Who’s in Charge Here? County Sheriff Takes Exception to MDA’s Niewendorp Incursion
Friday, August 24, 2007 at 10:50PM 
The county sheriff has a storied place in American history. As the nation moved west during the 1800s, it was the local sheriff who ushered law and order in to lawless territories in the Midwest and West.
In many areas, the county sheriff retains the title of chief law enforcement officer, and so it is in Charlevoix County, Michigan, where George Lasater is the sheriff. Like chief law enforcement officers everywhere, he likes to know if other law enforcement agencies are at work in his territory.
It turns out Lasater didn’t know anything about the state troopers who accompanied a Michigan Department of Agriculture agent to Greg Niewendorp’s farm in East Jordan on Tuesday morning to try to convince him to have his 19 cattle tested for bovine tuberculosis. And he isn’t pleased.
“I don’t like to be surprised,” he told me Friday. “The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the county, by statute. The state police, out of courtesy, should say, ‘We’re coming in.’”
Not only did the state police and the MDA bypass him Tuesday, neither agency has contacted him since the incursion at Greg’s farm. “I haven’t been informed of anything by anyone,” he said.
Why does any of this matter? It’s long been Greg’s contention that the MDA is outside its authority in ordering him to have his cattle tested for bovine TB. He argues as well that its foray onto his property Tuesday, accompanied by state police, was a similar illegal use of authority.
While Lasater didn’t agree explicitly with those arguments, he implied that his exclusion from the MDA’s Tuesday incursion against Greg Tuesday could complicate enforcement measures the MDA might consider as it tries to turn up the pressure in the future.
For example, should the MDA seek a warrant against Greg for failure to comply with the MDA’s testing program, it would need to go to the county prosecuting attorney, Lasater said. “I would like to be at that meeting.” Left unstated is the reality that the county prosecutor tends not to want to pursue cases the county sheriff opposes. As was the case earlier in the week, the MDA didn't return my calls.
How does Lasatar feel about the MDA’s campaign against Greg? He wouldn’t commit, except to observe, “I’ve only heard one side,” that side presumably being Greg’s.
Normally, the state police supplement the sheriff’s law enforcement efforts, Lasatar said. “They are expected to assist local law enforcement—provide labs, expertise, road patrols,” and not take charge.
He also reiterated his role in law enforcement versus that of the state police. “The sheriff is elected by the people,” he said. “I am responsible to the people. The state police are responsible to the governor.”
And if there was any doubt about the sourness of his mood, he concluded, “The press and the people look on the sheriff as having all the answers” in law enforcement matters. "It makes us look very foolish if we don’t know what’s going on. I don’t like to be made to look foolish.”
Greg may have been correct when he said the MDA made “a terrible mistake.”
Reader Comments (3)
There are many excellent programs offered by Michigan’s Department of Agriculture to our citizens that are administered by a cadre of dedicated professionals. Michigan’s MAEAP program is one example. I have known and work with many MDA employees. I have found these folks to be knowledgeable and helpful-with a commitment to public service, small farms and producers. In fact, many of these MDA employees are members of CSAs’ and support the “eat local” movement. (As I think about it, the MDA may be a state agency example of the “divided world” Mary McGonigle-Martin discusses in her August 22 posting.)
The actions of the MDA in the Hebron and Niewendorp case, regardless of whether you are pro or con raw milk or TB testing, raise serious Constitutional and legal issues. In my experience, these actions reveal a side of the MDA that is vastly different from the more professional departments I have worked with. In addition, such activities compromise the entire MDA-which is currently under considerable financial stress. In fact, our entire state is under significant financial stress and I wonder how much of our tax payer money was spent going after Richard Hebron?
It is time to petition our Michigan State government representatives and govenor to look into MDA enforcement activities. Are we seeing a rogue division of the MDA, significant political and financial influences, or a "state" policy?
I share your deep concern about the scientific findings of Dr. Gibbons-Burgener reported in the Reuters article. It becomes even more troublesome when you understand that the milk from these farms is commingled with milk from other farms that might be free of human pathogens. You might logically conclude that essentially all milk in the supply chain has human pathogens.
What isn't so obvious is that the "raw milk" she was testing is not necessarily the same as the milk that increasing numbers of cowshare owners/consumers are obtaining directly from the dairy farmers that they know and trust. I make a very important distinction in this regard because of the logical conclusions of scientific research including the testing in the Wisconsin dairies. "Raw milk" as defined in her and ALL other studies is milk from bulk tanks of Grade A commercial dairy farms, in some cases from tanks of haulers of Grade A milk from these dairies. This milk has one important characteristic.... it is ALL destined for manufacturing/processing plants that are required to pasteurize that "raw milk". The milk from a cowshare dairy farmer is given directly to a family with the full understanding of the farmer and the family that it is NOT produced to be pasteurized. We make this critical distinction by labeling the latter as "fresh unprocessed milk". Because commercial Grade A "raw milk" is know by all concerned to be headed for pasteurization...over time the dairy operations, inspectors, regulators, manufacturers have come to accept a degree of unsanitary conditions and herd health that contributes to this alarming % of dairy raw milk that is contaminated. The industry, farmers and regulators will loudly deny this, but it is a reality. And it is one of the reasons many dairy families no longer drink milk from their own bulk tanks. They know it is not safe. I agree with them, it is not safe. And I conclude that milk in this commercial pathway (destined to be pasteurized) MUST be very completely pasteurized and tested for failures in the pasteurization process!
But this is NOT the fresh unprocessed milk that is produced on a dairy farm with a cowshare or other process to provide families with the milk they want to insure health and nutritional benefits of the milk. It is not the same, because the herds are on pasture, the farm practices are different, the milking procedures are different, the handling of the milk from the teat to the bulk tank is different. The families receive the milk fresh, clean and cold, and those families understand the importance of keeping that milk cold, and clean.
Fresh unprocessed milk supplied to families should be produced under conditions that understand that health of the herd, feed, milking practices, hygiene, and environment are critical to a wholesome safe product. And testing for human pathogens is essential. And farm practices must include procedures to follow when tests show a breakdown in the process.
Ted Beals