Azure Standard: County threatens to spray 2,000 acre organic farm

[Jean in Newcastle]

How about erring on the side of the landowner when there is no health and safety risk to their neighbors?

In this case there is an economic risk to the neighbors.

[Guest]

By the way. This is near where I live. An alternaitve to mowing and spraying hard to reach areas

 

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/local-news/sheep-hired-by-metro-water-services

 

Totally organic!

That's great! Solves a difficult problem in a natural, sensible way. I'm glad the city went for it even though it is an unconventional solution by normal municipal standards.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In this case there is an economic risk to the neighbors.

 

Correct, and therefore one to the local economy.

 

If Azure was choosing not to address the issue via ways that were compatible with their business model, then at some point the county has a right/duty to step in on behalf of the others they are affecting.

[Audrey]

I had a hard time picking my jaw up off the floor when I learned about it too.  I'm not sure what the authors intended or how they thought it should work.

 

 

I though of muzzles.  Then, I was picturing tiny chicken muzzles for sale at the feed mill.  Maybe bedazzle a few with rhinestones for that special, sassy rooster in your life.   

 

LMAO all over again.

[Audrey]

In this case there is an economic risk to the neighbors.

 

 

Possibly yes and possibly no.  Application is on a formula per acre.  If you're going to spray, you were going to spend that amount per acre anyway. 

 

Without some more input on the weed data, it's hard to say if Azure's situation would necessarily cause neighbours to have to spray more often than they would normally.   It's not fair to say, "I have to spray because of your weeds," when you know darn well that you spray every year anyway.  It is fair to say, "Because of your weeds, I have to spray more often." 

 

I would like to know what the general farming philosophy is of the neighbours.  Are they large scale, small scale, family owners, corporate owners, sustainable practitioners, use-it-up-while-you-got-it practitioners, organic practitioners, etc.? This information would define the issue, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Because I think here is where I would like to point out that, despite the common perception, not all farmers play nice with each other.  Some are real assholes if they see someone else doing something different, something new, something "not like we always did it."  And, they can get very defensive and even aggressive towards other farmers that they think might be getting ahead doing something different or something new.  In other words, there are jackasses in every business, and farming is no exception. 

[HTRMom]

Has anyone ever heard of a religious objection to pesticides before?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reefgazer]

Government is so out of control.  I hope the owners of the farm can go to court to stop this.

[Valley Girl]

So take the drastic action with manpower instead of herbicides - and add a lien for the cost.

 

FTR, I'm pro-organic. I also have to go back and fully read the linked materials. That said, if as has been mentioned the owners truly had several chances to remedy the situation in an organic-friendly way and chose not to... it seems unrealistic to expect the government to care more about the farm's organic status than the people who own the property do.

 

If manpower and organic weed control practices are significantly more costly than the herbicide route, other taxpayers may not welcome footing the bill for something that shouldn't be their responsibility in the first place. Lien or not, someone has to pay for it NOW.

 

Like everyone else, I hope the issue is resolved without anyone having to resort to chemicals.