Hamilton Reef
03-14-2002, 10:51 PM
This email was sent to me. I thought this may interest you as well.
From: Anne Woiwode,
anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org
Mixed messages are not uncommon from state government, but the following is, to me, an astonishing combination of state funded activities that clearly appear to be at cross purposes, to the potential detriment of Michigan taxpayers and the public.
An ad in the Farmer's Advance crowing "Feeling Crowded! Move your dairy to Northeast Michigan!" was spotted by a farmer, who read the ad and called the number listed. "There is nothing worse than being hemmed in" the ad continues. "Come to northeast Michigan where there are good areas to locate you large dairy. Our communities support agriculture's growth and development. Call for a Packet of Information -- 989-345-0692" The ad was laced by the Northeast Michigan Dairy Development Council, but when you call the number it turns out that you get Michigan State University's Extension Dairy Agent.
The packet sent out by MSU, under the name of Northeast Michigan Dairy Development Council (NEMDDC), encourages recipients to relocate their dairy operations to Northeast Michigan, and it isn't until page 7 that they mention the enormous problem of Bovine TB in that area. The packet actually lists properties for sale, 12 in all, in NE Michigan (the packet declares that NEMDDC doesn't profit from these sales, "it simply acts as an organization to link buyers for dairies and sellers of land.") Of the 12 properties, four are in counties listed as infected, and five are on the surveillance list for Bovine TB (see http://www.bovinetb.com/ the state's interagency webpage on Bovine TB for more info).
The packet does mention that 19 herds have been found to have infected cows, and describes the respective testing regimes for counties on the infected, surveillance and clean lists, but it doesn't mention that the infected herds are required to be destroyed. It also doesn't mention that if the herd is destroyed, the state pays indemnification, which means that moving herds into infected territory could potentially lead to costs for the state. In the DNR's budget there is a proposed increase of $2 million for bovine TB from the General Fund. I also recall, but haven't been able to confirm, that there have been efforts to make hunting license funds carry at least some of the costs for damage to the herds -- but if MSU is urging people to move herds into infected areas, why should wildlife funds bear the costs of dealing with the possible exposure to bovine TB?
This section ends with "While it will take time for the disease to be entirely eliminated, and thus to regain disease-free status, the majority of NE Michigan can be considered prime area to expand or locate a dairy. Many producers have already agreed by doing just that. And extensive tesing has proven that the overwhelming majority of cattle are healthy and disease-free."
The packet suggests that confined operations are less likely to run into problems with bovine TB. However, the packet also says "Michigan Environmental Laws: As of January 1, 2002, no permits are required for dairy farming other than the Grade A milk permit." That may be true, but certainly they KNOW the state two weeks later agreed to develop a general permit under the Clean Water Act as well, which may mean additional requirements for CAFOs.
All this just seems a little outrageous -- until the bovine TB problem is eliminated it seems totally inappropriate for a state funded entity to encourage dairy herds to be moved into the area of Michigan that is most severely infected with bovine TB, and add to the possibility that the state will have to shell out funds for indemnification because the herd was destroyed to contain the disease. Any other thoughts out there?
From: Anne Woiwode,
anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org
Mixed messages are not uncommon from state government, but the following is, to me, an astonishing combination of state funded activities that clearly appear to be at cross purposes, to the potential detriment of Michigan taxpayers and the public.
An ad in the Farmer's Advance crowing "Feeling Crowded! Move your dairy to Northeast Michigan!" was spotted by a farmer, who read the ad and called the number listed. "There is nothing worse than being hemmed in" the ad continues. "Come to northeast Michigan where there are good areas to locate you large dairy. Our communities support agriculture's growth and development. Call for a Packet of Information -- 989-345-0692" The ad was laced by the Northeast Michigan Dairy Development Council, but when you call the number it turns out that you get Michigan State University's Extension Dairy Agent.
The packet sent out by MSU, under the name of Northeast Michigan Dairy Development Council (NEMDDC), encourages recipients to relocate their dairy operations to Northeast Michigan, and it isn't until page 7 that they mention the enormous problem of Bovine TB in that area. The packet actually lists properties for sale, 12 in all, in NE Michigan (the packet declares that NEMDDC doesn't profit from these sales, "it simply acts as an organization to link buyers for dairies and sellers of land.") Of the 12 properties, four are in counties listed as infected, and five are on the surveillance list for Bovine TB (see http://www.bovinetb.com/ the state's interagency webpage on Bovine TB for more info).
The packet does mention that 19 herds have been found to have infected cows, and describes the respective testing regimes for counties on the infected, surveillance and clean lists, but it doesn't mention that the infected herds are required to be destroyed. It also doesn't mention that if the herd is destroyed, the state pays indemnification, which means that moving herds into infected territory could potentially lead to costs for the state. In the DNR's budget there is a proposed increase of $2 million for bovine TB from the General Fund. I also recall, but haven't been able to confirm, that there have been efforts to make hunting license funds carry at least some of the costs for damage to the herds -- but if MSU is urging people to move herds into infected areas, why should wildlife funds bear the costs of dealing with the possible exposure to bovine TB?
This section ends with "While it will take time for the disease to be entirely eliminated, and thus to regain disease-free status, the majority of NE Michigan can be considered prime area to expand or locate a dairy. Many producers have already agreed by doing just that. And extensive tesing has proven that the overwhelming majority of cattle are healthy and disease-free."
The packet suggests that confined operations are less likely to run into problems with bovine TB. However, the packet also says "Michigan Environmental Laws: As of January 1, 2002, no permits are required for dairy farming other than the Grade A milk permit." That may be true, but certainly they KNOW the state two weeks later agreed to develop a general permit under the Clean Water Act as well, which may mean additional requirements for CAFOs.
All this just seems a little outrageous -- until the bovine TB problem is eliminated it seems totally inappropriate for a state funded entity to encourage dairy herds to be moved into the area of Michigan that is most severely infected with bovine TB, and add to the possibility that the state will have to shell out funds for indemnification because the herd was destroyed to contain the disease. Any other thoughts out there?