You have a right to own a goat!

As an American you have a right to own a goat - or sheep or cow - as long as you keep it in good health and in a facility zoned for such an animal. But in California recent regulatory actions seek to prohibit you from that right. For some reason the CDFA is acting as though it was illegal to own a goat and pay some one else to milk it for you. Neither of these activities are illegal under California or Federal law.

At issue are the private contracts between groups of people called "herd shares". In these contracts a group of people buy a herd of dairy animals and pay a farmer to milk them. They then share in the dairy products produced by their animals. These are not simple contracts and the people who enter into them know the implications and long-term commitments they are making. They are not guaranteed specific production - what they get is dependent on what their animals produce based on feed, time of year, and health of the animals. The only difference between this arrangement and owning one animal youself is that the group of investors is paying someone to board and milk the animals.

Boarding animals is not illegal - you can board dogs, cats, and horses rather readily in any city. Is it so strange that someone might board a goat or cow?

Paying someone to milk your animal is not illegal. I would venture to guess that EVERY large dairy has at least one employee that helps with milking. This is exactly the same type of relationship herd share owners have and its not illegal.

The CDFA says that participating in a herdshare is just a way of getting around dairy laws. But having your own animals and getting their milk for your own purpose is very different than providing milk into the commercial milk supply chain. If you were to accept the CDFA argument it would mean you could not milk your own goat without a Class A dairy license.

Read more about the issues being faced in California at: http://hartkeisonline.com/food-politics/mark-mcafee-writes-letter-of-support-for-california-herdshare-programs/ and
http://hartkeisonline.com/animal-husbandry/the-last-farm-in-san-jose-california/

Backdoor attempt to shut down small farmers

Sometimes I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. Or that government officials have given up all logical thought and reason. It seems the Michigan Dept of Natural Resources is poised to declare feral hogs an "invasive species" with dire consequences to farmers who pasture their hogs!

Read the full article here: http://hartkeisonline.com/animal-husbandry/michigan-cafos-conspire-with-government-to-ban-outdoor-pig-farming/

Another Government Agency Gone Crazy

Many of my liberal friends like regulations. And in their intended form and with practical implementation I would agree that some regulations are important. But most regulations have gone way too far and have become a way for government to remind us that they run things. A way to impose their will even if it is not for the general good.

There is a conservation group trying to save the whooping crane by raising chicks and teaching them their traditional (but now extinct) migration routes. Thousands of volunteer hours go into this effort. They hope to re-establish a wild population. Who could be against this goal and the ethical way they go about trying to reach it? Apparently the FAA is.

The pilots who "teach" the young cranes the ancient migration routes by leading them in small aircraft have been grounded by the FAA because they are paid by the conservation group. These are pilots who fly over 1000 miles in an ultra light leading birds. The FAA objects to them being PAID for this effort as apparently it is against the regulations of their pilot's license.

If they did the job for free there would be no violation. That leads me to believe there is no safety issue because whether they are paid or not makes no difference on the type of aircraft they fly, their route, their credentials, etc. Its just a technicality - they are being paid. The FAA does not like that.

From the article:

"Now the birds and the plane are grounded in Alabama while the Federal Aviation Administration investigates whether the journey violates regulations because the pilot was being paid by a conservation group to lead the cranes on their first migration instead of working for free."

Aside from being totally absurd this is a waste of my tax dollars by the FAA. Do they have such a surplus that they can regulate ultralight pilots leading birds around? Wouldn't their time be better spent investigating the abuses of offshore maintenance facilities utilized by the major commercial air carriers? Where are their priorities?

When talking abour regulations some people say "but they would never enforce the regulation in THAT way". Unfortunately yes, they would.

Read the whole article here.