How will the National Animal Identification System
Affect Horse Owners?
Report on the American Horse Council's Issues Forum
By Judith McGeary
October 2006
The American Horse Council (AHC) has played a key role in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). In 2002, the AHC appointed members to a "task force," which later became the official Equine Species Working Group. Last month, the AHC held an Issues Forum in Austin, which included a high-profile panel discussion on the NAIS. Unfortunately, the event was not aimed at informing the general horse-owning public; the $100 entry fee discouraged most individuals, and only about 35 people attended the panel discussion.
The theme of the presentation was that the NAIS is voluntary right now and there are no rules yet. And yet the ultimate aim of the NAIS is the same as it has always been: every animal owner, including every horse owner, will have to register their premises, individually identify their animals with a standardized high-tech method, and report their movements to a database. Notably, the USDA has not withdrawn the 2005 and 2006 documents that set out this plan for all livestock, nor has it stated that horses will be excluded from the program. Indeed, horses are specifically listed as an included species in the USDA documents.
How can the panels' statements be reconciled with the documents? The message was that horse owners should not worry right now, because there is nothing in place at this exact moment. But with the documents clearly setting out what we can expect for the future, it would be shortsighted to ignore them. And the industry officials clearly aren't closing their eyes to the future, either. For example, in the opening statements, Jay Hickey, the president of AHC, spoke of his vision of what the horse industry would be like in 2025: all horses will be microchipped, and people will simply drive by or through a reader at shows, trail rides, etc. to report their movements.
Neil Hammerschmidt, the USDA official in charge of implementing the NAIS, re-iterated the USDA's goal to have 100% of all premises with animals registered and 100% of all "new" animals identified by January 2009. He stated that, "Today, USDA's position is that NAIS is voluntary." Yet common sense dictates that 100% of animal owners will not "volunteer," and that the government will have to take non-voluntary measures to reach its goals. Indeed, Mr. Hammerschmidt's superior, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, recently stated that the states may implement mandatory programs and the USDA will continue to fund such programs. Combined with the USDA's stated goal of 100% participation, the message to the states is clear: implement a mandatory program or risk losing federal dollars.
In a similar vein, Dr. Hillman, the Executive Director of the Texas Animal Health Commission, stated that there is voluntary, free registration "until at least 2007." In other words, there is no guarantee that premises registration will remain voluntary or free unless the Texas Legislature takes action in the next session. Dr. Hillman also included powerpoint slides and discussion of the "goal." That goal includes registration of every premises, identification of every horse, and reporting. Dr. Hillman stated that, if a person were to haul a horse to a show in Oklahoma, this would be a reportable event. If the owner decides to sell that horse to a buyer, even one within the same state, he would "report the transfer to the new premises." He stated that the reporting will start with those situations where a CVI or Coggins is required, but he made no mention of where the reporting would end. Remember that a Coggins test is required in Texas for every sale, show, and many other events. The message was clear: while the Equine Species Working Group has changed its earlier recommendations, and is now recommending that horse owners not report to databases, this is only a temporary reprieve. The ultimate goal remains the same.
Even the current so-called voluntary state programs are not truly voluntary. During the question and answer session, one audience participant stated that Minnesota is now requiring people to have a premises ID to take a horse to an equine event. Owners of other livestock species have found that their information has been taken out of databases and placed in the NAIS database, without their knowledge or consent. And cattle owners in Michigan now face mandatory electronic ID requirements. All of this has occurred without regulations or rules creating an explicitly mandatory NAIS.
Despite the repeated disclaimer that there are no rules yet, so the officials can't be specific about what the program will and will not require, Dr. Smith of the American Quarter Horse Association appeared comfortable reassuring the audience that the data will be kept in what he termed a "Tier 1" database. He discussed the multiple layers of security used for such databases. He said that there are only a dozen or so Tier 1 facilities in the whole country right now. If these databases are so elaborate that they are only used in a handful of situations, can you imagine the costs associated with them? When asked after the meeting, Dr. Smith fell back on the claim that there are too many uncertainties to estimate the costs. So horse owners should not worry because the database will be secure, but there are no rules and we don't know the costs of such security. We cannot afford to rely on this type of reassurance.
Interestingly, while the speakers repeatedly stated that there were no rules yet, they felt confident contradicting other officials. One audience participant stated that the Oklahoma state veterinarian told her that everyone would need a premises ID to buy or sell animals at her sales barn. If an animal were not chipped when it came to the sale, the sales barn would have to do it. Both Jay Hickey and Dr. Hillman dismissed this report as unfounded. They did not address why a state veterinarian - the official ultimately charged with enforcing the program in Oklahoma - would be telling animal owners that these would be the requirements.
Dr. Gibbs, the official at the Extension Service charged with this program who sits on the Equine Species Working Group, was the last to speak. He discussed several of the concerns that the Extension Service has heard from the public and noted the need for education. In February, he asked 100 broodmare owners how many of them knew that they might be expected to register their premises, and not one person knew about it. How can the government claim that the program as broad support in the industry when so many horse owners don't know anything about it?
The speakers encouraged people to comment to the working group and USDA. Yet what assurances are there that our concerns will be addressed? The working group was appointed by AHC without any input from the vast majority of horse owners. New co-chairs were recently appointed, again without any input. (The new chairs are Dr. Smith of AQHA and Jim Moorehead of the American Association of Equine Practitioners). We are told that our associations are representing our interests for us. Yet many organizations potentially have financial interests in the NAIS. For example, Mr. Hammerschmidt noted that the USDA will allocate Animal Identification Numbers to approved manufacturers; these manufacturers may then establish marketing agreements with tag managers, who in turn will contract with tag resellers. Each company in the chain will obviously expect to make a profit for itself. Veterinarians, service providers, and breed organizations can all be resellers of the tags, so they cannot be relief upon for an unbiased perspective on this program. The breed registries may also be designated as the official databases, giving them yet another potential financial interest in the NAIS.
Go talk to the board of directors of your breed registry or other horse-related association. Ask them what role the association has played in the development of the NAIS and what the official position is. If you believe that the NAIS is not in your best interests, then tell them you want them to take a position opposing the program. Don't accept the excuse that we have to go along. As an American, everyone has the right to say that they oppose a government program and want it to stop. And don't accept the excuse that it's too early to take a position. The industry has been working on this program since at least 1988, the USDA has been working on it since 2002, and over $84 million of our tax dollars have been spent on it. If not now, then when?
Judith McGeary is an attorney in Austin, Texas, and the Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. She has a B.S. in Biology from Stanford University and a J.D. with high honors from The University of Texas at Austin. She began her legal career by clerking for the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, her practice has focused on environmental law, commercial litigation, and appeals. She and her husband run a small farm with horses, cattle, sheep, and poultry. Ms. McGeary is also on the steering committee for the Liberty Ark Coalition.
For more information, go to www.libertyark.net or www.farmandranchfreedom.org or call 1-866-687-6452.