[drivingpairs] NAIS and the Arigcultural Survey sent out by the US Govt

 
I think that this is a well done piece on the NAIS and the Agricultural  
survey some of us have gotten from the US Government. Please read and decide 
for  
yourself..........
Kris Breyer
 
_More On NAIS and NASS _ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MorganBulletinBoard/message/44193;_ylc=X3oDMTJydWcyNW80BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzcwNzk0NzEEZ3Jwc3BJZ
AMxNzA1MTI2MTU1BG1zZ0lkAzQ0MTkzBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNjkxMDgyODE
-) 
Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:40 pm (PST) 
Copyright 2007 by Mary Zanoni. The following  article
may be distributed solely for personal and
non-commercial use  without prior permission from the
author. Non-commercial distribution and  posting to
assist in disseminating information about NAIS is, in
fact,  encouraged, so long as proper credit is given
and the article is reproduced  without changes or
deletions. Any other distribution or  republication
requires the author’s permission in writing and
requests for  such permission should be directed to the
author at the  address/phone/author at the  addre

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@xxxxxxxxx (mailto:mlz@xxxxxxxx) 

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 won’t 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/giving their  member
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.to make it 
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.www.nass.uswww.nass.usda.www.nass.uswww.nass.usda.<Wwww.nass.
#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
growers’ 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-Choicepoint-<WBR>type consumer profile
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-registratithe NAIS premises-regist
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 antiNAIS 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.

We trade real  labor for fake money to pay fraudulent taxes on stuff we don't
own. How did  it happen? The bible says, "My people perish for a lack of
knowledge." Learn  the truth at the following sites:

Aaron Russo documentary Freedom to  Fascism, watch it here:
_http://video.http://videhttp://vidhttp://video.<WBhttp://vid_ 
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198) 

The  best place for info on the NAIS: www.nonais.org

Stop the North American  Union: _http://stopspp.http://stops_ 
(http://stopspp.com/stopspp/) 






Kris Breyer
http://hometown.aol.com/briarpatcheast/index.html

Other related posts: