Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[andrewhill]

I don't wish to argue with anyone I just want to have 20 or less turkeys in a city under 95,000 people which is less than the 100,000 rtfa mentions. I want to have as much legal ground to stand on as I can but I have to think like the "enemy" does to anticipate the issues and I don't have a legit argument on how I don't need to be less than 1500 feet from any neighbor to meet gmaaps which right to farm requires. if you have 3000x3000 feet yard that's not a backyard that's a small farm.

Lets look at the recent court case mentioned a couple pages back, the judge refrences "uninterrupted continuing chicken farming going back to the previous owner and before the year 2000" that means since the new law was passed in 2000 that particular person was grandfathered in and the site selection law did not apply to that person. I am not a "grandfathered" case.

 

[wingless]

Hi andrewhill,
I do meet that 3000ft by 3000ft you mentioned, and still have issues from my local government maybe due to the fact I'm not a CAFO? I don't know... Wingless is extremely knowledgable on RTF issues. Wingless has been a blessing to myself and many others on here! She is absolutely right based on Supreme Court rulings interpreting GAAMPS. I have a letter FROM MDARD admitting through MAEAP that we are following GAAMPS. even though I'm zoned res and I'm not conforming with local government approval. I still get to enjoy RTF protection.
I'm sorry to be bold, but if you strongly disagree with Wingless's advice and knowledge I recommend you hire an attorney specializing in RTF law.

Actually, andrewhill, if you join the Michigan Small Farm Council (MSFC), which is free, then you also get the benefit of an affiliate membership with the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF). This is a national group of lawyers fighting for agricultural freedoms across the states. They have represented small residential Michigan farmers in Right to Farm cases and have won - and if you are a member of the MSFC, you can ask your legal questions of them, for free.

Both the MSFC and the FTCLDF are committed to promoting agriculture by helping people understand their legal rights. So even though all this is free, it isn't a gimmick. It is supported by people who think that agricultural rights are worth fighting for. You - and anyone - can join the MSFC here, and at the same time become an affiliate member of the FTCLDF: http://www.michigansmallfarmcouncil.org

 

[andrewhill]

By that logic, if you can't meet the criteria of the Cranberry GAAMPs then you also can't have chickens.

You ONLY have to meet the criteria of the GAAMPs that are appropriate to your operation. You only have to meet the criteria of the Site Selection GAAMPs if you have 50 animal units or more, and only have to meet the criteria of the Cranberry GAAMPs if you have cranberries.

And this isn't a loophole. The Site Selection GAAMPs were written for large operations and were not intended for very small ones, so it is appropriate that we are not required to meet those criteria.

And you still have to meet the requirements of other GAAMPs, such as manure management.

Or, if you become MAEAP verified, you are, by MDARD's definition, compliant with the GAAMPs. Several folks on this thread who live in residential areas have done that. Others have gone to court to prove that since the Site Selection GAAMPs do not apply to them, and because they meet other GAAMPS and RTF criteria, that they should be protected by RTF. And they have won.

cranberry gaamps mean nothing when your trying to just produce livestock.

the point of the majority of backyard chickens members are wanting rtfa protection against local ordinance which is dealing with livestock. gaamps pertaining to livestock obviously apply including new site selection which I already posted says that under 50 animal unit facilities are to be judged eligible based on 50 unit criteria.

everything I wrote is based on legislative law I am not familiar with case law and the legal precedents that may exist.

 

[andrewhill]

think about it like this from a under 50 animal unit prespective a dozen chickens is way under 50, so is a beef cow. there is a reason under 50 units must meet the 50+ criteria, so I don't get 49.95 animal units in my surburban Detroit neighborhood.

does anyone know of a good way to get a law amended like a good online petition or something? there needs to be a specific backyard poultry exemption like under 200lbs live weight or something so us chicken/turkey people can do our thing.

 

[RTFchickens]

;-) right on, Wingless!
I have depositions and court rulings explaining this. I know Wingless does also, and much much more...

 

[RTFchickens]

You are always welcome to join us when we attend the Agricultural meetings! They must not like us, but they do have to listen to us...

 

[wingless]

cranberry gaamps mean nothing when your trying to just produce livestock.

the point of the majority of backyard chickens members are wanting rtfa protection against local ordinance which is dealing with livestock. gaamps pertaining to livestock obviously apply including new site selection which I already posted says that under 50 animal unit facilities are to be judged eligible based on 50 unit criteria.

everything I wrote is based on legislative law I am not familiar with case law and the legal precedents that may exist.

Ok, let's go back to this. The only thing that you posted on this, I think, is the sentence that says this, from page 13 of the 2012 Site Selection GAAMPs:

Producers with new and expanding livestock production facilities that have a total capacity less than 50 animal units may request siting verification from MDARD.

Is that correct? I don't think that sentence says that facilities with fewer than 50 animal units are to be judged based on 50 unit criteria.


Just like the cranberry GAAMPs mean nothing when you're trying to produce livestock, the Site Selection GAAMPs mean nothing when you have less than 50 animal units. Vikki Papesh won her court case at least partially on this point in 2005, and Randy Buchler did the same in 2012. Those and other cases can be found here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

 

[andrewhill]

You don't think that facilities with under 50 units are to be judged based on 50 unit criteria?

It's LITERALLY the next sentence from what you just quoted here it is again your quote and the next sentence.

Producers with new and expanding livestock production facilities that have a total capacity less than 50 animal units may request siting verification from MDARD. The MDARD site review and verification process will use criteria applicable to a 50 animal unit facility for these requests.

If you can't qualify for MDARD you don't meet GAAMPS, no GAAMPS no RTFA protection.

 

[wingless]

That sentence says that operations with less than 50 animal units MAY request siting verification, not that they HAVE to.

There is no requirement for operations with less than 50 animal units to meet these siting requirements, and there never has been.

 

[andrewhill]

There is no requirement to get verification unless you want to use GAAMPS to assert your RTFA rights. If you lived in a rural community you don't need any of it but this is backyard chickens not farm chickens lol.