Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

You know, I wonder if instead of looking to city or local governments to understand and support farming rights under MRTFA, we should instead be making the case to our state representatives. The law was passed by the state legislature, after all, and you would think it would be in their interest to make sure that local governments understand and honor the state law that they passed.

Anyway, I thought I would give that a try, so I emailed my state representative this morning. I let him know the ways that I think having chickens enriches not only me and my family but also my friends and neighbors, and gave him the link to the now famous MSU/MSUE document that summarizes the MRTFA so nicely. I told him that my understanding is that MRTFA supersedes local ordinances in the specific subset of cases where farming operations (backyard chickens) are both commercial (sell eggs) and well managed (GAAMPS), and asked whether that was also his understanding - or whether there are other considerations that I should know about.

I'll let you know if anything comes of it.

Meanwhile, good luck to all of you out there fighting the good fight.

 

[DReyRose]

Ok, so, my chickens are up and running for two weeks now in Lincoln Park. My coop is pink with purple.../sigh. (Kids request)

Now, regarding all this other stuff. I have contacted my State Senator Hopgood. Their offices referred me to the MDA - one Whit, who, of course, says we do not qualify for MRTF protection.

Great to see this new information coming forward to share with others.

GO CHICKENS GO!!!!


Warm Regards,


[email protected]

 

[LadyHartman]

I'm hoping some of you kind folks can help me unravel my situation. I've been reading the thread and I'm pretty sure I understand how the law effects me but I'd like to put my situation out there for some additional input.

Just today I had a township official (Muskegon TWP, MI) inform me that there was a complaint against my chickens. The complaint is, of course, anonymous but there is a short list possible culprits. We live in a R1 zone (zoning was changed from industrial to residential in 2007 we got out first chicks shortly after this believing that if we sold the eggs we'd pretty much be covered). We live on just under an acre, with close neighbors on either side. Neighbor to the left loves my birds, the neighbor to the right is more or less indifferent. All around me there are neighbors that have had or currently have chickens and/or rabbits. (There were even horses for a while.) My birds are usually in an enclosure and when they are not they are within a chain-link fence. We've had our flock of (around 20) for about 5 years with no complaints other than an occasional escapee and the neighbors have never confronted us about them. I do sell my eggs, but I don't advertise them. Word of mouth is all I've needed. Manure is in a compost/future garden plot at the far back of the property, not near any water open water source and we cover it with dirt so there is minimal odor. I've done a ton of work with the schools educating kids and many adults about chickens it'd be a terrible shame if we couldn't continue simply because someone got there knickers in bunch.

With respects to the MRFL, am I correct in that I should be covered under the law? I'm in the process of gathering all my resources to prove that I am within my rights as a small farm. I have a list of laws and court cases from a previous post. (Thanks to that poster, it's tremendous help). I'm also interested to know if there is anyone else in my area of western Michigan that has had similar situations with the township and what the outcome may have been. Officials have told me that these fights are rarely successful. I'd be interested to talk with anyone else in Muskegon Township on the subject. Also, does anyone know of a good attorney for this particular subject? I'd be interested in having a chat with them as well.

Thanks so much for all your posts they help a ton.
[email protected]

 

[wingless]

LadyHartman, it does sound as the MRTFA should protect you, since you have chickens and sell eggs. The state could come out and inspect you and discover that you aren't following GAAMPS, but even in that case they have to give you the chance to become compliant, and thus covered by the law. At least that is my understanding of the law based on a detailed reading of a few cases, but especially on this clearly written summary of all the cases, by people whose job it is to understand them: http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech%20Bullitin%20Land%20Use.pdf

Three lawyers have been brought up here in the last month or so as having experience or interest in MRTFA:

• Stephen Bemis from Ann Arbor is currently defending shadygrove farm (in Northern Michigan, I think), and the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund is paying him to do so.

• More relevant to you, perhaps, is Elden Brady who has posted several times on this thread, but not recently. Go back to post # 463, for example, and be sure to check out his signature line, because it has his contact information in Muskegon.

• Finally, VikkiP, who is one of the few who fought and won under MRTFA, recently posted that her lawyer was Geoffrey Harrison from Lansing. See post #615.

However, I will say that based on how people have been describing their interactions with their local units of government over this issue, I have begun to wonder if there are other strategies out there that might be more effective. Before I hired a lawyer, for example, I think I would do my best to enlist the backing of my state representative and/or my state senator. MRTFA is a law that they (or their predecessors) passed, and it is their job to represent the rights of their constituents. You can get to a web page that will give you the name and contact info of both your Representative and your Senator here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s4usgj45ej4htl55mkejux45))/mileg.aspx?page=legislators

DReyRose, I know you didn't have much luck with this approach, but do you think it is worth going back to your State Senator and letting him know that the information you're getting from the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development (MDARD) is in direct conflict with another reputable source of information - the professors at MSU and MSUE who wrote the paper in that link in the first paragraph?

Actually, what MDARD says is in direct conflict with the rulings of Michigan judges who have looked at the law and have ruled that all of us backyard chicken keepers are covered by MRTFA if we sell something and practice good poultry management! How does MDARD get away with this?

In any case, our state legislators are busy people and we might have to be persistent to get them to really look at this issue.

 

[laughingclown]

In my opinion, you can contact the state reps till your blue in the face. The honesty is the only thing they are busy with is spending our tax dollars. These issues dont really effect them or their daily lives so they are not going to be bothered with it. Good luck.

 

[VikkiP]

There is NOTHING in the MDARD site that contradicts the MRTFA. I'd suggest any contact with representatives point out the responses and attitude of the Director of the MDARD site, who is not upholding his position and using his authority to promote legal means. His personal opinion should not influence the work of the MDARD.

 

[wingless]

Ok, so there are at least two possible ways that our state reps or senators could engage on this issue:

1. Let local government officials know that the opinion of their office is that MRTFA is legitimate, and protects anyone in Michigan who has a farm operation (chickens), is commercial (sells eggs), and follows decent management practices (GAAMPS). I don't think that state reps have any authority over local officials, but knowing that the state rep understands and supports the legitimacy of the claim might be enough.

2. Evaluate whether MDARD actively impedes Michigan citizens from obtaining legitimate MRTFA protection by:

• Answering citizen MRTFA queries by asserting that they do not apply, with full knowledge of legal opinions and academic assessments that asset that they do. (I am thinking of DReyRose here).
• Refusing to answer citizen requests to have their farming operations certified as being compliant with GAAMPS. (This happened to me).
• Failing to meet the stated MDARD mission to assure the agricultural and economic interests of the people of Michigan. (I think this is what VikkiP is saying, and is part of the actual mission statement of MDARD)
• Permitting personal disagreement with the law to interfere with a duty to uphold it. (Again, from VikkiP).

Does this sound right and ring true? Anything missed?

 

[VikkiP]

Spot on. If we cannot trust the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the MRTFA and upheld in MI Court of Appeals to be carried out by the party appointed to the department charged with carrying it out (MDARD), then changes are necessary to ensure that the rights of the people of Michigan are upheld.

In my case, the township fought me, the MDA (at that time) supported me, the circuit court ruled against me, the Court of Appeals overturned the circuit court decision. It should not have taken three and a half years to get local acknowledgement of my right to raise chickens, and the unfortunate part is that the township did not take one single step in acknowledging that others have the same right.

Obviously the best approach is the one that makes friends, not enemies. Going to war, as I did, is a last ditch effort. Continue to compile court decisions, news articles about other communities and their backyard chicken ordinances, followup on those same communities after the ordinances have been in place for some time (quotes from community officials would be best), the benefits of local foods and sustainable agriculture, and poultry management plans that take into account manure management, predators, noise, dust, disposal and other factors that will tip the scale in your favor or against you. Although it has been established that commercial (intent to sell for a profit) poultry raising can be protected by MRTFA, the value of small scale backyard farming has been proven for centuries and was the norm until factory farming really started to take off when trucks became available.

Here are a few of thousands of links relating to backyard chicken raising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_chicken

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/28/090928fa_fact_orlean?currentPage=1

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/02/backyard-chickens-an-art-a-science-a-social-movement/

http://www.backyardpoultrymag.com/

http://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/outlaw-chicken-keepers-keep-faith-nashville.html

 

[wingless]

I found a MSU Extension document that summarizes all the ways that state or federal laws restrict zoning laws in Michigan, that was updated just 3 days ago, on June 14th: http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/AcrobatZoningCanNot.PDF

If you go to page 4 you'll find the discussion on MRTF; I've copied that section below. If there was ever any doubt, this makes it clear that the current position of MDA/MDARD is not aligned with court decisions. This explains so much of the confusion out there, because the law states one thing and the department charged with carrying it out says another. So even responsible folks in local governments, who want to do the right thing, are misinformed whenever they contact MDARD for information or guidance.


K. Regulations about farms/farming are severely restricted by the Right To Farm Act: There is debate as to if one can, or cannot restrict farming to certain zoning districts. Unpublished court rulings suggest farms/farming must be allowed anywhere. Others suggest those cases were dealing with nonconforming farm uses. Michigan Department of Agriculture takes the position a community can allow, or not allow farm/farming in various zoning districts. If farm/farming is allowed, then all types of farms must be allowed. A community cannot pick and choose what types of farms are allowed.

Local zoning of agriculture cannot extend, revise or conflict with provisions of the Right to Farm Act or any generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPs)23, including:

i. Manure management and utilization.
ii. Pesticide utilization and pest control.
iii. Nutrient utilization.
iv. Care of farm animals.
v. Cranberry production.
vi. Site selection and odor control for new and expanding livestock production facilities.
vii. Irrigation water use.
viii.Farm Markets

Basic rule of thumb is if the topic is covered in the Right to Farm Act or in a GAAMP, then that topic is off limits for local regulation. See more detailed materials on this topic at www.msue.msu.edu/lu.

If a local government submits its ordinance on farm/agriculture, showing that adverse effects on the environment or public health will exist within the local government without the ordinance, to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the Michigan Agricultural Commission approves the ordinance then those local regulations may apply.

And here is the language of the court ruling that directly conflicts with the position stated above by the Michigan Department of Agriculture:

(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.

 

[wingless]

Wayne Whitman is the only person I ever spoke with that had anything negative to say about our situation. Our township is running with his opinion, however. Case law in the state of Michigan has set a precedent with the MRTFA, especially siting the 1999-2000 amendment addressing zoning that is in direct conflict with the RTFA. Nearly all of the cases that have gone to the court of appeals in Michigan, using the RTFA, the judge has ruled in favor of the farmer (commercial). Let's take a step back though. Have you talked to your neighbors about having chickens? Are they in favor for or against you doing it? Typically, zoning will not be an issue unless you have complaints against you. Then, if they are for it, keep it small and clean. I would also suggest trying to get a group of folks together that would like to see an ordinance drawn up pertaining to the keeping of chickens in your town. Approach the planning commission with the idea and see if you can create change. There are options before having to get into a MRTF scenario.

After reading that and considering everything I've learned here I have to say I can go forward with my chicken coop. My remaining question here is, why isn't Wayne Whitman applying this to his response to me? He's basically said everything to the contrary of this, court rulings and most importantly, the actual Law!!!
What do I say to him now? Is this the part where I go down to my state legislators and raise a fit until they make him begin responding in compliance to the Law?

Well, now that I've gone back to some previous discussions, I can see that this particular problem has been articulated several times; Wayne Whitman is the Program Manager for MRTFA at MDARD.

In one of her first posts, VikkiP provided a link to the MSU/MSUE document that so clearly summarizes the history of the MRTFA, and lays out the requirements for protection under that act. Before seeing that document I was never certain that I hadn't missed some important part of the MRTFA debate, and was always looking for some previously unknown information that would reverse my understanding of MRTFA. That document put those kinds of uncertainties behind me; thanks VikkiP for providing that document and putting all doubts to rest.

For the last several months, as different people have engaged with their local units of government to establish that they are indeed protected under MRTFA, I thought that the strength of the language from the legislature, from court opinions upholding MRTFA, and from academics at MSU/MSUE would be convincing to local governments - or that if they weren't, that some kind of logical, substantiated reasoning would be presented to explain exactly it is not. I don't think we've seen either: local governments for the most part aren't convinced, but also do not provide substantiated reasoning to support that view - except, perhaps, to say that the position of MDARD is that a community does have the right to use zoning districts to allow/disallow farming in different districts.

MDARD agrees that there is debate over this issue. From the document I quoted earlier today, which was just published 3 days ago:

There is debate as to if one can, or cannot restrict farming to certain zoning districts. Unpublished court rulings suggest farms/farming must be allowed anywhere. Others suggest those cases were dealing with nonconforming farm uses. Michigan Department of Agriculture takes the position a community can allow, or not allow farm/farming in various zoning districts

That is, even though they admit that the issue is under debate, their "position" - and their response to questions from both individuals and local units of government - is to choose one of the arguments and present it as fact. I don't think they have the authority to do that. I also don't think there actually is any debate, except the one fabricated by them: as far as I can tell, the arguments made by the legislature, the courts, and the academics all say very clearly that MRTFA protects all farming operations that are commercial and well managed. And that includes backyard chickens.

I have already contacted my state representative, and intend to contact my state senator, and possibly also the leaders of the agriculture committees for both the House and the Senate. I may also contact the head of MDARD. At the moment, I think this is where the crux of the problem is, and that all of our individual, local issues are just the symptoms. If Wayne Whitman can justify his position, great, but I want to know exactly what his argument is.