Stay Connected
Search
Login
« Is Another Raid Planned on Mark Nolt? The PDA’s Undercover Guys Are Posing As Raw Milk Customers | Main | NY Hearing Officer to Smiths: “Raw Milk Is Raw Milk, Whether It Is Sold or Bartered or Given Away” »
Friday
Aug152008

For the Sake of the Children? CDFA Pushes a Private Three-Goat Ag Project to Get a Dairy License

If the New York Ag & Markets decision about herdshares described in my previous post has you worried about the growing intrusiveness of regulators into our private lives, then you may want to read about Robin Countryman-Velk and her Kiddin’ Korral Animal and Activities project in the Napa, California, area.

Kiddin’ Korral is part of a 1,400-acre dude ranch that is owned and operated by some 1,400 owners (the acreage is not divided). The owners have an association with a board of directors that oversees the operations. The owners can use the place any time they want—it has 100 cabins, 200 campsites, a couple of large pools and, for the last two years, the Kiddin’ Korral agriculture project, which is a combination petting zoo/demo ag project. The facility even has its own pasteurizer—the kid goats are supposed to drink pasteurized milk, says Robin--so the milk the goats produce is pasteurized before animals or people consume it. (The photo above shows some of the milk fed to the goats.)

The program seems to have become a wonderful source of inspiration for about 70 children, and up to 300 adults—or, it was until Tuesday, when a group of regulators headed by an agent of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, showed up.

I’ll let Robin explain further:

“I’m a teacher and active community volunteer. Nothing made more sense to me than to open a Children’s Ag Program on the ranch. We started with one purebred LaMancha Dairy Goat kid and soon added a Saanen to the mix. The project began as my daughter’s FFA Dairy breeding project, but she turned it over to me because of all the hoops the board of directors required we jump through. We got permission to build an animal enclosure, and then breed them for kids and milk. We were allowed to expand and include a couple of rabbits, ducks and a few chickens too. We started a committee to oversee the program and I began volunteering seven days a week 365 days a year to care for the animals and teach the children.

“Our kids start by learning to care for the small animals, and then the adult goats, then to care for pregnant goats, deliver the goat kids, then to raise those kids. These children (and some adults) learn to properly feed, milk, trim hooves, groom, etc. It is a very extensive hands-on learning experience for them, but they love to learn. (See photo below.)

“Learn they did, they raised two kidding season’s kids and this past June took the two adult does and this year’s five goat kids to the American Goat Society National Dairy Goat Show. Now remember, these city kids had never shown an animal before and walked into a national show! With the seven goats that went to nationals, we came home with seven national titles! What pride we all shared in this amazing accomplishment. All of the staff and participants were so smitten with our children and their enthusiasm. I could not have been prouder of their accomplishments if I’d been their own mother.

“These animals are registered to the committee, therefore all owners and associates of the association have legal rights and ownership of these animals. This is proven by the fact these children could show them and legally sign for their national titles won at show.”

This matter of ownership becomes very important, because it seems the CDFA agent (who was accompanied by a local public health agent and building code inspector) told Robin she’d need a dairy permit to make milk available. Buying all the equipment necessary to qualify for a dairy permit, would be many thousands of dollars over and above the $50,000 Robin says she has already put into the project. She says that when she protested that no milk was sold, that the people who consumed the milk owned the goats, she was told that that didn’t matter.

I contacted the CDFA, and a public information official declined to provide the agency's version of the situation or what it wants to accomplish. “All we can tell you at the moment is that we are reviewing the situation there -along with Napa County Code Enforcement and the Napa County Public Health Department.”

According to Robin, this all came about because one of the ranch’s directors who has opposed the project from the beginning decided to try to sabotage it by contacting the local health department. According to the CDFA official, “We were initially contacted by the health department.”

Robin has been in touch with the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, and says one of its lawyers has told her there is no legal basis for California officials to try to prevent goat owners from consuming their animals’ milk.

As Robin puts it, “I’m now confused as to how it is illegal for the ‘owners’ of these animals to not be allowed to consume the milk or cheese from these same animals…Where will the regulation stop? Will it be illegal to own your own cow, chicken, or goat in the next decade? Shall we all be dammed to consume only chemically altered or radiated foods in the next generation? How can you expect to have sustainable agriculture if the small farms, ranches and dairies are asked to comply with regulations that make it impossible to maintain a viable income or lifestyle?”

Good questions, I’d say.

Reader Comments (21)

If it is true that one of the directors on the board called the health department because s/he didn't agree with the project, that is a dirty, dirty trick to pull on the very establishment you are supposed to protect - especially since the other directors were ok with it.

It is much like calling the cops when the neighbor's stereo is too loud, instead of walking across the hallway, knocking on their door, and asking them to turn it down.

I think the rest of the board needs to have a serious talk with this person, because it is a total breach of an ethical code.

Now, do we all understand that GOVERNMENT is not going to let it's death grip on us loosen, until we stand up and say NO MORE?
August 15, 2008 | Unregistered Commentercheryl
I think it is more like calling the cops on your own roommate's stereo volume, rather than talking to each other.
August 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnna
Other than FTCLDF, NICFA (and it's state based equivalents) and sending thousands of letters to legislators, what can we do to stop this madness? Anyone? We HAVE to DO SOMETHING! The big ag folks are getting desperate and the bureaucrats are feeling the pressure. What can WE do?
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterEvelyn
those that see what's happening for what it is are forced to deploy their constitutional duty of civil disobedience. the problem with doing so is that most folks won't follow the lead on more then a token basis. this leaves our "heros of the day" ala mark nolt et al often hanging out to dry alone.

those that take the risk to change the system need to know they will be backed by everyone... to the end. the only way to prove your resolve is to follow through. risk being fined, risk being arrested, risk losing... once a few cases like nolts are followed thru on with massive civil backing then more brave folks will stand firm in the face of governmnet intimidation.

those that would fight for ALL OF OUR freedoms need to know that they have an army of like minded folks behind them. with out personal resolve to follow through the army that we represent is weak and hollow and easily defeated.

when the opportunity is there we must all be willing to force the system to arrest us. this type of confrontation has the power to get headlines and headlines have the power to get more people enraged and involved. the government can't win that kind of battle. the gov't needs people to act like sheeple and obey.

so what can we do? refuse to obey...

it's probably one of the hardest things we'll ever do. stand up to the bully and dare him to hurt you. but once you muster the outrage or decide you have nothing more to lose, that bully can't win and will always back down since his primary weapon (fear) is no longer effective.

do we here have the resolve to do what really needs doing or are we voyers observing from a safe distance the dramas' unfolding in ny, pa, and other states as heros stand strong one after the other only to have time and distance erode our willingness to stand with them.

we need 100's and even thousands of folks craming court rooms and insisting the system back off. we need to be suing the system before (BEFORE) the system is suing us. we need to be proactive relentless and resolved to accept no compromise.

can any other tactics really have any effect? i don't know of any historic examples where less was enough.

hugh
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterhugh betcha
You are so right Hugh only thing I might add we need hundreds more brave Mark Nolts to say no to the tyranny masked in sheeps clothing called food safety. Mark it seems has won round one but do not be surprised if they raid his farm again and claim the milk samples they took were contaminated. Mark has been producing REAL milk for appx. 9 years no one ever became ill to the contrary many of us have regain our health.
I too fear that our nation is facing the greatest crisis in our history. If anyone disputes that please go to lewrockwell.com and read Gary Norths article.
HOW THE SMART MONEY LOST $1 TRILLION, SO FAR The story being played out in our fake food system sounds very much like the same story of our fiat paper money system. The results of both are producing sickness, disease, homelessness and poverty.
Can anyone prove this is not true?
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDon
If the bylaws and policies of the board are well written, or if they follow Robert's Rules of Order it is also a breach of board member conduct to act in a way that is contrary to the policy or decision of the board. This would be grounds for censor.
Most boards I've served on have that specific item in writing - the board acts as one, and dissenting members agree to forward the board's agenda and decisions and not their own.
I would encourage Robin to bring this up as a parliamentarian issue, or look for even more trouble from this board in the future. If the board lets a member act in this way once it has been brought to their attention then the whole board is at fault.
Robert's Rules also outlines a fair procedure for board member misconduct and it sure sounds like this qualifies..
I've been there, and it is so much easier to nip this in the bud.
Only then can the board be functional and help her out of this stupidity from regulators.
And it is further evidence of the dual world we live in. I truly had no idea five years ago that exploring the idea of local unprocessed milk would lead to all of this. What a colossal waste of time and money that could be spent promoting healthy food that is also sustainable.
We have a crisis in our food supply, growing every day, and the regulators keep looking for the proverbial lost key under the street lamp and never venture from that hopeless position.

I'll take a deep breath, my water should now be boiling and I'll enjoy the local sweet corn that I picked up from the local farmer's stand. And a class of cold fresh raw milk that always helps me to sleep the night through.

I'm glad for the sane voices that contribute to this blog, and especially for David for providing the intellligent (and sometimes challenging!) context.
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterLinda Diane Feldt
While this association board clearly has problems, the fact remains that regulators aren't under any obligation to act on every citizen complaint. Local police (and these regulators are really like police) get all kinds of citizen reports of crimes that turn out to be baseless. The reports are properly ignored after cursory investigation. The fact that the CDFA and regulatory accomplices chose to not only conduct an inspection, but issue a warning and recommendations, suggests they decided very quickly that Robin's program was a violation of state law, and required licensing. No one is holding a gun to the heads of regulators to take such stern and quick actions.
August 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Gumpert
"It is illegal to sell raw milk in California, but it is not illegal to get it from your own animal."

Too bad the writer didn't do his research.

"Her husband, veterinarian"

Perhaps he didn't wash his hands well?
August 17, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
<<The program is not coming back either, he said, because if even one person became sick from drinking his milk it's too much for his and his family's conscience.>>

this should have been considered before they started selling food of any kind. did they read their own printed handouts? while they are free to make this choice i strongly disagree with it and have a hard time with their reasoning.


hugh
August 17, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterhugh betcha
Linda, unfortunately, Roberts Rules of Order are only a code of conduct for a meeting. They don't exempt an entity from public scrutiny or public laws.

Example: My parents were public school teachers; my father an administrator. I went to a private Friends boarding school, and my mother was convener of the board for 8 years there. I am aware of NUMEROUS situations where the people who ran the private school were so entrenched in their own world that they FORGOT they were subject to public law; and sometimes did things that put them in jeopardy of being sued. In fact they were sued a few times, and they lost each time in the cases I am aware of. Private organizations rarely trump public law where rights are concerned.

Regardless of this board member's position and the supposed ethics of his actions on the board, he has legal protection as a whistleblower, no matter what his motives were, nor how evil. That part of this situation is now irrevocable.

What has to be done now is the establishment of drawing the line in public law where ownership protects a person from dairy "production" laws. This education program apparently is pretty fuzzy to regulators, and they clearly want the line well over where it should be.

If they win, many education programs in the U.S. could be at stake. The very abilitiy of raising our own milk could be at stake. The fact that regulators are going after a program such as this is a bold move on their part. It is not even a "milk share." California may be emboldened by their wins, and may be pushing for all-the-way. It is very important to stand up for our right not only to feed ourselves, but to teach our children how to do so.

Gwen
August 17, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterelderberryjam
California Raw Goat Milk,

Raw milk is legal in CA and it is on 350 stores shelves and it sells out every week. Stores are being added every week and sales are growing up and up.

OPDC and Claravale are under an unofficial political gag order to not disrupt the raw milk apple cart until after SB 210 passes and is signed into law.

Our friends in Napa that are trying to provide children with an opportunity to reconnect with animals have experienced 1% of what we get all the time.

Advice....get one hell of a lot tougher.

CDFA is a heartless and deadly serious protocol driven political machine run for big ag interests. There is little if any space for a little goat herder that cares about children.

Join the raw milk rebellion.

There is much to be done. Also...you might be surpised how simple getting a dairy liscence really is. You can use one bucket milker and have a very simple system and you can qualify.

If you want to really get even with CDFA, apply for a CDFA raw dairy liscence and make them treat you like a raw dairy even with three goats. It is cheap and easy and drive them freaking nuts.With a bucket milker and goats you should fairly easily pass the less than 10 coliform count standard.

There is no legal grade A raw goat milk supply in CA. You can make some real money for those kids educations by selling raw goat milk. OPDC will even franchise with you ( wild idea ). OPDC markets need raw goat milk. It is requested every week. An OPDC truck can pick it up in Napa. Do not be so shocked by CDFA actions.

That was just a cute little snap shot of what they can do and have done.

All the best,

Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
August 18, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermark mcafee
Mark,

Small farms that run herdshares are in a different position than OP when the LAW is considered.They don't deal with the "public" so the dept of agriculture has no valid reason to regulate them.If they can be bullied into applying(begging) for permission to produce milk,then they have voluntarily given the dept of ag the authority to regulate them by signing a contract with the dept .Until there is a valid contract,the dept of ag does not lawfully have the authority to regulate a herdshare.

It would be very easy to get a license but it would very easy for the dept of ag to make the production of milk on a small scale economically impossible simply by charging a small(relatively) fee for testing.

The strength of herdshares is that they are overseen by the actual herd owners and so they can reject the dept of ag's attempts to regulate them on behalf of those owners.

If I was in Robin's shoes,I would have to ask the dept of ag: Where in the LAW are you given the authority to regulate anyone who is not under contract with you.A valid contract must be voluntary, without coersion of any sort.

They will have a difficult time getting the public to agree that they(dept of ag) do have the authority to prevent people from producing and consuming their own milk.
August 18, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermiguel
Raw goat milk....

I agree completely.

The NAPA goats should be completely free from CDFA..they have zero authority to regulate this operation.

The problem is that they wield so much power that they suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere and everybody starts to suffocate when they arrive and start being themselves.

When they make up their minds they go after you. They have a bunch of tax payer paid attorneys ready to make your life a living hell.

Someone does need to legally take CDFA to task and establish "Cowshare law in CA".

Mark McAfee
August 18, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermark mcafee
Regarding Mark's last comment about establishing cowshare law in CA, I'm surprised a situation involving a raw milk cowshare hasn't come up yet in this state. I keep expecting to hear that one of the informal or formal cowshares in CA has come under the CDFA microscope (or rather, boot). The unlucky group that first attracts their attention will have quite a job on their hands if they decide to resist and become the pivot point for establishing protocol in CA for cowshares involving raw milk being distributed to members. I suspect the idea of raw milk cowshares makes the CDFA apoplectic, or perhaps gleeful at the prospect of yet another avenue for ridiculously bureaucratic repression.
August 19, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermothership
Unfortunately, a cow share in California has captured the attention of regulators with illnesses linked to its product. Campy I think.
August 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Yes, it appears to be a Campylobacter outbreak and a cow share program that was discontinued.

http://www.triplicate.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=9851
August 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterTina
I haven't seen any updates on the Campylobacter outbreak in Northern CA. It appears that the same story is repeated with no updates. Why is that? By this time can the powers that be not pin point where the bacteria came from and inform the public? Speculation continues.


http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/259825.html
http://www.kcra.com/news/17228395/detail.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/18/state/n165111D42.DTL&type=newsbayarea
http://www.examiner.com/a-1543222~15_raw_milk_drinkers_in_Del_Norte_fall_ill.html
August 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Maybe authorities have no news, maybe no one really cares. The dairy has discontinued the program so the news story is really not as interesting as it would be if the dairy were in a battle with the state over the future of the program.

Amanda
August 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
It is one thing to accuse a dairy of making someone sick.

It is quite another thing to prove it.

I think that the Alexanders have bigger fish to fry and do not need nor want a huge revolution going on in their lives.

They are the nicest family outside of my own that I have ever met.I can assure everyone that the very last thing thing they would ever want is illness from their raw milk.

Actually, it could very well have been something other than their raw milk but becuase they were a "cow share program" they are not about to start a rebellion and try and change CA law in the midst of trying to defend themselves from attack. Just my thoughts.

They are in our prayers and we hope all goes well and this event dies away....with out ceremony.

Mark McAfee
August 20, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermark mcafee
Mr. Mcafee - what about the 15 people sickened? What about the woman on the ventilator? No prayers for those hurt? You need to look deep inside yourself.
August 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSad Person
Member Account Required
Register or Log In to leave comments. Click the links here or in the upper right part of the page.