1. WESTERN HORSEMAN | June 2008 June 2008 | WESTERN HORSEMAN
Ranchlands animal identification
USDA’s efforts to implement
a national animal identification
system have been met with
confusion and outrage. With so
many forms of identification
already in use, horse owners
question the reasons behind yet
another government program.
Story by Julie J. Bryant
IDentity
Crisis
or mad cow disease, in 2003, leading to a short-term,
but significant, drop in U.S. meat exports.
With a functioning national animal identification
system, animals and resulting meat products could be
identified through a database that would allow the gov-
ernment to trace the origin of a disease outbreak within
48 hours, for “rapid containment.” With this program,
demanding, health-conscious consumers, both foreign
and domestic, would be even more confident in a food
supply already considered the safest in the world.
More importantly, in the global marketplace it would
put the United States on an even playing field with other
countries already using such a system.
The question remains, however, where horses fit in this
scenario,particularlysincetheslaughterof horsesforhuman
consumption has all but disappeared.
“That’s a very fine line we walk, in that horses are
unique, but they are livestock,”says Billy Smith, PhD, the
American Quarter Horse Association’s executive director
of information technology and co-chair of the Equine
Species Working Group. The Group was formed through
Bruce Knight, a soft-spoken
Clark Kent lookalike, finds himself in an un-
enviable position. As the U.S. Department of Agriculture
undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, he
should be considered Superman, overseeing a process for
the livestock industry that would save it from sure devas-
tation should disease, occurring naturally or introduced
through bio-terrorism, strike the nation. But instead he is,
to a growing number of livestock owners, the Joker.
The issue has all the elements of a thrilling comic story
line: an evil corporate conglomerate working with a shady
government system invades and takes over the lives and
property of innocent citizens. Reality, however, is less dra-
matic, more confusing, and, for the horse industry, has
no clear plot or logic when it comes to a national animal
identification system.
The inescapable reality, too, is that a national system is
coming, like it or not.
On the surface, the idea is actually pretty simple and has
been a leading topic among food animal producers and pro-
cessors, largely beef, for years. It became a high priority fol-
lowing an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy,
Implanted microchips have come to
symbolize USDA’s efforts to implement a
national identification system for horses.
Many horse industry experts advocate
microchips or some sort of identification,
but are critical of a mandatory program.
RossHecox

2. WESTERN HORSEMAN | June 2008 June 2008 | WESTERN HORSEMAN
the American Horse Council to pro-
vide input and direction to USDA in
the formation of its ID guidelines for
horses. Smith also sits on the National
Institute of Animal Agriculture equine
ID subcommittee.
“Out of all the animals out there
that move, that may have an effect on
our food supply, horses are going to
be involved, not because we eat them
but because they are associated with
all that we do eat,”says ESWG co-chair
Jim Morehead, a Lexington, Kentucky,
equine veterinarian and the group’s
intermediary with the American Asso-
ciation of Equine Practitioners.
“I’m not being an alarmist, but I
think in this day and age it’s time that
everybody at least came into the con-
versation with their eyes open,” he
says. “Ten years ago, who would have
thought we would live in the world
that we live in today? Everything has
changed.”
Unfortunately, the conversation
remains a puzzling one.
“One of the problems,” Smith says,
“is that there has been very little detail
from USDA on how NAIS might look
when it’s rolled out. Where there is
a void of information, somebody is
going to fill that up. It’s been filled up
with both accurate information and
some inaccurate information.”
Part of that inaccurate information,
he said,has been the perceived collabo-
ration of ESWG in the development of
an ID system.
“ESWG has been made guilty by asso-
ciation,”agrees Morehead.“USDA came
tothehorseindustryandaskedforinput
on what they planned on doing.I think
the horse industry responded very well
in organizing a group representing each
partof theAmericanHorseCouncil,and
working through it.
“Butallalong,hasthegroupcomeout
in favor of the NAIS? No.No.We’re not
advocates of NAIS, but if it’s going to
be done, we’re advocates of it having as
minimal an impact on us as possible.”
ESWG has submitted its final rec-
ommendations to USDA, spelling
out what it calls “general principles”
as a condition of the horse industry’s
involvement. Chief among them are
ensuring that initiation of the system be
voluntary, that any mandatory system
be tested before implementation, and
that information remain confidential,
excluding information covered by
Freedom of Information Act public-
disclosure requirements.
The group also advocates the gov-
ernment utilize existing identification
methods,beitbranding,healthcertificates,
horsepassportsormicrochips,toidentify
horses, and that any system put in place
not be in effect until 2010.
“The point ESWG is attempting to
make with its recommendations is that
horses are unique based on their move-
ment patterns,and our recommendation
is very simple in regard to movement,”
Smith explains.“Maintain the status quo
onmovement,andif ahorseisrequiredto
show a health certificate or Coggins test,
that be sufficient to record movement.
If a health certificate or Coggins is not
required, as is the case with a horse that
spends all its time in a backyard or on a
ranch,thenmovementof thathorseisnot
that important. It becomes burdensome
on the horse industry.”
Certainly, livestock producers,
including horse owners, are no strangers
toidentificationsystems,suchasbranding,
ear tags or tattoos. The first mandated
identification program took place in the
1940stoidentifycattlevaccinatedforbru-
cellosis, and racehorses have been iden-
tified through lip tattoos for almost the
same time span.
ForcattleproducerandMontanaStock-
growers Association President Stephen
Roth,animalidentificationis,atminimum,
practical and potentially valuable.
“Oneold-timertoldmeoncethatthere
is nothing so flat that it doesn’t have two
sides,”says Roth,CEO of IX Ranch in Big
Sandy, Montana.
But even he, owner of 45 Quarter
Horses, has a hard time bringing a con-
cept he views as valuable, practical, even
necessary,forcattleproducerstothesame
parallel where horses are concerned.
“Go back to the implications there are
from an animal welfare perspective,” he
says. “You want to keep horses healthy
andprovideownershipresponsibility,but
Idon’tthinkthesystemshouldbemanda-
tory. I think the government’s role is to
figure out some sort of standardization
and set up criteria so you don’t have 15
different types of tags or IDs.
“For the owner, it needs to be value
driven, so it falls to organizations like
[[
“How good a job has USDA done
educating the public about what the
system entails? They’ve done a poor job.”
—Jim Morehead, DVM
KirkSchlea
Jim Morehead, DVM, co-chair of the
Equine Species Working Group, says
his group supports voluntary, not
mandatory, identification for horses.

3. June 2008 | WESTERN HORSEMAN
Decide for Yourself
Below are sites and resources you can visit to make an informed decision about NAIS
and identifying your horse.
• USDA/NAIS Web site: animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml
• Equine Species Working Group: equinespeciesworkinggroup.com
• U.S. Government Accountability Report: gao.gov/new.items/d07592.pdf
There are a number of sites offering information about NAIS, both pro and con. Check
the date the information was issued to ensure you are receiving the latest on this
challenging topic.
WESTERN HORSEMAN | June 2008
Montana Stockgrowers or AQHA to
say,‘We’re not trying to cram this down
your throat,but here are the advantages
of doing it.’ Being a capitalist, I believe
this is an opportunity to create a service
areaforpeopleinthehorseindustryand
make it worth their while.”
In all likelihood, most horse owners
have some whiff that an identification
system is being discussed, but few are
trulyeducatedabouttheprogram.That,
accordingtoMorehead,fallssquarelyon
USDA’s shoulders.
“Even with the input of the working
groups,how good a job has USDA done
educating the public about what the
system entails,” he asks.“They’ve done
a poor job.”
Even Bruce Knight seems a bit per-
plexed at what horse owners believe
about the program.
“I still hear from horse owners that
they believe we are going to require ear
tags in horses,”he says,“which has never
been the case.”
For 71-year-old Jane Bryant, the lack
of, and disparity in, information is a
telling truth. She and her husband, Lee,
maketheirhomeinthesmallruralcom-
munityofWoolwine,Virginia,andtypify
nearly 80 percent of horse owners in the
United States who ride recreationally. A
largely conservative district,government
interventionhereisanunwelcomevisitor.
Thisisevidentinthefact that moonshine
stills continue to operate,legally and ille-
gally, in the woods of Patrick County.
The Bryants are keenly engaged in the
activities of their state farm bureau, with
NAIS being discussed as it relates to area
dairy farmers.
Horses, however … not so much.
“Therewasconversationaboutthatin
the past for dairy farmers,and anything
youimplementisgoingtohavesetbacks
andglitches,”shesays.“But,forthemost
part,peopledidn’tfightthat.Theycould
seewhathappenedinEngland[withBSE
outbreaks],and when mad cow disease
came out of Canada and into America,
it frightened them and they could see
the value of [an identification system]
for food animals.
“Forhorses,we’vebeentoldpractically
nothing.Butit’sridiculous,asinine,and
there is no reason for it. Animal iden-
tification is for food protection. With
slaughtergone,thereisnootherpurpose
for a horse other than riding it or put-
ting it in front of a plow. So what’s the
purpose for it?”
With just three horses on their 80
acres, she is skeptical about the logic
surroundingcontrolof diseaseinhorses
and possible affects on humans.
“That’sasmokescreen,anabsoluteand
uttersmokescreen,”Bryantsays.“Youtell
me what disease have they heard about
thataffectspeople.WestNileVirus?That
comes from a mosquito and there is a
vaccine for that. This [system] will not
improve any existing systems, and what
concerns me is getting the government
involved in something like this,shutting
down borders and inconveniencing
peoplewhowanttoshoworbreedhorses.
It doesn’t make sense.”
Making sense of it all for the horse
industry has been ESWG’s job,and now
that the group’s recommendations have
been made final, Morehead would like
to see the group viewed as an industry
watchdog.
“This group is well informed of what
goes on in the horse industry, and we
have been very open [to the idea] that if
a horse doesn’t move off premises,never
requiresahealthcertificate,neverrequires
a Coggins, why does it need to be in the
system?” he says. “And USDA—being
the picture of efficiency they’ve always
been—whydoesitneedmorecomplica-
tions in the system?”
What seems to raise the ire of the
system’s critics, however, is that NAIS is
a sweeping measure involving virtually
all animal species and sizes of opera-
tions, and has had no Congressional
reviewregardingpotentialconstitutional
infringements against privacy and prop-
erty rights.
Keytotheirconcernsispremisesregis-
tration,astepUSDAtermsasthefounda-
tionforNAIS.Furthermore,criticssaythe
system smacks of commercial benefits
for the companies who had a part in its
creation as members of National Insti-
tute for Animal Agriculture, including
processing giant Cargill Meat Solutions,
microchipmanufacturerDestron-Fearing
andpharmaceuticalcompanyFortDodge,
among others.
[[“What concerns me is getting the
government involved in something
like this, shutting down borders and
inconveniencing people who want to
show or breed their horses.”
—Jane Bryant
Critics also point to measures taken on
the state level forcing animal owners to
take part in premises registration, even
though,on the federal level,the program
has been touted as “voluntary.”
This past March, in what could be
positioned as agricultural blackmail,
North Carolina would not allow horse
owners to purchase hay at below market
prices without a premises registration,
and Colorado met with a revolt by par-
ents in late 2007 when it refused entry to
its state fair from youth exhibitors who
did not have a premises registration.
Colorado is just one of several states
implementing or considering the prac-
tice.
Colorado backed off the requirement,
but in the meantime, to meet USDA
requirements for millions of dollars in
grants,states like NewYork and Pennsyl-
vania dumped records they had gathered
into the USDA/NAIS premises registra-
tion repository without the knowledge
of farmers. Registration is already man-
datory in Wisconsin.
Those steps, says Knight, are ones
determined by the states, and funding
provided by USDA is no different than
many other cooperative agreements it
has had with state animal health depart-
ments in the past.
“Implementing the program,”he says,
“costs money.”
In a July 2007, a report issued by the
U.S. Government Accountability Office
describes those agreements and USDA’s
development of the system as poorly
constructed and expensive. From 2004
through 2007, $118,050,000 had been
made available to USDA to implement
NAIS, and the GAO seems unimpressed
with how it’s been used.
“USDA awarded $35 million in NAIS
cooperative agreements from fiscal years
2004 through 2006 to 49 states,29 tribes,
and two territories to help identify effec-
tive approaches to register premises,and
identify and track animals,” the report
reads.“However, USDA has not consis-
tently monitored or formally evaluated
the results of cooperative agreements,
or consistently shared the results with
states, industry groups and other stake-
holders.

4. WESTERN HORSEMAN | June 2008 June 2008 | WESTERN HORSEMAN
“As a result, USDA cannot be assured
theagreements’intendedoutcomeshave
been achieved, and, furthermore, that
lessons are learned and best practices
are used to inform the program’s prog-
ress.”
Thereportgoesontosaythatnocom-
prehensive cost estimate or cost-benefit
analysis for the implementation and
maintenance of NAIS currently exists.
As a result, it is not known how much
is required in federal,state and industry
resources to achieve rapid and effective
traceback,orwhetherthepotentialbene-
fits of the program outweigh the costs.
That report stimulated the develop-
ment of USDA’s current business plan,
which was issued in December 2007. In
it, USDA’s position on confidentiality,
technological neutrality and voluntary
participation is reiterated.
“[Former agriculture] secretary Mike
Johanns, current secretary Ed Schafer
and I have been and remain committed
to the program being voluntary,” says
Knight.“If you read the business plan in
regard to horses, you’ll find that horses
thatstayontheowner’spropertywillnot
be affected at all.”
For ESWG Chairman Morehead,that
position had better stay that way.
“If a horse doesn’t move, even in a
mandatory system, which USDA says
there never will be, those horses are not
going to be included in that,” he says.
“If USDA tries that, I’m telling you the
wheels will fall off.”
Even AQHA’s Billy Smith scoffs a bit
at premises registration.
“We already have a premises registra-
tion,”he says.“It’s called an address.”
It’s a lack of clarity that seems to fit
the many misconceptions surrounding
NAIS.First,itwasthateartagswouldbe
required (never were),that the govern-
mentcansomehowtrackmicrochipsvia
a global positioning system (not pos-
sible), and, now, that breed registries
are going to be required to turn over
personal information to USDA.
“Thatissimplyfalse,”saysSmith,who
oversees the database system storing
AQHA’s registration and membership
[[“I certainly respect the work each of the
working groups have put into their
recommendations. But we will have to
weigh those considerations against the
scientific facts and political issues facing
the system.”
—Bruce Knight
information.“No breed registry I know
of has been contacted by USDA for any
information. And even the most con-
crete plan I have seen from USDA calls
for requests for information only in the
event of a disease outbreak.”
He also says, as does Morehead, that
hecontinuestofieldquestionsregarding
the safety and use of microchips.
“I have never seen anything official
from USDA that indicates it will require
microchips,” Smith says. “You have to
divorce the two ideas. Microchipping is
one thing. NAIS is another.”
He notes that AQHA has been
recordingchipnumberswhileregistering
horses for years.
“Microchipping is one thing. NAIS
is another,” he says. “Microchipping,
from my view, has value, but needs to
besomethinganindividualhorseowner
sees value in, and chooses to do.”
That is the battle Debi Metcalfe,
founderof StolenHorseInternational,is
findingshenowhastofightinthefallout
over the animal identification dispute.
“When people ask me about [NAIS],
I tell them we don’t take a position on it
becauseif wedid,somebodywillgetmad
at us,” she says. “Our position is we’re
trying to help people find horses, and
we ID horses to keep them from disap-
pearing. Chipping is one of the things
we recommend the most.”
Concernthatmicrochipscausecancer
has also swept the Internet chat rooms
and sites critical of the system.
“Therehavebeenabout300,000horses
microchipped in the state of Louisiana
over the past 12 or 15 years,”says More-
head. “You would think that if there
was an increased incidence of cancer
associated with the microchip, the state
diagnostic lab would know about it and
they don’t.
“Itellpeopletobepractical.Theyhave
to do what they feel is best. The people
convinced it will cause cancer in horses,
you’re not going to talk them out of it.”
Even for horse owners who choose to
implant their horses with microchips,
uncertainty over what type of chip they
should implant only adds to an increas-
ingly murky picture.
“[People]areafraidthegovernmentis
goingtochangethemicrochipscanners,”
Metcalf says.“IntheUnitedStates,they’re
almost all set for 125 kHz. By changing
thescanners,it’sgoingtomakeithardto
read the 125s.Plus,all the small-animal
vets use the 125 chip.”
That is one area where ESWG recom-
mendations seem to be at odds with the
industry, as it recommends 134.2 kHz
chips compatible with technology stan-
dards published by the International
Organization for Standardization.
“That doesn’t mean that if you have
one of the non-IOS chips in your horse
you have to re-chip that horse,” says
Smith. “What we’d hope is that over
time the chipping industry would use
a single technical standard and that it
would reduce confusion.”
Confusion.Despitefouryearsof work,
hundreds of pages of information and
Internet conversation, confusion still
seemstobetheendproducttodate,with
little true assurance that recommenda-
tions put forth by ESWG are going to be
worth the paper they’re written on.
“I certainly respect the work each
of the working groups have put into
their recommendations,” says Knight,
when asked if USDA is likely to accept
ESWG’s advice. “But we will have to
weigh those considerations against the
scientificfactsandpoliticalissuesfacing
the system.”
For Morehead, accepting the rec-
ommendations is USDA’s only viable
choice.
“Do I think the USDA can be off-
center and make up their own rules? No
question,”he says.“But I think they have
found it politically better for them, to
ultimatelyaccomplishtheirgoal,towork
withindustry,notagainstindustry.If they
draw up their own guidelines without
considering our input, they’re destined
for failure.”
Julie Bryant is a Texas-based writer.
Send comments on this story to
edit@westernhorseman.com.
Bruce Knight of the USDA is overseeing
the implementation of a national animal
identification system, a program that has
received harsh criticism from ranchers
and some organizations in the livestock
industry.
DavidHills