Letter to the Editor from the Equine
Species Working Group
Opinions and speculation about the National Animal Identification
System (NAIS) and the Equine Species Working Group’s (ESWG) role in
the system’s development are complicated and convoluted to say the least.
Judith McGeary’s article in the November Horse Gazette on the American
Horse Council’s (AHC) NAIS information session, titled “Highly
Publicized Austin Meeting on Animal I.D. System a Bust,” was riddled
with inaccuracies and assumptions, which will only add to the confusion.
The members of the ESWG were not, as Ms. McGeary claimed, appointed by the
AHC. The AHC assisted in gathering interested members for this independent
coalition from nearly 30 national equine organizations, including the American
Quarter Horse Association, the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ &
Exhibitors’ Association, the Jockey Club and the U.S. Equestrian Federation.
ESWG members represent a wide range of the horse industry spectrum and they
share the same concerns about ownership, privacy and horse health as all horse
owners. They have publicly stated time and again that they are advocates of
owners’ rights. No matter what your role in the horse world is, your
interests are being represented by one of the member organizations.
One of the benefits of the ESWG is that any discussions, recommendations and
actions are disclosed to the public and provided through resources such as
the ESWG’s web site, www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com. By visiting
this site and the USDA’s web page on NAIS, www.usda.gov/nais, every
horse owner and breeder can stay on top of this complicated issue.
Several things make NAIS a complex subject. Despite what many outlets are
reporting or insinuating, the program is voluntary. The USDA hopes that by
keeping the program voluntary, industries will come to their own realization
that it is beneficial and the market itself will drive participation without
the need of mandatory involvement.
To assume, as Ms. McGeary does, that the NAIS will inevitably become mandatory
is a judgment call and if you have been paying attention to the information
provided by the USDA and the ESWG, that is not the conclusion you would automatically
draw.
Neither is it accurate to assume that, despite the ESWG recommendation that
no tracking will be reported beyond what is already required at the state
level, all horses will eventually be micro chipped and tracked everywhere
they go.
According to the most recently submitted ESWG recommendations, the movement
recording aspect of the NAIS for horses would only parallel those already
required of horse owners who show health papers like Certificate of Veterinary
inspection for entry into states, import-export and some larger equestrian
activities. Basically, there is no call for additional tracking beyond what
is already being carried out by most states.
This does, though, remind us that the NAIS is also affected by decisions made
at the state level, further complicating matters. Because of this, any horse
owner or breeder with concerns about NAIS should also be sure to contact their
state veterinarian and state department of agriculture to determine exactly
what their plans are concerning the identification system.
As with any program that is in the development stages, the NAIS documents
are constantly changed and adjusted to meet the needs of those it will affect.
With the ESWG and its members informing the industry of what the latest developments
are and both the ESWG and the USDA providing web sites, everyone can stay
up to date on the status of this ongoing process. – Equine Species Working
Group, http://www.equinespeciesworkinggroup.com