The GAAMPs are the guidelines that farmers can use to follow the actual law. They are not legally binding as a statute, as I understand it. But then again I am not a lawyer.
Having said that, the law is quite clear, "(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."
The "intent" of the legislative act (the law) is to afford a farmer an affirmative defense against nuisance complaints. The law provides a defined method for a community to bring action against a farm regarding odors, environmental mis-use, or other violations affecting animal welfare or social complaints. It also allows for a local government to enact specific ordinance as long as they follow the law as described. It is interesting to note that not one single community in Michigan has ever used this aspect of the law.
The GAAMPs are meant to provide a measure of assurance that the farm is in compliance with the most recent science for protecting animal welfare and environmental protection. That is why they can be reviewed each year to help establish the best practices. This is supposed to be fact-based, sound science based on actual research and data. The problem is that aspect is not clearly defined by the law or the committees that review the GAAMPs.
So now we are faced with a change that is rooted in a social exercise that is "zoning". A non-scientific notion based on opinion rather than fact. A political agenda being furthered as "law" and supported by those who want to dictate who can use that law. Essentially, they want to make the law available to only select operations and NOT for the benefit of ALL. MDARD seems to be supportive of this. MDARD refuses to consider that small farms are viable commercial operations within the state.
In my opinion, unless your farm is a CAFO you can't get any support from the Ag Department. You may be at the mercy of your local government and what you can do on your own property. Meanwhile, CAFOs and Big Ag Business are becoming self-certifying and are dictating what can be produced and by whom.
I'll leave you with one last thought. The director of MDARD and the Agriculture Commissioners have gone on record as saying that they are too busy to properly administer the job that they were appointed to. They are recommending a reduction of the meetings wherein the public can comment on and looking for a way to skirt some of the transparency protocols currently in place.
