The Right to Grow and Raise Your Own Food

[MichAttorney]

I was reading the thread in this section on the challenge in Canada on the "Right to Food." Of course, being an attorney, I was intrigued by that thought and wondered what case law there might be in the United States on that concept (after all, the U.S. and Canada do share a common law tradition. Certainly, I knew of some of the fundamental rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court, including the right to travel, the right to marry, the right to privacy, etc. I knew of some cases that I had studied a while back dealing with the rights to enjoy the common occupations of life. I had not really done a lot of research into the whole notion of - what about the right to food, or the right to grow your own food.

The reason that I want to start looking into this is because in this part of the forum, the title of the forum appears to assume that the locality has the right to zone how it will. The focus is on changing the ordinance (which may not be a bad way to go about it).

For the Michigan crowd, we have the Michigan Right to Farm Act which preempts all zoning ordinances that would seek to affect commercial farming operations, and the issue there is how do the citizens of the good state of Michigan enforce their rights under the Right to Farm Act.

But, as I got to thinking about the issue, it is much more fundamental than that.

The issue is not changing the ordinance. The real issue is challenging the whole notion that any level of state government can interfere with your fundamental right to provide yourself with the necessities of life. Can the state stop you from growing and raising food? Note, this is different than saying you have a "right to food." One has to be careful about how to frame the right. A "right to food" can be construed to mean a right to have food provided for you. To me, the right that is much more easier to defend is the right for any person to pursue, through his own efforts, the necessities and sustenance that he needs to live. Framed this way, the right you have is to use your own industry, on your own land, to raise and grow your own food. It's not a right to have things handed to you - it's a right to use your own hands to provide for yourself (a much easier concept for people to accept and agree with and one that is supported in the case law).

Why is exploring this avenue important? Simply, I want people to start challenging zoning ordinances properly, and I think it can be done. But it requires proper argumentation and understanding what is, or is not, a right; what rights are fundamental; how can rights be affected by duly enacted laws; etc.

One has to get away from the notion that they need to just sit back and have their rights trampled on. Don't sit back and just allow the city to tell you they have the right to zone you right out of your ability to use your land. I can tell you this, they cannot.

So let's get started ...

 

[MichAttorney]

The first issue in defending your right to raise animals is to understand a distinction in the law between different kinds of animals.

The common law distinguishes between two classes of animals: (1) wild animals / game (ferae naturae), and (2) tame animals (domitae naturae).

In the case of Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether the state could control the taking of game (ferae naturae). The Supreme Court said yes. Wild animals are in the possession of nobody. In England, the wild animals belonged to the king, who could license the taking of game. Here, the people are the sovereign, and thus the state can control the taking of game.

Interestingly, there are other interesting cases dealing with how one can lawfully acquire game and reduce it to their possession and control. For example, where one acquires game lawfully in one state (reducing the game to lawful possession), and transferring it to another state.

One of the questions to ask is - if birds are game, does that mean that chickens are ferae naturae ...are chickens game? The short answer is no.

"Turkeys, like chickens, are domestic poultry." Nelsen v. Harder Royal Breeders, Inc., 290 Minn. 302 (1971).

State v. Lee, 41 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1949) (citing Wharton's Criminal Law for the proposition that "But all valuable domestic animals, as horses, and all animals domitae naturae, which serve for food, as swine, sheep, poultry, and the product of any of them, as eggs, milk from the cow while at pasture; and wool pulled from the sheep's back feloniously; may be the subjects of larceny.")

The important point here is that domestic animals are considered personal property. This standing is important for numerous reasons. For example, due process rights apply in depriving one of a property right.

Furthermore, one can defend his personal property (domitae naturae) against wild animals (ferae naturae). In the case of Aldrich v. Wright, 53 N.H. 398 (1873) the owner of geese was allowed to defend them by shooting several minx approaching and harboring bad intentions.

So - you have chickens, they are domestic animals (not wild), and they are personal property. Furthermore, you even have a right to defend them against attack from wild animals.

 

[DaikaijuTorira]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Section 1 states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Whereas the right to food protects the right of all human beings to be free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, which is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the right to an adequate standard of living, article 25.

Whereas all domesticated animals (domitae naturae) are recognized as personal property with ownership rights and liabilities retained by the one(s) with a rightful claim to ownership, even when the animals have strayed from the owner's property. William Blackstone (1765-1769)

Therefore, any law or ordinance made or enforced by any State or Local Government which abridges the ability of any citizen of the United States to provide for themselves an adequate standard of living, or attempts to deprive any citizen of the United States of security in their food source, or of personal property where no Constitutional Law has been broken should be deemed Unconstitutional.


Yes, No, What do you think? Would this be a reasonable argument?

 

[chickortreat]

Sounds reasonable to me, but it's like fixing something that ain't broke. The burden of proof/argument should lie with those who want to infringe on the rights of individuals.

In other words, I'll have chickens on my land, I'll have goats on my land, and I'll garden on my land. And I'll lock-and-load in defense against anyone who tries to infringe on those rights. It's that simple.

The whole point of the second amendment was that the founders realized that the Constitution, though priceless, could not defend itself. It took men to win it, men to pen it, and it takes men to defend it. All the rights defined by the Constitution are worthless without someone willing to stand up for it/them.

Let a man tell you how many chickens you can have, next thing he'll be taking inventory of your food stores.

This is, after all, the United States of America......this ain't Germany in the 40s.

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

I am not an attorney but I am one of We the People who fully comprehend that I have unalienable rights. As long as my actions cause no harm or damage to another or their property there is no crime. The issue with the current "legal" system is that it turns everyday people into common criminals with their multitude of codes and rules to turn a quick buck for the city/county/state. I do not believe I ever said the "right to raise chickens" was in the Constitution. I have the right to own property just as everyone else does. The man posing as "code enforcement" came onto my property trying to regulate my property. What gives him the right to decide what I should and should not own?

The “ought to” and the “is” are two different things.

The “is” is that state and local governments have the legal authority to regulate whether you can use your land for raising livestock or not. Citizens have tried to challenge it on Constitutional grounds and failed. There is no fundamental right recognized in Constitutional caselaw for your property to be free of regulation.

You’re actually arguing the “ought to.” Which is fine, its just that the “ought to” isn’t what wins in court. The “ought to” might win an election and implement the policies you agree with. Such as freer land use in municipalities. But that’s where “The People” come in. If you want chickens in a place where chickens are prohibited, you won’t win with bogus lawsuits and bad legal arguments. But you might win in the court of public opinion and get policy makers elected who will change the rules. That’s where your efforts need to lay.

 

[chickortreat]

A quote from Open Range......"Man's got a right to protect his property and his life, and we ain't lettin' no rancher or his lawman take either."

Not trying to take away from the OP's perspective, but I feel that much of the situation now being faced by American citizens could have been avoided altogether if folks had not hung their heads and tucked their tails years ago when all this crap got started. Who first thought up the idea of telling someone else what they could or could not do on their own property? And why didn't they receive a timely drubbing to remove such nonsense from their mind?

And yes, I agree, my livestock belongs to me, and I will defend them against ALL threats.....foreign or domestic.

 

[chickortreat]

We have to remember we are not living in isolation form other people and we have to do what is right for our society. So I don't think people should have the 'right' to raise food animals. It depends of the situation and area. What if people wanted to start raising pigs or cows in apartment buildings in the city centre?

Its fine to raise animals in an urban or farm environment, or if you have a large garden. Also laws need to be in place to make sure the way the animals are reared in clean and humane.

I both agree and disagree....how much land should one have to own before "earning" the "right" to raise food animals? And is there not a vast difference in raising a few chickens and raising a couple of hogs?

As to doing what is right for our society, well that's a highly debatable topic in itself, as what's "best" depends almost entirely on who you ask.

And your last sentence is most humorous. You say "laws need to be in place to make sure the way the animals are reared is clean and humane." So you expect to make a law to "make" me treat my chickens humanely, (which I have no problem with, BTW), and then make a law that says I have to stand by and watch a hawk kill my chickens while telling me I can do nothing to the hawk (which, BTW, I DO have a problem with).

I live out in the country....I can't see myself living anywhere else. And living out here has its advantages. No nosy neighbors, no stray dogs.....what's not to like? (Oh, and I have the right to grow my own food, too!)

 

[MOpalB]

You should read this

Oregon ex rel State Land Board

"We hold the true principle to be this, that whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which had once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States."

You are right on a few facts, wrong on many others, and mistaken in your view of US Law. The US Gov't retains the superior right to claim lands to itself, and though limited by that right, the individual States have the right to take lands within their jurisdiction for themselves, even where the State was created after the granting of the original Land Patent.

Go tilt at your windmill. I tried to save you an effort in futility.

No matter what I share you will find something to try to refute it. There are some of us that will fight for true freedom, even if others see it as an effort in futility, and there are those that are happy with a defacto government that has had the reins for far to long.

Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government.

In the truest sense freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be acheived.

We must be free not because we claim it but because we practice it! Freedom lies in being bold. Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish? To be free is not merely to cast off ones chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Life without freedom is like a body without a soul.

I could go on and on because I believe in freedom - true freedom - not the illusion of freedom! Those who won our independence valued freedom as an end and as a means they believed freedom to be the means of happiness and courage to be the secret of freedom. Could you imagine if they would have rolled over and accepted anything less?

As for my "imaginary enemies" I have none - only the ones I see are and have been intruding into the lives of a free people.

 

[Aunt Angus]

Oh my gosh. I see it now. Sov Cits. So entertaining to watch on court channels!

 

[olefarmersdaughter]

I would like to know when it changed from the government looking to us to provided food vs. us looking to government to provide food.