The Department of Agriculture has proposed costly regulations to force ranchers, related business, and livestock agencies to tag and track animals that cross state lines.
USDA’s animal traceability rule is a solution in search of a problem. USDA says the rule is to protect animal health. But, the rules don’t identify any specific problems or diseases of concern.
These regulations will harm rural businesses, waste taxpayer dollars, and do little to deal with animal disease, food security, and food safety.
Send your comments today to make sure USDA’s final rule works for farmers and ranchers, and is paid for by the meatpackers that will benefit most.
At a time when farmers and ranchers face significant economic challenges, the last thing they need is more burdensome rules hindering their operations.
You can read more information about the proposed rule on WORC’s website.
TAKE ACTION
Please submit comments to USDA today! You can submit comments either online or by mail.
SAMPLE COMMENTS
Please personalize these comments! Include a personal story at the beginning of your comments so that it’s not just a form letter. The personalization can be just a few sentences, but it does make a difference.
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
I am a __________________ (farmer, local foods consumer, backyard poultry owner, horse owner, etc.). I am very concerned that the proposed rule will __________ (not be workable for my farm; impose costs on my farmers that will then be passed on to me, etc.)
If the export market would benefit from the proposed rule, as the agency claims, then the meat packing companies that export meat should pay the costs and offer economic premiums to livestock producers to encourage them to participate in a voluntary system.
The agency’s analysis does not address the full costs of the program, and this is a waste of money at a time when both private and government resources are already stretched thin. The proposed rule is an unfunded mandate on state agencies, private businesses, and individuals.
I urge you to make the following changes in the proposed rule to make it more workable for farmers and ranchers:
- Ask the agency to address and justify the full costs of the program.
- Apply the requirements to breeding-age cattle only and exempt feeder cattle from all new requirements.
- Exempt all direct-to-slaughter cattle, both for custom and for retail sales.
- Recognize the brand as “official identification” among and between all states that currently have official state brand programs and “official supplementary identification” for all other states.
- Do not impose any new requirements for identifying poultry. There has simply been no showing that imposing new requirements on small-scale poultry operations is needed, while it will definitely cause significant harm.
- Provide that a physical description qualifies as an official identification method for horses without having to be approved by the health officials in the receiving State or Tribe.
In closing, I urge you to extend the comment period on the proposed rule for sixty days. This is a busy time of the year for ranchers, and more time will help ensure those who are most affected by this proposed program are given the time they need to review it.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City, State Zip
SEND COMMENTS ONLINE
You can send you comments online here.
SEND COMMENTS BY MAIL
Docket No.APHIS–2009–0091
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238
The deadline for comments is WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011.
Please also send a copy of your comments to your Congressman and Senators. You can find contact information for the House here and the Senate here.
What you can say in your comments
- Increase the comment period by 60 additional days to allow farmers and ranchers as well as consumers to comment fully.
- Insist the agency address the full costs of the program so that this does not become an unfunded mandated a colossal waste of money at a time when both private and government resources are already stretched thin.
- Exempt feeder cattle from all new requirements
- Exempt all direct-to-slaughter cattle, both for custom and for retail sales. The proposed rule provides for a temporary exemption, but then phases these animals into the program.
- Recognize hot iron brands as “official identification among and between all states that currently recognize brands and “official supplementary identification” for all other states.
- Request specific assurances that information will be kept private and used only by agencies for disease tracking
READ USDA’S DOCUMENTS
You can read the proposed rule on USDA’s website.
You can read the USDA’s regulatory analysis, which includes its analysis of the costs of the program and the alleged benefits to the export market, here.
Nov 15, 2011 @ 22:42:06
Never argue the act always argue the law!
1. Do you agree that the use of the hot iron brand as a means of livestock identification is a long standing custom?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
2. The common law Maxim of “Actori incumbit onus probandi. The burden of proof is on him who makes the claim.”, does this Maxim apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
3. Administrative Law requires proof of claim, 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Does this Administrative Law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
4. The common law Maxim of “Consuetudo ex communis assuetudo vincit legum non scriptam, si sit specialis; et interpretatur legem scriptam, si lex sit generalis. A custom, grounded on a certain and reasonable cause, supersedes the common law.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 315. Does this maxim of Law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
5. The common Law Maxim of “Consuetudo loci observanda est. The custom of a place is to be observed.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 315. Does this maxim of Law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091] ?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
6. The common Law Maxim of “Consuetudo manerii et loci observanda est. A custom of a manor and place is to be observed.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 315. Does this maxim of Law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
7. The common Law Maxim of “Consuetudo neque injuria oriri neque tolli protest. Custom can neither arise from nor be taken away by injury.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 315. Does this maxim of Law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
8. The common Law maxim of “Consuetudo praescripta et legitima vincit legem. A prescriptive and lawful custom overcomes the law.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 315. Does this maxim of Law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
9. The common Law Maxim of “Optima est legis interpres consuetude” Custom is the best interpreter of the Law. Does this maxim of law apply to the Claims made in the Federal Register [Docket No.APHIS-2009-0091]?
Answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No
If the answer is No, please provide a certified copy of the Act of Congress, Rule of the Court or established American Jurisprudence that shows otherwise.
LikeLike
Sep 24, 2011 @ 20:58:49
you don’t have to worry about your horses being stolen for the meat industry in Canada and Mexico. Canada won’t accept horses for slaughter from the US because they are so full of pharma and the meat is contaminated from it. Besides, they are stealing our wild horses off the reserves and selling THOSE to MExico and Canada faster than you can say “giddyup!” Mexico might not be a problem for you….they’ll eat anything.
LikeLike
Sep 24, 2011 @ 20:40:03
Perhaps this is unnecessary for all animals, but I think it would be most helpful for equines especially those who travel distances to compete and participate in equine activites. There have been serious outbreaks of disease and being able to trace where equines at a particular event have been prior to an outbreak may be helpful in figuring out what the disease is before other horses are subsequently exposed to it.
Furthermore, every year horses are stolen out of pastures or from along trails. If these horses had some kind of tracker, it might be easier to find and identify them.
In addition, this might be a way to keep our horses from being slaughtered for food in Mexico and Canada.
LikeLike