Right to Farm.

This is long, but very well worth the read! Thanks to Bob Reid for this great story.

If you are a farmer or rancher this article is one that you need to pay careful attention to. It is no exaggeration to say that the story I am about to tell you holds the potential to negatively impact the future of your farm. It’s going to talk a while to explain the entire situation, so grab a cup of coffee and start reading.

Recently a case went to court in Jackson County in the state of Michigan. After hearing secondhand how ludicrous and unjust the case was from a number of livestock owners, I decided to take a look at what was happening. When I finished reading the court transcripts and the verdict I was appalled. Not only were the two ranchers being seriously abused, but the precedence set by the outcome of the case was staggering.

What would you say if I told you that if your ranch/farm needs to be cleaned up, your fencing and shelters need to be repaired, and “some” of your livestock isn’t up to par, that I can seize your entire farm, sell all your livestock and keep the money for myself? That’s what Jackson County did and wait until you hear some of the details involved.

Before I get caught up in describing a number of the facts that will leave the hairs on the back of your neck standing up, let me take a second and explain how this case effects every farmer and rancher in our country. For those of you that haven’t had the opportunity to be involved in the judicial system, here’s how it works. When charges are brought before the court, the judge reviews the charges, the laws relevant to the charges, the evidence and testimony, AND previous cases of a similar nature. He uses the previous cases as a benchmark to determine how other courts have applied the laws to similar situations and as a strong source of guidance as to how he should cast his judgment. I’m sure you’re beginning to see the impact here. Should the county you live in decide that they want to seize your farm, claiming that you’re not meeting the standards they expect, they have a much stronger chance of succeeding now by referencing the Jackson County case.

Some of you may be thinking, “That’ll never happen to me.” Well, you may be very surprised at how likely it could be. The majority of people in our country have no understanding of agriculture and as is common psychologically, they tend to apply their own personal standards to what they expect in others. As crazy as it seems, this means that many city folks expect your livestock to receive the same care as the cute little puppy in their own backyard. The case in Jackson County is not only a perfect example of this unrealistic perspective, but has now set a precedence that will bolster the confidence and authority to take similar actions by agriculturally ignorant local governments across the country.

This particular case in Jackson County involves so many areas of concern that I’m having to spend a great deal of time filling you in on the groundwork before getting to the actual case details. I ask for your patience as I continue and I promise that this entire plate of spaghetti that I’m throwing in front of you will be worth your attention in the end. Unfortunately, I can’t guarantee that you’re going to like the taste.

There are a number of states that have recognized the needs of the agricultural community and as such have passed legislation protecting their farmers and ranchers. Michigan is one of these states. The following are two excerpts from the 1981 Michigan Right to Farm Act.

This first excerpt outlines the more common areas of complaint that the Department of Agriculture investigates. Note that one of the areas specifically defined is “care of farm animals”.
“Subject to subsection (2), the director shall investigate all complaints involving a farm or farm operation, including, but not limited to, complaints involving the use of manure and other nutrients, agricultural waste products, dust, noise, odor, fumes, air pollution, surface water or groundwater pollution, food and agricultural processing by-products, care of farm animals and pest infestations.”

This second excerpt defines the process to be used if the Department of Agriculture finds that the farmer/rancher isn’t meeting the standards.
“If the director identifies that the source or potential sources of the problem were caused by the use of other than generally accepted agricultural and management practices, the director shall advise the person responsible for the farm or farm operation that necessary changes should be made to resolve or abate the problem and to conform with generally accepted agricultural and management practices and that if those changes cannot be implemented within 30 days, the person responsible for the farm or farm operation shall submit to the director an implementation plan including a schedule for completion of the necessary changes.”

The process above makes sense and seems to be a fair way to assure that the people handling farming inspections and problems are hopefully agriculturally intelligent being that they’re employed by the Department of Agriculture. But, what if the Department of Agriculture turns a blind eye to the use and enforcement of these laws at the local level? After reading the transcripts the first thing I did was contact the director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture to find out what their involvement was. Two weeks after telling me that he would look into it, he responded with a detailed description of what they had done.

The director’s response was very bothersome not in regards to what had been done, but rather what hadn’t been done. He stated, “The Michigan Right to Farm Act does not affect the application of other state statutes and federal statutes; and as such, does not affect actions taken by MDA Animal Industry Division or local Animal Control regarding animal neglect, abuse, cruelty, etc.,” Wait a minute! Didn’t we just read that the Michigan Right to Farm Act defines “care of livestock” as part of their investigative responsibilities? Didn’t it go on to define the process that the Department of Agriculture should use if they discover a problem during their investigation? Why are they turning their backs and letting the local Animal Control call the shots? Why would the state of Michigan pass legislation defining these responsibilities and processes if they didn’t intend for it to be applied?

Oh, it gets better. The local Animal Control had filed the charges against the farmers under Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931, section 750.50. In this section of the penal code there is a line that states:
(8) This section does not prohibit the lawful killing or other use of an animal, including, but not limited to, the following:
…
(f) Farming or a generally accepted animal husbandry or farming practice involving livestock.

Now we have the penal code saying that the charges are not applicable to an animal being used in a farming practice involving livestock and the Department of Agriculture telling us that the Animal Control can call the shots even though the Right to Farm Act defines it as the Department of Agriculture’s responsibility for such cases. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture has developed a “Generally Accepted Practice” manual for the care of livestock. There is definitely an issue here that needs to be resolved at the state level or higher.

Keep what I just mentioned in mind while you read some of the details of the Jackson County case. It is shocking how out of sync the urban perspective of Jackson County’s government is compared to the reality of farming.

On March 13th an Animal Control officer was investigating a fencing issue at the ranch and upon further investigation decided that the condition of the ranch and the state of some of the livestock was unacceptable. As such, she demanded the rancher meet her at the ranch with a veterinarian.

On March 16th she met with the rancher and the veterinarian that he had called, Dr. Sray, who had been the vet for Jackson County Animal Control for 28 years. Looking over the ranch, Dr. Sray noted that there were some horses that had weathered hard over the Michigan winter, but these were primarily the very young horses, which is common, and a couple 28-year-old mares. All of the thinner horses had already been segregated from the herd and penned separately prior to Animal Control’s involvement, so it was pretty obvious that the ranchers were working on the issue. There was also a horse with a wire cut near one hoof that the rancher had been treating himself and one horse that had a sensitive hip that Dr. Sray mentioned should be looked at. After looking over the remainder of the herd, his conclusion to Animal Control was that the farm needed to be cleaned up, but there didn’t seem to be any overall problem that a few weeks of warm weather wouldn’t take care of. This was a reasonable conclusion considering that it was later testified to in court that 56 of the 69 head herd were at or near optimal weight (i.e. 4-5 on the Henneke scale). He also suggested that if she was still concerned with the situation, she should stop by occasionally over the next month and verify that things were improving.

Rather than follow the professional advice provided by the vet that they had used for the past two plus decades, Animal Control contacted the Department of Agriculture, requesting a second opinion. Although it appears that this is pushing the issue more than should have been appropriate, it is what Animal Control did before the DA vets arrived that is very unsettling. Animal Control took it upon themselves to obtain a warrant to seize the herd and all related property, disregarding the professional opinion of Dr. Sray by lying on the affidavit that there was a conflict of interest because Dr. Sray was a personal friend of the rancher and had known him since he was a child. Both Dr. Sray and the rancher each testified in the trial that neither had said such. Dr. Sray had only been to the ranch approximately six times over the past two years to provide veterinary services, they did not know each other socially, and the rancher had not been born or raised in Jackson County. In the warrant Animal Control justified the seizure based on inadequate care and abandonment.

After seizing the ranch, Animal Control called in a local Horse Rescue. After the Horse Rescue visited the farm they wanted nothing more to do with it. They said there was no justification for seizing the farm.

From what you’ve read so far I’m sure you can see that this entire case didn’t hold any water in front of any person with an ounce of agricultural experience. You can’t abandon a 69 head herd through an entire Michigan winter and have 56 of the 69 in good shape come spring. Young and old horses weather harder than others, so when spring comes around you segregate them from the herd and give them some extra attention. That’s common sense and that is what was being done on this ranch (The yearlings had been rated between a 2 and 3 on the Henneke scale.). But, when agriculturally ignorant people get their hands on something like this, they see it quite different. The problems for the farmers were only beginning.

Once the case got to court things only got worse. The case was ruled by Judge Joseph Filip, who admitted to his ignorance in the realm of agriculture and whose actions and judgment substantiated the fact. With no understanding of horses, the prosecution bombarded him with unreasonable expectations for animal husbandry and put great effort in avoiding any distinguishing between livestock and pet care. An example of this was the testimony of the second Horse Rescue that they brought in after the first group wanted no part of the situation. This Horse Rescue was run by a woman who ran a small hunter/jumper boarding and training ranch. She testified that in her opinion proper care of horses requires that each horse has its own stall, each water bucket should be emptied and scrubbed daily, and each stall should be stripped and freshly bedded daily. Can you imagine the cost of trying to run a farm or ranch in this manner? Most of us would go belly up within the first year.

Needless to say, being agriculturally ignorant the judge took it all to heart. Instead of looking at the 56 of 69 horses that were in good shape and using common sense to realize that this ranch could not have been abandoned, and instead of looking at the thinner horses penned separately and realizing that this meant that the ranchers were obviously working with these animals, his focus remained on smaller images rather than the overall picture. He had the audacity during his judgment to mention his concern that the ranchers had purchased used horse blankets and that this could be an example that they were in over their heads as far as their ability to care for their horses. In his inept, agriculturally ignorant judgment he also stated his opinion that even though 56 of the horses had no problem in anyone’s eyes, that the issues with the others was just the tip of the iceberg and they shouldn’t wait for the additional 56 horses to undergo similar problems. Unfortunately, his judgment gets worse.

Pay careful attention to this part of the judgment. All of us have been in similar situations and this precedence puts us all at risk.. They charged the farmers with three counts of FELONY TORTURE. These poor guys have not only lost everything they’ve worked so hard for, now they’re looking at the possibility of serving time in prison and here’s why.

The first count of felony torture involves a colicky mare. She had been having gas colic issues for about four months and had dropped a great deal of weight, but being one of the farmer’s favorites, they were working with her and trying to avoid having to put her down. The court concluded that her emaciated state was causing her pain and anguish, which is the definition of torture in the eyes of the court and therefore the charge stands and the defendants will be tried on this count.

The second count of felony torture involved a filly that had had a wire injury around the right rear ankle. The farmer, who had many years of experience treating his own livestock, had been trying to treat it himself without much luck and had already made an appointment to take it into the vet on March 21st. The court concluded that this injury had caused the animal great pain, which is the definition of torture in the eyes of the court, and therefore the charge stands and the defendants will be tried on this count.

The third count of felony torture involved a yearling colt. When Dr. Sray initially came to the farm at the behest of the farmer, the farmer had asked him while he was there to take a look at the yearly colt because he seemed to be a little sore in his rear hip. Dr. Sray checked him out and although it didn’t seem to be too severe, he recommended that the farmer take him in and have it x-rayed. Two weeks after Animal Control seized the farm there was an accident with the colt and he was down, apparently trampled. He was sent to Michigan State University where it was determined that he had Osteochondrosis, which many believe is a genetically instigated degenerative disease of the bones.

This entire case involves so many unbelievably ugly precedents that it is difficult to take it all in. If you treat your own injured livestock, per this case you can be charged with felony torture. If you don’t want to put down that beloved colicky horse that is losing so much weight, you had better reconsider because you may be charged with felony torture. If one of your animals starts showing signs of lameness you had better put it down quick or you may find yourself facing felony torture charges if it is determined to have been a long-developing issue. If your younger and older horses lose weight from wintering outside, beware; you could lose everything you’ve ever worked for.

Here’s one last note. Following the judgment, a bond hearing was held in which the court offered to allow ownership of the herd to remain in the farmers’ hands if they paid Jackson County $143,000 cash within 72 hours. This amount was determined based on Animal Control’s claimed expenditures to date and an estimated three months of continued care before the criminal trial. Animal Control’s itemized list of costs is posted on the farmers’ website if you care to take a look. There are some pretty outrageous numbers, but the one that floored me was their claim that they’re feeding these horses 42 square bails AND 6 round bails PER DAY. Rumor has it that Jackson County is hurting financially. This is only speculation, but could this entire thing be simply an elaborate extortion scheme? Regardless, as I said before, this whole plate of spaghetti is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

Folks, this is not a horror story written for entertainment. This is something that is happening and it’s the first stage of a very ugly cancer. It has to be cut out before it has a chance to spread or it WILL eventually kill the farming community in our country. The voice of a single farmer can seldom be heard beyond the limits of his own land, but the united voice of the farming community can rage so loud that it is heard all the way to the steps of the White House. If this story hasn’t brought you to the edge of your seat in anger, ask yourself what you’re going to do when it happens to you or someone you love.

The next step is to make our voices heard. Write to your congressmen and senators. Tell them that if they want your vote, they better get involved. Talk with the leaders of your organizations and associations. If you know lawyers experienced in agricultural cases, have them contact the farmers now appealing their case in Jackson County and preparing to face their criminal trial. If you know lobbyists in Washington, tell them to start stomping their feet. Have your leaders contact every media they can come up with, whether magazines, television, newspapers, or websites, and let them know that we won’t tolerate this type of abuse in the farming community. If you have an emergency fund in your organization, send these farmers some money. They’ve lost every penny they have and it’s up to us to ensure that they can afford the best possible legal defense in both the criminal trial and the appeal of the forfeiture trial. We have to pool our resources and turn every bit of aid we can come up with to ensure that this precedence goes no further.

God bless you all and I pray that you will stand with me in defending our rights. Here’s the website for the farmers: www.glhorsetruth.com