Many horse owners believe National Animal Identification System (NAIS) tagging will help find a horse that gets lost or stolen. Horse owners are also concerned about the number of reports they will have to make if they take a horse off their property, which happens often. The lost horse question has not been clarified by NAIS promoters. The reporting of horse movements is also unclear.

Before examining these concerns, let’s look at who sets policy with regard to horses. The USDA appointed a working group for each species, to advise USDA on how NAIS would, if implemented, apply to that species. The purpose of these groups is not to tell USDA that NAIS should not apply, but to make NAIS work for the species. The working groups have no established legal authority, and USDA and state departments of agriculture may do as they choose with regard to working group recommendations.

The principal source of information on horses under NAIS is the Equine Species Working Group (ESWG). It has 37 members, seven from the thoroughbred or racing organizations, four from quarter horse and western discipline organizations, and three from the American Horse Council (AHC), an industry lobbying organization. The AHC is the closest thing to a representative of working horse owners on the ESWG, having among its members the Percheron Horse Association of America and the American Donkey and Mule Society. The ESWG issued recommendations in 2004 and 2005; their 2006 recommendations came out in August.

On the issue of a lost or stolen horse, the ESWG has recommended all horses be microchipped with an “ISO/ANSI 11784/11785” livestock microchip. ISO is the International Standards Organization that establishes many standards, including “ISO 9000,” which companies use to standardize their processes. The ISO 11784/85 standard establishes a cookbook recipe for how to manufacture the microchips, so anyone can make them.  Part of the recipe is that the codes in the microchips may be changed at any time. If a horse is lost or stolen, the code in the microchip may be changed quickly, which alters the animal’s identification. This tag is therefore completely unreliable for determining a horse’s identity.

Even if a better tag is eventually used, the NAIS has always provided for confidentiality of the database on animal ownership and movement. ESWG has not issued any conflicting recommendations. So it’s unlikely you, the horse owner, could access the database to track a lost horse.

On the issue of reporting horse movements, the ESWG has not been completely clear. In its 2005 recommendations, the ESWG recommended requiring NAIS tracking when horses “are transported... intrastate when commingled with other horses or livestock, or to premises or events where a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection or other equine health papers, such as Coggins, are required.” Few horse owners realize how often these health papers are required.

The recommendations ESWG issued this year have a major change—that “equine movements will not be reported.” Sales, however, must be reported.

But don’t start celebrating yet. The new recommendations support mandatory premises registration for all horse owners and mandatory microchipping with the unreliable ISO/ANSI 11784/85 microchip. They also state that “In the event traceback is needed, animal health officials will rely on the current system of maintaining brand inspection records, Certificates of Veterinary Inspection, VS 127 permits that are kept on file at the appropriate brand or state office or on the International Certificates of Veterinary Inspection that are currently recorded by APHIS VS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services]. States and USDA are encouraged to move these forms into an electronic format to expedite retrieval.”

This recommendation reveals that ESWG intends to fulfill one of the goals of NAIS—to trace a horse’s origin and travels within 48 hours of a disease outbreak. The current document-based systems are acceptable, but the ESWG is encouraging states to move to an electronic system.

One other part of the 2006 recommendations raises concerns and points to the ultimate outcome for horses under NAIS. Section 9 states, “Horses are livestock.” While this statement may seem innocuous, it presents real problems. State laws differ on whether horses are considered livestock. Some people advocate considering them companion animals. Many readers of Rural Heritage would generally consider them in a special class of working animal, along with mules and oxen.

Why would anyone advocate classifying horses as livestock? This question is open to conjecture. One suggested reason is that the status of livestock allows horse owners to obtain USDA assistance with disease outbreaks or such issues as mare reproductive loss syndrome. Whatever the supposed positives might be, on the negative side, classifying horses as livestock means having to play by all the rules applicable to livestock animals.

The ESWG recommendations go on to say that “the USDA must recognize the unique characteristics of the equine industry as it develops the NAIS.” Whether the benefits of classifying horses as livestock may be obtained while carving out special treatment for horses remains to be seen.

Where does this leave us horse owners? If NAIS is a three-legged stool, the stool now has two or maybe two and a half legs. The only missing leg is requiring horse owners to report movements. If NAIS is implemented for all other species, and all other animals are tracked, and horses are livestock, how long will it be before USDA and state authorities decide horses should not be exempt? Even if horse movements are not tracked, premises registration allows authorities to find and slaughter animals with greater ease, and being required to microchip animals with useless microchips is an affront to the intelligence of farmers and ranchers.

As horse owners, we may have received a short reprieve with the 2006 recommendations, but we are not yet free from NAIS. The only good NAIS for horse owners is no NAIS at all.

Karin Bergener of Ravenna, Ohio, is an attorney and co-founder of Liberty Ark Coalition. This article appeared in the Autumn 2006 issue of Rural Heritage.