I received my Ag Survey a few days ago. I will not be filling out. For those
of you that don't subscribe to the goatandsheepranchers yahoo group, I've
copied an interesting post below.
Renee
Harrison, Idaho
********************************
Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
petaltothemetalfarmpoultry
Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:44 am (PST)
Please read. Mary encourages us to distribute this widely, in entirety.
-Larisa
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 authorâs permission in writing
and requests for such permission should be directed to the author at the
address/phone/e-mail address below.
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 wonât admit it, NASS data is the
foundation of the USDAâs 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 âDo you own
or rent any land?â âDo you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?â
âDo you receive government payments?â The questions appear deliberately
designed to imply that anyone who would answer âyesâ is among those
âREQUIRED BY LAWâ 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 âowns or
rentsâ real estate; some 75 million people in the United States âgrow
vegetables;â and some 60 million people receive âgovernment payments.â
(See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable
gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)
Now, perhaps it is possible that this âwide netâ 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 USDAâs 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 âhorse magazineâ might have been included in
the database.
Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the
subscription lists of âhorse magazinesâ? Why and how are âhorse
magazines,â 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 peopleâs 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: âMany people who donât consider themselves
farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are
important to agriculture.â âWe need your completed form even though you
may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of
agricultural activity.â Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the
threat of the âREQUIRED BY LAWâ language of the envelope:
â âResponse to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.â
â (Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks â the
threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade
stylistic conceit of âquotingâ something to make it appear
extra-important.) One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has referred
to the âdefinition of a farm or ranchâ 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
âfarm.â
Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the
definition of a âfarmâ and the possible legal penalties for not
responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the
definition of âfarmâ 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/index.asp#1.)
Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC § 2204g (d) (2), namely,
that a âperson . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a
question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,â 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 âfarmâ definition.
Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet
the âfarmâ definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS.
She also conceded that the basic definition of a âfarmâ 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 âpoint
valuesâ for particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to
1000, your operation would meet the definition of a âfarm.â 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
âfarm,â 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 âadviseâ 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
âfarmâ 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 âconfidential.â I noted the call-center womanâs
reference to a subscription to a âhorse magazineâ as a source of names,
and asked for some other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growersâ
associations, such as the Wheat Growersâ Association and Barley Growersâ
Association, were examples of sources. I asked for more examples but she was
reluctant to give any, claiming that some are âconfidentialâ and some
are ânot confidential.â She explained the overall process of list
building thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are âpossibilities
of agricultural activity,â NASS incorporates those names into its mailing
list.
We returned to the subject of âpoint valuesâ 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, âbecause it wouldnât be ethical.â
(But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those
Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly
âethical.â 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 statesâ
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 farmerâs 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 ârarely enforcedâ and that if any âproducerâ
âchoosesâ 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, âAbsolutely none.â I asked her
if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASSâs
database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, âAbsolutely
not.â And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2204g (f) (3), âInformation
obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the
statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.â
Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of
questions about Missouriâs 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: âthe mailing was done through a contract
with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.â
I wonât 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 NASSâs 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 donât live by the USDAâs false
code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hilary Duffs homepage with her photos, music, and more.
http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=hilary&ocid=T001MSN30A0701
_______________________________________________
This message is from the blackbelly mailing list
Visit the list's homepage at %http://www.blackbellysheep.info