Tuesday, June 23, 2009


By Paul Driessen
Suppose a company doctored data, misrepresented study findings, replaced observations with computer simulations, and hired PR flacks to promote its new "wonder drug." News stories, congressional hearings and subpoenas would be in overdrive. Fines and jail sentences would follow. And rightly so.
But where "climate catastrophe" and government "science" are involved, the standards change. Junk science, falsified data, worthless computer disaster scenarios and phony news stories are rewarded - not punished.
Americans are being made victims of the biggest con-job and propaganda campaign in US history. It's vital that they become aware of the facts, so that they can take action.
Looming passage of this job-killing climate legislation mkes this is a vital and timely article. Thank you for posting it.

US government's climate con-job

Obama administration "report" on climate change is deceitful, scare-mongering, bogus science
Suppose a company doctored data, misrepresented study findings, replaced observations with computer simulations, and hired PR flacks to promote its new "wonder drug." News stories, congressional hearings and subpoenas would be in overdrive. Fines and jail sentences would follow. And rightly so.
But the standards change when "climate catastrophe" is involved.
The White House has made global warming the centerpiece of its revenue-raising and energy policies. A House of Representatives 942-page bill would tax, regulate and penalize all US hydrocarbon energy use, to "save the planet from climate disaster." The Senate promises an August vote.
But average global temperatures peaked in 1998 and since have fallen slightly, even as carbon dioxide levels continue to climb. Thousands of scientists say CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis. Few developed countries are ready to commit economic suicide, by agreeing to reduce their CO2 emissions by a fraction of what the House bill demands for the United States.
Americans are beginning to realize the legislation would cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars for a hypothetical 0.1 degree F reduction in global temperatures. Most put global warming dead last in a Pew Research list of 20 concerns.
The government's answer to these inconvenient truths is simple.
Issue another report by government scientists carefully selected to exclude any who don't subscribe to climate Armageddon. Ignore contrary data and analyses. Crank out more bogus computer-generated worst-case scenarios. Hire an activist media firm that specializes in environmental scare campaigns. And spend tens of millions hyping every imaginable climate disaster:
Rising sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes, floods and droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths in Chicago. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Wildflowers disappearing from Rocky Mountain slopes and polar bears from the Arctic. Leisure time gone, as people struggle to survive.
"Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States" is the "most up-to-date, authoritative, comprehensive" analysis ever done on how human-caused warming affects the United States, deadpans Obama "science" advisor John Holdren.
Actually, it's the most flagrant attempted con-job and propaganda campaign in US history.
If it helps Congress enact cap-and-tax legislation, it will give activists, courts and bureaucrats control over virtually every aspect of our lives. It will enable them to confiscate hard-earned dollars, convert them to payoffs for activists and companies that get on the climate-crisis bandwagon, consign uncooperative companies and scientists to the ash heap of history, and conceal the exorbitant costs of restrictive energy policies - on families, industries, jobs and transportation - until long after the bill becomes law.
The bogus "report" conflates and confuses human activities and emissions with the powerful natural forces that have caused major and minor climate changes and weather anomalies since the dawn of time - from the Carboniferous Period to the Age of Dinosaurs, from the Big Ice Ages and interglacial periods to the Little Ice Age, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, Dust Bowl and countless others. It relies on conjecture, conformist thinking and conspicuous elimination of contrary, skeptical, realist scientists and studies that do not support climate cataclysm conjecture and ideology.
The authors "largely ignored" critical comments to earlier drafts and made the final version "even more alarmist" than infamous UN "summaries" of global warming "crises," says Joseph D'Aleo, first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Weather Analysis and Forecasting Committee. The report is simply "wrong on many of its claims" and marks "an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA," D'Aleo concludes.
University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. says the report "misrepresents" his own work, makes claims that are not supported by citations provided, relies heavily on analyses that were never peer reviewed, ignores peer-reviewed studies that reach opposite conclusions from those proclaimed by the report, and cites analyses that do not support conclusions rendered.
"I didn't notice a single recognized hurricane expert in the list of authors," says NOAA Hurricane Research Division scientist Stanley Goldenberg. The report relies heavily on surface temperature data from monitoring stations located next to parking lots and air conditioning exhaust ports - falsely skewing temperature records upward - other experts noted. It is lead-heavy on assumptions, assertions and speculation - hydrogen-light on evidence.
But the most egregious miscarriage of science in this agit-prop exercise is its near-total dependence on worst-case scenarios conjured up by computer models. That's where it gets its litany of "Day After Tomorrow" Hollywood disasters.
These climate models have never been validated by actual observations, notes Professor Robert Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at Australia's James Cook University. Indeed, Australia's own climate modeling agency (CSIRO) stresses that climate change scenarios are based on computer models that "involve simplifications of [real world] processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted . for the accuracy of forecasts inferred" from its reports.
"Modeling results are interesting - but worthless for setting public policy," says Carter. But that is exactly how they're being used.
Sure, it's conceivable that Antarctica could melt, and cause sea levels to rise 20 feet, as Al Gore and the government con-artists suggest. Greenhouse gases would merely have to increase average annual Antarctic temperatures from their current -50 degrees F to +40 degrees for a century or two, to melt 200,000 cubic miles of South Pole icecaps. A mere 90-degree swing.
That may be as likely as having the planet overrun by raptors and T-rexes cloned from DNA in fossilized mosquitoes. But it's conceivable. And in the realm of global warming politics, that's all that matters. As MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen observes, "global warming has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own, quite removed from science."
As one climate activist group put it: "The task . is not to persuade by rational argument." It is "to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. The 'facts' need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken." The strategy is to treat "climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is the route to mass behavior change."
This is the kind of science, transparency, honesty and accountability we have come to expect over "human-caused climate chaos."
If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector - peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science - they'd quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they'll probably get bonus checks. _____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.

Friday, June 12, 2009

CO2 - MONTHLY REPORT and more!

Here are a number of recent papers from Science and Public Policy - that you may want to read. This will help legislators and voters understand some key issues.

Please look at them:




Most particularly is our Monthly CO2 Report, which is full of up to date information and science:




Robert Ferguson, President
Science and Public Policy

Tuesday, June 9, 2009


By Ron Ewart
President/ National Association of Rural Landowners
© Copyright June 7, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

Radical national and international environmentalists, the United Nations, the European Union and the U. S. Congress have all adopted the policy commonly known as the "Precautionary Principle", which goes like this: "..... if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."
The principle implies that there is a responsibility for the government to intervene and protect the public, or the environment, from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a "plausible" risk (that could be anything folks) in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. (If they screen at all) The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation (but new scientific findings are never found). In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law. (Clever these Europeans. We saved their butts, twice, and they are still trying to convert us to their distorted, socialist ideology.)
Nevertheless, we can virtually guarantee you that even if new scientific evidence emerged to make a law, limits or prohibitions unnecessary, there would be no desire on the part of politicians to undo the law. One only need look at the increasing science against man caused global warming. In spite of the mounting evidence against it, the United States Government is still moving ahead to enact CO2 emission limits and cap and trade legislation.
Here is another principle in politics: "Once a law, always a law." Laws don't get repealed unless the "people" force the politicians to do it.
But this so-called precautionary principle, isn't a principle at all. It is an irrational policy by government to do whatever it damn well pleases, under the guise of taking or preventing some action, usually in the form of a new law to control the people, even if there is no compelling evidence that such action, or preventing such action, is necessary. They just arbitrarily do it. CO2 emission limits and cap and trade legislation to slow down or stop the fraud that is man-caused global warming, are two of the more glaring examples of this "principle". Much of environmental protection passed by the U. S. Congress under the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Restoration act, the Marine Mammals protection Act and the Salmon Recovery Act etc., fall into this irrational category. International environmental treaties have been ratified by our Congress using this insane rationale. So essentially, the United States has done what the European Union has done and has incorporated the "Precautionary Principle" into American law. The American people had absolutely no say in the matter.
However, the Founding Fathers had a different version of the Precautionary Principle and it was embedded in the Declaration of Independence in the second paragraph: "..... that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ....... and ..... then the Framers codified their all-encompassing precautionary principle into the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, wherein it states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Founding Fathers not only believed that government would increase its powers over time, but had 2,000 years of history to prove that it has happened in virtually every culture. Thus, their precautionary principle against government increasing its power to the point of tyranny, was to make sure that Americans would be armed in such event. So why then would government, whose sworn duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, be in such a hurry to relieve you of that right and take your guns away, or make gun ownership impotent by taking your ammunition away, or making it too expensive? They are doing it for the simple reason to strip you of your power, contained in the Founding Father's precautionary principle, so as to increase their power and have nothing to fear from you.
If we allow government to repeal the second Amendment by whatever means, the American People's Precautionary Principle, our only recourse against rising tyranny may be what the colonials had to do against the dictatorial rule of King George the III. It is our firm hope that it never comes to that, but like all alternatives, the least desired alternative must be considered as a final course of action, if all other alternatives fail.
If you would like to learn more about the "Precautionary Principle", we encourage you to read a 1999 article in the Reason Magazine entitled "Precautionary Tale". You'll get an idea on how the environmental movement has been and is using this so-called principle to effect law and legislation in every country on the planet. The following paragraph is an excerpt from the article:
"At this year's (1999) annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim, California, in a symposium titled "The Precautionary Principle: A Revolution in Environmental Policymaking?", environmental advocates and academics insisted that a principle of ultimate precaution should trump all other considerations in future environmental and technological policy making. They pointed out that the Principle has already been incorporated into several international treaties, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which require developed nations to cut back dramatically on the burning of fossil fuels to reduce the putative threat of global warming. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is already using it to help guide its promulgation of new regulations on synthetic chemicals."
Access Reason Magazine article at: http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html.
All most all governments, including the U. S. Government, have bought into this environmentalist scam, hook, line and sinker. That is why it is still absolutely necessary, if freedom is to prevail, that we perpetually maintain and protect America's older version of the Precautionary Principle, the Second Amendment as a precaution against, well you know ...........
Ron Ewart

Wednesday, June 3, 2009


Please note: In my past 3 years as volunteer editor of Good Neighbor Law, I've witnessed far too many horrific injustices forced on our decent, law-abiding American citizens.
The following takes the prize!
Actions brought on by non-government groups like Moveon.org, Nature Conservancy and media, with possible enforcement by government employees (includes elected officials)partners, have reached critical mass. They are worse than the vigilante actions of the Freemans...and have a following bigger than Jim Jones!
Please...take to heart the seriousness of the following alert by Marc Morano.
Then call your elected officials immediately and DEMAND they "Stop attacking decent, law-abiding Americans!!"
DEMAND they force Al Gore to publically debate any one of the thousand scientists who've proven man does not make the climate change. Demand this!
DEMAND: Immediate investigation of global warming/climate change grifters, for when exposed, their actions will prove out more daunting than Bernie Madoff's.
Thank you,
Roni Bell Sylvester
Vounteer Editor www.GoodNeighborLaw.com

Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'
Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - By Marc Morano - Climate Depot
[ Update: 8:44 AM ET: Talking Points Memo (TPM) has removed the article from their website. "The file you are looking for has not been found" - But the url with a portion of the chilling message lingers as evidence: "at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-ex..." - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/crazedandconfused/2009/06/at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-ex.php?ref=reccafe - Climate Depot has also saved a screen shot of the original article.]
A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: "At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers." The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as "greedy bastards" who use "bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool" to "distort data."
The Talking Points Memo article continues: "So when the right wing f*cktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?"
The article also claims the "vast majority" of scientists agree that man-made warming "can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth."
The full text of the Talking Points Memo is reproduced below:
(Note: The entry is posted under the anonymous byline "The Insolent Braggart") At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don't want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it's a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.
So when the right wing f*cktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?

Climate Depot Editor's Note:
The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate.
NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity." Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors" In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown "into jail." In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing
Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.
November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." (LINK)
Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: "[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
October 28, 2008: License to dissent: 'Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google's Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, "giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians" is, and I quote, "a bad idea." Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...
November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' - UK Daily Express
Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why - and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.
U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)
Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's scientific "consensus."
Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)
Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)
UK environment secretary David Miliband said 'those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century' (October 6, 2006)
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
Related Links:
Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing - April 23, 2009
S. African UN Scientist: 'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!' - April 2009
Climate Depot Editorial: We would all be doomed if we actually faced climate 'crisis' - Cap-and-trade equals all economic pain for no climate gain
Warming theory 'dying the death of a thousand cuts' - Ocean Conveyor Belt Model Broken: 'Models are significantly wrong' - May 2009
Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds - Discovery.com - March 2, 2009
Japanese Scientist compares global warming to 'astrology'
U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims
Marc Morano

Tuesday, June 2, 2009


USDA - NAIS "listening session" - June 1, 2009 Loveland, CO
Good Neighbor Law filed request with APHIS for comments from all "listening sessions."
When received, comments will be posted on www.GoodNeighborLaw.com
If you testified June 1st in Loveland, your comments are welcome here!

Greetings all,

I attended the USDA listening stop at The Ranch yesterday.
There were ~175 people in attendance.
Everyone who signed up to speak was allowed to do so. We were asked to keep our comments to 3 minutes, but the timer wasn't being very strict. I was ¾ of the way through my comments, when I looked at the timer and it wasn't even turned on - the gentleman running the timer, turned the green light on for me and signaled I could keep going.
Here is how the numbers went, by my count. We were called up in groups of 5 and I counted at the end of each group to be sure I had hash marks under each category equally 5. One group had 4 and the last group was 3, one being a very young fellow of maybe 9 or 10. This kid was dynamic, spoke from his heart and will be a great leader someday, probably is one now. others reported 62 speakers, I think there were 57, but I missed one here or there.
5 - supporters of mandatory NAIS
10 - Tweeners (those who said they favored NAIS in a voluntary form only or something similar)
40 solid no to NAIS speakers.
The supporters of NAIS were: a pork producer, representatives from the dairy industry, one beef producer and a Colorado APHIS employee - I think the director of this area or region. I don't think most people keeping track included him in the list of supporters, but since he spoke I included him.
The pork producer said he fully participated in nais. According to him, he could not make a profit selling pork to US consumers, so he had to ship overseas and even with better prices on the world market, he was still barely making a living. He didn't explain why he thought mandatory nais for all would help him.
One of the dairymen speaking in favor of mandatory nais, participates fully in nais now, as did the cattle rancher.
DHI, Dairy Herd Improvement, requires premise id in order for DHI to purchase milk. There was at least one DHI rep there who spoke, there may have been 2.
The supporters of nais were all about animal health, consumer confidence, disease prevention and added value to their products. Most acknowledged nais would not prevent disease, but stop the spread of a potentially devastating disease more quickly than the current system. No real explanation or evidence was presented by anyone on how nais would actually increase their bottom line only that they believed it would.
The tweeners, were primarily Farm Bureau representatives, they hailed from Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska - I didn't take many notes, as it was all being recorded and transcribed by a court reporter. Seems to me, the FB has been for mandatory nais, changing their message only recently. Their messages were all similar: nais is coming in some form or another, better to support the voluntary program, rather than have congress mandate it in a less desirable form.
The basic message brought by the no nais majority, was no nais. Most supported utilizing local agencies, already in place, which have historically proven their ability to track and eradicate disease, rather than a national system. Many also pointed out the fact that our borders are a primary introduction points for disease and should be closed until the health of Mexican and Canadian cattle could be guaranteed.
Chuck Sylvester, Good Neighbor Law founder www.goodneighborlaw.com received a standing ovation for his speech chastising USDA for "pimping" our 4H kids with premise id! Thanks Chuck! We love you. check out the website.
Of the speakers opposing nais, I was one of only 3 consumers. I don't exactly fit in the "consumer" category as we have horses and raise an occasional hog, have had chickens and ducks., my points were in support of producers, rather than my own, personal opposition to nais. The majority of people there were producers: mostly cow/calf or finishers, one man from SE Colorado had beef and sheep. A few self sustainers, ie raised their own for themselves, spoke against, but there was no one there specifically representing horses, goats, fowl...i was a bit disappointed by this.
A wonderful lady from Nebraska pointed out, this listening tour was being held during farmers and ranchers busiest time of the year and it was a huge burden for people to be away from their ranches, while the USDA and APHIS employees conducting the meetings were there doing their jobs, being paid, while we all were taking time off from our work or leaving it for others to do, or it was all waiting for us to come home to catch it up.
Repeatedly throughout the meeting the "facilitators" reminded us this meeting was not an attempt to reach a consensus about what parts of NAIS we could live with, we were reminded several time, the afternoon sessions were about giving us the opportunity to express our concerns further and offering solutions to the problems we see with NAIS and not about reaching a consensus.
Upon arriving, we were given an information packet, each packet had a colored dot on the front, which signified your afternoon break out group. The dots were only suggestions, they were not trying to divide and concur us, rather just have smaller groups for more personal discussions. At least, that is what they said. We could sit in on any group we desired.
Inside our packets was a list of seven questions, which were common complaints with the nais plan. These questions are posted on the Federal Register notice about the meetings. We were asked to address these questions in the afternoon session and offer solutions or compromises we could live with to our concerns with the current nais plan. There were 13 people in the group I sat in on. No one spoke directly to these questions, but continued to express an unwillingness to participate in nais in any form, with specific real world examples as to why they opposed the plan. There were 2 pro-nais people in my group and a brand inspector from WY, who wants a better trace back system than the current brand inspection process, but readily admitted the current system used in WY was very good, but not perfect.
One lady, in my group, who claimed to be anti-nais, but clearly kept steering the comments back to a solution or some kind of consensus on a system we could all live with. She was also very polite, but definitely a facilitator type, she thanked people for their comments, but "we are getting off topic and need to find a solution we can all live with.."
The afternoon meeting facilitators were skilled negotiators, they were soft spoken, never answered questions posed, politely reminded us they did not know NAIS well enough to answer questions. If someone asked or made several points, they repeated the points, always saying am I understanding you correctly? Are these the points you are trying to make? I don't want to misinterpret your questions, points or put words in your mouths?
Actual conversations were impossible, as you had to have the microphone to speak, as all conversations were recorded and would be transcribed for Mr. Vilsack to read at a later date, without names, of course.
To me the whole session felt more like an "okay, we listened, now go home and shut up" session.
So, it is very important to continues to voice your opposition to nais. if you haven't left a comment at the usda comment site, do so: www.usda.gov/nais
These are only my observations from the meeting, others certainly will have a different opinion about what when on and why. Hopefully, others who attended the meeting will post comments.
Sharon Croghan - Colorado