For those who take surviving an economic crash and maintaining a healthy food supply independent of the grid seriously, the fact that Michigan is even considering slapping a ban on the ownership of what it terms “farm” animals in residential neighborhoods is alarming.
Amidst a growing need for self-sufficiency in an increasingly precarious economic climate, this short-sighted and narrow-minded viewpoint is a huge step backwards in a march towards badly needed national food independence.
I wonder what the state of Michigan would have to say about the Victory Gardens of old… let them eat dirt?
Keeping even one “farm animal” in residential neighborhoods could soon be illegal in Michigan. That’s because a proposed change to state regulations could strip property owners of the right to keep and raise small numbers of poultry or livestock.
Michigan’s Right to Farm Act currently extends to all property owners in the state, including those in areas zoned residential or commercial. The state Agricultural Commission is considering a change to the regulations – called Generally Acceptable Agricultural And Management Practices (GAAMPS) — that would strip property owners of that right.
By doing this, the state of Michigan would declare its support for Big Ag over independent families that grow their own and are able to take care of themselves as well as their neighbors. In a time when we should be supporting each other and learning to feed ourselves, every single family grower is important, residential neighborhood or not. Big Ag and genetically engineered crops (GMOs)? Not so much.
The Act that they are looking to change from protecting “all property owners” to ‘only those who reside in certain areas’ reads in part:
MICHIGAN RIGHT TO FARM ACT
Act 93 of 1981
(3) A farm or farm operation that is in conformance with subsection (1) shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance as a result of any of the following:
(a) A change in ownership or size.
(b) Temporary cessation or interruption of farming.
(c) Enrollment in governmental programs.
(d) Adoption of new technology.
(e) A change in type of farm product being produced
So, it appears that farming activities that adopt new technology (GMOs) and spread transgenic pollen randomly along with toxic mixtures of Glyphosate and 2,4-D, or operations with thousands of cows that rarely see the light of day will still be protected if farmers conform to “generally accepted agricultural and management practices,” but you can’t have a chicken in your backyard.
©2014 Barbara H. Peterson