Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

I wonder if there would be the same support if a local farmer wanted to put up a 1,000 head hog confinement barn.

I think there is a pervasive feeling here that the level of public health or environmental harm that chickens have on urban, residential, and small farms is vanishingly small, and that the Michigan Right to Farm Act appropriately protects those farming operations.

CAFOs and other industry-level farms are a different beast altogether. As I understand it, many people believe they cause significant public health and environmental harm, and that the GAAMPS are not being updated to appropriately manage these unwanted effects. Not to mention questions around whether such operations can be considered humane treatment of animals, or whether these large factory farms are putting traditional farms out of business.

In any case, Right to Farm does protect CAFOs, with many citizen complaints that MDARD errs on the side of leniency for this class of farm operation.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

I would love to send a note to the township, and have others who have inquired how after I shared your video - I'm sure I can 'google' it, but it would be nice to know it's getting to the right place...

ShadyGrove - can you pass along name/address that you feel would be most beneficial with regards to hearing from 'us' ??

Thank you and best of luck - we're fighting with you, even if we can't be there in person!!

I'm not affiliated w/ the Buchler family's cause, or the Township in which they farm (at least, at this time), but I would imagine sending polite letters in support to the Township Supervisor would be the best choice:

Joseph Minelli, Township Supervisor
Forsyth Township
186 W Flint St.
PO Box 1360
Gwinn, MI 49841-1360
Phone: (906) 346-9217
Fax: (906) 346-3267

And, w/ that smile of yours? It's a shame you can't be there, as it would surely help inspire folks to just get along, 'n be happy ~'-)

 

[cowcreekgeek]

I wonder if there would be the same support if a local farmer wanted to put up a 1,000 head hog confinement barn.

I think there is a pervasive feeling here that the level of public health or environmental harm that chickens on urban, residential, and small farms is vanishingly small, and that the Michigan Right to Farm Act appropriately protects those farming operations.

CAFOs and other industry-level farms are a different beast altogether. As I understand it, many people believe they cause significant public health and environmental harm, and that the GAAMPS are not being updated to appropriately manage these unwanted effects. Not to mention questions around whether such operations can be considered humane treatment of animals, or whether these large factory farms are putting traditional farms out of business.

In any case, Right to Farm does protect CAFOs, with many citizen complaints that MDARD errs on the side of leniency for this class of farm operation.

Lazy J is right, in that such an expansion on an existing operation would draw numerous complaints from ... well ... just about anybody. However, if they were indeed any operation to which the Michigan Right to Farm Act applies, and the 1,000 head hog confinement barn was to be operated, or was operating, w/in the "generally accepted agricultural and management practices" as req'd therein? Then, the complaints would be in violation of this Act.

And, if it wasn't what this law considers to be a commercial farm at least at some point prior to any restrictions being placed upon it? Even the *first* chicken might be a problem, if keeping it were to violate existing Ordinance or Law, and this Act would provide absolutely *zero* protection from any complaint(s) filed against them.

Although I do agree w/ wingless, in that small farms are vanishing due, in large part, to the more efficient commercialization of agricultural endeavors, the Michigan Right to Farm Act quite appropriately protects all lawful commercial farm operations, both big and even tiny, that adhere to the proper standards ... even if we, as individuals, were to feel thier methods were inhumane, or otherwise offensive ... it's intention is clear, in that it protects farmers from those that might expect a cow not to moo beyond 10:00 pm, or over-zealous municipalities that wanna see larger tax revenues.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

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!

The video was outstanding, and I encourage you to consider expanding upon your advocacy efforts ... you'd make a great champion of any farmer's cause. You've done an outstanding job of controlling your temper in the face of what I'm sure you feel to be an attack upon your lifestyle. I'm sure it's not the city's attorney behind such low tactics as I without prejudice believe to be goin' on here, as I've seen Forsyth payin' his $1,500 bill.

But, it surely does look as though somebody's playin' dirty.

Although I'm not an attorney (like the two you've already got on this), and don't wish to offer any legal advice (even if you may still need it), the question that I've still not found the answer to is perhaps the most important one of all. It's not a matter of whether or not you were a commercial farm prior to the initial complaint over your farming where 'Animal Husbandry' isn't considered appropriate under your Township's zoning, or even whether you're operating w/in 'generally accepted agricultural and management practices' or not ...

If I've understood you correctly? The restriction was in place prior to your beginning to farm this land, however beautifully well you're doin' it. And, if so, the *only* way I can see Michigan's Right to Farm Act applying in this cause is if the *land* was being used lawfully as a farm prior to the restriction(s).

(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.

It's the classic question, w/ a modern twist -- which came first: The farm and it's operation, or the township and it's zoning?

If they're right? Even your fences are most probably in violation. If they're wrong? Forsyth Township can pay your reasonable costs incurred by answering the complaint(s), along w/ their city attorney's next bill.

I most certainly wish you the best, 'cause I've already discovered enough of what's been goin' on to know which side of this proverbial fence truly stinks, and, win or lose? You've got this simple plowboy's deepest respect for the manner in which you fought: Let 'em throw their rocks at your reputation, 'cause those leave no mark upon character ~'-)

::edit::

I interpreted Section 3 differently than the Court of Appeals:​

A correction of my own personal interpretation, because (in my opinion) the Michigan Court of Appeals erred in it's own.

Which, in regard to your own family's cause? Just simply tickles me to death.

I'm sure that you 'n your lawyers already have, but do see Padadelis v. City of Troy, and Charter Township of Shelby v. Papesh. The Court fails to see any intention on the part of the Michigan legislature to make any connection between one and two of Section 3, meaning that your farm operation need only pass the test of either one of the two, rather than both.

I apologize, with a big ol' smile on my face, for my error ~'-)

::/edit::​

 

[wingless]

Although I do agree w/ wingless, in that small farms are vanishing due, in large part, to the more efficient commercialization of agricultural endeavors, the Michigan Right to Farm Act quite appropriately protects all lawful commercial farm operations, both big and even tiny, that adhere to the proper standards ... even if we, as individuals, were to feel thier methods were inhumane, or otherwise offensive ... it's intention is clear, in that it protects farmers from those that might expect a cow not to moo beyond 10:00 pm, or over-zealous municipalities that wanna see larger tax revenues.

Actually, what I meant to say is that the harm that backyard chickens do is vanishingly small; virtually no public health or environmental issues are associated with a handful of chickens, as far as I can tell. So the need to exempt our kinds of operations - when commercial - from RTF protection seems unnecessary.

On the other hand, CAFO's actually do cause all sorts of problems, many of which have been a source of ongoing frustration for neighbors and environmentalists for many years.

So in answer to Lazy J, I don't think very many people would stand up for an intensive farm operation the way they do for backyard chickens.

Actually, I think that CAFOs are at the heart of the matter for all of us. I think MDARD and the Michigan Farm Bureau fear that when Right to Farm next comes before the Michigan Legislature, protection for CAFOs will be weakened, and perhaps weakened significantly. That's why, when Virgil Smith was on the verge of introducing a bill to the legislature to exempt Detroit from RTF protection in late November of 2011, MDARD broke with all precedent to invent a new kind of language for the GAAMPS (the 2012 preamble that for the first time uses that document to exempt anyone for reasons other than poor agricultural management practices), and did so in a way that breaks with their normal process, by introducing and voting on the language during the next meeting in December of 2011. Meaning, of course, that all of Detroit and others who live in cities of over 100,000 never had a chance to voice our concerns before we were exempted from RTF protection.

But my point is that to MDARD the 2012 preamble language wasn't about exempting us. It was about protecting CAFOs. The goal was to prevent Detroit from convincing the legislature to re-open the RTF Act, for fear of what the legislature would hear about what happened with CAFOs after the 1999 amendment removed local regulatory control over them, and how the legislature would respond.

Some of that is just a guess, of course. I wasn't around for any of this, and only know what I've been able to find in published documents.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

Actually, what I meant to say is that the harm that backyard chickens do is vanishingly small; virtually no public health or environmental issues are associated with a handful of chickens, as far as I can tell. So the need to exempt our kinds of operations - when commercial - from RTF protection seems unnecessary.
<<< snipped >>>
But my point is that to MDARD the 2012 preamble language wasn't about exempting us. It was about protecting CAFOs. The goal was to prevent Detroit from convincing the legislature to re-open the RTF Act, for fear of what the legislature would hear about what happened with CAFOs after the 1999 amendment removed local regulatory control over them, and how the legislature would respond.

Some of that is just a guess, of course. I wasn't around for any of this, and only know what I've been able to find in published documents.

Often, the resistance most micro/mini-farms run into is fear; fear of lowered property values, increased complaints for police/humane officers, and fear of crowing (one of my personal phobias ~'-)

Of far more concern to me than roosters that mistake street lights for the sun is of legislators who, once any law is revisited, may ultimately remove the grounds previously gained.

I've earned a good reputation for training animals, and I've never allowed my dogs to bark w/o provocation. And, I generally have one at a time. No offense to 'em, but many of my neighbors never mind their own, and have very many. If I were to trust our County w/ what I believed to be reasonable requirements/limits, than they'd probably wanna see my dog controlled by more than my keepin' an eye on his behavior. Yet, what if somebody tries to allow their dog(s) the same freedom I give my own, but it's untrained/undisciplined Pit Bulls they turn loose in my smallest part of this world?

The point of my long-winded analogy is that, in all things most reasonable folks would consider to be appropriate, there's gonna be a handful or two of complete idiots that are gonna do what idiots do completely. And, that's why there are too many Ordinances, Restrictions, Laws and Acts, so as to most specifically instruct mankind in every single little aspect of how we should act, to such extent that even the good and honest peoples, that try 'n do what their good parents and God taught 'em to, still wind up further congesting our Courts, so as to learn how horribly wrong it is to own a chicken.

 

[chickortreat]

Often, the resistance most micro/mini-farms run into is fear; fear of lowered property values, increased complaints for police/humane officers, and fear of crowing (one of my personal phobias ~'-)

Of far more concern to me than roosters that mistake street lights for the sun is of legislators who, once any law is revisited, may ultimately remove the grounds previously gained.

I've earned a good reputation for training animals, and I've never allowed my dogs to bark w/o provocation. And, I generally have one at a time. No offense to 'em, but many of my neighbors never mind their own, and have very many. If I were to trust our County w/ what I believed to be reasonable requirements/limits, than they'd probably wanna see my dog controlled by more than my keepin' an eye on his behavior. Yet, what if somebody tries to allow their dog(s) the same freedom I give my own, but it's untrained/undisciplined Pit Bulls they turn loose in my smallest part of this world?

The point of my long-winded analogy is that, in all things most reasonable folks would consider to be appropriate, there's gonna be a handful or two of complete idiots that are gonna do what idiots do completely. And, that's why there are too many Ordinances, Restrictions, Laws and Acts, so as to most specifically instruct mankind in every single little aspect of how we should act, to such extent that even the good and honest peoples, that try 'n do what their good parents and God taught 'em to, still wind up further congesting our Courts, so as to learn how horribly wrong it is to own a chicken.

And that's exactly why if the legal system would stay out of the way, folks would settle these issues for (and amongst) themselves. Some guy has a rooster that crows at all hours of the night? Won't be long before someone takes care of it, and it won't involve the waste of $50,000 in tax money, minion wages and monies wasted on a case study of the effect of rooster crowing on ornamental flowers blooming. I don't believe there is a form of government in this country, be it local, county, state (and definitely not federal!) level that can do ANYTHING without a huge waste of money.

 

[RaZ]

You should have seen the waste of tax payer money today. Ordinance violations for porch lights left on 24 hours, for sale signs in car windows, leaves not raked up, and my favourite one today...a porch light without a glass globe.

But don't feel bad for our over-worked ordinance officer, he gets time and a half for sitting in court during normal work hours. That dude has gained 75 pounds since summer. Must be all that court sitting time.

 

[chickortreat]

You should have seen the waste of tax payer money today. Ordinance violations for porch lights left on 24 hours, for sale signs in car windows, leaves not raked up, and my favourite one today...a porch light without a glass globe.

But don't feel bad for our over-worked ordinance officer, he gets time and a half for sitting in court during normal work hours. That dude has gained 75 pounds since summer. Must be all that court sitting time.

If Fats got his butt kicked around a bit like he needs, he'd find a real job and leave folks alone. I'm not kidding, either. If he gave me a citation for a porch light without a globe, he'd likely get to finish it after getting back up off the ground. Of all the absolute nonsense.....and people put up with it!

 

[cowcreekgeek]

Glad to see you're out/about ~'-)

I'd move. I'd leave. I'd relocate. I'd ... rather live under a cedar tree than have somebody measurin' my grass, so as to insure that it's cut to the appropriate height (and, for that specific time of the year, no less ~'-)

Come on out here, buy one of the homes nearby, 'n I'll let you raise whatever you wish to ... just keep your chickens away from my own, please.