Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner

Michigan loses "right to farm"

4K views 14 replies 9 participants last post by  wave_crusher 
#1 ·
#2 · (Edited)
Am I the only person who agrees with this ruling? It's not banning anything, it's letting local ordinances supersede state law, which is how it should work. Farming laws that apply to the middle of the UP should not be the same laws applying to densely populated SE Michigan.

Maybe I'm wrong on my info, but I listened to a long NPR report on this, and I think local government should set up farming laws.


Most jurisdictions in SE Michigan have provisions for chickens, and the like. Such as you need 175' or such from the chicken house to the neighbors house for noise and smell.

I know if new neighbors moved into my neighborhood and started raising a bunch of loud, smelly animals, I would much rather take it up at the local level than the state level.

I agree everybody has the right to feed their family on their own land, and if they wish to do so, they should make sure they live in an area that allows it.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Am I the only person who agrees with this ruling? It's not banning anything, it's letting local ordinances supersede state law, which is how it should work.

Maybe I'm wrong on my info, but I listened to a long NPR report on this, and I think local government should set up farming laws.


Most jurisdictions in SE Michigan have provisions for chickens, and the like. Such as you need 175' or such from the chicken house to the neighbors house for noise and smell.

I know if new neighbors moved into my neighborhood and started raising a bunch of loud, smelly animals, I would much rather take it up at the local level than the state level.
You have more understanding than a lot of people and the inflammatory article.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1572_28248-327214--,00.html

RTF was written from the beginning to protect commercial farming operations, not backyard farming. There was a court case or two which was in favor of the backyard farmer, but municipalities have been regulating this, some allowing it, some not. More are probably in favor of it than not.

The 2014 approved GAAMPs include the addition of a Category 4 for site selection, which as defined, are locations that are primarily residential and don’t allow agricultural uses by right. A community that doesn’t allow agriculture as a use by right can allow animal agriculture as a special or permitted use. In those situations, it’s incumbent on the landowner to conform to the requirements set by the community.
The new recognition of what is called a Category 4 GAAMPs addresses farming in residential zones, basically saying you can't start a pig farm when you're in a residential area. It does nothing to regulate backyard farming other than to recognize what municipalities have been doing, such as saying you can't have a rooster (due to noise concerns), limits on the amount of animals (smell), etc. All traditional zoning concerns so that you have a reasonable expectation of what can happen next to your house.

I say that the article is inflammatory because of their reference to the Shady Grove Farm. 150 birds is clearly a commercial operation, not just someone growing eggs for themselves. As a commercial farming operation, it remains protected under RTF, and implying that this law is trying to shut them down in favor of big agriculture is a load of crap.
 
#6 ·
I do not have any live stock and yes I have read the article because lately I have been thinking about having a few egg layers myself. The way the new rules are my house on 2 acres would not be able to house any chickens based on the 13 homes with in an 1/8 mile rule.... Even if my house would comply I would still have a problem with the new change the way it is written, however, I agree there should be control allowed at the local level. But I don't think it should be set by the state in the terms of 250/13 homes or nothing allowed at all.... Townships should be able to make an ordinance as to the amount of and type of live stock based on your size lot etc.... so you don't have 100 chickens on a 50 foot lot in the city.... I agree with that,... But if someone lives on a 50 foot lot in the city and wants a couple chickens to lay eggs for their family they should be allowed too... They can have a dog or cat, but not 10 dogs... I think the live stock should be the same... not everyone likes a noisy barking dog or a cat that wonders into their yard etc but they can still have 1 or 2 or 5 what ever their local ordinance allows. I think people should be able to have them as a source of food or as a pet. Especially if they have been doing it since the 80's
 
#7 ·
I do not have any live stock and yes I have read the article because lately I have been thinking about having a few egg layers myself. The way the new rules are my house on 2 acres would not be able to house any chickens based on the 13 homes with in an 1/8 mile rule....
I believe that you're misreading. The 13 homes within a 1/8 mile establishes you as a Category 4. What that means is that someone couldn't run a livestock facility, i.e. commercially, but it does nothing to regulate you raising chickens for yourself if the municipality allows it. It's basically saying you can't start a new pig farm in a residential area. See below:

Under the newly approved Site Selection GAAMPs, is primarily residential, as defined, are locations where there are more than 13 homes within 1/8 of a mile of the site or any home within 250 feet of the proposed facility. If the site is determined to be primarily residential, and zoning doesn’t allow agriculture as a use by right, then it falls into a Category 4 and is not considered an area acceptable as a livestock facility.

Even if my house would comply I would still have a problem with the new change the way it is written, however, I agree there should be control allowed at the local level. But I don't think it should be set by the state in the terms of 250/13 homes or nothing allowed at all.... Townships should be able to make an ordinance as to the amount of and type of live stock based on your size lot etc.... so you don't have 100 chickens on a 50 foot lot in the city.... I agree with that,... But if someone lives on a 50 foot lot in the city and wants a couple chickens to lay eggs for their family they should be allowed too... They can have a dog or cat, but not 10 dogs... I think the live stock should be the same... not everyone likes a noisy barking dog or a cat that wonders into their yard etc but they can still have 1 or 2 or 5 what ever their local ordinance allows. I think people should be able to have them as a source of food or as a pet. Especially if they have been doing it since the 80's
What you're describing (allowing it with reasonable limitations) is basically what has been happening, but because of the grey area with those couple of court cases the local control could be challenged if someone wanted to litigate. The change to the guidelines effectively recognizes this control.
 
#14 ·
This was posted to a friend's Facebook post linking the same article:

This not true and a VERY misleading article. The recent press has all been spurred by a small special interest group of mainly homesteaders who want to be treated as farmers but be exempt from all of the rules farms have to follow. They are extremely misinformed and use tactics similar to the Tea Party and PETA. For some reason they have gone viral and the Media is not doing adequate fact checking.

The new changes to RTF only mean that small livestock farms are no longer exempt from have to go through MDARD siting process AND if they are zoned residential, have 13 neighboring homes within 1/8 of a mile OR a non farm home within 250 feet of livestock facility (pens, pastures etc) then they are not entitled to RTF protection for livestock UNLESS there is a local ordinance that says livestock are allowed. Cities, like Lansing, with local ordinances that allow for backyard chickens and bees will not be affected at all by the new ruling. Right to Farm protection from nuisance lawsuits has ALWAYS been tied to the farms voluntary compliance with applicable GAAMPS and it still is. The Siting GAAMP is one of several other GAAMPS that lay out sound agricultural practices for animal welfare and the environment. Many of the Farms upset about this new change incorrectly assumed that because they were exempt from having to go through Siting because of low animal numbers they were exempt from all of the other rules too. That was absolutely incorrect and why they ended up in court and the new changes had to be adopted.

No farms outside of dense urban areas will be affected by this at all and most urban farms that are operating responsibly with the support of their communities won't be affected either. We absolutely DID NOT lose Right To Farm. We Still have one of the strongest Right to Farm laws in the County and the VAST majority of farms, big, small, urban and rural were in strong support of the changes

(I am a liaison for Dept of Ag and GAAMPS/regulatory compliance for farms is main focus of my job) These are all of the GAAMPS including new Siting GAAMPS http://michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1599_1605---,00.html
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top