Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[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.

 

[wingless]

What's strange to me is that with the 800 pages of public comments, we see an outpouring of correspondence and rationale supporting the continuation of the existing protections. 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 if the list of supporting contributors for the people trying to institute 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. I've read the "rules" that talk about the nebulous and varied entities and agencies that all have input to proposed GAAMPS changes and it's just ludicrous that perhaps some single administrator should be able to elicit a response from so many of us while remaining faceless and nameless is an outright abuse of the position to which they were apparently appointed. I call on the Ag Department Commission to reveal who is asking for these changes and why. I can't believe it due to a single letter to the board from a resident opposed to what's being done in a neighbor's yard. Reasonability might suggest there have been about 800 pages of complaints from the other side that are demanding changes to GAAMPS right? I'm tired of conniving bureaucrats continually sniffing around my barnyard and testing the waters in order to move forward with their heinous agendas..

What a terrific post! Thanks!

I am not normally a blogger, but I think the Ag Commission will be voting against us on March 20th despite the 684 small farmers and their supporters who asked them not to, and despite the fact that only 21 folks who responded by the same deadline were in favor of the changes.

So in protest I've decided to put my fingertips to the keyboard and to record as much as I can about what I've learned about MDARD, the GAAMPs, RTF, and the politics that are driving this decision. Some of it is pretty dense, but it is all substantiated with historical documents. Easiest to start with the single blog that I wrote in 2013, and then to go forward using the arrows at the bottom of the page.

http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/not-about-chickens/its-not-about-chickens

 

[JackieandChicks]

Someone should contact NPR/Stateside again on a followup and send them this information. http://michiganradio.org/programs/stateside-cynthia-canty

 

[RaZ]

Whether you are new to keeping chickens or have years of experience, I urge you to take the time to read the essays regarding the Michigan Right to Farm law and the recent attacks against small farmers.

Click on this link http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/ then click on the heading "THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHICKENS".

Your farm, your backyard, your homestead, your rights are affected by what takes place in Lansing.

And like the title says, it is not just chickens. Anyone who has rabbits, pigs, cows, or grows crops is affected. If you value food freedom, please read.

 

[eldenbrady]

They have changes their GAAMP proposals and are trying to speed them thrgouh. While the language has changed the effect have not.

"Category 4 Sites are locations that are primarily residential and do not allow agricultural uses by right and are not acceptable under the Siting GAAMPs for livestock facilities or livestock production facilities regardless of the number of animal units. However, the possession and raising of animals may be authorized in such areas pursuant to a local ordinance designed for that purpose."

It still says that if you are in an area zoned residential and not agricultural (my estimate from my experience is that 95% of urban and 60-75% of rural property is), right to farm will provide no protection for animals. And handing power back over to local governments is as good as banning it in most of the state.

 

[RTFchickens]

Eldenbrady, you are exactly right. We are seeing lots with 1,000 acres or more being zoned res, and banning any agricultural activity on it. We have 59 acres, and are not allowed to one 1 farm animal!

 

[Mustaq Varish]

Great work Wendy and thanks for recommending the read (especially the last section) Randy. So what we're encountering is a complete lack of transparency regarding intended changes. What IS clear is that powerful forces are at work trying to "wish-away" the fact that MRTF was ever created in the first place. Since they apparently don't want to risk facing the light of day, (like vampires in sunlight) by trying to abolish the original act head-on, they would rather try to "enhance" the act by effectively stating that "the only kinds of balloons allowed in Michigan are those that are full of holes". In other words...destroy the original intent of the act by incorporating "clarifying language" that actually turns the whole thing on its head. We'll be there again to show our support whether we're allowed to comment publicly or not but as economic conditions in America inevitably change with energy declines, agriculture and farming will return once-again to any plot of land that will sustain it no matter where it is. The right to support yourself on your own property is as old as humanity and no local ordinance or state law will trump your right to survival. This will perhaps eventually go to the U.S. Supreme court and even if that court says you are only allowed to eat Green Soylent, we will still find ways to provide for ourselves. Not even big agribusiness can hide from the laws of physics and locally produced and procured foods are the only long-term alternative. Such a shame when the balance of our established government gets so shifted by the greed and coercion of a few. MRTF was a truly stunning and ground-breaking piece of compromising legislation when initially crafted. See you there

 

[Mustaq Varish]

Two Hours Ago...
Now this is rich...The USDA is now set to start "helping" small and mid-sized Michigan farms even though our own MRTF GAAMPS board is seeking to eliminate them! See the link below...

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/03/small_midsized_michigan_farms.html

 

[RaZ]

I have already applied for some of the programmes being offered by the USDA and NRCS. The deadline is March 21, 2014 to apply.

The application process is slow and tedious just like any other government programme. Much of the process is still on paper forms. You best bett is to actually go to the USDA office in your county. NOTE: The MSU Extension offices have nothing to do with these programmes. At least in SE Michigan.

 

[Mustaq Varish]

Speaking of turning things on their head...I'm thinking that if the MDAARD is so convinced that producing food locally is the best way to feed the people AND protect the environment, the default expectaion should be that EVERYBODY ENGAGE IN AND BE ABLE TO RAISE AND GROW THEIR OWN FOOD ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. Only then if people felt they could not manage that would they be granted an exemption from the law. People trying to do the right thing should not be required to defend their proper practices. It's the CAFOs or the new "Livestock Production Facilities" that need to be challenged and held to HIGHER STANDARDS since they will provide food to others besides themselves. Small subsistance farmers are at least willing to eat their own products.