see why this couldn't be any different," he said Tuesday.

National Farmer's Union president Dave Fredrickson also criticized the USDA proposal to allow private industry to collect and maintain animal ID data.

"Private control of producer information creates an inherent risk to producers that private and/or proprietary information could be divulged in a manner that could be detrimental to producers, firms, and the marketplace," Fredrickson said.

"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN"

It never ends!

Talk about hypocrisy. On one hand they are constantly cussing USDA. On the other hand they want them to take charge of the Mandatory ID just like they asked them to take charge of "Mandatory" price reporting and "FLAWED MANDATORY COOL".

These government mandate loving groups are so inconsistent in their positions.



~SH~
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
416
Reaction score
0
Location
north eastern new mexico
I think that the information should be held on the state level. NM is planning on using its livestock board to be the holder of the information. It is a indepent state deptarment, meaning the board is appointed and controls the dept. The people appointed to the board are a mix of industry and the public, also are a mix of both political parties. These people know the state and how to keep things under control.

I dont think NCBA, RCalf, or the USDA have any buisness running the data bases.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
nenmrancher said:
I think that the information should be held on the state level. NM is planning on using its livestock board to be the holder of the information. It is a indepent state deptarment, meaning the board is appointed and controls the dept. The people appointed to the board are a mix of industry and the public, also are a mix of both political parties. These people know the state and how to keep things under control.

I dont think NCBA, RCalf, or the USDA have any buisness running the data bases.

AMEN-- Montana has been doing the same thru the Montana Board of Livestock for years with its brand inspection system- set up the same way with with a thoro mix of party affiliation and industry on the board....
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
The last thing the US or any other country needs is some fractured system with numerous different databases. A National ID program is just that, country wide, one common system.

Take a look North boys. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just get 'er done!
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
nenmrancher said:
I think that the information should be held on the state level. NM is planning on using its livestock board to be the holder of the information. It is a indepent state deptarment, meaning the board is appointed and controls the dept. The people appointed to the board are a mix of industry and the public, also are a mix of both political parties. These people know the state and how to keep things under control.

I dont think NCBA, RCalf, or the USDA have any buisness running the data bases.

AMEN-- Montana has been doing the same thru the Montana Board of Livestock for years with its brand inspection system- set up the same way with with a thoro mix of party affiliation and industry on the board....

AMEN & AMEN, I have heard that states turning over id information to a private entity may contradict state statutes. Keep it at the state level until and unless they cross a state line.

By definition, when the info belongs to a private entity it is in the public sector (as opposed to government). Is your Social Security information confidential? Who keeps it that way?

But the biggest problem BY FAR is the NCBA (or whoever, it wouldn't matter) profitting from a government mandated program and then lobbying for particular positions.

If NCBA goes through with this then all the accusation made about the checkoff (with NCBA) will be true with regard to animal ID.

By virtue of having a revenue stream that does not depend on membership the NCBA could more easily survive as a top-down (instead of a grass roots) organization. They would respond even less to membership than they do now.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
nenmrancher said:
I think that the information should be held on the state level. NM is planning on using its livestock board to be the holder of the information. It is a indepent state deptarment, meaning the board is appointed and controls the dept. The people appointed to the board are a mix of industry and the public, also are a mix of both political parties. These people know the state and how to keep things under control.

I dont think NCBA, RCalf, or the USDA have any buisness running the data bases.


Say nemrancher,you do understand ,we are refering to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

Quit showing your ignorance................good luck
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
416
Reaction score
0
Location
north eastern new mexico
Yes Haymaker I realize you are talking about the NAIS and I still think that the states should be in control of the data and USDA should only have access to it when a situation occurs. Other than that I think USDA, RCalf and NCBA should stay the hell out of the ID data base business. :!:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
nenmrancher said:
Yes Haymaker I realize you are talking about the NAIS and I still think that the states should be in control of the data and USDA should only have access to it when a situation occurs. Other than that I think USDA, RCalf and NCBA should stay the hell out of the ID data base business. :!:


I think the "USDA" should do their job,
And let "APHIS" controll the Data,who is going to fund all these state run data bases?the producer? what state dept are you refering to?Or private state owned companies,who's to fund them. ................good luck ps you are talking lots of money for a Long time
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
416
Reaction score
0
Location
north eastern new mexico
In New Mexico I am refering to the State Livestock board, in states that dont have much control over their livestock laws the state departments of agriculture or the equal state agency. The livestock board in NM already has most of the premise ids in place via the master brand numbers.
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
Thats the reason we have most of Central and South America as they use their farm brand code's for the premises code in our database.
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
As the responses indicate is is overwhelming.........Looks like NCBA, SS, and all the other private datawarehouses should stay the hell out of the Government ID Program and do what they need to do .....what ever that is? :roll:
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
The last thing the US or any other country needs is some fractured system with numerous different databases. A National ID program is just that, country wide, one common system. "

Bill you are 110% RIGHT........................
WHY can't we start by putting a metal tag with the Producer/Premise # on it in each animal when it leaves the farm/ranch of origin. Then when people can get that done, move on to a individual RFID tag. In all honesty we can trace back health issues to the point of origin...then go up the line on where a group of animals have moved. Yes Individual RFID is good, but we need to walk before we run. The metal tag will work until we get folks on the individual RFID tag and System. The brucellosis tag worked for years.....lets start there and move ahead to a individual system later. If we are so interested in trace back (trace ahead is quicker) then lets start with a tag the Vets and Producers are familiar with?????????? Please do not give be the bull crap the Packers don't like metal tags...... This whole ID Deal and the way we are handling it.....has made the USDA, ALL AG ORganizations, and the American Cattle Producers look like a group of clowns to the world..... the US and Canada are the most educated and talented countries in the world. Canada has a system, may not be perfect and may not have as many cattle to deal with, but they have something! The US has .....0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :roll:
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
The last thing the US or any other country needs is some fractured system with numerous different databases. A National ID program is just that, country wide, one common system.

The only thing the federal government needs to do is to say what info is REQUIRED. And that all databases must be compatible on the required field info.

Private databases can keep the optional information tied to the national id number. But a nationally centered wholsale database would be duplicative of some states Livestock Board activities (like brands)
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
"Private databases can keep the optional information tied to the national id number. " WHY???????????????????????????????? WHy do they need to keep optional information.............and what good are they going to do with it to help you?? If you sell your calves/yearlings you do not need a private data warehouse to pass the information on to the prospective buyers!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

If you retain ownership all the way through you will get the feedlot data from the feedyard......and they will help you get the carcass data.....THEY WANT YOUR BUSINESS>>>>>IT's A CORN HOTEL AND THEY WANT YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU NEED A PRIVATE DATA WAREHOUSE ????Somebody explain this one to me????
:roll: :roll: :roll:


"But a nationally centered wholsale database would be duplicative of some states Livestock Board activities (like brands)"

Back Up Informaiton is GOOD as long as the GOv State, Fed and your Vet has it!
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
CattleCo said:
"Private databases can keep the optional information tied to the national id number. " WHY???????????????????????????????? WHy do they need to keep optional information.............and what good are they going to do with it to help you?? If you sell your calves/yearlings you do not need a private data warehouse to pass the information on to the prospective buyers!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

If you retain ownership all the way through you will get the feedlot data from the feedyard......and they will help you get the carcass data.....THEY WANT YOUR BUSINESS>>>>>IT's A CORN HOTEL AND THEY WANT YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU NEED A PRIVATE DATA WAREHOUSE ????Somebody explain this one to me????
:roll: :roll: :roll:


"But a nationally centered wholsale database would be duplicative of some states Livestock Board activities (like brands)"

Back Up Informaiton is GOOD as long as the GOv State, Fed and your Vet has it!


When I said, "Private databases can keep the optional information tied to the national id number." the operative word here is "optional." If I want a data warehouse to keep my info that is an option. But the truth is even I am capable of writing a program (in Access or Excel) to keep this data for myself. The point I'm making is that there is minimal info required for tracking purposes and if we MUST have animal id then ONLY that data should go to the government--and as long as an animal does not cross a state line then the info should ONLY be in the hands of the state government. Remember that part of the Constitution that says the federal government has authority in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. If my animal doesn't cross the state line, then there's no interstate commerce. (I know some courts have declared it differently).

What people are imagining here is a national database that has ALL herd info (not just the minimal). The point is that I can use an animal's federally given id number in MY OWN database to track all the other herd info.

I've known people who track their cow herd info using bangs tag numbers. This would be like that, optional databases would be allowed to use the national id number IF THEY WISHED.

As for federal and state duplication, I'm not talking about backups. Any database warehouse will have its own backup system. I'm talking about a brand inspector for the state, and then whoever else for the feds coming to a location for an ownership transfer--duplication.
 

Latest posts

Top