|
|
Recent stories regarding the NAIS cost-benefit analysis generated these comments:Mike Murphy: "We've always known what the traceability benefits of NAIS are....." How can you provide objective analysis if a study is undertaken by those starting with such assumptions? Informed citizens know this does not constitute unbiased academic integrity. Small farmers with direct relationships with their customers have more accountability and traceability than NAIS will ever accomplish. I can show you the Mamma of your beef and the animals it was raised with in three minutes in my pasture if my customer has a question. NAIS will never achieve that kind of traceback capability response time. We need to keep contacting Congress to let them know they cannot continue to fund a program that will collapse because of noncompliance by an informed citizenry. Barbara: Upon perusing the 442-page Cost Benefit Analysis, the first thing I noticed was that the acknowledgments thanking two of the NAIS architects for their support and assistance. That fact, along with the funding provided by APHIS, explain the biased findings. The analysis tells us what many of us already knew. NAIS will benefit big business and small farms will pay a higher percentage of the cost. Individually owned livestock is deemed insignificant for the purposes of this study. The analysis tries to find value in NAIS for horse owners, but states that the majority of those benefits will be for exporters and possibly racing. Again, no surprise. A disproportionate number of the members of the Equine Species Working Group represented the racing industry. The rest of the analysis as concerns equines is a desperate attempt to find other redeeming values for the vast majority of American horsemen, but it fails miserably. There doesn't seem to be a realistic understanding of how most of us use our horses. The analysis also uses false statistics to make it appear that NAIS has more support among horse owners than the actual polls have shown. The numbers used are so misleading that USDA should issue a retraction for that portion of the study. It makes me wonder how many other statistics used are false or misleading. This analysis should not be used to justify NAIS. It should be trashed along with the rest of USDA's lies to the public. Ken Root's column on erasing county lines also generated this comment: Kathy: Amen...I have been part of the first Extension district in Kansas. First two counties and now four. All the while, wondering about the register of deeds who reads books or the three appraisers in this small rural county...wondering when are the rest of the county offices going to consolidate and become more efficient. I don't think we can wait until the locals figure this out. The legislature needs to take Barry Flinchbaugh's advice and have 60 counties in Kansas, rather than the 105. Yes, some rural communities will lose out, but we've already lost out by population shifts and the economy. Let's make county government more efficient.
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
