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

USDA Railroading Cattle Industry

Sandhusker

Well-known member
USDA Deceptively Railroading Cattle Industry with Animal ID Plan


Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA has formally asked Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack why the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is deceiving U.S. livestock producers into believing they are partners in a national effort to protect their livestock herds from the introduction and spread of disease while simultaneously pursuing a reckless course of action that actually invites foreign animal diseases (FADs) into the United States.

R-CALF USA has – since Vilsack’s Feb. 5, 2010, announcement that USDA would revise the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and offer a new approach to achieving animal disease traceability – expended considerable resources to assist USDA in the development of a new animal disease traceability framework. Commensurate with Vilsack’s Feb. 5, 2010, announcement, USDA formally reaffirmed its congressional mandate to prevent the introduction of animal diseases into the U.S. by stating that, “Preventing and controlling animal disease is a cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture.” (Emphasis added.)

“We believed our assistance would enable USDA to better achieve that congressional mandate,” wrote R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “However, mounting evidence demonstrates that USDA’s intentions are disingenuous… (and the many examples of this) evidence further suggests that USDA’s real motive is to coerce unsuspecting U.S. livestock producers into assisting the agency in the development of a traceback system that USDA will later use in an attempt to mitigate and defend its reckless actions of continually inviting foreign animal diseases into the United States from disease-affected countries. This, Mr. Secretary, is outrageous, but there is no rational, alternative conclusion that can be deduced from the compelling evidence herein described.”

Thornsberry’s letter cites several specific examples of ongoing USDA policies that he said significantly and recklessly increases the risk for disease introduction into, and spread within, the United States. These examples range from: 1) allowing entry into the U.S. of Canadian cattle that are of the same age as, or older than, cattle detected in Canada with mad cow disease; 2) allowing entry into the U.S. of cattle from Mexico and Canada that are known to be introducing bovine tuberculosis into the United States; 3) proposing to lift foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) restrictions for Brazil, which is not a country free of FMD; 4) failing to delist Japan as a country declared free of FMD after Japan reported widespread FMD outbreaks; 5) and proposing to introduce the live FMD virus into the United States by relocating the Plum Island, N.Y., FMD research facility to Manhattan, Kan.

“Please explain why U.S. livestock producers should continue assisting your agency in making costly revisions to our historically successful animal disease control programs when evidence shows a primary purpose for such revisions is to facilitate the ongoing importation of high-risk livestock by enabling your agency to better trace diseases that USDA is deliberately allowing into the U.S. from disease-affected countries,” the letter continues.

“R-CALF USA desperately wants to work with you to increase the protection of our U.S. livestock herds from the introduction of and spread of animal diseases, but your agency’s actions indicate USDA is deliberately exacerbating the United States’ risk of animal disease exposure, which effectively disqualifies your agency as a legitimate partner to U.S. livestock producers,” the correspondence concludes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Q. Will animals participating in the new system
need to be officially identifi ed?

A. Under the new framework, it will be important
for animals moving interstate to be part of the traceability
system. The details of the new system will be
developed in a transparent and collaborative process.
USDA will maintain a list of official identifi cation
devices, which can be updated or expanded based on
the needs of the States and Tribal Nations. There are
many official identifi cation options available, such as
branding, metal tags, RFID
, just to name a few.


Q. What forms of ID will be used in the new framework?
Will this be decided at the Federal or State
level? Who will have input on this decision?

A. Under the new framework, it will be important
for animals moving interstate to be part of the traceability
system. The details of the new system will be
developed in a transparent and collaborative process.
Each State and Tribal Nation will be able to determine
the specifi c approaches and solutions it will use to
achieve basic animal disease traceability performance
measures based on the needs of their local producers
.
USDA will be fl exible in supporting States and
Tribal Nations as they use technologies that suit the
needs of their producers. For example, in some States
and Tribal Nations, branding might be a way to meet
animal disease traceability goals
.


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

Q. Will there be additional burdens for States who
choose to implement a more technology-based
system (electronic ID as opposed to visual ID or
brands)? How will cost differences be handled?
Will there be subsidies available?

A. The goal of this new animal disease traceability
approach is to impose the least burden on producers
as possible, while still making sure that we have effective
animal disease traceability in the United States.
USDA will work with States, Tribal Nations, and industry
to provide free or low-cost visual tags as an option.
USDA will also make the information technology (IT)
systems it developed through NAIS available to States
and Tribal Nations, should they want to use them.
Once States and Tribal Nations decide on acceptable
methods of identifi cation, it will be up to the
producer to choose the method they want to use if
multiple options are available.


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf

It seems to me-- that if they hold to the standards they've released on what they will allow for ID on their website-- that they are pretty much following what was asked for... The ability of each state to decide what works best for them- including brands in the states that already have the system set up ....
 

Latest posts

Top