Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[chickwhispers]

Our township is at it once again. We pulled a permit for our coop back in June. In May we purchased 59 acres with two houses on it. Since we have 2 houses, there are 2 addresses and 2 separate tax IDs. Apparently when we pulled the permit we may have accidentally put the wrong tax ID. Now instead of just changing it and putting the correct number down, they are trying to figure out how to hit us with another ordinance violation.
I guess the bullying continues! Once RTF is being used, the bullying can start? It's just not right!

This is why the statewide Right to Farm law is so important, even for people who only want very small operations.  

Local officials tend to err on the side of reducing all possible friction between neighbors, with a result that we end up with a lot of communities in which people aren't allowed to do reasonable things, like growing their own food.  Even on 59 acres!   

This might have made a little more sense when the balance between ag areas and urban areas was more balanced, but it certainly doesn't make sense now, with 20% of the state rural and 80% urban - and growing.  It just makes no sense to make it illegal for the vast majority of the state to grow food, or to have any idea of how to grow food; the ability to grow food isn't a skill that we can afford to lose on this scale.  

This may not be the larger kind of issue that every local unit of government is concerned with, which is why they should not be charged with regulating it.  It is the kind of larger issue that the state should be concerned with, and they should respond by creating and enforcing laws that protect the rights of all people in the state to grow their own food at some level.  What the appropriate level is in different areas is a fair question.  But I don't think there should be any question that people should be allowed to keep small livestock where they live.  

Chickens, in particular, are less of a nuisance than dogs or kittens, as far as I can tell, and each one produces an egg almost every day.  It is hard to find much fault in that.

I Agree!

 

[jimmywalt]

Tuesday narrowed our case down to a couple of issues. So we now have a business license appeal in which the city is claiming that no commercial farming is allowed so we cannot get a business license and a ticket for our goats in which they are claiming right to farm does not apply because we are not commercial. They are also claiming that zoning prohibits keeping our goats as pets (even though our zoning says absolutely nothing about what kind of animals you can keep as pets). It will be over a month before the hearing so there is more waiting.

How is that possible with the "Right to farm" law? Who says it needs to be commercial? What if you just want goats for milk or chickens for eggs for your own family?

Do you think they have a leg to stand on?

What does the ticket for your goats mean?

They are such a bunch of morons!

 

[RTFchickens]

Jimmywalt, according to my attorney for RTF protection you must
1. have an agricultural product
2. Follow GAAMPS
3. Be commercial in nature
So keeping chickens for my family to have eggs is not covered by RTF, but if I sell them, I'm covered. I'm currently trying to get my property zoning changed from residential to agricultural. This change will allow me to keep farm animals for pleasure too, like 4H goats, or a single pig for my own freezer...
And I feel the same way about the hot shots in township as you do...

 

[RaZ]

Jimmywalt, according to my attorney for RTF protection you must
1. have an agricultural product
2. Follow GAAMPS
3. Be commercial in nature
So keeping chickens for my family to have eggs is not covered by RTF, but if I sell them, I'm covered. I'm currently trying to get my property zoning changed from residential to agricultural. This change will allow me to keep farm animals for pleasure too, like 4H goats, or a single pig for my own freezer...
And I feel the same way about the hot shots in township as you do...

I will echo the above observation.
In order to use the Michigan RFTA (PA93) you need to meet those criteria.

Where it gets murky is in legal proceedings...
An agriculture product...Eggs, wool, milk. feathers, etc., certainly apply.
Selling those products also apply. That is the commercial aspect.
Complying with GAAMP's should be simple. However, MDARD will not cooperate with you unless you have a minimum of 50 animal units. But also according to MDARD, they recognize that fewer animal units are covered by common animal husbandry as outlined in Policy 8. That means that guidelines such as 4-H are viable defenses and recognized by law.

In recent court actions in Michigan, the RTFA has been challenged by prosecutors as to the level of "commercial operation". Court rulings in Milford and Garden City have ruled that there is a level of 'profitability" that should be met that indicates a "commercial" operation. In other words, one must meet an unknown level of "profit" to be considered commercial. That is in defiance of state law and USDA rulings of what constitutes a "farm operation".

 

[RTFchickens]

RAZ, another little thing I have encountered is that my township will admit RTF protection only after I produce MAEAP verification letter. MAEAP directly tells its farmers that MAEAP will NOT in any way provide RTF protection. However, in my case its directly providing that RTF protection. I think it's ignorance mixed with arrogance requiring MAEAP verification. I'm positive that not all Michigan farms are MAEAP verified but still enjoy RTF protection...

 

[RaZ]

In my case and Mike's, the judge ruled that MAEAP didn't count for anything. He went on to say that MAEAP was not a state agency because their website ends in .org not .gov. He further stated that MDARD has no standing in cities because they are the Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development.

I have the transcripts of these cases and others that demonstrate the arrogance and bias of this judge.

 

[chickwhispers]

In my case and Mike's, the judge ruled that MAEAP didn't count for anything. He went on to say that MAEAP was not a state agency because their website ends in .org not .gov.  He further stated that MDARD has no standing in cities because they are the Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development.

I have the transcripts of these cases and others that demonstrate the arrogance and bias of this judge.

That just plain stinks! (Maybe what is needed is a Department of Rural Preservation).

 

[wingless]

RAZ, another little thing I have encountered is that my township will admit RTF protection only after I produce MAEAP verification letter. MAEAP directly tells its farmers that MAEAP will NOT in any way provide RTF protection. However, in my case its directly providing that RTF protection. I think it's ignorance mixed with arrogance requiring MAEAP verification. I'm positive that not all Michigan farms are MAEAP verified but still enjoy RTF protection...

A lawyer fighting a RTF case recently told me that one of the important statements in the recent Lima Township v Bateson and Gough-Bahash, is the statement that the court can decide whether the GAAMPs have been met rather than MDARD. This might help folks make the argument that they are GAAMPs compliant, even in the absence of a decision on that matter by MDARD. Here is the section he was referring to, on page 10:


(2) COMPLIANCE WITH GAAMPs
If a party asserting an RTFA defense successfully proves that they maintain a farm or are
engaged in a farm operation, then the party must also prove that the farm or farm operation
complies with applicable GAAMPs “according to policy determined by the Michigan
commission of agriculture.” MCL 286.473(1). A party can satisfy this element by introducing
credible testimony or other evidence to show that their farm or farm operation complies with
applicable GAAMPs as set forth by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture.


The full ruling can be found here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

 

[RTFchickens]

More trespassers were at my property again taking pictures. I think they said they work for county vs township.
We called state police this time to report the violation since local police did nothing, and now state police won't even take a report! She said its not trespassing if they are doing their official business.
I disagree! This is the 4th violation and the 2nd dismissed police report.
Any ideas guys? They were given written notice not to enter our property, went around locked gates, and ignored no trespassing signs!
HELP!!! I need advice!

 

[RaZ]

You might have to call the State Police HQ and ask for the Internal Affairs Department. They investigate local departments for malfeasance and/or dereliction of duty.

Another option is DOJ.

You are entering the same arena of harassment that I have been living with. Stand your ground!