Texas Animal Health Commission and HB 1361

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ira Aten

member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
355
Location
Texas
I just got a copy of a letter sent to me in transmittal, by one of our State Representatives. His enclosure was a copy of his letter sent to the Chairman of the Texas Animal Health Commission, in April of 2006.

In it, he informed the Chairman that the Texas State Legislature's House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock WAS MISLED by the Texas Animal Health Commission's Executive Director during his testimony during the public hearings held back on March 8, 2005. (He does not say he "felt" misled, he states it as fact)

He also informed the Chairman that the Texas Animal Health Commission "has taken actions outside of the scope of HB 1361". (This Bill is the one which would have enabled the U.S.Department of Agriculture's ridiculous National Animal I.D. System to come to pass, requiring private landowners owning any domestic livestock, to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops, such as microchipping cattle, goats, chickens, etc.)

He requested in his letter that the Texas Animal Health Commission halt ALL action whatsoever related to HB 1361, and for the Commission to cease and desist collecting any fees for registration in that system until he and others within the Legislature have had a chance to "ENSURE THAT HB 1361, AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE TAHC, IS REPEALED".

He said that after contacting a Public Affairs Specialist within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, he found out (apparantly to his great displeasure at being misled to believe otherwise) that the NAIS system IS NOT a Fedrally Mandated program, as the Texas Legislature was led to believe when they voted on it. (Seeing that it passed unanimously, I can see why they feel a little hacked off up there in Austin)

So apparantly this Legislator has finally gotten as mad as the citizens after being duped into believing the "Big Brother" program of the NAIS was at hand. Now all we need to do is impress upon our Texas State Legislators that just because some agency flack (lobbying them from within an Agency) says the federal government intends to pass an (Unconstitutional) mandate, they are not requried to hurry up and pass a supporting one.

But for folks in Texas, this is a great first step anyway. I intend to write him back and congratulate him. At least there is a plausible excuse for why he voted for it. He says was conned. I should think therefore, some folks should be dismissed from their posts if that is fact. I will be looking forward to following up to see what happens on that for sure.

A small group of us have been steadily raising hell about this over the last three months, and it appears that maybe it is paying off.
 
Out of curiosity, which rep sent you that letter?

Though, I really don't give a monkey's butt if they thought there was a Fed mandate, they still shouldn't have voted for such an asinine law.
 
Quote:
"Putting microchips in chicken is unconstitutional?

No, putting the microchip in them isn't but the government requring you to do so, when you have no intention whatsoever, of selling them, nor their eggs, nor even their feathers to anyone outside your own property, certainly is.
 
Daniel, you are completely correct. If he knew it infringed upon an individual's constituional rights he was wrong in the first place to vote for it, however, ALL our political heros up in Austin did so, so I don't want to single him out by naming him.

Every one of them, voted for it. They were all scared we would "lose federal dollars" if they failed to pay homage to the king.

There were a whole lot of things (beside the microchip requirment on your own property) that was unconstitutional, such as taxing you for agricultural activities, (mandated fee to the state if you owned a single unit of domestic livestock) while at the same time denying you an agricultural tax evaluation on that same piece of property since your land was not a large enough piece, to support a certain number of livestock units.

Many things about it are unconstitutional. My 16 year old daughter pegged it immediately. But I can only take him at his word that he was misled. (Possibly he did not read the one and one half page document) I am not kidding, if you print out HB 1361, it is one and one half pages total.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top