Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[festivefeet]

We have chickens against our township ordinance. We live on about an acre and have neighbors on each side of us. One neighbor two houses down, back in the woods, has a rooster, goat and goose (I know, because I can hear them). The man across the street has two ponies and next to him is a farm field. No farm animals are permitted at any of these residences, but they still exist. We also probably have a rooster, which we would really like to keep.

I ran across a hatchery in Brighton MI that mentioned the Michigan Right to farm act. Does anyone what this act actually means?:

* Learn the things city hall don't want you to know....

* Did you know?? There is no law that states the size of a farm. The supreme court of Michigan says that a farm is any place that commercially produces a product useful to

* humans... This means if you have a chicken and you sell or try to sell the eggs that that chicken lay's, you are a Farm...

* Everyone, Everywhere in Michigan has a right to Farm. This is your state Law but city hall won't tell you about it. I had this Battle and have learned so much about our right to grow, raise and share Any and All thing Beneficial to humans..

* Please take the time to look up MICHIGANS<RIGHT TO FARM LAW, Know your rights when that zoning guy shows up and tell you , YOU CAN"T DO THAT >>>

* Michigan has the strongest right to farm laws in the U.S.


MICHIGAN RIGHT TO FARM ACT
Act 93 of 1981
AN ACT to define certain farm uses, operations, practices, and products; to provide certain disclosures; to
provide for circumstances under which a farm shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance; to provide
for certain powers and duties for certain state agencies and departments; and to provide for certain remedies
for certain persons.
History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981;¾Am. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
286.471 Short title.
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Michigan right to farm act”.
History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981.
286.472 Definitions.
Sec. 2. As used in this act:
(a) “Farm” means the land, plants, animals, buildings, structures, including ponds used for agricultural or
aquacultural activities, machinery, equipment, and other appurtenances used in the commercial production of
farm products.
(b) “Farm operation” means the operation and management of a farm or a condition or activity that occurs
at any time as necessary on a farm in connection with the commercial production, harvesting, and storage of
farm products, and includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Marketing produce at roadside stands or farm markets.
(ii) The generation of noise, odors, dust, fumes, and other associated conditions.
(iii) The operation of machinery and equipment necessary for a farm including, but not limited to,
irrigation and drainage systems and pumps and on-farm grain dryers, and the movement of vehicles,
machinery, equipment, and farm products and associated inputs necessary for farm operations on the roadway
as authorized by the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being sections 257.1 to
257.923 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(iv) Field preparation and ground and aerial seeding and spraying.
(v) The application of chemical fertilizers or organic materials, conditioners, liming materials, or
pesticides.
(vi) Use of alternative pest management techniques.
(vii) The fencing, feeding, watering, sheltering, transportation, treatment, use, handling and care of farm
animals.
(viii) The management, storage, transport, utilization, and application of farm by-products, including
manure or agricultural wastes.
(ix) The conversion from a farm operation activity to other farm operation activities.
(x) The employment and use of labor.
(c) “Farm product” means those plants and animals useful to human beings produced by agriculture and
includes, but is not limited to, forages and sod crops, grains and feed crops, field crops, dairy and dairy
products, poultry and poultry products, cervidae, livestock, including breeding and grazing, equine, fish, and
other aquacultural products, bees and bee products, berries, herbs, fruits, vegetables, flowers, seeds, grasses,
nursery stock, trees and tree products, mushrooms, and other similar products, or any other product which
incorporates the use of food, feed, fiber, or fur, as determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture.
(d) “Generally accepted agricultural and management practices” means those practices as defined by the
Michigan commission of agriculture. The commission shall give due consideration to available Michigan
department of agriculture information and written recommendations from the Michigan state university
college of agriculture and natural resources extension and the agricultural experiment station in cooperation
with the United States department of agriculture natural resources conservation service and the consolidated
farm service agency, the Michigan department of natural resources, and other professional and industry
organizations.
(e) “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity.
History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981;¾Am. 1987, Act 240, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987;¾Am. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30,
1995.
286.473 Farm or farm operation as public or private nuisance; review and revision of
Rendered Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 502, 525, 538,
544, 546, and 584 of 2008
Ó Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov
practices; finding; conditions.
Sec. 3. (1) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or
farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management
practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. Generally accepted
agricultural and management practices shall be reviewed annually by the Michigan commission of agriculture
and revised as considered necessary.
(2) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm
operation existed before a change in the land use or occupancy of land within 1 mile of the boundaries of the
farm land, and if before that change in land use or occupancy of land, the farm or farm operation would not
have been a nuisance.
(3) A farm or farm operation that is in conformance with subsection (1) shall not be found to be a public or
private nuisance as a result of any of the following:
(a) A change in ownership or size.
(b) Temporary cessation or interruption of farming.
(c) Enrollment in governmental programs.
(d) Adoption of new technology.
(e) A change in type of farm product being produced.
History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981;¾Am. 1987, Act 240, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987;¾Am. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30,
1995.
286.473a Repealed. 1999, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 10, 2000.
Compiler's note: The repealed section pertained to complaints generally.
286.473b Recovery of costs and expenses.
Sec. 3b. In any nuisance action brought in which a farm or farm operation is alleged to be a nuisance, if the
defendant farm or farm operation prevails, the farm or farm operation may recover from the plaintiff the
actual amount of costs and expenses determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the farm or
farm operation in connection with the defense of the action, together with reasonable and actual attorney fees.
History: Add. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995.
286.473c Property subject to disclosure; contents of statement.
Sec. 3c. (1) Certain real property is subject to those disclosures described in section 7 of the seller
disclosure act, Act No. 92 of the Public Acts of 1993, being section 565.957 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
A seller of real property located within 1 mile of the property boundary of a farm or farm operation may
voluntarily make available to the buyer the following statement: “This notice is to inform prospective
residents that the real property they are about to acquire lies within 1 mile of the property boundary of a farm
or farm operation. Generally accepted agricultural and management practices may be utilized by the farm or
farm operation and may generate usual and ordinary noise, dust, odors, and other associated conditions, and
these practices are protected by the Michigan right to farm act.”.
(2) Certain subdivided land is subject to those disclosures described in section 8 of the land sales act, Act
No. 286 of the Public Acts of 1972, being section 565.808 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: Add. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995.
286.474 Investigation of complaints involving farm or farm operation; memorandum of
understanding; generally accepted agricultural and management practices; unverified
complaints; applicability of other statutes; preemption of local ordinance, regulation, or
resolution; ordinance proposed by local unit of government; generally accepted
agricultural and management practices for site selection and odor controls at new or
expanding animal livestock facilities; advisory committee; manure management plan;
duties of department; definitions.
Sec. 4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the director shall investigate all complaints involving a farm or farm
operation, including, but not limited to, complaints involving the use of manure and other nutrients,
agricultural waste products, dust, noise, odor, fumes, air pollution, surface water or groundwater pollution,
food and agricultural processing by-products, care of farm animals and pest infestations. Within 7 business
days of receipt of the complaint, the director shall conduct an on-site inspection of the farm or farm operation.
The director shall notify, in writing, the city, village, or township and the county in which the farm or farm
operation is located of the complaint.
(2) The commission and the director shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the director of
Rendered Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 2 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 502, 525, 538,
544, 546, and 584 of 2008
Ó Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov
the department of environmental quality. The investigation and resolution of environmental complaints
concerning farms or farm operations shall be conducted in accordance with the memorandum of
understanding. However, the director shall notify the department of environmental quality of any potential
violation of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.101 to
324.90106, or a rule promulgated under that act. Activities at a farm or farm operation are subject to
applicable provisions of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.101
to 324.90106, and the rules promulgated under that act. The commission and the director shall develop
procedures for the investigation and resolution for other farm-related complaints.
(3) If the director finds upon investigation under subsection (1) that the person responsible for a farm or
farm operation is using generally accepted agricultural and management practices, the director shall notify, in
writing, that person, the complainant, and the city, village, or township and the county in which the farm or
farm operation is located of this finding. If the director identifies that the source or potential sources of the
problem were caused by the use of other than generally accepted agricultural and management practices, the
director shall advise the person responsible for the farm or farm operation that necessary changes should be
made to resolve or abate the problem and to conform with generally accepted agricultural and management
practices and that if those changes cannot be implemented within 30 days, the person responsible for the farm
or farm operation shall submit to the director an implementation plan including a schedule for completion of
the necessary changes. When the director conducts a follow-up on-site inspection to verify whether those
changes have been implemented, the director shall notify, in writing, the city, village, or township and the
county in which the farm or farm operation is located of the time and date of the follow-up on-site inspection
and shall allow a representative of the city, village, or township and the county to be present during the
follow-up on-site inspection. If the changes have been implemented, the director shall notify, in writing, the
person responsible for the farm or farm operation, the complainant, and the city, village, or township and the
county in which the farm or farm operation is located of this determination. If the changes have not been
implemented, the director shall notify, in writing, the complainant and the city, village, or township and the
county in which the farm or farm operation is located that the changes have not been implemented and
whether a plan for implementation has been submitted. Upon request, the director shall provide a copy of the
implementation plan to the city, village, or township and the county in which the farm or farm operation is
located.
(4) A complainant who brings more than 3 unverified complaints against the same farm or farm operation
within 3 years may be ordered, by the director, to pay to the department the full costs of investigation of any
fourth or subsequent unverified complaint against the same farm or farm operation. As used in this
subsection, “unverified complaint” means a complaint in response to which the director determines that the
farm or farm operation is using generally accepted agricultural and management practices.
(5) Except as provided in subsection (6), this act does not affect the application of state statutes and federal
statutes.
(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent
that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any
manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed
under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact,
maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or
generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.
(7) A local unit of government may submit to the director a proposed ordinance prescribing standards
different from those contained in generally accepted agricultural and management practices if adverse effects
on the environment or public health will exist within the local unit of government. A proposed ordinance
under this subsection shall not conflict with existing state laws or federal laws. At least 45 days prior to
enactment of the proposed ordinance, the local unit of government shall submit a copy of the proposed
ordinance to the director. Upon receipt of the proposed ordinance, the director shall hold a public meeting in
that local unit of government to review the proposed ordinance. In conducting its review, the director shall
consult with the departments of environmental quality and community health and shall consider any
recommendations of the county health department of the county where the adverse effects on the environment
or public health will allegedly exist. Within 30 days after the public meeting, the director shall make a
recommendation to the commission on whether the ordinance should be approved. An ordinance enacted
under this subsection shall not be enforced by a local unit of government until approved by the commission of
agriculture.
(8) By May 1, 2000, the commission shall issue proposed generally accepted agricultural and management
practices for site selection and odor controls at new and expanding animal livestock facilities. The
commission shall adopt such generally accepted agricultural and management practices by June 1, 2000. In
Rendered Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 3 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 502, 525, 538,
544, 546, and 584 of 2008
Ó Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov
developing these generally accepted agricultural and management practices, the commission shall do both of
the following:
(a) Establish an advisory committee to provide recommendations to the commission. The advisory
committee shall include the entities listed in section 2(d), 2 individuals representing townships, 1 individual
representing counties, and 2 individuals representing agricultural industry organizations.
(b) For the generally accepted agricultural and management practices for site selection, consider
groundwater protection, soil permeability, and other factors determined necessary or appropriate by the
commission.
(9) If generally accepted agricultural and management practices require the person responsible for the
operation of a farm or farm operation to prepare a manure management plan, the person responsible for the
operation of the farm or farm operation shall provide a copy of that manure management plan to the city,
village, or township or the county in which the farm or farm operation is located, upon request. A manure
management plan provided under this subsection is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information
act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(10) The department shall do all of the following:
(a) Annually submit to the standing committees of the senate and house of representatives with jurisdiction
over issues pertaining to agriculture and local government a report on the implementation of this act.
(b) Make available on the department's website current generally accepted agricultural and management
practices.
(c) Establish a toll-free telephone number for receipt of information on noncompliance with generally
accepted agricultural and management practices.
(11) As used in this section:
(a) “Adverse effects on the environment or public health” means any unreasonable risk to human beings or
the environment, based on scientific evidence and taking into account the economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits and specific populations whose health may be adversely affected.
(b) “Commission” means the commission of agriculture.
(c) “Department” means the department of agriculture.
(d) “Director” means the director of the department or his or her designee.
History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981;¾Am. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995;¾Am. 1999, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 10, 2000.

 

[CaraBear]

DReyRose - I certainly see your point...however, for the sake of my marriage, I will likely NOT be able to follow thru with any court related issues, etc, so that's why I'm taking the 'proactive' stance. I'm not really asking permission, as you can read below, I'm more telling them that I'm going to do it, and there's nothing they can do about it

Here's a copy of draft 2 of my letter to the City of Midland - being sent to the chair of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the City Attorney:

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I am writing to seek protection under the Michigan Right to Farm Act to establish a farm on my residential lot within the City of Midland, Michigan. I intend to have a small vegetable garden and to raise chickens for egg production.

In August, 2011, a petition was brought before the City of Midland Planning Commission seeking to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit chickens and ducks on residential lots in the city. The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to permit chickens, with certain standards. In October, 2011, the City Council voted to NOT amend the Zoning Ordinance, thus upholding the ban on poultry/fowl in the city.

Since that time, and with much research of cases of similar issue in the State of Michigan, it has become clear to me that I can continue with my plan to raise chickens in my residentially-zoned yard, and seek protection under the Michigan Right to Farm Act, both to ensure I am not in violation of current Zoning Ordinances, and also any nuisance complaints that might arise.

As a courtesy, I am providing my justification for my actions, in advance of establishing my farm. I believe that I am entitled to establish a farm on my residential lot for the following reasons:

The August 23, 2011 minutes from the Planning Commission meeting state the following:

This section shall not regulate the keeping of chickens in those areas zoned Agricultural district, where the raising of poultry is a permitted principal use when conducted in compliance with the Michigan Right to Farm Act (MRTFA) and the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices. The MRTFA is not applicable in municipalities with zoning when the property is zoned single family residential.

It was the view of the Planning Commission that the MRTFA does not apply to properties zoned single family residential. Court rulings in the State of Michigan support the opposite, as highlighted on Page 6 of the attached resource, Land Use Planning and the Right to Farm Act, as prepared by Dr. Patricia Norris, M.S.U. and Dr. Gary Taylor, M.S.U. Extension. In summary, the Michigan Right to Farm Act was amended in 1999 to read:

Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.


This amendment was upheld in the following court cases:

• Milan Twp. V. Jaworski – concluding that a Milan Twp. Ordinance that limited hunting preserves to areas that are zoned agricultural conflicted with the RTFA “to the extent that it allows the township board to preclude this protected farm operation.”
• Village of Rothbury v. Double JJ Resort Ranch – concluding that “an ordinance provision that only permits single family dwellings, playgrounds, and parks would prohibit farming operations, the ordinance provision conflicts with the RTFA and is unenforceable.”
• Charter Township of Shelby v. Papesh – concluding that “…the RTFA no longer allows township zoning ordinances to preclude farming activity that would otherwise be protected by the RTFA. Rather, any township ordinance, including a zoning ordinance, is unenforceable to the extent that it would prohibit conduct protected by the RTFA.”
• Papadelis v. City of Troy – concluding that a zoning ordinance “…limiting such activity to parcels with an area no less than five acres is preempted by the RTFA and is not enforceable.”

In addition, Page 2 of the enclosed Right to Farm Act Policy Platform by the Michigan Association of Planning, summarizes recent court decisions that provide nuisance immunity in newly established farms in residential areas. While the Michigan Association of Planning is recommending changes to the RTFA, they acknowledge that the court decisions currently on file with regards to the RTFA support both newly established farm operations, including residential areas, as well as preemption of local zoning ordinances, so long as the farm uses GAAMPs.

I believe it to be indisputable that the Michigan Right to Farm Act allows me to establish a farm in a residentially-zoned area.

To be clear, the Michigan Right to Farm Act only provides protection from nuisance complaints if said farm meets the criteria of a farm, as defined by the RTFA. These criteria are as follows:

• The activity is a “farm or farm operation” – definitions provided on the attached resource, page 2.
• The activity is engaged in commercial production of its farm product
• The farm complies with the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices

My farm will produce vegetables, as well as eggs from chickens. I have several friends and acquaintances who intend to purchase my farm-fresh eggs from me, thus making my farm a commercial operation, and I will keep records and file taxes accordingly. I also intend to comply with all relevant GAAMPs, including, but not limited to those pertaining to Manure and Animal Care. Prior to farm operations commencing, all GAAMPs and other related regulations and resources will be on file in my home office. Copies of the Michigan Right to Farm Act and GAAMPs can be found on the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development website.

In order to maintain positive neighbor relations, I intend to raise chickens under many of the guidelines suggested by the Planning Commission in the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to:

• Not keeping a rooster
• No slaughtering of chickens on the premises
• Providing an covered enclosure that will house the chickens at all times
• Locating the covered enclosure in the rear yard, no closer than 10 feet to any property line and/or within 40 feet of any neighboring residential structure
• Constructing a covered enclosure with traditional building materials, that will prevent rats, mice and other rodents access to the chickens. All feed will also be stored in a rodent-proof manner.
• Not install signage with regards to eggs for sale.

I firmly believe in my right to grow a garden and raise chickens for eggs in my own plot of land, regardless of its location. I will do so responsibly and with respect for the animals involved, and my neighbors.

I thank you for your attention to this matter, and hope that this proactive attempt to avoid any zoning violations and/or nuisance complaints is appreciated.

Best regards,

Enclosed Land Use Planning and the Right to Farm Act, Norris and Taylor
Michigan Association of Planning, Right to Farm Act Policy Platform

I'm hoping to get this sent out next week - feedback is appreciated!!

Thanks!

 

[Blooie]

I am in Wyoming, the state. But your fight is my fight.

 

[RTFchickens]

Teery,
I appreciate your advice. Many people on this thread unfortunately are being charged criminally, being threatened, and downright illegally assaulted and harrassed by ordinance officers, commissioners, and neighbors. All for keeping chickens.
While this beautiful country is intended to be a free and just run system, many of us have endured some of the ugliest sides of government, and our legal system.
As this has caused much heartache, and tears I have found some of the greatest individuals around. These guys have given of their time, money, and resources to help each other. We have banded together to show support in court rooms, fostered animals after a fellow farmer had court orders to remove them, we have attended workshops, and Ag meetings.
I understand what you are saying, that these court battles should not be happening, but indeed, they ARE.
And I appreciate the people here who support each other.

 

[VikkiP]

After reading all 47 pages of this thread, it's nice to see "Your_Neighbor" has finally left the room. I'm glad he's not my neighbor, though he could well be.

I'd like to introduce myself. I am the "Papesh" of the "Shelby Township vs. Papesh" Michigan RTFA case from a few years back. In fact, I found this forum and this thread by Googling for the link to the case for another new customer interested in keeping a few chickens of their own. It's interesting to see the opinions presented here, and the confusion about simple things like "Livestock Production Facilities" (50 animal units = 5000 chickens, don't let anyone tell you otherwise) and the new Farm Market GAAMP. If you build a retail store and stock it with stuff you buy at your local farmer's market, then be sure you read it thoroughly. If, like us, you sell from a refrigerator under a covered porch or weather shelter, you'll be fine.

Our farming operation is still going strong, we currently have about 300 laying hens and raise 25 or so turkeys seasonally to fill pre-orders. We've had no further contact with our township or our neighbors regarding our chickens.

Here in Shelby Township, the official stance is still no livestock except on agricultural property, and guess what? There is no more agricultural property, it was all been rezoned to residential years ago. And our township ordinances are so archaic that it is illegal to grow sweet corn, tomatoes, lettuce, etc on your residential property. There are a lot of "lawbreakers" in the township, including, I'm sure, some of the local officials.

One thing that never came out in our case, and made me laugh at some of the posts saying we weren't a legally created farm, is that our homestead is the last undivided piece of an 83 acre land patent issued in 1822. This was an active working commercial farm from 1822 up until the 1960s, when the acreage was split off and left fallow. The walnut, cherry, apple and pear trees were not cut down; many of them are still producing today. We chose not to pursue the aspect of the RTFA that permits continued use of a property despite interruption, change of ownership, change of product and so on in order to make our case a clear and strong precedent against the abuse of property owners by local government.

And yes, ours is one of those cases where our coops are down the hill from the house, and closer to the neighbor's house than our own. The twist is that the entire property where the subdivision is now was vacant when we bought our first chickens, and the lot was sold and the house built with the chickens in place. It's not like we snuck them in one night and surprised the neighbors of the big box houses. We have photos of our chickens walking around the coops in '97, when the land to the north was still fallow fields with a number of 10-30 year old trees. I can't choose my neighbors, but I can choose how to manage my acre.

For those of you involved in a battle, my best wishes to you. It's agonizing, stressful, costly, and hard on families. The easy answer is to comply and shut down. If you do, I can't fault you for doing what you feel is right. If you can come to a peaceful, non-court resolution in your favor, such as a grass roots effort to modify the local ordinances to allow reasonable stocking for non-commercial use, it should be less of a battle than a years-long fight in the courts. If you choose to fight, be sure you are doing everything by the book as far as GAAMPs, and do your own case research. Make lists of things that are similar to your case. Keep good records, be sure to sell your products (even to co-workers, there is NO DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL that says how much you have to sell to be commercial, though don't sell a token dozen just to try to pull it off). File a 1040 Schedule F every year. Find a market for your manure, only so much of it can go on your own garden before you fail soil tests, and unless you only have a couple of birds, you won't be able to compost all that you produce in a backyard pile. Hint: list it for free on Craigslist, the Downriver folks are always looking for as much as they can get. It will go away as fast as you bag it. It helps to have a good lawyer well versed in RTFA, the hard part is finding one. As time goes on, more will gain experience.

The Michigan Farm Bureau, of which I was a member of the Macomb County branch, refused to help us when I reached out to them early in our case. They said we had no chance of winning, and that it was too bad. The Farm Bureau is not interested in micro-agriculture, so don't expect support there.

Here's a good read on the basics of the RTFA. This is a plain language Act, which makes it much more difficult for a judge to twist it around. However, as shown in our case, they can fail to read and comprehend it, which is why we went to Appeals. http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech Bullitin Land Use.pdf

Good luck, and thanks for keeping backyard agriculture alive.

 

[shadygrovefarm]

Hey everybody. I just wanted to share this link to a video that has been done about our farm and our Michigan Right to Farm case that is coming up on November 20 and 21 in the Marquette County Circuit Court in Marquette, MI in the Upper Peninsula. We appreciate the support that we have received as well as all of the work that you people are doing in regards to the Ag Commission and the proposed amendments to the GAAMP's, etc. Keep up the good work!

 

[Mustaq Varish]

What's strange to me is that with the 800 pages of public comments, we've seen an outpouring of correspondence AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGES. Much to most of that correspondence is signed and dated and verifiable as to the integrity and sincerity of the originators. What I have yet to see is the full list of contributors who stand IN FAVOR of the proposed changes. Shouldn't some degree of accountability be forthcoming from the "other side"? Unless the side that wants to eliminate the present protections is willing to reveal themselves and their motivations in the full light of public debate, I can't see why the commission should give them any audience at all. Could it be that input from 21 individuals is about to override the wishes of 684? I've read the guidelines that reference the nebulous and varied entities and agencies that have input to the proposed GAAMPs and it's ludicrous that perhaps some single administrator should have so much sway against the majority here. Lending any credence to those who choose to remain faceless and nameless without public debate or disclosure of their underlying motivations is an outright abuse of the positions to which our commissioners have been appointed. I call on the Ag Department Commission to reveal who is asking for these changes and why. Justice and integrity of the law requires balance which has been blatantly and conspicuously absent from this rule making body thus far. Reasonability suggests there must be MORE THAN 800 pages of documentation from individuals IN SUPPORT of the proposed GAAMPs changes for this body to even consider imposing them on us however I'm not aware of anything like that having been presented. And...after all, what's the sense in asking for public input if the commission doesn't intend to honor it? Perhaps it's only "considered" if it leans in the direction they were going to vote anyway? Could it be that requesting public input is merely a formality or remnant from when the RTF act actually meant something? Maybe it's an attempt to placate the masses and make us think that some form of "justice" is being dispensed? Corporations are NOT individuals. I'm tired of conniving bureaucrats continually sniffing around my barnyard and testing the waters in order to move forward with their heinous agendas.

 

[RTFchickens]

I've email every single member of the Ag commission today with only one member returning my email. I'm not done though. You see, this land was ALL farm land at one point. Occupied by Native Americans who farmed, hunted, lived, and loved this land. We were all given the Right To Farm. Unfortunately this land that we think is ours is taxed to the point where if we don't keep paying for our property every year (twice actually) then it is repossessed by the government. Even though we buy, and pay taxes on our property we are not free to do with it what we choose. My animals cannot be seen heard nor smelled without trespassing, yet I'm fighting to keep them, and fighting criminal harrasent from my local officials.
I'm fed up! I work hard, raise my family right, and in my spare time I as well as others travel the state, and make calls and send emails just to advocate for my right to feed my family, and some friends the way people have done for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Hopefully these emails and calls don't fall on deaf ears...

 

[Mustaq Varish]

Well, they voted to accept the site selection GAAMP a few hours ago effectively depriving thousands of current backyard farmers of their right to protection under RTFA. Even where those practitioners had done everything required in terms of establishing an LLC or other company to conduct "commerce" by selling or intending to sell their products. Only one commissioner voted to actually uphold her oath to protect and foster all forms of farming and agriculture in the state. The others deluded themselves into thinking the same thing while voting against it. Who benefits? C.A.F.O.s for one and the AG Commission itself for another. Another change now allows CAFOs to self-regulate thereby giving the AG department more free time to do what?...help urban municipalities (who admit to not having the background or knowledge to do it right) develop their own set of guidelines for urban and suburban farming? No, they'll instead be left to formulate their own policies if there is sufficient community pressure from outraged residents who are fed-up with contaminated spinach in salad bars, e-coli infected beef and pigs dying everywhere from another rampant Asian infectious organism. For now, the short-term response will be to issue citations against the backyard farmers where they've been itching to do so for a long time. The vagueness and ambiguity in the GAAMPS is staggeringly overwhelming. There are so many missing definitions and contradictions this has become a lawyers wet-dream. The courts will be full for years. It was funny to hear them say that "none of this is permanent" and if they get enough "phone calls" one way or the other in the next few months, they could draft and accept changes that ameliorate the "damages" from their current decision. I guess the 1000 or so responses they got asking them NOT TO ADOPT the proposed GAAMPS don't carry as much weight as the 23 responses they got in favor of them. Who will be hurt? Well, look at all those mini chicken coops for sale at Tractor Supply Company...they may as well give those back to the supplier. Also all the magazines that cater to backyard farmers will be losing their Michigan subscribers in short order. Then there is the health of participants. Forced to eat "factory food" and deprived of their animals this is a true hardship physically and emotionally for all of us. In the end, this will get ugly. People will now continue to do what they've been doing all along in secret. They've pushed us into our basements and back alleys as we are all now outlaws. I'm sure Debbie Stabenow will enjoy learning the board has just made thousands of urban farmers criminals this afternoon. I have no idea what Rick Snyder will think but they're both going to find out shortly. Has anyone taken this to the U.S. Supreme Court yet? Can any governmental body prevent you from deriving sustenance from your own land? They did a fine job of "dumping" this responsibility when the proper and responsible thing to do was orchestrate a smooth hand-off to organizations primed and vetted to pick up the slack properly. Now we suffer. This is the Michigan I've grown to be accustomed to over the last 40 years. Shame on the AG Commission.

 

[RaZ]

Everyone at MDARD keeps saying the same thing that Jim Johnson said on Monday, that it is just too hard to regulate this at a statewide level.
That is Bull-

There is a standard of care established for nearly each type of livestock you can think of. I have used this data for my MAEAP verification and for projects during my masters programme. This data can be compiled in one easy-to-use format of chart based checklist. A single page, based on animal type, can tell you how much area is needed, how much shelter is required, and how much manure is produced. If desired, I can also demonstrate the affect the animal has on the soil structure and potential runoff. Even a dim-witted ordinance nazi can understand the chart.

I have proposed this to MDARD and the GAAMPs committee chairpeople. Not one person has even bother to look at the data.
Inspection, regulation, mitigation or other enforcement can be accomplished with a single-source guideline.

Anyone remember when each town had its own set of building codes? It was a chaotic nightmare for citizens and builders alike until the building code was codified as a statewide code. Each town still does its own inspections but now they are all using the same set of guidelines. This can be done with livestock as well.

My idea would eliminate the confusing animal unit designation and use simple math to determine the suitability of any animal in any given area. Heck it could even be constructed to protect the CAFOs that MDARD loves so much.

The beauty is that the data are neutral and scientifically based.