KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--Those opposed to a U.S. national animal identification system are beginning to make more noise about a plan they see as intrusive and unnecessarily costly at best and unconstitutional at worst.
The animal ID system is designed to identify and allow government veterinary officials to trace animals or poultry in the event of an illness. The idea is to have a system in place so the lifetime movements of animals or birds that turn up sick or dead can be discovered to aid in disease eradication.
Most opponents say they can see the system's value in accessing international markets for products like beef. Instead of repealing the system entirely, they want it modified to make participation voluntary or limited to those animals liable to be included in international commerce.
Those opposed to a national system say it is designed for and benefits only large, specialized farms, invades the privacy of those who would be forced to participate eventually, is expensive, and reporting requirements are so burdensome that many will go out of business, as will local feed stores.
Republican Idaho state Rep. Shirley McKague said she had introduced a "joint memorial" in the Idaho House of Representatives March 1 aimed at sending a message to Congress in Washington asking for implementation to be delayed so potential participants can get more informed on the topic. She objected to the premises identification and the fact that participation in the system is liable to become mandatory eventually.
McKague said her memorial didn't pass, but the issue now is "out and drawing discussion."
Cheryl Allerton, a partner in Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton of Reading, Pa., said the way the resolution from the USDA is written makes its application excessively narrow. No exceptions were written into the plan, and despite statements by USDA officials that some information is not needed, "you can't enforce a regulation based on intentions. You can only enforce what's written," she said.
For Allerton, a horse owner, the way the regulations are written means she will have to report to the national animal ID system whenever a horse leaves the property for a pleasure ride, a horse show or trail ride in a distant state.
Allerton also said the regulations would give the USDA authority to enter a farm and seize livestock not identified with tags or microchips, which she claims is an invasion of privacy.
She also wants more time to discuss the regulations and favors tweaking them to apply only to animals meant for international trade. People were uninformed about the plan's implications during the program's comment period and are only now beginning to realize a plan they thought was aimed only at cattle, hogs and chickens destined for international trade includes all livestock, Allerton
said.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, in a news conference Thursday outlining the national animal ID plan, said: "Industry-specific working groups have...been studying the issue of animal identification and will be making recommendations to USDA through an established advisory committee on how best to tailor the program to meet their industry-specific needs."
Dore Mobley, public affairs specialist for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said those working groups are deciding which identification devices will be required and the types of movement that are reportable. As it stands now, the USDA would like livestock owners to register any premises where livestock is held.
The types of livestock currently include cattle, bison, captive deer and elk, poultry, sheep, goats, horses, llamas and alpacas but not rabbits, Mobley said. She was unsure about whether pigeons would be included.
Among those opposed to the national animal ID system is Mary Zanoni, executive director of Farm for Life, a nonprofit group supporting small-scale and sustainable farmers and those who raise livestock and crops for their own food. In a position paper sent to Dow Jones Newswires in response to questions, she said, "Many aspects of the Standards and Plan appear to create insurmountable legal, fiscal and logistical problems."
Zanoni sees constitutional privacy problems and even potential trampling of religious freedoms for closed societies like the Amish. There are also possible violations to the Fourth Amendment via "enormously intrusive surveillance against unsuspecting innocent citizens who have done nothing more than to own an animal," she said.
Privacy issues also are at stake and the system, Zanoni said, could violate other constitutional amendments, namely the Fifth and 14th.
In spite of Mobley's comments about rabbits, Judith Ozmer, co-owner of Mountain View Farms in Idaho, who raises and exhibits rabbits as a hobby, said groups like the American Rabbit Breeders Association are trying to get an exemption for groups like theirs.
In addition to privacy and forced participation issues, cost is a large factor in opposing the plan, Ozmer said. She said objected to having to take a $7 to $15 bunny in to an implant station to have a $20 radio frequency implant put in.
-By Lester Aldrich; Dow Jones Newswires; 913-322-5179;
lester.aldrich@dowjones.com