I was recently contacted about a very strongly worded letter that is being circulated among anti-NAIS groups. It mentions me, and Liberty Ark inits discussions, and I wanted to clear some things up.

First off, the letter accuses members of the Liberty Ark Steering Committee to be working to promote a NAIS, rather than fight it. In all my conversations with them, and the State Coordinators, I have never heard even an inkling of that sentiment. I have always heard the terms "no governmentally mandated NAIS," and "No governmental funds" being used. Even in our early SHA meetings in Ashby, the discussion, from all directions, was aimed at a market driven, voluntary NAIS, if one was needed at all. I have been in favor of a scale sensitive version, personally, but even that was met with disagreement from SHA and NOFA members who felt that "market driven, voluntary program" was a sufficient description.

Secondly, the letter states that because some of the members of the LAC Steering Committee are involved with corporate interests, through employment or otherwise, therefore they must be pro-NAIS working from within. This makes no sense. Is NOFA or SHA in favor of NAIS because we met in a Grange Hall last spring? The Grange has come out in support of NAIS. Does that mean we agree? In the spirit of full disclosure, my husband works for the Sec. of Environmental Affairs for the Commonwealth. He works with Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, (DCR). But DCR and MDAR are both departments
under the Sec. of Environmental Affairs. Does this mean that he is for NAIS?No! and he has worked openly to fight it in Massachusetts.

Lastly, regarding items specific to the Massachusetts proposed legislation - here is my statement. I have been trying to build a coalition of organizations and people in the Commonwealth since last spring, NOFA/MA among them. Starting in the summer of '06, I asked NOFA/MA to work with me to craft legislation, but was told that they thought it was premature. I was contacted by a young man in December, asking if I knew of anyone that had legislation ready to offer to a Representative or Senator to submit. So, I adapted the LAC model to Massachusetts and sent it to Senator Brewer. I notified NOFA that I had done so on that day, and sent them a copy of the "Livestock Farms Freedom Act," to NOFA/MA the next day. Senator Brewer's aide was copying all our correspondence to NOFA/MA so they were fully aware of my discussions with the Senator.

On Monday I received a phone call from the Senator's aide saying that NOFA had filed a new version of the legislation. I asked to see it, and upon reading it, I saw problems. It deals only with funding for Fiscal Year 07 and Premises Identification, not future years or Tagging or Tracking. With the help of the LAC Steering Committee, we crafted a compromise bill, which we offered to NOFA/MA. It used most of NOFA's language but added three changes. The first change was to take the term "sustainable" out of the bill's name, though not out of the findings part of the bill. This was because "Sustainable" can be a divisive term in the minds of some farmers, and I feel that NAIS is bad for everyone who farms, not just those who call themselves Sustainable. We need to build a community, not divide those involved in agriculture. The second change was to add the section forbidding any new program for premises registration and animal identification, or the expansion of existing programs, so that the agency could not force animal tagging or tracking on us under a different name than NAIS and all three
aspects of NAIS are addressed. The last change was to add in language that would preclude MDAR from using service providers (such as vets or feed stores) as a means of requiring cooperation with NAIS or any program like it. This compromise was offered to NOFA/MA and they decided not to join in it.

I then submitted the new legislation, to Senator Brewer's office. I stated that we offered as a compromise to NOFA, but that NOFA/MA did not agree to the compromise. Given that information, Senator Brewer's office sent me an email stating that the new bill (the "compromise proposal") would be the one he submitted. He explained that any differences could be worked
out in committee.

I want to make it clear that SD 1472 is based upon the NOFA/MA introduced bill, but with added protections that we thought important. It does not open a door to a "governmental voluntary program," which was claimed in the letter. MDAR does not feel that they need any additional authority. They have cited from beginning, Article 129, sections 2 and 19, as their justification for their actions. Whether this would hold up in court is not a point we can fight at this time. SHA and LAC would like to
see it stopped before it can be started, on all fronts.

I am very disheartened to see such an important issue being fought with such division. It's such a hard fight as it is, we need to unite rather than divide the forces that protect the small farmer, in all his/her forms.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you'll continue to support SmallHolders Alliance and the Liberty Ark Coalition in our fight to stop NAIS in Massachusetts.