Oliver Koehn (As I Thinketh)

Subsidies are only needed because competitive market forces have been purged from agricultural markets by anticompetitive and antitrust practices of dominant corporate agribusinesses and failed trade policies. R-CALF USA does not seek government subsidies or price supports for the cattle and sheep industries. We seek genuine market competition and trade policy reform.

We're back in court in our fight against USDA's mandatory electronic identification (EID) eartag rule. A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 18 in Rapid City, South Dakota. Here's why we're challenging the mandate: ➡️ The mandate preserves the very problems USDA claims it will solve. USDA says handwritten identification numbers and inaccessible paper records can delay disease tracing. Yet its rule still allows ranchers and veterinarians to read electronic tags visually, record numbers by hand and maintain paper records. Electronic readers and electronic recordkeeping remain optional. A rancher can therefore be required to purchase a more expensive electronic tag while using it exactly like the cheaper visual tag it replaced. We argue USDA has failed to explain how this requirement resolves the problems the agency identified. ➡️ Producers face real costs without adequately supported benefits. USDA estimated additional annual tagging costs of $26.1 million without federal funding. Ranchers Kenny and Roxie Fox reported paying $3.50 per electronic tag, exceeding USDA's highest estimated average price. Promises of free tags cannot erase producers' actual expenses or guarantee future congressional funding. We also challenge USDA's assumptions about disease outbreaks, potential losses and the savings supposedly attributable to electronic identification. Speculative benefits, we argue, do not adequately justify mandatory costs. ➡️ USDA failed to adequately justify eliminating visual eartags. The previous identification system allowed visual tags, and disease tracing exercises showed substantial improvements before the mandate. We cite evidence that average tracing times had already fallen below a previously identified benchmark of 48 hours. While that does not mean every trace succeeds, USDA needed to explain why the existing system's performance justified eliminating a lower-cost identification option. ➡️ The rule treats identification methods inconsistently. USDA continues allowing brands under certain conditions despite acknowledging their limitations in tracing individual animals. We argue the agency failed to adequately explain why those exceptions remain while newly applied visual-only eartags are no longer accepted as official identification. ➡️ USDA overlooked a less expensive alternative. If visual identification numbers are difficult to read, improved readability standards could help address transcription errors without eliminating a lower-cost option. USDA established readability standards for electronic tags but failed to properly consider comparable standards for visual tags. Our filings also question whether the agency adequately explained its data collection practices and addressed privacy and data security concerns. ➡️ USDA must justify its rule based on the evidence and reasoning it originally provided. We argue the government cannot correct deficiencies in its reasoning by introducing new explanations during litigation. The agency must defend the justification it provided when adopting the rule. We also contend the administrative record does not adequately support the required determination that restricting interstate movement in this manner is necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of livestock disease. WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE COURT TO DO: R-CALF USA and its fellow plaintiffs are asking the court to set aside the rule and restore producers' ability to choose between visual and electronic eartags. This would preserve livestock identification requirements while restoring the flexibility producers had before the mandate. We will continue pressing for a decision that holds USDA accountable to the law and protects independent producers from an inadequately justified federal mandate.