Hey has anyone got one of these things.. I haven't or don't know of anyone who did? I have two chickens.
Check out this ladies Rant on the issue.. I have to go research this thing...
The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS
Identity
by
Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY 13617
315-386-3199
mlz@...
January 11, 2007
Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over
the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if
there is any relationship between the survey and the data being
collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the
National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As we shall see,
although USDA personnel wont admit it, NASS data is the foundation of
the USDA's aggressive pursuit of NAIS.
To my great surprise, in this morning's mail I myself
received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I
say "to my great surprise," because I am not and never have been
engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever. I have
never before received any type of communication from NASS.
The envelope states in very large letters, "YOUR RESPONSE
IS REQUIRED BY LAW." The envelope further states that the due date
is January 29, 2007. As explained below, it is clear that many
people receiving this form are not in fact "REQUIRED BY LAW" to
answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between
the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be
impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within
that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn't actually required
to respond.
The form itself begins with several general questions,
such as Do you own or rent any land? Do you grow vegetables, hay or
nursery stock? Do you receive government payments? The questions
appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer
yes is among those REQUIRED BY LAW to fill out this form. The USDA
is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the
lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who
is not homeless owns or rents real estate; some 75 million people in
the United States grow vegetables; and some 60 million people receive
government payments. (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government
transfer payments).)
Now, perhaps it is possible that this wide net might not
be as intrusive as it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent
this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it
was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate
over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach. This
morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke
to a woman at the USDA's Helena, Montana call center. According to
her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live
in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She stated that
the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these
people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture
as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the
mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever
subscribed to a horse magazine might have been included in the
database.
Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the
USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of horse magazines? Why and
how are horse magazines, or, for that matter, any rural-life
publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public
livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their
member/subscriber/ customer lists to the government without telling
their members, subscribers, or customers?
Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists
or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations
in question? During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people's
incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right
to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a
trivial question.
Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide
net growing ever wider. The form states: Many people who don't
consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition
of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture. We need your
completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching,
or conducting any other type of agricultural activity. Finally, the
first page of the form reinforces the threat of the REQUIRED BY LAW
language of the envelope:
Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.
(Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks the
threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-
grade stylistic conceit of quoting something to make it appear extra-
important.) One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has
referred to the definition of a farm or ranch but nowhere tells us
that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a
legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not
meet the definition of a farm.
Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions
about the definition of a farm and the possible legal penalties for
not responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my
understanding of the definition of farm as an operation with at least
$1000 in sales from agriculture was correct. (See 2002 Census of
Agriculture, FAQs,
www.nass.usda. gov/census_ of_agriculture/ frequently_ asked_questions/ ind
ex.asp#1.) Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC 2204g
(d) (2), namely, that a person . . . who refuses or willfully
neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than
$100, I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42
separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a
separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single
$100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions
were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note
of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional
staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the
answers.
The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from
Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician. First we addressed the question
of the farm definition. Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose
property or operation did not meet the farm definition would have no
obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also conceded that the basic
definition of a farm as an operation with at least $1000 in
agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the
gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain point values for
particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000,
your operation would meet the definition of a farm. When asked for
an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5
equines would equal a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she
explained that each equine equals 200 points.) When asked how many
cattle equal a farm, Ms. Sprague said she did not know. At one point
Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine
if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list.
But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she
would advise anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and
that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire,
although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5
horses would not meet the definition of a farm and therefore would
not be required to fill out the survey.
We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled
its mailing list for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that
the sources of the NASS mailing list are confidential. I noted the
call-center woman's reference to a subscription to a horse magazine
as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources. Ms.
Sprague said that grower's associations, such as the Wheat Growers
Association and Barley Growers Association, were examples of
sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give
any, claiming that some are confidential and some are not
confidential. She explained the overall process of list building
thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are possibilities of
agricultural activity, NASS incorporates those names into its mailing
list.
We returned to the subject of point values for different
livestock. Explaining that many people were likely to have questions
about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point
values of cattle or other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold
for a long while. Subsequently, she gave me the following point
values: beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points
per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head. (I wanted to ask
about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be
pushing my luck.)
Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be
concentrating on the point values. For example, she noted that
people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5
horses, because it wouldn't be ethical. (But apparently under the
NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint- type
consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly ethical.
And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over
your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-
registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states continued
receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)
We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance
fine. Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer's failure to answer any
or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in
a single $100 fine. She also said that the fine is rarely enforced
and that if any producer chooses not to report, no one from NASS
would seek them out.
Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any
relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said,
Absolutely none. I asked her if any other agency, state or federal,
would ever be allowed to use NASS's database to solicit premises IDs
for NAIS, and she said, Absolutely not. And indeed, pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2204g (f) (3), Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not
be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which
the information is supplied.
Several weeks ago, Missouri anti-NAIS activist Doreen
Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri's solicitation of
NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of
the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Dr. Goff provided
written answers on December 20, 2006. When asked where the MDA had
obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr.
Goff stated: the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service.
I won't answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey.
Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my
two United States Senators. I will ask them to have the House and
Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful
abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS's
compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote
the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will I do
this? Because I don't live by the USDA's false code of ethics; I
answer to a higher authority.
NASS Survey? USDA Control
Linear Mode
