RE: Re: ACTION ALERT Help Washington's Micro-dairy Farms TODAY

January 31, 2006

In response to your comment, please read the post I have copied and resent

below

" cow sharing is NOT a sham "

I am getting pretty annoyed that so many people automatically look as cow

(or goat) shares as a “sham” to avoid having trouble selling milk. Cow and

Goat share operators have their own reasons and business plans, but as a

share operator I believe we shortchange ourselves and create ill attitudes

by saying the old “well of course it is to circumvent raw milk laws” Not

necessarily. There are numerous reasons and benefits to operate a share

program, both for the operator and the share owner.

By falling for the govt’s “sham” theory, people are denying the validity of

basic contract law.

Are time shares just a “sham” to “pretend” you own a vacation home?

Certainly not! They are legal, contractual ownerships of a certain

percentage (measured in time used) of a home that people neither want to

have complete ownership and responsibility for, nor can afford, both

time-wise and dollar-wise.

For the farmer, operating a share program means:

Less capital investment (the shareowners pay for much of the cow/goat)

Ability to plan based upon shareowner commitments

Regular income from maintenance/boarding fees

Relationship building between the farming culture and non farmers

The farmer does not have to be concerned about whether or not his market

will fluctuate weekly, daily or monthly. He can plan the inventory for

freshness, and more adequately and efficiently have product delivered.

For the Share owner:

An assurance of regular availability of product, with No worries about none

in the store, or getting almost outdated stock.

A stake in the production methodology of the product produces by his animal.

An opportunity to develop an understanding of the mechanisms of farming

while being a responsible partner.

Relationship building between the farming culture and non farmers.

All in all, I see a good number of benefits to the share concept. I have 2

families that own a cow all themselves! They are large families, suburban,

like the benefits of raw dairy, love the farm visits, but don’t want the

responsibility of a cow of their own! Other share owners simply are in no

position to have an animal, but love the opportunity to have ownership in

part.

I am pleased with how my share operation has allowed me to enjoy my farming,

with a steady income, and the opportunity to educate my shareowners about

raw dairy and farm life. I am totally uninterested in retail sales, this

works much better for me, and my shareowners, for the most part are happy

with it also.

Please, guys DO NOT presume that share operations are simply a way to get

by, when in actuality they are a legitimate and beneficial business model.

So say otherwise is to play right into the hands of the nay sayers and do

many share operations a great disservice.

kathryn russell

www.MajestyFarm.com

" The one the tyrants fear is the man who

knows his rights and is prepared to stand up for them. "

andr Solzhenitsyn

Re: ACTION ALERT Help Washington's Micro-dairy Farms

TODAY

Chrys,

Excellent points! Thank you for clarifying the issue. Another

question I have is:

If we are going to go ahead and liscense the micro-dairy, in effect

saying, " raw milk sales are fine under these circumstances.... " then

can't we do away with the shareholder concept since that idea was

conceived to get sround the regulations that say you may consume raw

milk only if you own the cow?

I think it would uncomplicate the whole deal.

Just wondering what ya'll think.

Syrie

PLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!

Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

Archive search: http://onibasu.com

January 31, 2006

One

of your last sentences is telling “ They just want to

be able to make a living or a supplemental income and not fear for their

security.”

This legislation comes about from a supposed “protection of the

public” stance. Yet people need to be concerned about their security FROM

THE GOVERNMENT> not protection BY the government.

Chrys et al are in a bad spot. The legislature is setting a stage for contract

rights to be abridged across the country on the precedent made out there. But

local farmers need to be salvaged from becoming criminals overnight.

The

problem I see is that the powers that be have the money, power, and time,

particularly time, so encroach upon our freedoms without having any repercussions.

I hope that a good micro-dairy amendment can be put on the bill, and I also

hope that the share holders, or even one, will challenge the share portion in

court.

Otherwise,

despite all the rhetoric about availability of clean safe milk, there will be

less and less across the nation. Chrys says “there are

still some who will resist the powers that be until they are dragged away.”

That

may be the case, and I can tell you I would be one of them. In my opinion, that

is why we are facing so many abridgements to our freedoms…..regular

people who have lives and families do not feel they can afford to stand up for

what is right. That gives the power to the tyrants. And the more power they

have, the more they desire. In Virginia now, we are fighting a bill which would

give the commissioner of agriculture the right to warrantless searches and

destruction of flocks as small as 1 production unit based upon a SUSPICION of

exposure to Avian flu. Not a particular strain, just general. We have

current regs in place which protect public health and commercial flocks, but

those are not good enough. They want more unbridled power.

kathryn

russell

www.MajestyFarm.com

" The one the tyrants fear is the man who

knows his rights and is prepared to stand up for

them. "

andr

Solzhenitsyn

From: RawDairy [mailto:RawDairy ] On Behalf Of Chrys Ostrander

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006

7:19 PM

To: RawDairy

Subject: Re: Re: ACTION

ALERT Help Washington's Micro-dairy Farms TODAY

Dear Syrie,

Yes, I hear you. I am also an advocate of less government. The painful truth of

the matter is that here in Washington,

they will be passing a bill that will require shareholder dairies to be

licensed. There is no stopping that. Also it will criminalize selling milk

without a license. This much we have lost and we do not have the political

power to turn this around.

The action alert is the product of many hours of work and collaboration with

raw milk advocates, WAPF members and chapter leads, consumers, producers,

shareholders, Shareholder Dairy farmers, and dairy farmer wannabe's. Rather

than simply have us stepped on, we are offering these proposed amendments to

try and create a legal place for Micro-dairies and Shareholder Dairies to

exist. Something along the lines of a level playing field. Otherwise, folks are

facing jail here.

It's not perfect. But our legislators will not allow a buyer beware policy.

They cannot be convinced to " simply require that anyone who buys raw milk

do so at their own risk " . Some farms already have waivers, but they are

not iron clad. Any lawyer can probably punch a hole through a waiver if paid

enough. There are other legal complexities with waivers as well.

We are not creating a new agricultural agency. That already exists with WSDA

Food Safety who enforces grade A licensing. We hope to create a new licensing

category for Micro-dairies with regulations that really make it possible, and affordable, for even a one-cow

dairy to be legal.

And the issue of safety is not one to be taken lightly.

We're facing political realities here. Maybe there are still some who will

resist the powers that be until they are dragged away. Most folks I know aren't

that way. They just want to be able to make a living or a supplemental income

and not fear for their security.

What else can I say?

Thanks for your concern.

Chrys

At 11:37 AM 1/30/2006, you wrote:

Dear Chrys,

I may be laying bare my ignorance here and I realize time is of

the

essence, but I have a crucial question. I am an advocate of less, not

more government. If I understand your suggestions you are calling for

a new agricultural agency to monitor and liscence small, backyard,

family farms? I am not sure I would want that? I think the better

thing as far as the state is concerned is to simply require that anyone

who buys raw milk do so at their own risk. Perhaps each farm could ask

them sign a waver?

Perhaps I am missing something here so please communicate your thoughts

to me. I am willing to learn.

Also I have already contacted my reps and Senator to respect our

individual choice to purchase and consume raw milk. Am definately

willing to write more for the right cause.

Thanks for your help!

Syrie

PLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!

Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

Archive search: http://onibasu.com

January 31, 2006

Syrie,

You wrote:

> Excellent points! Thank you for clarifying the issue. Another

> question I have is:

> If we are going to go ahead and liscense the micro-dairy, in effect

> saying, " raw milk sales are fine under these circumstances.... " then

> can't we do away with the shareholder concept since that idea was

> conceived to get sround the regulations that say you may consume raw

> milk only if you own the cow?

>

> I think it would uncomplicate the whole deal.

I feel very afraid for the future of our country and the future of

our access to good food when I read what you wrote above, because

I value clear understanding, and fear that without such understanding

we are lost!

If we think that the legislature of the State of Washington can

" do away with the shareholder concept " , then they can take ANYTHING

away from us, as we are just simple children and not self-controlling,

contracting adults.

It seems to me that Chrys & Co are in a desparate situation, and are

proposing to " work " with the legislature on this, but if we don't

uphold our right to contract here, we are doomed to being at the

mercy of dictatorial regulations, even if the regulators in Washington

State happen to to " nice " at the moment (thanks to the efforts of Debbie

at Rainhaiven, et al). What about Florida? What about B.C.?

What about Alabama? Do they have " nice " regulators who will be happy

to license small operators? Or do they have regulators who work with

the big dairy conglomerates to block competition based upon quality?

Despite the setbacks in Washington, I feel that we must hold fast

to our right to contract, as consenting adults, for the food that

we want to consume. Let's not give away that right, " to simplify " .

- Jerome, feeling concerned

>

> Just wondering what ya'll think.

> Syrie

January 31, 2006

Jerome you are right on. Virginia has been waiting for a chance to crack

down on cow shares, waiting for an opportunity to cry PRECEDENT, and

Virginia has NO raw milk sales period. There are many states where the

processors lobbies have the legislature under their thumbs and are after

more, not less restrictions. Take a look at HB982 proposed in Virginia now.

( http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061 & typ=bil & val=hb982 )

It gives unbridled power to the commissioner of ag to come and destroy even

a flock on 1 bird on SUSPICION of avian flu. And these are people we hand

our trust to. I would encourage anyone who still believes government is our

protector to read http://vicfa.net/4thbranch.doc

The guys in Washington State have a tough row to hoe. Keeping farmers

viable, while attempting to stave off government over-control. I will

write what I can to whom I can to help, but it will take a lot of quick

work, and when a pivotal legislator honestly thinks that people should not

affect government, well that makes things a bit difficult.

As far as myself,

To be honest, even if I could sell product right off the farm, I would not,

except in very limited situation, because the cow share model works very

well for my farm. I am able to serve a greater number of people, my share

owners have a stake in seeing the farm prosper, and I do not have to deal

with marketing.

That said, I think it is very important to have retail raw dairy available,

and will fight for it.

kathryn russell

www.MajestyFarm.com

" The one the tyrants fear is the man who

knows his rights and is prepared to stand up for them. "

andr Solzhenitsyn

January 31, 2006

Agister relationships are a time honored business model.

From Kentucky law:

376.400 Lien of keeper of livery stable or agister for care of livestock.

Any owner or keeper of a livery stable, and a person feeding or grazing

cattle for compensation, shall have a lien for one (1) year upon the cattle

placed in the stable or putout to be fed or grazed by the owner, for his

reasonable charges for keeping, caring for, feeding, and grazing the cattle.

The lien shall attach whether the cattle are merely temporarily lodged, fed,

grazed, and cared for, or are placed at the stable or other place or pasture

for regular board. The lien shall take priority over a lien created pursuant

to KRS376.420(1).Effective: July 15, 1996History: Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch.

28, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended1984 Ky. Acts ch. 231, sec.

1, effective July 13, 1984. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Actsch. 208, sec. 1,

effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2500.

Per Washington state code:

Chapter 60.56 RCW

Agister and trainer liens

Chapter Listing

RCW Sections

60.56.005 Definition of " agister. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

60.56.005

Definition of " agister. "

For purposes of this chapter " agister " means a farmer, ranchman, herder of

cattle, livery and boarding stable keeper, veterinarian, or other person, to

whom horses, mules, cattle, or sheep are entrusted for the purpose of

feeding, herding, pasturing, training, caring for, or ranching.

[1993 c 53 § 1.]

From Wikipedia,

To agist is, in English law, to take cattle to graze, for a remuneration.

Agistment, in the first instance, referred more particularly to the proceeds

of pasturage in the king's forests, but now means either (a) the contract

for taking in and feeding horses or other cattle on pasture land, for the

consideration of a weekly payment of money, or ( the profit derived from

such pasturing. Agistment is a contract of bailment, and the bailer is bound

to take reasonable care of the animals entrusted to him; he is responsible

for damages and injury which result from ordinary casualties, if it be

proved that such might have been prevented by the exercise of great care.

There is no lien on the cattle for the price of the agistment, unless by

express agreement. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, agisted

cattle cannot be distrained on for rent if there be other sufficient

distress to be found, and if such other distress be not found, and the

cattle be distrained, the owner may redeem them on paying the price of their

agistment. The tithe of agistment or " tithe of cattle and other produce of

grass lands, " was formally abolished by the act of union in 1707, on a

motion submitted with a view to defeat that measure.

Agisters were formerly the officers of the forest empowered to collect the

agistment. They have been re-established in the New Forest to carry out the

daily duties of administering the forest.

Per dictionary:

agister

\A*gist " er\, Agistor \A*gist " or\, n. [Anglo-Norman agistour.] (Law)

(a) Formerly, an officer of the king's forest, who had the care of cattle

agisted, and collected the money for the same; --

( Now, one who agists or takes in cattle to pasture at a certain rate; a

pasturer. --Mozley & W.

You see, people are just not informed. Some may perceive it as a

loophole---fact is, loophole are NOT illegal, people use them every day for

all type of avoidances. But the fact that there may be people taking

advantage of legal loopholes does not mean they are either being illegal or

somehow bad guys.

Being an agister and running a share operation, whether it be horse (most

common) or any other form of livestock is a time honored way for someone to

earn a living.

But falling into the legislators ignorance on their own laws on the books,

and definitions thereof (see above code definition) we are letting them hang

us.

kathryn russell

www.MajestyFarm.com

" The one the tyrants fear is the man who

knows his rights and is prepared to stand up for them. "

andr Solzhenitsyn

Re: ACTION ALERT Help Washington's Micro-dairy Farms

TODAY

Thank you for articulating your points so well on this issue. I feel

the need to clarify a few things.

1) I hold no delusions that the govt. is nice or even has our best

interest at heart. It is a constant source of concern to me that as

a

society we have lost the understanding of what the proper role of

govt

is.

2) My suggestion to " do away " with the shareholder program should

have

been stated clearer. I in no way intended for the govt to interfere

with consentual parties to a contract.

Am I wrong in assuming that the shareholder program was started

to

enable folks to buy milk who don't or can't have a cow/goat? To get

around the restrictions? If that is not why it was started to begin

with I would be interested to learn of it's origins and I stand

corrected

If the legality issue is why the shareholder program was

developed and our state recognizes the legality of raw milk sales

through lincensure; I was suggesting that as an industry the

shareholder program could be dropped, NOT that the govt could be

empowered to break contracts between citizens. I want to be

emphatically clear on that point!

I am sorry to have apparently steped on some toes about

shareholding. I admitt I have more to learn about it. My only

experience with shareholding was an inquiry into one. The individual

asked for a large lump sum of money up front, a sum every month, and

I still would need to pay $6.00/ half gallon of milk. Considering in

my current situation I pay $4.00 for a full gallon at the farm no

strings attached, I politely said thanks, but no thanks. And I would

have no more influence over the care of the animal than the man in

the moon.

Maybe that was a unique situation, I do thank you for bringing the

other points to my attention. I appreciate the opportunity to learn

and to!

Respectfully,

Syrie

PLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!

Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

Archive search: http://onibasu.com

January 31, 2006