Delegates were smart to vote down Premises ID

12
1

Editor:

In the Jan. 8 Farm and Dairy Letters to the Editor, Mr. McKarns recapped part of the 90th annual Farm Bureau meeting of 2008.

He noted the proposal to encourage all livestock producers to register their premises in the NAIS database was voted down.

I for one have to cheer the wisdom of the Farm Bureau delegates who chose to reject Premises ID registration.

Premises ID creates an easement that allows the USDA to have warrantless access to a farmer’s property.

Premises code, once assigned to a location, is permanent (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov).

When the land is sold or inherited, the Premises ID and the easement that it created stay with the land.

Any other form of easement, for example, a conservation easement, results in a monetary consideration for taking on the easement.

By contrast Premises ID does not result in any monetary gain for the farmer because as Mr. McKarns accurately noted, “it is free.”

Like all easements, Premises ID diminishes the value of the land by limiting its use.

When real estate law catches up with Premises ID of farmland, the farmer and his family will lose thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars when they want to or need to sell the estate.

I applaud those very foresighted Farm Bureau delegates who voted against the premises registration proposal.

At this time in Ohio, Premises ID is a voluntary surrender of sovereignty. It will soon be mandatory unless more good people stand up for their rights.

Thomas Jones

Chagrin Falls, Ohio

STAY INFORMED. SIGN UP!

Up-to-date agriculture news in your inbox!

12 COMMENTS

  1. Something I had not considered, was a mere partial takeover of our farms… I’d always considered it an all or nothing deal. This in many ways would be more ominous, because it allows for further infringements against property rights, as well as the several Constitutional rights, and a host of other abuses this program represents.

    It is wonderful to see the farm bureau delegates stand together against a program that in its very design can only hurt their members, and is designed to get them out of the competetive arena to pave the way for more corporate consolidation of agriculture!

    We need more people to become educated about this program and take a stand! The more the true facts and details (such as costs, loss of liberties, fallacies about food as well as animal safety issues and a host of others) come to light, the more difficult it will be for corporate ag and the USDA to cram this down our throats and destroy our way of life.

    Thank you, for a wonderful and thought-provoking article!

  2. I want to know why, after spending millions of dollars on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), there has been NO cost/benefit analysis for the public to read. Could it be because the cost is all on the taxpayers and farmers (who double as taxpayers), and the benefits go to new government employees (to run the program) and large corporations, who have mimimal or no costs through the program?

  3. Thank you for posting this critical aspect of the NAIS program. There are many concerns about our rights being stripped through this program and property land rights is only one issue.

    We need more industry media investigating the NAIS as the USDA continues to work the program outside its lawful boundaries.

    I look forward to more reporting on this issue; of its impeding impact, not only to farmers and ranchers, but its eventual trickle down affect on consumers and the economy as a whole.

  4. Premises registration might be free, for now, but the other aspects of NAIS are not going to be free. To quote from Doreen Hannes’ latest article:
    http://food.change.org/blog/view/bushs_flips_family_farms_the_bird
    “The USDA states in the FR release that although they don’t expect the costs to be too tremendous, the manufacturers should pass the costs of transitioning to “840” tags on to the producer to help manufacturers with their expenses. So just like in the NAIS documents to date, the costs of implementation are to be borne by the producer. Those costs have yet to be determined as the cost-benefit analysis isn’t completed yet, but they’ll go ahead and mandate the most destructive program in history on farmers at the time of the largest financial crises in history anyway.”

    Just like they advised us in Australia, fight NAIS down to the last cowboy.

  5. There is no doubt in my mind that a premise ID violates the 4th Amendment rights of land owners. I questioned Ron Miller of the PA Dept of Ag, and he was unable to answer that question for me, so he referred it to Neil Hammerschmidt, who ducked the question by replying a warrant wasn’t necessary if the governor declares an emergency. He didn’t respond about non emergency situations. The only reason to not give a straight answer to the question is because he couldn’t without looking like the traitor (IMO) that he is.

  6. One thing to keep in mind is that something that is “permanent” is not necessarily going to run in perpetuity.

    The livestock premises number appears to me to be permanent only for the time of the first enrollment. If one does not renew their application for registration the registration would end, unless applying for some government granted favor is mandatory and one could be compelled to renew, which I doubt. Permanent does not mean in perpetuity.

    “Permanent” is generally opposed in law to “temporary,” but it does not always mean “perpetual.” “Perpetual” means never ceasing; enduring; unlimited in respect of time.

    Another thing in Mr. Jones’ article that does not sound right to me is the idea that the government has the just powers to make a “sovereign” surrender his sovereignty.

  7. Thank you for the printing Mr Jones’ letter to the editor pointing out some of the faults with NAIS.

    For Harry; Have you read any of the NAIS documents? There is NO renewal of Premise ID described anywhere in those documents. The documents do state that the ID stays with the property even when sold. Government (especially the federal government) does all kind of things without any “just power” authorizing it. Read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and see if actions by Congress have constitutional (just) authority.

  8. I’m so happy to hear the Farm Bureau delegates voted against premises registration and therefore against NAIS. I didn’t re-join the Farm Bureau last year or this year as they seemed to support NAIS. I’ll have to reconsider joining if they have seen the light about NAIS now and continue to be for their members vs. the government. NAIS will hurt all farmers with their costs and paperwork requirements.

  9. With any governmental agency, the words used in any law, regulation, rule or other declaration by the government or its agencies must be carefully scrutinized. What may seem to be nothing more than a simple word-swap may actually be a new legal definition and one that may come back to haunt you. Under NAIS the term [property] is swapped for Premises.

    Property is the term used to indicate private ownership of a thing such as land or animals and is protected by rights in the Constitution. It does signify legal ownership, and who is the legal owner and allows you access to a Civil Court and protection under the Constitution.

    Premises is a term derived from the International Law of Contracts which are the international rules, for conducting business, usually corporate, whereby [non-human entities] are declared to be [persons]. Agreeing to the redefining of [property] and to the conversion to premises, eliminates civil protections and redefines you as an [legal entity] who may or may not own the thing in question. This also subjects you to Administrative Courts using statute and codes which are derived from the International Law of Contracts (ILC) and prohibits any use of rights enumerated or otherwise within the constitution.

    NAIS is a contract! Any time you sign your name to any government program you have effectively entered into a contract. NAIS is a contractual agreement between you, the individual land owner/livestock owner, and the USDA acting as agent for the federal government, or your state agriculture department acting as agent. Using the ILC’s own rules, no contract is valid unless all parties are fully apprised of ALL provisions and terms of the contract.

    NAIS has intentionally not revealed ALL aspects of the contract, or the real intent of the program. This renders any attempts to mandate compliance as null and void.

    Neither the government nor its agencies or agents have listed any limits with regard to any authority any or all of them may now assume or implement as a result of rule making or changes to policies, mandates and regulations. This means you do NOT know all the terms of the contract.

    Neither is NAIS an [adhesion contract] wherein the terms and conditions of the contract never, ever change because USDA or even Congress can change the rules and regulations at any time.

    Since the USDA is a self regulating and rule making agency, in effect making its own laws and enforcing them at will, rules could be changed at a later date drastically affecting everyone who has entered into this contract.

    When those of you who [voluntarily] signed up for Premises ID and animal registration signed your name to what is a contract between you and the Federal government, did you not notice the contract provided no limitations or restrictions regarding the authority you just conveyed to the Federal government?

    Did you notice not one word was said about limiting the actions of agencies such as the USDA and no protections against unwarranted search and seizure or other legal actions were afforded to you?

    So what did you actually sign up for? Voluntarily or even by forced mandate, you have given up your rights to your own property and, in exchange, you got what? Were you compensated? Is there any intent to compensate you? The answers are no. In fact the cost of NAIS is being passed on to the people being victimized by yet another Federal program, the intent of which is to seize all farm and ranch lands and all livestock, putting all of it under Federal control.

    In the end, we need to understand that property has a far different meaning under the laws than the word [premises]. Had there not been an intention to render a change in the status of property ownership and control there would have been no need to use the word Premises. Rep Colin Peterson (D) MN and Sen. Tom Harkin (D) IA, didn’t slip this word in there accidentally.

    In fact, there are a few things neither of them ever mentioned. Most specifically neither mentions the fact that all the lands being consigned to the control of the USDA will be added to the US Lands Preservation Act, now before congress. Supposedly more than 150 various bills from nearly every state just showed up at once and were rolled into one omnibus land package. Go figure. What a coincidence.

  10. Monsanto was involved in the planning for NAIS. Monsanto, the same folks doing all they can to get rid of all normal seeds – getting rid of companies, seed cleaners, seed cleaning equipment, etc. – for a TOTAL monopoly with their patented GE-seeds. Nowwwww, they are genetically engineering animals. NAIS gives them the ability to know where every single normal animal in the country is (DNA will be taken). And if costs and rules and killing penalties don’t make farmers quit or bankrupt them, there are always disease “scares” and the USDA coming in and slaughtering every animal (no warrants, no due process) or Homeland Security using “bio-terrorism” to do the same, only with more military muscle and more small farmers’ animals wiped out.

    NAIS is about taking control over the land and wiping out the biodiversity in animals so Monsanto and biotech can substitute ” patented” (PRIVATIZED) animals and reduce farmers to renters of animals and wage laborers.

    Look up Monsanto and see how they work. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/ features/2008/05/monsanto200805
    Then just substitute animals for seeds and the picture is plain. And it’s already happening in Asia.

  11. There is still time (until Feb. 15) for Farm and Dairy readers to comment against the new NAIS regulations published by APHIS in the Federal Register. The easy, one-click way to do this is going to the Organic Consumers Association (you don’t have to believe in organics, just use the site!!). OCA will hand carry copies of your comments to the agency. Go to: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26665

    There are at least 10,000 responses to date. This is a way to have a huge show of force. Go comment now, and send the link to all your friends.

    Karin Bergener

LEAVE A REPLY

Receive emails as this discussion progresses.