Editorial

The good news is the federal government has abandoned its plan to impose a mandatory National Animal Identification System on every farm and ranch in the nation.

The bad news is the USDA could ultimately hand off the political hot potato to the states.

The goal of having an animal ID system to trace the source of a disease outbreak is, in itself, good. Most large beef producers and nearly all dairy producers already have identification systems in place.

It was only when the federal government started wrangling with small producers over every animal that a fundamentally good proposal was transformed into a terrible reality.

That overreaching by the federal government shifted conspiracy theorists into overdrive, with visions of satellite monitoring and black helicopters swooping in on every backyard "farm" that had a goat and two chickens. That in turn set off a rumor-fueled firestorm of conjecture over just what Big Brother really wanted.

As it turned out, no one could build a logical argument -- or a workable plan -- for tracking every critter in the nation. Practically and politically, it was not going to happen.

It may be news to some folks with Washington, D.C., addresses, but American farmers and ranchers are an independent lot. They rely on common sense. If there is no common-sense reason for poking around in their private affairs, they will firmly tell the government to get lost. That was the substance of last year's 15 NAIS listening sessions held by USDA.

Finally, after those sessions, in which NAIS was roundly and soundly criticized, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recognized it was time to euthanize NAIS.

Good.

In the case of cattle, sheep or other animals that are moved across state lines, the need for traceability is clear. In the event of a disease outbreak, USDA and state agricultural officials must be able to track down the source and lineage of the animals involved to control and eradicate the problem.

What we don't like about Vilsack's decision is that states would be required to pick up the pieces of the federal NAIS.

On the one hand, the states would do a better job of coming up with an effective and practical program than USDA did. In fact, USDA plans to work closely with the states to make sure the program is straight-forward, low-cost and uses whatever technology is appropriate, including branding.

On the other hand, the states are strapped for cash. By themselves, they don't have the financial wherewithal to maintain something on this scale. If a new identification program costs $1, that's $1 more than any state agriculture department has.

The USDA promises to provide money to the states and Indian tribes that will run the new system. It had better, because otherwise it won't happen.

Though the new animal identification system will certainly be subject to further revision -- as is any government operation -- Vilsack's proposal at least offers the hope of being lower cost, less intrusive and more effective.

So far, so good.