Personally speaking: I don't have a problem with the NAIS proposal. If it makes my food safer, and limits or eliminates the need for unnecessary slaughter of animals that "may" have been exposed to a disease; then I think it's worth while... Personally.

Professionally (Scholastically) speaking: I think there is going to be a lot more to this than it seems on the surface. Anyone that's ever dealt with the government knows it's not as simple as it seems; everything is layered and in that layering comes the complication. The bad part about looking at the surface is that you can't see the whole package; there may be hidden pros as well as cons... When you look at the surface of a body of water, you don't know if it's 40 feet deep, or 4,000 feet deep, until you have a chance to measure it.

I have to write three arguments on this; one from what we expect to be the farmers point of view, one from the consumers point of view and one from the government point of view. I can see why the government is for this, as will be some consumers... But, the small farmer, so far- it seems that most are against this. If that meeting in Texas is any indication, that is...

If a corporate farm is anything like the corporate job was, where I used to work: the goal is to realize a return of $20.00 for each dollar spent. If the farm works that way, that $20 could easily come to (Let me check my math) $400.00, per head... But, that's speculation. No matter what, you can bet some of the smarter farmers won't lose money; they will make money on this... They may lose it up front, but they'll get it back... The problem is, can they survive the initial hit and maintain long enough to realize the return...

I certainly would (find a way to make money on it) if I were them.

****************************************

Nevertheless, my intent here is not to "sway" your opinion, but for you to be aware- or for you to make those you know who may be affected, aware- so they can have a voice in this process, be it pro or against.. The USDA had a meeting that normally 12-20 people attend; however- when news of this leaked out, over 700 farmers/ranchers were in attendance at that meeting... They were not prepared for that, so the meeting has been rescheduled...

 

And therein lays one the basic principles of my initial argument against this.

Typical of any government agency they just do not have any foresight and the reason is because they don’t need foresight. They are not a business so it doesn’t matter how screwed up they are they are allowed to remain in business…

Talk about pork programs this baby is going to be a porker for sure…

 

Microsoft providing technology for ID system... gives a whole new meaning to "Blue Screen of Death".
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content...ontentid=20305
The beef industry obviously supports the USDA's animal identification program.

As others have stated, it's whats "buried inside" the bill/law that I question. I see no need for tracking any kind of non-food product such as pets. Then again, one man's pet is another man's dinner.

 

I can see a need for the pets tag. As an example. If you or one of your family was bitten by a dog and wanted to find out if it had it's rabies shot or you would have to take the rabies series of shots, I think you would rather find out quickly whether it was vaccinated. You often hear of people having to take the rabies series because no one could find out if the animal had been vaccinated.

 

That's easy if you catch the pet. If you can't find the owner within say 12 hours then kill the pet and can tell if it has rabies or not. Animals are not human and if you need to save a human from pain and/or death you just kill the stupid pet...

 

And who is going to pay for the medical treatment, maybe even plastic surgery for the person who got bit? Often dogs go for the face or neck. Or who is responsible if a pet kills someone? I am sure if it was your kid that was bit or killed, you would want to know who was responsible for that animal. It's a lot more than just is the animal rabid.