Heritage Hog Farmer Mark Baker Struggles to Hold on to His Livelihood, and His Patriotism; Michael Schmidt Update
Imagine leaving the military after a long career, enthusiastically launching a new business, and then, after much business trauma, concluding that the system you spent years defending with your life is corrupt.
That kind of summarizes Mark Baker’s experience over the last few years. He spent twenty years in the U.S. Air Force, left to launch a hog farm specializing in producing gourmet heritage breeds that were prized by high-end restaurants, and then suddenly found himself fighting one of the states he had committed to giving his life for.
The problems began in 2011, when the state of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources issued the Invasive Species Ordinance, signed by the state’s governor, banning essentially all heritage pigs. (More background from a post I did on the ISO and Baker last April.) Baker filed a suit challenging the state, as did a number of farmers and hunting clubs. The suit points to the inherent corruption of the ISO, when it argues the ISO “literally outlaws every pig in the State of Michigan. Then, in an obvious concession to special interest groups, the DNR exempts pigs used in undefined ‘domestic hog production.’ Although according to Legislative definitions [Baker] is engaged in precisely that activity, nenetheless he is informed by the DNR that his particular breeds of pig are prohibited while the breeds of pig used in large factory-style pork production facilities are lawful, even though they are all the same species.”
Now, the various regulators are closing the barn doors on Baker. He can't send his pigs to be slaughtered at a USDA-regulated slaughterhouse because he risks having the animals rejected under the ISO--once the pigs have been given over for slaughter, they can't be taken back. So if they are rejected, they would essentially be turned into trash, and both Baker and the slaughterhouse could incur substantial fees from the USDA in the process.
He’s finding vets reluctant to certify his hogs for state-owned facilities--apparently they don’t want to risk problems with the DNR.
Essentially, Baker says his farm has been embargoed. He can’t service his restaurant customers, and they have gone elsewhere for meat. He couldn’t afford to continue feeding his 40 or so pigs, so over the holidays he and some friends slaughtered the 15 biggest pigs, the sows, weighing about 400 pounds each, and gave the meat to two churches.
“I have given my food away to people who don’t have enough to eat,” he told me. “Where did I miss them? I didn’t know we had so many people who are hungry.”
In the meantime, he’s holding his remaining hogs, desperately trying to get by financially in hopes he will win his court case to get the ISO thrown out. “If I kill off the rest, I will have nothing.”
In addition to trying to stave off financial collapse, he tries to stave off bitterness. “I am dealing with a system where we have lawyers I pay very well. Then there are state lawyers I am also paying, and the judges who work for the state, whom I am paying as well.”
The upshot: “My state, Michigan, has become my mortal enemy. They are destroying my livelihood and trying to put my family and me on the streets.”
He says that other farmers have destroyed their heritage pigs under threat that the state would come in an do the job. He speculates that the reason the state hasn’t come in and destroyed his hogs is “because I’m a veteran.”
As a former military man, he understands in military terms what is happening--he has compared Michigan's isolation of his and other farms to the Soviet Union's blockade of Berlin in the years immediately after World War II. It was a blockade the U.S. helped break by flying in food to keep Berlin fed. Now, Michigan is playing the role of the Soviet Union, and Baker wonders whether enough people will care to keep his farm afloat for the next few months of winter.
He is asking those who support his stand here to donate to his defense fund--just go to his web site, and click on the “Donate” button to the far right.
Here is more from ActivistPost.
**
A good and complete update on Canadian farmer Michael Schmidt’s legal situation from The Bovine--good and complete is quite a compliment, given how complicated Schmidt’s legal life has become. His own raw milk case in Ontario, the case of a British Columbia farm he helped out, and the case involving the protection of rare breed sheep. The unpredictable and legally dangerous life of a farmer-activist.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
What a tangled web they weave... "feral invasive species" and "mortal enemies of the people" do seem like good and complete names for those who are running these sinewy ruinous campaigns.
Unbelievable. Don't these individuals have a conscience? I wouldn't want to be in their shoes and someday explain what they did for a living to grandchildren.
David, maybe you should consider temporarily changing the blog name to "good and complete patient" in their honor. But that might land you on the no-fly list or worse, so forget I suggested that.
Unfortunately, many honest people find out the hard way just how corrupt our "officials" are. I can't imagine putting heritage and feral in the same category.
Pig descrimination....that really sucks.
Now for some really great news!!
The Progressive Dairyman Magazine featured on its national cover this week, a picture of a Texas dairy family that was saved by selling on farm raw milk!!!!!!! http://www.progressivedairy.com/~prodairy/digital_edition/2013/01/01PD/#...
This really shows our progress and our evolution. When maintstream starts seeing consumer connected farming as good and touts the benefits of raw milk and the smart consumers that choose it....we are making huge progress.
Also...this week OPDC became the second dairy to be LISTED at RAWMI. Several more are pending in the LISTING process. http://rawmilkinstitute.net/listed-farmers/listed-farmer-organic-pasture...
The RAMP program, SSOP's and CCP's with the associated checklists are worth looking at. They are extensive and show the real effort that we make for food safety. The bacteria counts really show it.
Mark
"by 2000 Organic Pastures Dairy Company had become California’s first certified organic raw milk dairy and creamery. The dairy is located near Fresno, California, in the heart of the fertile San Joaquin Valley, and is the only family owned and operated certified organic raw milk dairy in California." Why is it the only one, in a state where raw milk is supposedly legal?
Now that you mention it, that does seem kind of odd. But I don't think OPDC is the "only" one. Isn't there one called Claravale? Still, it does seem strange that in a State the size of California there's only two. There may be more and we just haven't heard about them, but then again there is such a huge population in CA, the only place to raise cattle without bumping into a building would be up north. They can get some pretty nasty winter weather up there by Paradise and north of Chico and up towards Eureka. Probably not ideal for raising dairy cattle. There's quite a bit of open land, but a lot of it is mountainous, too, if I remember right.
My guess would be that too many people just don't want the hassle they know is coming, to get into a business like raw dairy. The oppression has been an ongoing thing for Mark, and people see that. Heck, that's been reason enough for people not to BUY raw milk even if they want to drink it. In that regard, the corrupt agencies are winning, I suppose. But I like to think the good guys always come out ahead. We'll see.
California is number one in milk sales. Wisconsin is number two. Maybe raw milk in California is the same as in Wisconsin, legal but prohibited. Why else would people be attempting to do the cow share in California the same as in Wisconsin.
Mark, isn't pasteurized milk a lot like swill milk?
Didn't pasteurized milk continue to kill infants until fortified formula came out in the 50's?
Mark, In Wisconsin I believe raw milk became illegal to sell in stores around 1957 but I was under the impression that pasteurization was well under way by 1907 and that most dairies were secretly pasteurizing their milk by 1919. How far off am I?
on Margo McIntosh's website < www.rawmilkconsumer.ca > are a couple of live URL links to the report by the Legislative committee, of New Zealand
“Summary of Submissions on the Proposals for Continuing to Legally Provide for Farm Gate Sales of Raw Drinking Milk – MPI Information Paper No: 2012/12″
http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/farm-gate-raw-milk-sales...
an excellent summary of the reasons that informed consumers prefer raw milk on "the largest dairy farm in the world" = New Zealand. Amusingly ... the notion that raw milk could be outlawed, was not even one of the options the govt. considered !
What is happening to Mark Baker and the other hog farmers in Michigan is despicable. I hope he can hang on until his court case is heard and that the ISO is thrown out.
After reading Mark and Gordon's posts here for the past few months, and studying about raw milk and its evolution into today's market place, it seems clear to me that what's happening (and it's too late to stop it now) is the milk producers, whether raw milk or milk destined for pasteurization, are having to bend over backwards to please the regulators. All of these agencies and operations Mark talks about in his post here, like RAWMI and RAMP, and even the NZ agencies talked about in Gordon's post, are having to be set up and organized to please gubment regs. Should we be giving over that much power to them? This is the problem - one agency leads to another agency which leads to another agency. It's a maze of confusion (the gubment's basic intent, I'm sure). There has to be a way to stop that process, from boards to committees to sub-committees etc., or we're all essentially fighting a losing battle, IMO. The gubment has "might" on it's side (not to mention the DOJ rule-makers) and as long as we're fighting the good fight by THEIR rules we are letting them call the shots. The reform has to take place at ground level or it's all for naught.
Right, they are defining us, instead of us defining ourselves. See the most recent post, with insights into this dilemma.
I agree D, “reform has to take place at ground level or it's all for naught”. And if we capitulate to their rules they will indeed call the shots based on whatever suits their fancy.
Ken
@ Ken: They're already trying to call the shots on just about everything and we need to cut them off at the knees when it comes to making decisions for us about what, how, when, why and where - when dealing with foods. This is a fundamental right that never should have had anything at all to do with being overseen by some clueless agency.
Here's a short, good article on the wide margin of folks who want food freedoms: http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/12/americans-support-food-freedom-by-...
For those of you who like Mark Bittman (NYT), well, be sure to read the 2nd page.
wrestling with the idiots for 30 years, on other issues, I learned important lessons = in political activism ; 'you cannot do everything, so you'd better pick your spots'. And - per guerrilla warfare = "is this the hill you want to die on?"
once upon a time, Americans did have Liberty under God's Law, but ( misled by false teachers in the pulpits) the nation reverted to a guardian-ward relationship ... a nation of sheep begot a government of wolves. Raising one's head out of the rut to rail against wickedness in high places, will get you hammered-down. The stories of Gordon Kahl and Robert Matthews and so many other dissidents, are most instructive. In this milk thing, so far, the govt. is only using the velvet glove, compared to what they can and will do, when they get frantic about losing their grip.
Abusing govt. resources and $$, to entangle activists in the thickets of the law, is how the tyrant draws an issue off into the weeds, farther and farther from what the law-abiding citizen started out to accomplish. Charges of "contempt of Court' being the tactic when an activist proves too wily in the early going
Bob Dylan sang "you've got to serve some body" ... having had the corners knocked off me in the school of hard knocks, I can compromise in order to get what's most important ... I'm content to abide-by govt. regulatory oversight as long as we get to do the dairying the way we want. Paramount to me is : white children getting the precious REAL MILK they need to thrive ... otherwise = ain't going to be no 'next generation'.
My hat is off to those who actually do the chores so as to keep the REAL MILK flowing in the face of all the dust raised around the issue. We have already won the point in terms of public sentiment. Just keeping on producing and delivering the good stuff, is the most powerful political statement, of all
The wicked cartel would like nothing better than a confrontation where they can use firepower then the propaganda outfalls, to portray us as happened with the "Montana freemen/ Waco / Bill Cooper". At this stage, we have to be on guard against a provocateur coming along, tricking a producer into some rash incident.
My role is to make the Courtroom, the classroom. I am called to walk through the legal nonsense, turning the contempt of Court charge against me into a "teachable moment". In British Columbia, they are about to fall into the pit they dug for us. Fraser Health's lawyer, Susan Beach, has botched her prosecution so badly that on Feb 13th ( start of the trial) she's going to be supremely embarrassed
@ Gordon: Everything you said makes sense, except for one factor. As long as you have to jump through hoops for the gubment they'll make you do just that, and they can STILL change the rules and regs anytime they want to do so, even if you're doing everything right. And this doesn't apply to just milk farming, of course, this applies to all our rights, but nutritious foods are a biggie. Wasn't it Kissinger who said control the food and you control the people? I don't like feeling like a trained seal where I have jump in order to get my food. There has to be a better way. I don't have any big ideas or anything, I'm just thinking there has to be a different, better way to live. Isn't there a judge who can be bribed from this side just as easily as from the corporate side?! It appears to work for them, so we may have to start playing the game their way. Just a thought . . .
I just found the answer to why Organic Pastures Dairy is the only family owned and operated certified organic raw milk dairy in California according to Mark.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/california-raw-milk-farmer-stands-up-to...
Chelseth, operator of My Sisters’ Farm in Shingle Springs, keeps two cows owned by 15 people. "She said, for her to be regulated and inspected for milk would be a $100,000 proposition."
There is no reason for it to cost anything for direct farm sales were consumers do their own inspections.
Putting the little guy(the other guy, the competition) out of business in order to force consumers to buy junk they don't want, was the only reason for regulation from day one because there is clearly no one concerned with the health and safety of the consumer.
rawmilkmike - there are two family owned raw milk dairy farms/producers in California...Organic Pastures Dairy and Claravale Dairy. Organic Pastures chooses to be Organic Certified, Claravale chooses not to even though their product meets all the organic certification criteria. You can read Claravale's reason why they do not participate in the organic certification process on their website here: http://claravaledairy.com/faq.html
Personally I don't care for the taste of Claravale's milk, that's why I buy only Organic Pasture's milk.
And people are always trying to get us to say we drink raw milk because it tastes better than pasteurised. Milk's taste is seasonal and depends on the feed not on whether it is pasteurised or not. Accepted maybe the ultra pasteurised stuff.
rawmilkmike,
I drink raw milk because I feel it does taste better and because it isn't adulterated in any way. pasteurized milk has a burnt taste to me.
@ Sylvia: Adulterated - that's one of the words "they" are trying to redefine. insofar as raw milk is concerned. I remember reading something here at David's blog a while back and I made a comment to the effect that raw milk is probably one of the most unadulterated foods I could think of.
I drink raw milk for my health and I recommend it to everyone with a health issue of any kind. I drink a quart a day and between the four of us we drink about a gallon a day. I haven't touched a drop of pasteurised milk in over six years, not counting malts and chocolate milk. I'm fifty eight and I grew up on pasteurised milk so I am well aware of many of it's side effects and the dramatic change after switching to raw milk. I do enjoy the taste of my raw milk. The point I was trying to make though, was that not all pasteurised milk tastes the same and not all raw milk tastes the same and I don't go though all the time and expense washing bottles and driving out to the farm for the deference in taste and I didn't like a reporter putting words in my mouth. If my only concern was taste I'd go back to Mountain Dew. I'm not trying to be smart. I'm just trying to be funny.
Thanks, that was very interesting reading.
"velvet glove" I know that's right.