Fifth Amendment

After seventeen long years in the US Court of Claims, Wayne and Jean Hage's taking case has finally been decided ... and it is a great victory for private property rights in America!

The Hages claimed that the federal government (US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) had taken their western ranch, a combination of private base property and federal grazing allotments, through physical and regulatory takings. It is a landmark case because it was the first of its kind to pursue clarity on the property rights owned by ranchers in the west and to seek a precedent that if these rights are taken through grazing and environmental regulations, then the government must pay just compensation.

The court has decided that the Hages owned the water rights and the 1866 ditch rights of ways on the federal grazing allotments, and the range improvements the Hage's constructed on the federal lands. The court has ruled that although the government has the right to authorize grazing and cancel grazing permits, it does not have the right to prevent the ranchers from accessing their water rights on federal lands. It has ruled that regulatory and physical takings occurred, and therefore the government owes the estates of Wayne and Jean Hage just compensation and attorney's fees.

The members of Stewards of the Range, especially those who have been supporting this effort for the past 17 years, are directly responsible for ensuring this case endured the long battle. Without the Stewards members, this landmark decision would not be written in case law. The critical precedent and deterrent is now set that when land management agencies attempt to regulate away private property, they risk invoking a taking for which they must pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

* Please strip Section 121 from the draft Farm Bill. The law barring the USDA from using mandatory animal identification to implement COOL should not be changed, and NAIS should not be added to the Farm Bill.

* Country of Origin Labeling can and should be implemented without mandatory animal identification

* Requiring all imported livestock to be identified with a country of origin marking is enough to implement COOL

* Requiring U.S. cattle producers to individually identify all domestic cattle to prove their eligibility for a USA label is not necessary for COOL.

* Using mandatory animal identification to implement COOL would impose heavy burdens on American farmers and ranchers, in both time and money. NAIS will drive independent ranches and farms in America out of business.

* The purpose of COOL is to provide information so that consumers can choose whether to buy domestic or foreign products and, as a hoped-for result, providing American farmers and ranchers with economic rewards for raising food in this country.

* Mandatory animal identification would harm American farmers and ranchers, contrary to the goal of COOL.

* The right to know where our food comes from will be an empty right if it is purchased at the price of a mandatory animal identification system, such as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). If mandatory animal ID is implemented, consumers would be fooled into believing that they were supporting American farmers and ranchers through the "Made in the USA" label. Yet more and more of the food labeled that way would be raised by international corporations that are willing and able to comply with NAIS. Back to summary...

SAMPLE LETTER OR EMAIL Personalize for the greatest impact

If you use email, be sure to put a clear subject line, such as "Strip Section 121 from the Draft Farm Bill"

Dear Chairman Boswell and Members of the Committee:

I ask that you strip Section 121 from the draft Farm Bill. The law barring the USDA from using mandatory animal identification to implement Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) should not be changed, and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) should not be added to the Farm Bill.

I am a _______ (farmer, consumer, .. Tell them a few sentences about yourself and why you care about this issue)

COOL can be implemented simply by requiring all imported livestock to be identified with a country of origin marking, which is already a requirement for cattle imported from Mexico or Canada. Requiring U.S. cattle producers to individually identify all domestic cattle to prove their eligibility for a USA label is simply not necessary. Using mandatory animal identification to implement COOL will impose heavy burdens on American farmers and ranchers, in both time and money. NAIS will drive independent ranches and farms in America out of business.

The purpose of COOL is to provide information so that consumers can choose whether to buy domestic or foreign products and, as a hoped-for result, providing American farmers and ranchers with economic rewards for raising food in this country. Mandatory animal identification will harm all Americans' rights and our economy. Mandatory animal identification will cancel out the goals of COOL.

The right to know where our food comes from will be an empty right if it is purchased at the price of a mandatory animal identification program such as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). If NAIS is implemented, consumers will be fooled into believing that they were supporting American farmers and ranchers through the "Made in the USA" label. Yet more and more of the food labeled that way would be raised by international corporations that are willing and able to comply with NAIS.

Please strip Section 121 from the draft Farm Bill, and keep NAIS out of the Farm Bill.

Sincerely,

Name
Address
City, State Zip
Email ( if you have it)
Back to summary...

"You probably wonder what our grassroots group has done these past few months"

You probably wonder what our grassroots group has done these past few months in the fight against the National Animal Identification System. We would prefer not to call our newsletters "Press Releases" as those words have become so abused and many times the information released really is not news worthy at all. "Alerts" usually come in colors these days and "action" is something that happens in Hollywood. So, here are just a few updates on how quickly we are spreading and the effectiveness of one local grassroots group.

Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (Based in Southern Illinois. Founded 2008. Active Membership: >100 Contacts: Approximately 4600): -------

Our (Sharon's) almost adult daughter just moved out abruptly. You might be wondering what that has to do with NAIS. Well the main issue was "She wanted her Freedom". One cool morning while milking the goats, I realized something – most of us do not realize we have our Freedom already. We stand patiently waiting for someone, any one, to "give us" our freedom.

In our fight to halt the National Animal Identification System, we turn to National groups that are sometimes based geographically very far from where we live. We send them money and mention they have our support. Then we turn away and say "I can't wait until they achieve my goal!" We send letters to legislators asking them to "work for our freedom", while we focus on some other issue. We leave control in their hands and never demand accountability.

In a sense we become the "foot soldiers" expecting to be commanded by the "Generals" – not sure if we should take action on our own or in some instances afraid to question motives or strategy. We forget that ultimately it was the blood of the fallen Minutemen that won the very freedom for us we so desperately "want someone to give to us"; the generals retired to the hills to oversee the battle while sipping purloined tea.

I personally have fallen into this trap very recently. From a distance, I forgot the cardinal rule of information gathering - "Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear." I pinned my hopes on someone else tackling the USDA. Members have called questioning the wisdom of IICFA's decision to support an "action" without fully investigating the facts.

For posted answers to the most FAQ's about the recent event feel free to review the release of FTCLDF on this issue:

I would like to take this moment to apologize to all of our Members. I should have research more thoroughly all of the information presented, called the organization in question, and fully clarified what really was happening. Even now questions are raised on "what is really going on". We are now ready to move beyond this. It is time to say "What next?" and not "What if?"

Our greatest successes occurred the first half of the year when we participated in face-to-face talks with Senators and Representatives. Once a legislator or lobbying group understands that you are a real person, they are more likely to listen. Sue, I and 5 other members found Springfield to be the perfect place to present our information. Beside the obvious fact that the legislators were there – their staffs were there. Numerous times we were pointed to "so-and-so" or guided to who was "really making decisions". It worked and amazingly we didn't even need any other "Big" groups to pave the way for us.

Get H.B. 5776 passed in the fall Have Mr. Radar's case reviewed Attempt to revoke the Belleville, Illinois Ordinance (Restricting the number of Bee Keepers per Ward)

We would love to know what other groups are working on in their States/Counties. By informing one another of what is working and staying in touch, we will each become a stronger group in our fight against NAIS.

Sharon Sabo (Southern Region) 618-458-7745
Sue Diederich (Northern Region)847-873-0251

Hyannis , NE---The Grant County Natural Resources Committee hosted an informational meeting on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in Hyannis on June 23rd. Over fifty area ranchers and six members of the Board of Directors of Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska were in attendance to learn from the experts and to discuss with the public the scope of the NAIS program.

Tanya Storer of Whitman introduced speakers and fielded questions from those in attendance. The meeting was broadcast on KSDZ radio and is archived on their website.

The first speaker, Dr. Darrell Haney, a veterinarian with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, talked about the need for an identification program and some of the problems he has encountered in efforts to track diseased animals which have entered Nebraska . Haney profiled three separate cases involving bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in animals which were sold several times and which entered Nebraska and his jurisdiction. Haney explained that brand inspectors record only the most recent brand when inspecting an animal. This makes if difficult to have an effective tracking system if an animal is sold repeatedly, he explained.

The second speaker was Ray Cunio, a resident of Franklin County, Missouri who serves on the planning commission there and on the Board of Farm Bureau. Cunio is a strong advocate of private property rights. Cunio spoke about the enormity of the National Animal ID project, and he explained that it is designed to track 29 separate animal groups (poultry, aquatic and mammalian). The scope of NAIS includes three phases. The first phase would identify the premises (place) the livestock operation uses. Phase two includes individual identification for each animal on a premises (except poultry and fish, which are permitted a “group” ID). Phase three involves the reporting of separate events for each of the animals. Cunio is most troubled by the requirements of phase three since it imposes onerous reporting obligations on the owner of each animal.

Cunio explained that anytime an animal is removed from your premises you have a reportable event. Cunio explained, “If you take your horse to the neighbor’s branding you are comingling animals and that is a reportable event (for both parties involved). You also experience a reportable event if your cattle cross to the neighbor’s pasture when the gate gets open. And each of the animal tag numbers would be required to be reported.” Cunio concluded. Such reports would be due within twenty-four hours.

Several states have received grants from USDA to implement premises ID locally. These grants obligate the states to benchmarks of participation by farmers and ranchers In states where voluntary participation has lagged, the authorities have coerced producers to sign up for premises ID by requiring it for participation in state-sanctioned fairs, drought assistance programs, or dairy cooperatives—which belies the “voluntary” nature of the act. While Cunio spoke strongly in opposition to NAIS, he noted that only mandatory ID will be effective against disease and that the “voluntary” phase of the program will become mandatory after most producers have signed up for voluntary ID. At that time any premiums associated with tag, age-verified, or premises-identified cattle will be nullified and the entire cost of the program will be imposed on the producers. Costs would include the tags, tag readers, and labor associated with reporting the data. These costs are not insignificant in a low-margin business like the cattle business.

Cunio believes that there will be a “massive exit” from the cow-calf portion of animal agriculture if the program becomes mandatory. “The paperwork associated with full compliance will drive many older and marginal producers from the industry, leaving it in the hands of large producers or corporate interests.”

Cunio commended the Independent Cattlmen of Nebraska for spearheading the passage of LB 632 during the 2008 Legislative session which requires that the state of Nebraska maintain a voluntary program which permits producers to withdraw from NAIS on their request. Missouri producers also tried to implement a similar bill but that effort lost by one vote. On the national level, Cunio argued that producers need to contact their Senators and Representatives to oppose resolutions introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro to require any producer who sells meat products through the school lunch program to be in compliance with NAIS.

The evening’s final speaker was Dr. Roger McEowen, Director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University . Dr. McEowen touched on the legal issues associated with NAIS. McEowen stated that the primary driving forces behind the movement for NAIS were large corporate agri-business interests and tag manufacturers (who received government grants to develop the implantable Radio Frequency I.D. chip systems). McEowen believes that the motivating factor for agri-business is the ability to transfer liability back to the original owner of any livestock in cases where, for example, a consumer becomes sick from an animal product. It would then be the responsibility of that original owner to prove that he was not the source of disease or infection associated with a product which would be an extremely costly legal exercise. Ultimate liability will certainly reside with the cow-calf producer, despite the fact that most animals are out of the control of that individual for months or years after they leave the original ranch. Agribusiness also supports the mandatory national identification system because it could open specific export markets to the products and bring US policy in line with world interests.

Initial plans for the National Animal Identification program were in place long before the discovery of a BSE infected cow in December, 2003, but that case was used to give momentum to the push for a national ID program.

McEowen pointed out that an individual who voluntarily enters into an ID program has waived constitutional rights for a purpose, but mandatory programs entitle all individuals to full constitutional rights. McEowen explained how NAIS violates the Bill of Rights in several critical areas. He reported that attorneys in Lancaster County , Pennsylvania , for example, are representing the large Amish population who are challenging NAIS on religious grounds. Religious exemptions for any individuals would gut the intent of the law, but religious interests are protected by the constitution.

Among the several other Constitutional issues of concern with NAIS, McEowen also mentioned the right to be protected from “unreasonable search and seizure” and the question of whether radio frequency identification systems and the use of global positioning systems to locate cattle would be unlawfully intrusive. If NAIS is adopted McEowen said you can reasonably ask, “Why are you not required to report leaving your home with a car or gun (which are controlled by state and federal governments, and both of which can be deadly instruments) but you would have to file a report if you rode your horse to the neighbors, or if you took your calf to the vets?”

Should NAIS become mandatory in the United States , it is essential that each producer strictly follow guidelines set up by the government to protect his farm or ranch against liability. McEowen also agreed that there would be a significant exit from the livestock industry of older and smaller individuals because of the reporting requirements of NAIS.

Ironically, this would lead to more consolidation of animals in larger herds, which increases the risk of disease. Reduction of disease is purported to be the first aim of the NAIS program.

McEowen finished by issuing a list of thought-provoking questions which should be asked by each farm or ranch operator of their state officials. The devil is in the details and McEowen covered these thoroughly. McEowen can be reached through his website at the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation (www.calt.iastate.edu)

Ranch operations need to carefully consider entering a premises identification program before doing so because they may be imposing obligations upon themselves which they do not understand. For further information contact Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska at Box 241 , Hyannis , NE 69350 or through (www.independentcattlemen.com).

The Warrior Grannys are throwing a monkey wrench in the propaganda the Animal Rights Activists including the USDA, are feeding the public we are fighting MAD and are taking on the job of letting the public know the facts.

Please Sign ESA Letter to Senate

By now you should have received a package in the mail asking you to sign a letter we are sending to key leaders in the Senate working on Endangered Species Act legislation. If you have already signed and returned the letter, thank you.

If you have not, would you please read the letter below and consider signing it and returning it to us immediately. We anticipate several bills to be introduced in the Senate in the very near future. We want to have as many signatures as soon as possible to ensure Senate leaders have an opportunity to consider the position of those most affected by this devastating law.

The message in this letter is straightforward. Property Rights, not the Endangered Species Act, should be considered first. It calls for repeal of the ESA. It is a message that those inside the beltway are not willing to say, although most agree repeal is the right thing to do. It is the same message we sent to the House early this year, which helped change the debate in favor of landowners.

In just a few short weeks since this package was mailed, we have already gathered over 700 signatures, with more coming in each day. Several people are sending the letter out to other individuals and organization's membership encouraging them to sign with us. The more signers we have, the more of an impact this message will have on the Senate. Any help you can give to accomplish this is appreciated.

Also attached is an analysis of HR 3824 that every landowner needs to read, and a copy of the press release we have sent to key media contacts on this issue.

If you have not already signed this letter and agree with the position stated, please let us know by clicking the signature link at the end of the letter and we will add your name to the list that will be delivered to specific members of the U.S. Senate.

We appreciate your help and support.

Dan Byfield, President American Land Foundation and Liberty Matters

Margaret Byfield, Executive Director Stewards of the Range and VP Liberty Matters

Marty McElhaney, Editor McElhaney Report and Director Liberty Matters.

Letter to Senate Leaders

The Honorable James Inhofe, Chairman

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Dear Senator Inhofe,

The Endangered Species Act is a fundamentally flawed law that because of its power makes landowners the enemy of the environment. Why do you continue to support the ESA?

The ESA was never intended to protect species. It was specifically created so government could regulate private property. It's that simple. Any other excuse for this law is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The Endangered Species Act does not save species; it regulates individual landowners.

Currently, over 80 percent of all listed species are on private land, yet in more than 30 years fewer than six percent of the 1,800-plus species listed as endangered or threatened have been removed from the list. Most of those were removed because they were already extinct or wrongly listed. The only accomplishments of the ESA have been wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and wiping out the livelihoods of thousands of hard working Americans.

If you truly believe species need to be recovered, then you would throw this law out. No amount of incremental changes, pubic/private partnerships, or sound science rhetoric can fix this law.

Congress needs to revisit the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who believed the ownership of property must be secured from government intervention for liberty to exist. Take that security away through environmental laws like the ESA, and not only is liberty not secure, it no longer exists. You only have to look at the past 30 years since the enactment of the ESA to see what it has produced - the dramatic destruction of property rights and the failure to recover species.

Private property rights must come first. Private property sets us apart from every nation in the world by creating wealth, inspiring pride, feeding the nation, and even providing habitat for all species. Reauthorizing a law that destroys wealth, creates disincentives, punishes honest, hard working individuals, and doesn't even accomplish what it purports to do, is beyond belief.

By regulating through command and control you create antagonism with landowners with no desire or incentive to protect species. Do the right thing. Eliminate the current ESA and private property will then save endangered species.

Property rights, not the Endangered Species Act, should be protected first.

Sincerely,

Click here to sign the letter

cc: U.S. Senator Mike Crapo

U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton

Who We are Fighting

Environmentalism is not about saving the Earth for people, but from them. Environmentalists, the self-proclaimed variety, are merely using "saving the environment" as a stalking horse to destroy modern civilization … but you don't have to take our word for it … "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." Judi Bari, Earth First! "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits ... [C]limate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister. "We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists, and their projects…[W]e must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land." Dave Foreman, "Confessions of an Eco Warrior," 1991. Dave Foreman's 1991 vision of a world, known as The Wildlands Project, is reality today. Since 1991, millions of acres of the United States have been placed out of reach of ordinary Americans. If the pace continues unabated, where will our children and grandchildren live in 2056?

Go to

to find out.