computerBarbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

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.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/01/24/a-ban-on-owning-farm-animals-michigan-is-considering-it/

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 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/RTF_ACT-93-of-1981_379049_7.pdf 

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

Print Friendly
EmailFacebookTwitterPinterestRedditStumbleUponGoogle+DiggLinkedIn

Tags: , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Michigan Takes Aim at Food Independence”

  1. Chickens and rabbits are much cleaner than dogs ;)

  2. Karen Scribner says:

    Why is a chicken or a rabbit different than a dog or a cat? You can even put chicken and rabbit poop on your vegetables.

  3. Baloney. Just because a portion of land is arbitrarily zoned “residential” does not automatically make it unhealthy to have a couple of chickens.

  4. abinico warez says:

    What is it that some people do not understand about farm animals – they live on a farm, duh! It is not appropriate and not healthy for the animals to be kept in an urban setting. Want free range chickens running around – then move out to free range country.

  5. Cass says:

    No individual human is behind this. Some FOIA requests are needed to find out what corp or corps are behind this and which taxpayer bloated regulator(s) are receiving kickbacks or have conflicts of interest.

    In the meantime for what little it is worth, contact your state congress critter and ask them to insist this agency not make laws. That is the responsibility of the congress peoples.

  6. Valter says:

    I’m sure our federal vermin pigs had a hand in this.

  7. David says:

    You cannot live 1 foot on the grid and 1 foot off the grid. You have to choose a lifestyle and do it.

  8. wendy says:

    i correct myself, the proposed changes to the GAAMPS guidlines would affect our protection under the right to farm law.

  9. wendy says:

    It’s coming from two directions… big AG not wanting to share their protection law, and township officials who have been fighting it’s citizens for the ownership of a few chickens in urban settings… they have lost a few cases due to the right to farm law and… they have charged citizens as criminals with outrageous court fees and jail time… Possible 90 days for owning chickens! This law also affects small farms on agriculturally zoned land due to their proximity of a certain number of houses in a 1/2 mile radius.

  10. Irene says:

    Pork producers board mebe’

    Remember when the pork producers decided that “wild “hogs were illegal and anything that had curly not white hair was wild ?
    Seems like the green giant has a birdseye out for the competition .

  11. Alan Donelson says:

    QUESTION to those readers who reside in Michigan, as I did, once upon a time, for many years: WHO is behind this “initiative”? Who among your “elected representatives” are pushing or sponsoring this? WHO contributes to their holding office? If unelected “Commission members”, who are they? E-mail addresses and phone numbers need listing here!

    Is there anyone out there, in Michigan, who cares enough to do this research?

    If we are to bat away such dung beetles, mosquitos, and disease-ridden flies, however human they may appear. Each of us have to take up arms, hands, and fly swap’ems! WHO are they in this case???

    Please post here the names of miscreants fostering this travesty.

    Peace and Love — while we work.