Michigan Thread - all are welcome!

[MiChickMagnet]

I don't think that we can; export rules???  I know europe has the best colors of poultry and we over here can only drool and dream!  (lemon, and chocolate, and combinations of them......) So far those colors are extremely limited over here due to export laws;  so i'm pretty sure we can't ship OUT either.    (same goes for roses, only a limited selection compared to europe)

ha ha ha, raz. ! Me either....

I went to one, and it was interesting. I have thought about going to this one if work will give me a day off, but i have no idea of strategy.  I dressed business casual last time, just so they knew i was serious. (hopefully)  Looked like they were trying to dress down from the suits, so i felt more at ease if nothing else.

The issue i'm having coming up with a valid argument this time is that from a bystander's point of view, this all started about having chickens in the city. Then the "right to farm" card got pulled. Then the argument over whether we are "farms" or not........... then they made sure to put us in the law, called us "farms" and put forth the rules for it, and now we are whining.......

NOT my point of view, but i'm sure when the word gets out to the little livestock/ meat/ dairy producers that they can either no longer function or that they now have to file paperwork and get licenses and spend $$$ the state'll dump this square into our laps. They have "railroaded" us AND made us into a scapegoat to boot, no small feat! All for the $$$ the big guys are likely funding this crusade with, and whatever revenue they'll get making those who don't get cut out of the picture register with every year.  I am VERY sure that this is the reason it hasn't been more televised, why would they WANT the small producers knowing that the ax was hanging???

Someone poke holes in this logic, PLEASE!  I've been stewing for days to find a hole in the argument and i keep thinking myself in circles. All i know is that  i want to buy local milk and bacon, eat local eggs, local honey. If i wanted to buy from large corporations, i would!  I still think they are unsanitary to say the least.  

This is your motivation and your argument. Putting a limit on the small backyard farmer cuts choice out of the market. We live in a capitalistic society, so they should just let the market take care of what they see as a problem (small farms). If people continue to run backyard farms, then the market has spoken. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I live in a community where there is a specific local law in place then this will not impact that law, right?

 

[BigHope888]

Thanks, Raz! And supercool to get radio time Monday night! I hope I'm not scheduled to work so I can listen!

@ Fuzzy, A) Business casual will be my attire. I'm from the suburbs, so i'll be trying to project the image of a youngish (31) person who is mentally competent enough to assemble an outfit that suggests I'm prepared to be taken seriously, as you said.

B) I plan to argue that their proposed changes will coerce me to buy into a system of cruelty and substandard nutrition, as our nations' factory farms are notorious for establishing, and arguing that I have the simple right to not be forced into supporting that which I do not believe in with my consumer dollars. I'd like to argue that we as Americans have been exempt from serving in the military for ethical reasons, have the right not to vaccinate if that is against our medical or religious beliefs, we have a protected right to bear arms, etc, but I'm hoping to find a topic that is more specific to MI. That's my starting point.

"Why are they changing laws," you ask? My logic says they have something to gain. Prolly kickbacks from Big Ag. What does Big Ag have to gain with these changed laws? Lots of money, both from squeezing out their small competition and from unwilling consumers like myself who would have to buy their ucky eggs and hundreds of other products.

Hrmpf. On that note, off to work I go.

 

[RaZ]

The issue i'm having coming up with a valid argument this time is that from a bystander's point of view, this all started about having chickens in the city. Then the "right to farm" card got pulled. Then the argument over whether we are "farms" or not........... then they made sure to put us in the law, called us "farms" and put forth the rules for it, and now we are whining.......

NOT my point of view, but i'm sure when the word gets out to the little livestock/ meat/ dairy producers that they can either no longer function or that they now have to file paperwork and get licenses and spend $$$ the state'll dump this square into our laps. They have "railroaded" us AND made us into a scapegoat to boot, no small feat! All for the $$$ they will now get every year in registration and inspection fees if this passes. I am VERY sure that this is the reason it hasn't been more televised, why would they WANT the small producers knowing that the ax was hanging???

Someone poke holes in this logic, PLEASE! I've been stewing for days to find a hole in the argument and i keep thinking myself in circles. All i know is that i want to buy local milk and bacon, eat local eggs, local honey. If i wanted to buy from large corporations, i would! I still think they are unsanitary to say the least.

I'll try to shed some light on what has become a murky issue. It begins with a little history lesson.

In the 1970's, urban flight was in full swing. People from the big cities were moving to the country. Land was inexpensive as family farms were dying out and the heirs were selling the land for development. City people built nice houses that were near farm operations. Then they began to complain that the farms were a nuisance. They went to township boards and complained. They filed suits against the farmers. They got new ordinances and taxes to drive out the family farms. So many farmers were being forced out that the state legislature enacted a law (Act 93 of 1981) to prevent them from being driven off their land.

Then in the late 1980's and early 1990's, farm operations were sold to larger farms or corporations. They were often expanded with little consider of neighbors or the environment. They were also concentrated into production facilities rather than tradition farms. CAFOs became common. Once again people complained. The large operations invested in PACs and Lobbyists to promote their corporate agenda. In the early 1990's, the law was amended to give further protection to the CAFOs. Act 94 of 1995 went into effect to strengthen protection for farms. This revised law was authored by ALEC, the "political consulting" organization funded by big business, big energy and big chemical companies.

Then again the law was amended in 2000 (Act 61 of 2000) with specific language.
"(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."

In the last decade, small farm operations were being taken to local court over zoning and ordinance violations. The RTF was cited as a defense in many cases and several went to the appellate courts at the state level. Local small scale farmers were protected under the state law. Several communities recognized that state law superseded their ordinance. The law was crystal clear, "...it is the express legislative intent
that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution...".

That did not sit well with some communities and was especially hated by big ag as they were the ones who paid for the law and did not like the "little guys" using their product. This is where we stand today. The current law protects every one who has a commercial farm product operation no matter what the size. Six (6) hens producing eggs that are sold has the same legal protection under the law as the egg farm with 6,000,000 hens.

Then in 2010, Detroit wanted an exemption from the law so they could write their own law applicable only to them. Rather than challenge the law and risk losing the carte-blanche benefit to big ag, the Siting GAAMPs were revised without any public input to allow large cities to make their own rules. The crazy thing is that opportunity was there from the start. Any city or town could submit a proposed ordinance to MDARD for approval. Not one local government in the state has done this.

So in the past few years, many of us have become involved and have been vocally opposing any change that excludes those who are small scale farm operations. Rather than work to achieve a balance, MDARD, the Farm Bureau and others with political agendas have been actively working to outlaw farming in areas that are not specifically designated as "agriculture".

The wording in the proposed change is directed at backyard chickens, but the affect will be felt by any farmer with any kind of livestock. Unless we can stop the change from being rubber stamped by the Ag Commissioners and have good, open dialog with the bureaucrats at MDARD.
I apologize for the length of this post but even a condensed version is rather wordy.

 

[RaZ]

This is your motivation and your argument. Putting a limit on the small backyard farmer cuts choice out of the market. We live in a capitalistic society, so they should just let the market take care of what they see as a problem (small farms). If people continue to run backyard farms, then the market has spoken. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I live in a community where there is a specific local law in place then this will not impact that law, right?

Sorry, if you fall under the proposed Category 4 and conditions of Category 3, you will lose your rights.

 

[HollyDuckFarmer]

@RaZ please do not apologize, I thank you for posting.

 

[fuzzybutt love]

If i go i'm going straight at the heart of the issue i think. -Why is it necessary to change law over a yes-or-no question???- And to point out how ludicris (sorry about the spelling) it is that i should have to tell them where on the 5 acres they sit on that my chickens will poop, and where i'll put it. ( I know where i WANT to put it right now) LOL

Again, i'm sure that they are only toying with us and that they have been using us for a decoy and to buy time for whatever the real agenda is/ was. I'm extremely disappointed to say the least in the small dairy/ meat operations right now; (not you daron) they to my knowledge haven't taken even the extra year that the state has given to even stand up and complain. They have more umph behind them, and could have made this a lot easier. Most if not all the folks i've brought this issue up to have expressed some form of denial, either "i don't believe the state can/ would do this" or "i'm in the country it won't affect me" or "my farm has been in my family for generations" (grandfather clause won't apply, especially if they are near a watershed/ swamp, which most of the state is)............ grrrr! Are we as "bird people" so nuts that the other ag folks can't believe that we are not exaggerating??? (my work friends think i'm nuts for having chickens as *gasp* pets! i mean, who has *food* insert horrified expression- as a PET?! ) LOL And bringing up genetics and breeding does not take away the apparent nuttiness of owning any form of bird........just means i'm in deeper........shuffle away a few steps from the nutty lady.........LOL

I don't think by any means we should give up on our cause. I DO however think we should be very careful, and succinct in what we say, especially knowing that since much of the wording and media has been aimed at US instead of the other meat producers. We will be a very easy blame target if not VERY careful.

 

[aart]

@RaZ please do not apologize, I thank you for posting.

Ditto, do not apologize!
Your summation is perfect for me, get lost reading long legalese, shows the sequence and reason for the laws/changes;
and I know you've thoroughly researched the law due to your own legal issues...Thank You.

 

[ladyrsanti]

I guess long and short of it we have to prove that first of all that there was never any question of the old law applying to us, before the changes were even written it.


Then i still want to know why a few chickens or a goat, behive, or a few sheep are soooo bad that they had to go to these extremes. Why are they changing laws and not just answering the yes-or-no question and giving it back to the local county officials like it's supposed to be?

Yep, that's my BIG question - why they feel the need to change these laws in this way. I have heard all of us answer why we think, but I have yet to hear them answer it. I've never gotten a response to a letter, however, no matter how many questions I ask. I even tried asking a large farming operation, a family business(large dairy) and got no response which is sad because everyone says they're so nice... yeah right.

 

[RaZ]

Yep, that's my BIG question - why they feel the need to change these laws in this way. I have heard all of us answer why we think, but I have yet to hear them answer it. I've never gotten a response to a letter, however, no matter how many questions I ask. I even tried asking a large farming operation, a family business(large dairy) and got no response which is sad because everyone says they're so nice... yeah right.

Exactly.
I will ask that question on January 22.

 

[Nigellas]

Well i am freaking out. My chicks were supposed to arrive today. And post office says no chicks came this morning. And the tracking info has them intransit, in florida two days ago and no additional info since then. My poor peeps are lost in the great unknown! I hope they make it they will be 4-5 days old tomorrow

Yikes! I hope your chicks are ok.


RAZ - Thank you for typing all of that out - it's really helpful for trying to understand.