Get the Story Straight

I think Leo McDonnell, Past President of R-CALF USA, needs to get his story straight. At a recent <a href="http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/090506-mississippi.htm">get together in Mississippi</a> he told the gathered crowd;<br />n<br />n<blockquote>“R-CALF USA does not support the proposed Animal ID system,” he said. “It is hypocrisy to put such a costly and burdensome regulation on the U.S. industry while we lower our import standards to countries that could expose us to higher disease risk.”</blockquote> <br />n<br />nNow I've always been disappointed with R-CALF for there lackluster attitude towards <acronym title="National Animal Identification System">NAIS</acronym>. I thought maybe Leo's statement was a shift from their position to a stronger negative position of this issue. I was wrong. <a href="http://www.r-calfusa.com/Animal%20ID/2006%20Position%20Paper%20Animal%20ID.pdf" >Here we find</a> R-CALF's position on <acronym title="National Animal Identification System">NAIS</acronym>.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>R-CALF USA is committed to <em>working with Congress and the Administration</em> on animal identification to ensure:<br />n<br />nThe industry is fully informed of the expected costs and benefits of any proposed system;<br />n<br />nProducer input is taken into account and weighed fully <em>before any mandatory system</em> is created;<br />n<br />nIf a single tracking database is created and submissions of producer data are mandated, the system is exclusively managed by the federal government in coordination with state and tribal animal health authorities; and<br />n<br />nAny national identification system builds upon the success of existing animal identification systems, and there should be strong support for such systems and pilot projects that comply with national standards and protect producer data.<br />n<br />n(emphasis added are mine)</blockquote><br />n<br />nWhat Leo said, and the above position don't jive. He needs to get his story straight. R-CALF's position is to work with the <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> to ensure before the mandatory system is in place that producers are aware of the costs and can publicly gripe about it. They also want the government to handle all the data, where it can be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests by anybody, and that existing methods of identification be taken into account. How in the hell does this position match the statement "R-CALF USA does not support the proposed Animal ID system?"<br />n<br />nIT DOESN'T!!!!!<br />n<br />nLike I said, R-Calf needs to take a strong position of opposition on this matter and they are dropping the ball. Too bad, they could have really increased their membership with a firm stance on this one. There is a lot of opposition to this out there to capitalize on. R-CALF should be taking advantage of it.<br />n<br />nLeo, maybe you need to review the position on <acronym title="National Animal Identification System">NAIS</acronym> you proposed, you are being a typical politician and talking out of both sides of your mouth.<br />n<br />n<strong>False words do not bring forth fruit. Sophocles</strong><br />n<br />nCross Posted to <a href="http://noanimalid.com">No Mandatory Animal ID</a>