Not registering

MADISON
— The May 1 deadline for Wisconsin dairy farmers to register their premises under threat of not having their milk-shipping licenses renewed is on hold.

A standing-room-only crowd of about 75 people on April 25 voiced their discontent and heard an update about the premises registration issue. A group of Wisconsin farmers — mostly dairy producers — have expressed concerns about the mandatory premises program and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's plan to not renew dairy farm licenses for unregistered farms.

Concerns expressed at the March DATCP board meeting prompted formation of a board subcommittee and the informational meeting. Legislators, dairy farmers and other invited guests were asked for opinions about the issue.

Two days after the April 25 meeting, DATCP officials issued a statement saying dairy plant operators should continue to pick up milk from producers even after the May 1 deadline.

'You may continue to pick up milk from licensed producers until and unless the department specifically informs you that the producer's license has been suspended,' DATCP official Tom Leitzke wrote in a memo to dairy plant operators. 'The department is currently reviewing its next steps and has not yet taken any action to suspend milk producer licenses for failure to comply with the livestock premises registration law. However, you should continue to advise your patrons to register their premises as required under the (law).' Rod Nilsestuen, DATCP secretary, used the recent Clark County hog pseudorabies outbreak as an example of how the premises registration program could be used. He said because all farms weren't registered in the outbreak area, DATCP officials had to go door-to-door to find out which producers had hogs on their farms.

'The idea is to know where species of livestock are located, so in case of an outbreak — like pseudorabies this month — our veterinarians can find the farms and determine if there's a problem, test and isolate those animals from the rest of the herd, and minimize losses and the shutdown of markets to the rest of the states and beyond,' Mr. Nilsestuen said. 'Without this program, our markets can be put in jeopardy. Millions of dollars for Wisconsin agriculture are at stake here.'

Several dairy farmers said they didn't want to be forced to register their premises, and that state officials already have enough information about their farms. Rep. Al Ott, R-Forest Junction, called the farmers 'selfish' for thinking about themselves and not what's best for the state's agricultural industry.

'As far as I'm concerned, anything but full compliance is unacceptable,' Rep. Ott said. 'You talk about your personal feelings and violating your rights on this. All I can think about is the selfishness that your position presents. It's very selfish to put the state of Wisconsin at risk because you don't want to have a (premises) number.

'Do you want us to spend money foolishly, going up and down the road to find where these animals are when we could do it more effectively and at a lower cost? You come in here and expect the state of Wisconsin to roll over just because you don't want a premises ID and risk the rest of the state, the economic value, the national and international marketplaces. I think that is wrong. I'm offended that you can't recognize that we're trying to protect you all.'

Rep. Barbara Gronemus, D-Whitehall, was the primary sponsor of the premises registration law passed in 2004. She said DATCP staff interpreted the law differently than she intended.

'I made a grave mistake when I assumed that the department of agriculture would be the friend of the farmer when it came to this premises registration (law),' Rep. Gronemus said. 'I never intended to have the department uses premises registration to determine who were going to be the producers of the dairy industry in our state. I never thought that you would use that heavy-handed method that has become a public issue now.' Mark Brothen, a Viroqua dairy farmer, said the mandatory premises registration program supersedes the federal government's voluntary animal-identification program.

'The USDA has indicated that participation in the (National Animal Identification System) is voluntary and that producers can opt not to participate,' Mr. Brothen said. 'This means to me that I cannot be penalized for refusing to place a voluntary premises code on my farm or property.'

He criticized state officials for using a federal grant to run the premises registration program. 'The ag department has a conflict of interest — $1.7 million has been allocated (to Wisconsin) for the program for fiscal year 2007,' Mr. Brothen said. 'How many pieces of silver must we accept, Mr. Nilsestuen?' Jim Matson, a DATCP attorney, said the state's premises registration program isn't preempted by federal law. 'We believe it is, on its face, a mandatory law and there are certain sanctions that apply,' Mr. Matson said. Mike Dummer, DATCP board chairman, said the DATCP board and agency officials would consider the meeting comments, but the agency has a responsibility to implement the law.

'It's not a maybe-we-should-or-shouldn't deal,' he said. 'This agency has responsibilities to the Legislature. This rule was mandatory by Jan. 1, 2006, and this is how long we've continued to extend an outreach and education effort. In truth, (the Legislature) could confront the agency and say you are way past your deadline.

'As an agency, where do we go? We're caught between the Legislature telling us what to do and what the producers are saying are their concerns and issues. Somehow we have to make the call, and it's not going to be popular with everyone. At some point we won't have the option of procrastinating. At some point we have to draw a line in the sand.'

Deb Reinhart, Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium chairwoman, said state officials should 'continue to work to make all producers find ways to be in compliance.'

'We do not want a disaster dictating how we manage our industry,' Ms. Reinhart said. 'I have been told by our state vet that if we would have a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Florida, that in two weeks nothing would move on or off my dairy farm. I get paid for what I produce on my dairy. If I cannot feed my cows or ship my milk, I no longer have a livelihood. I believe to make premises registration no longer mandatory would be a grave mistake.'

John Peck, Family Farm Defenders executive director, said the group is preparing for legal action against the state if farmers are forced against their will to apply for a premises registration number.

About the survey

http://breederville.com/auction/forumtopic.php?topic=58&boardid=5
USDA’s Snooping Machine

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is looking more and more like the Big Brother government that has infected Washington in recent years. The “2006 Agricultural Identification Survey,” recently mailed to thousands of private landowners, is a good example.

The instructions for the questionnaire say “Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.” Title 7 of the U.S. Code is an enormous document, containing 105 chapters, each of which is a lengthy book unto itself. To find the specific requirement, a person would have to read all the way to Chapter 55, Section 2204g, to discover that a person who falsifies an answer to the questions asked may be fined $500; a person who fails or refuses to answer may be fined $100.

The questionnaire asks 22 multi-part questions. The USDA wants to know what is on the privately owned land, how it is used, if there are animals on the land, and the variety and quantity of each. The agency wants to know if the owner has any contracts that affect the land or produce revenue, and how much total revenue the land produces.

Does the collection of this information – under penalty of law – by the U.S. government violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects ... shall not be violated ...” without a warrant? This USDA survey is an infringement on the Fourth Amendment right of private landowners to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers and effects.” Why does the government need this information?

Actually, this Agriculture Survey was authorized by a 1997 law that was enacted to relieve the U.S. Census Bureau from collecting farm data, which had been an expanding part of its mission for several years. The Census Bureau is authorized by the Constitution to simply count the citizens every 10 years in order to maintain balanced congressional representation. Like all bureaucracies, however, mission-creep has transformed the Census Bureau into a national snooping machine.

According to the 1997 law, the Agriculture Survey was supposed to be taken in 1998 and every five years thereafter. If a survey was taken in 1998, or 2003, it certainly missed thousands of landowners who received this 2006 survey, which should not be taken until 2008.

It may be purely coincidental that the “Premises Registration” required by the National Animal Identification System, or NAIS, is precisely the same information that is solicited on the 2006 Agriculture Survey form. Until 2006, the NAIS was intended, and expected, to be mandatory, beginning with premises registration by 2007. Affected landowners and small farmers raised such a ruckus, that the USDA had to back down and promise that the NAIS would be voluntary.

Organizations such as the Liberty Ark Coalition, nonais.org, stopanimalid.org and dozens of Internet groups have sprung up across the country in opposition the NAIS and to similar programs being developed at the state level using funds provided by the USDA.

The NAIS was developed by large meatpackers and technology manufacturers to enhance export markets. It was sold to the public as a public-safety program to track and trace-back the source of any animal sickness. The program fell apart when analyzed by the people who would be forced to comply with it, and the USDA has been forced to publicly abandon its plan to make the program mandatory.

Privately, however, the USDA is using all the tools it can muster to impose this animal identification program. The agency has provided funding to states that develop a mandatory program and has endorsed certain types of electronic technology – produced by the companies that helped develop the original program. Now, coincidentally, comes this 2006 Agriculture Survey, two years ahead of schedule, which requires – under penalty of law – the same information that the NAIS program cannot compel, since it is now voluntary, rather than mandatory.

Some landowners will simply ignore the questionnaire, pay the $100 fine and consider it to be an expense of keeping the government out of their business. Some folks may try to avoid the fine and maintain their Fourth Amendment rights by responding to each and every question with, “It’s none of your damn business,” and mailing the form to the USDA by the Jan. 29 deadline.

It is a sad state of affairs when Congress has so little concern for the U.S. Constitution that it allows this kind of abuse by federal agencies. This 2006 Agriculture Survey and the NAIS are but small examples of disrespect for the constitutional rights of all Americans. Congress will change its collective attitude, however, only when required to do so by the voters.

>>> hog pseudorabies outbreak <<<<

http://breederville.com/auction/forumtopic.php?topic=11&boardid=5
Henshaw Incident
Alert - National — walterj 8:24 am

It is confirmed. As many of you know from first reading in the comments of articles here on NoNAIS.org and then in the discussion lists the USDA has slaughtered a large number of hogs at the Henshaw family’s place in Virginia. This is the nightmare abuse of power by the government we have all been fearing which is discussed starting on page 31 of the Government Accounting Office (GAO) document 05-214 regarding depopulation.

The claim is that the USDA did this because of Pseudorabies, yet the government did not follow it’s own standard operating procedures of testing as outlined in the USDA’s own documents. The USDA spilled bodily fluids from the slaughtered pigs all over the road where any disease could be transmitted to other farms and other animals. Slaughter is not required for testing for Pseudorabies. These issues seriously puts into question the validity of the disease claim and/or the competence of the government officials involved.

Please do not confuse Pseudorabies (a disease of livestock which does not infect humans) with the common disease of Rabies which is a totally different disease. By using the excuse of Pseudorabies, which sounds like Rabies, the government has already succeeded in confusing some people as to the disease. This may be the purpose in choosing that disease as the excuse.

Also note that pigs survive Pseudorabies and can go onto become healthy animals that can be used for food and breeding stock. Slaughter is neither necessary nor adviseable. On top of that, Pseudorabies is a disease that is virtually eradicated making an excessive, violent reaction like this not only unnecessary but irrational.

Here are some other interesting links about Pseudorabies you may want to read for background information:
Pseudorabies quick explanation (Wikipedia)
Pseudorabies Disease (Merck Manual)
Pseudorabies Eradication (USDA)
Depopulation Procedures (USDA)
Pseudorabies Q&A (USDA).

If you Google remember that it is all one word “Pseudorabies”.

The behavior of the government agents in the Henshaw case, the abuse of the family’s rights the destruction of private property, the failure to follow procedure and the killing of pets that were completely separate from the herd all suggests that there may be a lot more here than meets the eye.

This week several people I trust have visited with Cynthia and Danny Henshaw to see the destruction for themselves. You can read Sue Karber’s comments here about her visit to the Henshaw place. There are now reports of several other similar cases but no details yet. Below is a report on the situation from Jane Williams.

-WalterJ

[Prepared Sept. 27th for publication in the November 2006 “American Family Voice”]
Hogs Massacred in Virginia
Who’s Animals are Next

By Jane Williams

Gladstone, Virginia: At 5:00 AM on September 12, 2006, Cindi and Danny Henshaw were awakened by their local Virginia game warden, who arrested Danny on an apparently trumped up Class 2 Misdemeanor charge and took him from his Willis River Hunting preserve for supposedly, “operating a mammalian hunting enclosure without a permit.” As soon as Danny was out of the way, 9 SUV’s and pickups, 4 wheelers, and numerous heavily armed agents entered the Henshaw property with a Quarantine Order and began shooting Henshaw’s hogs and sheep with 12 gauge shotguns. Some 270 shell casings were also found.

Individuals participating in the attack were Virginia game wardens, USDA employees, and Virginia Department of Agriculture employees. At the Henshaw’s farm, the Virginia State Veterinarian appeared to be in charge. Some of the invaders wore jeans and sweat shirts with USDA lettering. Others wore white clothing that appeared to be hazardous materials suits. These were probably Virginia Department of Agriculture employees. They sure weren’t hunters, since they mostly used shotguns to kill the livestock and could not hit the scurrying young pigs. Danny was released from custody in 2 hours and allowed to return to the farm where he and Cindi were controlled around the clock by armed guards from September 12th through September 22nd.

A command center had been set up and another raid was being conducted near Farmville in Cumberland County, Virginia, at the same time [details not available on Sept. 27th]. On September 22nd, the attackers withdrew after killing Henshaw’s sheep and at least 79 hogs. Animals were starved to trick them into the open as they searched for food.

On September 26th, the Henshaws still knew little about why their hunting operation was attacked. About all they knew was that an agent supposedly reported that he had hunted at their reserve in May and, according to the agent, the hog that he shot had probably been infected with pseudorabies. The agent returned on September 9th and killed another hog that supposedly tested positive for pseudorabies. The Henshaws were not provided with any test reports. [It is doubtful that blood from a hog shot at the hunting reserve would have been viable for testing because of the time lapse from the death of the animal and the testing of the blood unless proper refrigeration techniques were used.] Danny and Cindi were held under armed guard around the clock and not allowed to move around to see what was taking place.

Attachments to the Quarantine Order stated that Henshaws would be charged for the costs of the massacre, including man hours, and the incineration of their animals. The hogs that were shot were apparently not tested, but their carcasses were loaded on trailers and hauled away for incineration as blood poured through the slats as the trailers rolled down the road. [On September 27th, the Henshaws were informed that blood from 15 of the slaughtered hogs had tested positive for pseudo rabies. Information about testing will be posted at a later date.] The Henshaws were prevented by armed guards from entering what the agents called, “the compound,” where the animals were being slaughtered. Two 5 ½ year old pet hogs that as babies had been bottle fed in their home from the time the pigs were 3 days old were housed on property with a separate deed from the hunting preserve. They were shot in their pen and their bleeding carcasses were dragged across the driveway where they had once followed the Henshaws around like pet dogs.

On September 22nd, the agents departed because they decided that they could not kill all of the hogs. Danny agreed to feed the hogs corn until they were de-stressed and then kill the remaining hogs. He would have agreed to anything to get the gun slingers off of his property. He was order not to do anything with the pigs other than feed them. That included treating wounded pigs and drawing blood for testing.. The Quarantine Order stated that the herd must be eradicated within 15 days to prevent the State of Virginia from loosing its “pseudorabies free status”.

Arkansas regulations allow 180 days for sell out for slaughter before an order of mandatory destruction is issued. Pseudorabies infected hogs are safe for human consumption. The Henshaws should have been allowed to sell their hogs for slaughter, if pseudorabies had been detected, but they were not allowed to test, confirm the presence of pseudorabies, or sell their hogs. They were only allowed to listen to the gunshots and hear the screaming, wounded, dying hogs.

Danny Henshaw is a nationally known archer (consistently ranking in the top 10 in the US), a highly respected hunter, a well known hunting film maker, and sought after hunting guide. He and Cindi had operated their hunting preserve for 16 years, and it had been grand-fathered in by the Commonwealth’s Attorney to grant it “status” as new Virginia regulations were enacted. Danny had worked as an undercover narcotics agent and said that this attack goes well beyond his experience as a law officer. Willis River Hunting, located near Gladstone, Virginia, offered guided hunting trips for Russian boar, trophy rams, and sheep. No adult animals remain at Willis River Hunting. The massacre destroyed the Henshaw’s primary business. They offer turkey hunts in Virginia and Kansas and deer hunts in Virginia and Kansas. Danny has even taken some rather famous Governor Clinton security guards turkey hunting and participated in making hunting films in Oklahoma.

USDA Quotes on Pseudorabies

“Pseudorabies is a viral disease most prevalent in swine, often causing newborn piglets to die. Older pigs can survive infection, becoming carriers of the pseudorabies virus for life. Other animals infected from swine die from pseudorabies, which is also known as Aujeszky’s disease and “mad itch.” Infected cattle and sheep can first show signs of pseudorabies by scratching and biting themselves. In dogs and cats, pseudorabies can cause sudden death. The virus does not cause illness in humans.” “Pseudorabies is a disease of swine that can also affect cattle, horses, dogs, cats, sheep, and goats. The disease is caused by pseudorabies virus (PRV), an extremely contagious herpes virus that causes reproductive problems, including abortion, stillbirths, and even occasional death losses in breeding and finishing hogs.” “ The virus has never been shown to be contagious to humans, not even to people working on farms with many PRV-infected animals.” “PRV is primarily spread through direct animal-to-animal (or nose-to-nose) contact between an infected and shedding pig and a non-infected pig. If present on inanimate objects, such as boots, clothing, feed, trucks, and equipment, the virus can also spread from herd to herd and farm to farm.”

“Pseudorabies can be prevented primarily through good, tight biosecurity, a sound vaccination program, and thorough, meticulous management with disease control and prevention in mind.” “PRV is known to have existed in the United States for at least 150 years.” “USDA established a voluntary eradication program for pseudorabies in the United States in 1989. The program is cooperative in nature and involves Federal, State, and industry participation. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) coordinates the national pseudorabies eradication program, State governments promulgate and enforce the intrastate regulations, and producers contribute by having their herds tested and instituting control and eradication measures. The program’s primary activities include surveillance, herd monitoring, and herd cleanup.” “Currently, all 50 States are considered free of PRV in commercial production swine herds, those herds which have adequate measures in place to prevent contact and potential infection from feral and transitional production swine, known potential carriers of the PRV virus.” “No commercial production herds have been found to be infected with PRV since early 2003. Sporadic infections have been found in transitional production herds, those swine which are captured feral swine, or have the potential to come in contact with feral swine. Any infected transitional herds have been promptly depopulated when found, and intense epidemiological investigations have been conducted to ascertain that no viral spread to commercial production swine has occurred.”
-USDA documents [1, 2]

Depopulation

Depopulation is slaughtering all animals supposedly affected with the disease or who are susceptible to the disease (any disease), in this case pseudorabies. All hogs are susceptible to pseudorabies. The armed agents were not able to kill all of the young pigs. Young pigs affected with pseudorabies would have been extremely easy to kill since they are weak and usually dying. Henshaws pigs ran too fast for the attackers to be able to shoot all of them. Henshaws reported that their hogs were robust and healthy. Their sows had not had conception problems, still births, or miscarriages. Young pigs had not been sick or dying.

Pseudorabies testing regulations in Arkansas require testing of 25 animals, or testing all animals on farms with smaller populations every 6 months. Larger hog operations need test only 27 if holding 100-200 head, 28 if holding 201-999 head, or 29 if holding 1000 or more head to be certified a pseudorabies free herd. Once again the small producer faces an economic disadvantage because of this costly testing requirement. This writer has not found any sale barn owner who has ever known of a pseudorabies positive test in Arkansas. Hogs can not be sold legally in Arkansas without blood being drawn by a technician or veterinarian unless the hog farm has been certified pseudorabies free. This testing requirement has caused most sale barns to no longer sell hogs because of the costs and difficulty having a veterinarian on site to draw blood. It has also caused most back yard hog producers to cease raising hogs because of the expense and difficulty involved in meeting the testing requirements. Complete swine regulations can be found at HYPERLINK http://www.arlpc.org www.arlpc.org under regulations. In 1987, when the Upjohn Company developed Tolvid pseudorabies vaccine was approved, the Upjohn Company stated that 8% of the US hog population was affected by the virus. In 2006, the National Pork Producers Council announced that the United States was free of pseudorabies.

In the United States today, any animal owner might experience the same depopulation tactics that the Henshaws just experienced. Regulations vary from state to state. Animal owners might be paid a portion of what the killed animals were worth. In most states, no warrant is required to enter the farm and tests are not required to confirm a disease. The Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission regulations lay out specific guidelines for quarantine and depopulation that all animal owners should study. The Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association is proposing legislation to be considered by the 2007 General Assembly that would prevent a reenactment of the Virginia massacre in this state.

END

You can find additional discussion on NoNAIS.org about this incident in the comments of the following articles:

Cindi Henshaw’s initial letter to NoNAIS.org
Failice Sheep Disease Free comments
Sue Karber’s report from visit with the Henshaws
Storm Alert - Bill Oreilly
Definition of Terrorism
VA NAIS Info Meeting 9/11
MO Meetings 9/19

I am closing those articles to comments to focus the discussion here to keep it all together.

Also of interest is this article on the HenWhisperer’s blog.

In addition to the abuse of the depopulation there is question of the possibility that the EPA and similar government agencies may be using this as an excuse to depopulate small farms along rivers as a means of controlling pollutants. The irony there is one flooding of the septic fields of the big factory ‘farms’ will cause more damage to our waterways than all the small farms put together never mind the ongoing leakage from the big ‘farms’.

Another possibility that has occurred to me is that this sort of abuse may used to take people’s property and eliminate competition. I have a cousin who’s farm was taken by the town for a minor road adjustment. Turns out that the people who were really behind the move were developers who wanted my cousin’s prime agricultural fields for development. They got it for a song using eminent domain. The Henshaw Incident could be a similar tactic by unscrupulous people who would use governmental power for their own gain.

A big question is why is the media ignoring this story. This is very similar to what is happening with NAIS - the government is succeeding in keeping most people ignorant of the situation. The USDA has kept their plans for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) very low key trying to involve only the large stakeholders. We can fight that news blanket - Get the word out to blogs and discussion lists. Use the power of the internet. The situation has been confirmed so spread the news. You can refer people back to this article for confirmation. Just copy and paste the link from your browser.

Next write letters to your state and Congressional representatives (see the Contacts section of the right sidebar), the USDA and letters to the editor of your local newspapers. Get the word out while we still have the right to talk about these sorts of abuses of governmental power. Fight back now, not just for the Henshaws but because you could be next.

-WalterJ
Sugar Mountain Farm
in Vermont

Additional related reading on NoNAIS.org:
Deadly Euphemisms
Mafia Style Voluntary
Govi Double Speak

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.