Don’t ask permission to drink raw milk

From guest blogger Richard Walbaum, Author of Natural Law Remedy writing on Hartke is Online.

Photo from demonstration in Maryland by Kimberly Hartke.

“How can government make raw milk illegal which has been legal for thousands of years? How, in a free country, can government oppress, when it has the ability to harmonize? Our government was based upon a several thousand year tradition of natural law having a presumption of liberty which allowed the state to pass any law to protect the general welfare of society, but no law could go beyond necessity to remedy the perceived harm, tailored for minimal infringement upon personal liberties. Absent harm, there could be no legislation. This protected the rights of individuals and society, and made us a free country:

The individual should be granted all the rights consistent with public safety [secured] by an authorized resort to the courts for their protection against all hostile legislation which is not required by considerations of the public health or safety. In the absence of such considerations those rights are alike immutable; in their presence they must alike yield. State v. Gravett, 62 NE 325 (1901).

We lost our liberties when we lost our resort to the courts. In 1931 in O’Gorman v. Hartford, 282 U.S. 251, the Supreme Court, in a single sentence and without argument or constitutional amendment, replaced the presumption of liberty with the presumption of constitutionality, making Congress the judge of the constitutionality of its own laws, thereby removing the requirement of necessity. Since then, government can protect from bad milk by simply prohibiting raw milk, and there is no recourse to the courts to protect our liberties.

The Supreme Court did not have the power to change our form of government and destroy our liberty. Raw milk has been safely consumed for thousands of years, and since the federal government’s own data shows that raw milk is safe, there is no power to prohibit it.

“The government, under the guise of regulation, cannot prohibit or destroy.” Marymont v. Banking Board, 33 Nev. 333 (1910).

Here is our remedy: While government can protect society from harm, it is self evident that absent harm to society, government cannot protect individuals against our will, converting us into wards of state, violating our God-given free will. We can waive the protection of government, and contract with a milk producer to buy his raw milk; since there is no consideration of public safety, government intervention is precluded…”

Read it all on Hartke is Online.


Filed under News

56 responses to “Don’t ask permission to drink raw milk

  1. deen

    The western world is full of contradictions and lies.
    Pasteurization is a intervention that was brought about to deal with another
    intervention(factory farms where cows were fed distillery slop)
    There is no proof that raw milk is dangerous .( unless it is produced in factory farms or by some other man made intervention)The calf of a cow would not survive drinking its mothers milk it that were the case.
    Looks like common sense is not to common these days.
    The fact is that humanity has drank raw milk from the time man existed.
    Human breast milk is what is called raw milk( real milk unadulterated)
    “How can government make raw milk illegal which has been legal for thousands of years?
    Question Who and Why are they doing this?
    There seems to be a consistent pattern here.They create the problem then
    say here is the solution.Then demonize those who do not follow their solution.
    While all the time they are maximizing profit.
    Question is when will enough people wake up to see these tricks ?
    Could that depend on how many people are drinking raw milk?
    Maybe we need a law making the research of Dr.Weston A Price
    required reading?
    Could it be time to wake up from the condition of apathy and ignorance?

  2. deen

    Just wanted to add what Michael said .
    “Sorry to draw the line, but since the Nuremberg trials, ‘doing my job’ is not a justifiable defence anymore for doing something not right,” he said in an interview after the sentencing.
    Those who are in positions of authority need to remember this.
    The position that” i was following orders is not acceptable”.

    • It’s a long discussion and an ironic one but the Western alliance was much more guilty of war crimes than Nazi Germany ever was. — i.e The Dresden fire bombing 100’s of thousands of civilians, operation keelhaul that killed 2 million Russians, starving 2 million German soldiers to death after the war, leaving 50,000 allied POW’s to die in Russian hands, allowing the imprisonment of all of Eastern Europe for 3 generations. allowing Stalin to murder 30 million Ukrainians. Not to mention war crimes against Japan…..

      Goes to show you that the winner writes the history. And guberment schools do not teach history.

  3. What other outcome would one expect – when you limit your votes to the 2 party system both of which have been bought off for decades by big business?

    What other outcome would one expect – when you act as a slave and beg the massa’s permissions – rather than asserting your position as the boss and demanding that your servant respect your person or suffer extremely serious consequences?

    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~Thomas Jefferson

  4. Kurtis

    Reality is we never lost our rights. We have just forgotten how to assert them and more often than not do not know the difference between public( an area regulated to protect the uninformed masses) and private (informed decision).

    Much like Michael selling to a public health official moved him from private to public and allowed the charges to come forward and formed the basis of his eventual trial loss. Without this they had nothing to base an appeal on.

  5. Bernie

    Kurtis, If we have forgotten to assert our rights, how do we go about doing that?

    How does a raw milk farmer stand for his rights without being dragged through the courts, threatened, fined and so forth?

    I agree we need to take back our rights, I just don’t know how! Because standing up and saying “I’m going to do this!” will not do much good.

    • Kurtis

      The key to the equation is numbers and knowing or being educated as to ones rights and the limitations of the regulations. Not only do those organizing shares have to hold the fort, but those who are share members must in the end be willing to share that burden equally.

      The oh well … I’ll find another source attitude if one gets shut down will eventually mean no source. People are scared because they don’t know their rights and no one as of yet is providing that information. That will change though.

      The starting point is the body is “inviolate” under the charter and statute.
      Private vs, public. Laws vs lawful and using that to our advantage rather than theatrics that make us all look like fools to the general uninformed public who know nothing of this but media hype they read.

      One thing history can teach us is politicians understand numbers.
      We need to start with the scare tactic B.S. Brucellosis and Bovine T.B. Besides my own media comments I have yet to see it made abundantly clear that Canada has had a free status on these for decades.

      Public health threat. Tested milk resolves that argument. If it passes there is no contamination thus no threat ( but then again this is a choice of the INFORMED KNOWLEDGEABLE herd owners). It is illegal in this country to be charged based on what may be or what you may do. This is another point that needs to be stressed.

      People need to do a lot of homework and look very deeply into rights and start asking why herd share owners are never charged and brought to court.

      Jurisdictionary is a very good starting point.

      In some ways I agree with Joe that it is B.S. But when facing the authorities telling them it is your god given right will not keep you out of the courts, so you need to know other information.

      • Kurtis the only reason the criminal kangaroo courts exist is that too many people play their game and give them legitimacy. If no one participates they will vanish.

        Judging from their actions they are an illegitimate criminal organization staffed by men that wear black dresses. Do not give these cross dressers your consent. The king has no clothes.

      • Peter

        A kangaroo court is without principles. In deed it is not worth participating in kangaroo courts. Or, if one contemplates what the principles of a given court is, you might be able to conduct yourself accordingly and obtain civil remedy.
        If one does not have a court to administer justice, then in reality there is no civil remedy. Only one of grace, extended at the emotional whim of those with arms.

  6. What a BS argument you make.

    Too many fallacies to even dig in here. Safety, tradition, the courts. etc. have not a thing to do with God given inalienable rights – the only core issue here.

    Can the government criminalize you hugging your child regardless of safety, tradition, or the courts? The same goes for what we as free people decide to ingest…

    • Peter

      The courts do have something to with with inalienable rights, in that it is their function to uphold them. Without that, there is no point even uttering the word “rights”.
      IMHO, most people’s biggest challenge is understanding the need to effectively move the court. The court cannot move on its own (with very rare exceptions).
      But anyway, in all you do, good luck, and I hope you have fun doing it. 🙂

  7. Mona

    Knowing our rights is a huge part of knowing how to stand up for them.

    As Kurtis pointed out above, “Much like Michael selling to a public health official moved him from private to public and allowed the charges to come forward and formed the basis of his eventual trial loss. Without this they had nothing to base an appeal on.” Knowing our rights would be knowing that we have to stay private. From my understanding, that means no advertising to find and meet customers. Advertising is Public. Advertising is any way you put your intentions to find customers or Cow Share buyers publicly.

    It would be wise, if one chooses to have a Cow Share or Herd Share, to heed the evidence that the appeal judge wrote in the Decision in deeming that Michael’s Cow Share as not a legitimate Cow Share. I don’t have the decision before me, but recall that it included as lacking – a clear agreement signed by the parties involved; evidence of ownership by each Cow Share member; a document to prove ownership; not over-selling shares for the number of cows in the Cow Share; and the lack of an appropriate division of the dividends of cow ownership going to the Cow Share members.

    My memory also is that the Judge identifying that he had to make his decision based on the laws relating to selling raw milk/and products made of raw milk that were in place at the time of the charges and the decision. The judge even encouraged those who would have the laws changed to allow raw milk sold to the public to campaign their politicians in an effort to change our Government’s laws.
    As I see it –
    Our present rights are to be protected by the Government if we want to buy milk publicly.
    Our rights, under the charter or rights and natural rights, are to stay strictly private if we want raw milk for our own consumption.

    What do you want?

    To change the Laws to allow Raw Milk to be sold publicly?

    Or to know your rights and proceed within them?

  8. Mona I think you are confusing rights and the permissions that are granted to slaves by their owners. Michael has a right to contract and do business with whomever he wishes to do business with. One has a right to do all things as long as you are not interfering with another’s rights. Put another way, no one has the right to initiate aggression towards another.(The non-aggression principle.)

    The restrictions that you speak of such as the public and private distinctions are merely euphemisms for the trampling of a human beings rights. The cow shares and all the other hoopla are just a way for slaves to maximize the permissions that his owner has granted to him and not the actions of a free men.

    I can agree with you if you rephrase your assertions to that a “person should know his permissions”. Slaves are always wise to know the rules that their masters have laid down.

    • Peter

      If I may, I would like to pose the following.
      If you have a 12 your old son, do I have the unalienable right to sell him a Play Boy magazine? Whatever your answer, I would like to suggest that “state” of things equates that 12 year old boy to the public. Like it or not, the government believe it has an inherent obligation to protect that boy/public. Again, how you want to perceive things is your choice. I’ve been trying to suggest that they have their perspective, and I believe it is prudent to try to see it their way, before dismissing them as being completely without merit.

  9. Kurtis

    Joe, when one has the right to do something they don’t need permission. That is part of the basis that defines the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.

    But having the right also means INFORMED.

    I note you said god given right. Well Joe even god established laws and governance. I don’t know if you run a share or not, but swaggering into a court saying it is your god given right is going to get you no where. Going in to a court establishing that right by establishing right ,principle and thus lawful just may win the day. In essence we share a belief in the right of it. But where we differ is in approach. I say know the system and know it well enough to use it against those who would oppress.

    Personally I would not want to make the mistake of not educating myself in the system and tactics used against me. It is much akin to bringing a water balloon to a gun fight.

    We really need to educate our agisters and share owners in Canada so they can approach this issue with confidence rather than with the fear that permeates this community. And that education needs to be FREE!

    • Kurtis
      I don’t know about what the socialist in Canada have brainwashed people into believing about rights – but my rights exist in both public and private. When I go out into public I still have a right of free speech and do not have to quite talking. The same goes with my right to contract.

      Courts have nothing to do with rights Kurtis nor do courts give you nor can they take away rights. Quite the opposite usually courts are the entities that run rough shop over your rights.

      If you have to involve your government it usually means they are treating a right as a permission and are violating your rights.

      • Melissa

        Joe, you are right that courts cannot give or take away our rights, although they may try to take them away – and sometimes succeed. This is why education about our rights as agisters and share owners is necessary, because if we are not educated as to what our rights are they may be taken away.

        I believe many agisters and share owners require education in this area, as I see many of them asking the government for permission rather than enjoying their rights to hire a farmer of their choice and consume unpasteurized milk from their own cows.

      • Peter

        @Joe: I am of the view that rights are completely useless unless they are enforced. If you have a right to life, but that right is not enforced by either yourself, or someone else, then it is akin to not having them. And so I’m not sure what the point is to having/studying/understanding our rights unless we have a way of upholding them (by way of the courts). As such, I see the courts as having everything to do with rights. I see them as upholding them in offset to government conduct (tyranny). Aside from amassing your own army to protect your rights, I believe the courts are the mechanism to have rights upheld. If I’ve missed the boat, I would appreciate your input/suggestion/clarification.
        I concur that your rights exist in both public and private. Whether your like it or not, the public domain is regulated by the Sovereign (the US scene under its constitution may be argued to be different). And you can disagree with that all you want. Whatever your perspective, I sincerely hope that it serves you. From the outside, you tend to give the impression that you are a victim, that life/government/something owes you a living. Just saying…

    • Thanks Kurtis
      You made your point.
      I would invite you to begin to educate and answer, and accommodate and train, and provide support, and answer the phone, and help, and be there when help is required,( physical and mental) and answer thousands of e mails – FOR FREE
      Where are you when you are needed.
      Where are you when others need you.
      There are talkers, and doers.
      There are always smart writers who always know all the answers
      There are always those who have it all figured out until reality hits home.
      Please can you provide the Bovine with your 24 hour hotline for FREE help.
      I am only to happy to refer people to you.
      I always appreciate those who claim to have it all” figured out ” for them selves, proclaim to have the ultimate solution, but are not there when help is needed, because they are too smart to get their hands dirty for others.
      I am sure you will be long gone when other real farmers still struggle in their daily lives to survive.
      I have met all kinds of farmers, but those who really stand out are those who never had the luxury to buy their dream of being a farmer. There are as well those who “made” lots of money before they made themselves the better and smarter “know all” farmers.
      Kurtis there is a reality out there you might not yet have experienced.
      Please go out and begin teaching for free since you can afford this.
      It would make me very happy and proud of you.
      Are yo sure you have it all figured out?
      I will refer your farm to the authorities as an example of an outstanding legal construct which overrides any other powers authorities claim to have.
      I will with great interest follow your march throug the institutions of justice and help with the publicity so that others can follow your example.

      Having not been charged by authorities means nothing.
      They have not yet gotten around to you because you are not teaching, and yo are not standing up for anybody else, yet.
      I have intentionally not taken the High Road in my response, because I am just a human being trying to figure out the insane world of smart writers. The day to day struggling farmers trying to survive and find new realities to survive are the ones I really care about. I also deeply care about those who are willing to stand up for the future of food.

      • Peter

        I did not get the impression, from Kurtis’ post, that he was volunteering, per say. Not sure it is appropriate to volunteer someone else, his farm/operation, or otherwise, as a test. Even suggesting it is, in my opinion, poor taste/poor ethics.
        BTW, you seem to come off as though you are offended. Just saying…

    • Peter

      I concur that it is better to build your castle before the enemy comes of the hill, and that it is understanding which, in my opinion, is key to being confidant and effective, both in court, and with the “officials”.

      • BC Food Security

        “We really need to educate our agisters and share owners in Canada so they can approach this issue with confidence rather than with the fear that permeates this community. And that education needs to be FREE!” Peter : Kurtis used the above phrase that began with WE and ended with FREE . I am guessing that is where Michael made his inference but I am not certain. Personally , I thought Michael meant it humourously . Broadly speaking , in humanitarian work if you want to see something done then you get busy doing it. You don’t fold your arms and/or point your fingers that other people should do it. Kurtis: I would love to see foundations and colleges created that receive donations to make this info to educate herdshares free. We are just not there yet. And even if we are why should not the instructors be paid a decent wage for doing an honest day’s work ? Just a thought . Also some people like hiring a mentor and receiving private one on one training . They don’t begrudge the mentor’s wage. Michael’s coop is on the WOOF network and they mentor hundreds of people for free as well . Not everybody needs or wants charity .

  10. Raoul

    I have never seen any articles on Insurance Liability for raw dairy farmers ? I believe in some states there are some kind of limited liability laws for raw dairy ? Does anybody have more info on this ? I suppose the state does not want to be sued a) for not regulating a raw dairy or b) for having a regulation but not enforcing them properly. I say this in the event of a so-called E-Coli or other scare ? What are the options with or without liability ? Could a state or municipality pass a law that you can not sue the state or municipality if you think you got sick from raw milk ? In this case you could also sue the farmer . Or would the state pass a law that you can not sue the farmer or agister or up to a certain maximum only i.e $5000 . Some might argue that it is good enough if the farmer has the buyer or coop member sign a release form but i do not buy that in the event of a medical or other emergency ? Also what would happen or does it happen if an insurance company refuses to insure your farm because they say you are doing something “illegal” in that state or province ?

  11. Bernie

    Michael, I hope you were joking about referring Kurtis and his farm to the authorities. That was a pretty heavy thing to say, even in jest!
    We need to come together as one, and if Kurtis has info maybe we should listen to him, it could not possibly hurt!

  12. Mona

    It would seem to me that the first knowledge one needs is to know what they choose to stand for, and then gain knowledge to do their best in standing for that.

    What do you want?

    To change the Laws to allow Raw Milk to be sold publicly so that everyone can gain access to what they want to consume?

    Or to know your rights and proceed within them to gain access to the raw milk you want to consume?

    Or to call milk, which you know cow share members will drink, a cosmetic product?

    • BC Food Security

      Mona : I think the cosmetic thing is only a temporary band-aid solution so that the mature adults who happen to be cow share members still have something or some product (actually their paid for property ) to use as they so choose . So there are understandably a bundle of intentions mixed in there. If the choice is that we either take the highest road possible and only stand on principles then should the raw milk tap stop flowing just because the BC government has suspiciously invented “seat of the pants” or last minute transition regulations to close the remaining loopholes ? In my opinion it is too idealistic to expect the world of the small herdshares in terms of their short term negotiating strategy with the government when many of the government’s actions and responses (on this particular topic ) are guided by ANYTHING BUT principle. I would almost be inclined to call it OPEN WARFARE ? We are human beings . That being said I do believe that Michael Schmidt is using a multi-pronged approach in terms of incorporating principles that you just mentioned into his short and long term strategy. Or perhaps you are only referring to the general “Merry-Go-Round” of comments making their round on THE BOVINE ?

  13. Kurtis

    Michael. I do stay out of the spotlight. I have helped many in this community FOR FREE. That is my way, and I don’t require the bright lights and media to stroke me. I don’t have all the answers and neither do you. I doubt anyone does have it all at this point.

    Go ahead. Turn me in again.

    • Hi Kurtis
      Are you in fact accusing me that I have turned you in?????!???.??
      What ever it is that seems to fill you with anti- Michael sentiment I regret the personal nature of your accusations and criticism.
      As I have done so many times before give me call if there is an issue you feel is not right or should be done different.
      519 369 8137
      I rather farm and create my own private castle and home sweet home, as Peter suggested, than dealing with courts and raids and personal attacks.
      There are many ways how to skin a cat is the saying.
      I never have all the answers, I never claimed to have all the answers.
      The one thing I can claim is, that I am always open for dialogue and always there when help is required.
      To be exposed in the way I have been was never the result of wanting to be in th spotlight to” stroke” me as you put it.
      The lack of tolerance, the lack of consideration and the repeated demand by you how I should behave and act or not act does not necessary create a fertile ground for change. It puts us where Government wants us to be:
      Destroy a movement from the inside. A fate of many initiatives, movements, and ideas.
      May you have a peaceful Christmas

      • Kurtis

        Michael it is you who has chosen to attack me and this share. You who threaten to turn it in. This is not a joking matter and one I take quite seriously. I take protecting this share very seriously and protect the men, women and children who depend on it.

        Search back through the bovine. The last time I said I didn’t agree with aspects of your approach you chose to comment and point out the illegal interprovincial transport of dairy. Once again directly aimed at myself and this share. We dealt with that little issue and continued on.

        This share was built from one cow up and nothing gained without sweat and hard work. Contrary to what you post here. It is you who has chosen to insult and attack here again Michael.

        If I chose to help for free, quietly and one-on-one that is my business, and not a reason to insult me.

        I actually have to thank you for finally posting publically a glimpse into your nature that surfaces in private emails when a person questions why you approach this in the way you do and states they view the approach through different eyes and chose to take a slightly different road.

        Personally I still think a multi-faceted approach is the best choice. Every plan and approach has its merits and short comings, we don’t have to agree, and should have the right to say we don’t agree without fearing an attack and threats such as that which you have chosen to post. Through not agreeing we often see what we had not noticed before. That is often how we learn. Just like we learn from our mistakes and those of others.

        I still believe Co-ordinated different approaches would be best in the end. Covers more ground and shows more weaknesses and strengths to SHARE with all.

      • That was not the point. Kurtis
        I gave you my phone nr for a civil conversation.
        You choose to continue to wash dirty laundry in public hoping to tarnish character and integrity. I am still waiting for your call

      • Kurtis

        And you miss my point. You publically attacked me, threatened us, insulted and attempted to tarnish our reputation for stating a different opinion. That is far from civil in my opinion.

        I responded to your threats because I feel I don’t have to take it and shut up.

        If you had actually cared to handle this privately from the start you should have emailed me rather than choosing a public attack.

        I don’t post my # on the net and you have my email. I have stated to you in emails before this is my preferred method because there is no denying what was said at a later date.

        Have a good holiday season to all.

  14. BC Food Security

    Gentleman : Personal attacks are not appropriate in a public context . I suggest we ” make a deal ” and delete the arguments (from both sides ) that get too personal here in nature. I am talking both in this case and in general as well. I would like to see more robust moderator guidelines on this site. We need to stick to “principles” when conversing and not shoot the messenger. All ideas have their merit .For example , when Kurtis said all info on cowshares should be FREE . This idea has some merit . But when Kurtis says “ALL INFO” this suggestion does not seem practical to me ? Because then we are making a judgment about what other people should be doing ? Glencolton Farms and The Bovine do a lot for FREE as it is . There is no tollbooth to post your comments here or to read this page ! To conclude: I am interested in helping improve raw milk accessibility and farmer’s rights and good food availability anything else of a too personal nature is not constructive or useful and should be deleted . Let us wipe the slate clean and start the year 2012 anew ! Let us leave our old grudges and hurts behind so that our minds are fresh for the new opportunities that await us but can not get in because we have too much clutter blocking it ! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !

  15. Mona

    I did not read humor, in your words to Kurtis, Michael.

    I read insecurity, defensiveness and bulling.

    You have rights. You made your choice to go public with raw milk and expose your Cow Share. I am sure it is no picnic where you stand now, but it was by your choice.

    You also have years of evidence that informed people have rights, freedoms and a choice in Canada; that they have rights to bedroom agreements. Your share holders must know that, they had years of experience.

    I have noticed that it was not long after the two Cow Shares in B.C. had milk by-products (Cheese and Butter) being offered on their websites that they had dealings with the Health Authorities. Those cow shares had gone public, opening the door for government investigation via internet.

    If there are quiet Cow Shares and Raw Milk still being consumed by its owners that have not been visited by the Health Authorities, could it be because they are indeed private? This might be why they are not publicly supporting your cause – because it would jeopardize their God Given Rights. Maybe they are doing their best to stay faithful to their rights and freedoms so they indeed have the right to the raw milk they choose to put in their bodies? Could it be they are also causing no illness or harm and thus doing a good job of it?

    Michael, are you wanting for Raw Milk to go Commercial so everyone can pick it up in their store? Do you want to be able to sell it to the public so that everyone can choose to consume it? Is that your fight? Then say it is, and campaign your politicians for the right to choose Raw Milk publicly. They could change the rules and come up with rules to certify Raw Milk Dairies and make that possible…if enough people want it. If the commercial milk processers saw money in it, they might get behind your lobbying.

    Or do you want to make Publicly advertised Cow Shares legal, with the government’s approval so they can be large and supply more people and you can advertise them? As I see it, that would quickly open you to Raw Milk becoming commercial and public… but you may see it differently.

    Or do you really want to have Cow Shares recognized as private agreements and allow those who choose to find farmers privately and acquire healthy raw milk within their rights and freedoms to be able to continue doing so? If you do, then acknowledge that you got caught in a sting because you did give or sell cheese to someone outside the Cow Share, the public; and that you did not improve your Cow Share Agreement by learning more (there is an article on Real Milk by a lawyer which may have helped you have a more legitimate Cow Share).

    Or is it something else you are aiming for. What is it you are aiming for? Say it clear so people can choose whether to pick up arms and follow you, are not.

    Turning on others who choose to stay private because they believe in their rights and freedoms and work to stay out of public sales is not supporting Raw Milk and our Rights and Freedoms… it is exposing yourself, maybe to somehow prove you are right.

    Education is the key to understanding our rights and freedoms and how to change or expand them… which would be how to change and expand how the government sees its roll in protecting the public. It got where it is today because the majority of people allowed it to. A majority of people could and can change it over time… can you find a majority who want raw milk? Education and knowledge is the key to that…but that takes time. It is our God given right to campaign for such changes is we wish them.

    In the mean time, best to have a private agreement with a farmer one trusts and stay within the rights and freedoms that are our God given rights, our natural rights.

    • Hi Mona
      I urge you to go back on some of the things I have been posting on the Bovine.
      Here are my points in regards to Cow Share Canada.
      First priority is training farmers to understand quality raw milk production
      Second priority. Educate consumers what to look for when making a decision to obtain raw milk.
      Thirdly Establish a quality standard for raw milk which gives consumers confidence, and meets the needs of the much proclaimed food safety fanatics.
      There are no dictatorial control functions.
      There is no mandatory size requirement.
      There is no interference in regards how someone has to structure their arrangement with their customers.
      There is no must and have-to.
      All the discussion of private or public is irrelevant because it does not fall under the envisioned mandate of cow share Canada.
      I hav no interest at all to advocate mass distribution of raw milk in stores.
      The only interest I have is,
      that consumer should have the right to make an informed choice,
      That the farmer under the cow share, goat share, herd share, farm share arrangement does not get prosecuted under any current act.
      That we have a quality assurance program which gives guidance t farmers and consumers.
      That we act not as lunatics, but act in the realities of today’s world, which means cooperation with ALL involved.
      Asking for freedom at all costs is either ignorant or stupid.
      removing ourselves from the reality of todays politics is naive, to say the least.
      I hope that clarifies some of the confusion as a result of lack of information before making any judgements.
      It has been all there, and I offered my phone nr. Several times before.
      My intentions helping getting Cow Share Canada going was a real concern for the small farmers getting a bad rap because suddenly mainstream farmers smelled the bacon and wanted to get in with cows producing 10 000 liters of milk.
      In regards to your comment about not detecting humor in my response to Kurtis I like to say that it was never intended as humor. I simply admitted that I did no take the high road.
      ALS I like to clarify my statement in regards to refer Kurtis to Health authorities ,what I meant was using him as reference point in my arguments in court because he indicate many times that he has it all figured out why the leave him alone and have been going after Alice or me.
      So what is wrong taking him by his word that he has a fool proof system?

      • Kurtis

        Michael. I have said many times that they know about me and TO DATE have not stepped on me. Big difference from what you infer. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

      • Kurtis I accept your comment and clarification.
        Let’s make a deal to not put words into each others mouth.
        Warm regards

      • Kurtis

        Done. If it happens in the future I will clarify as I did here.

        The “not intended as humor comment” tells me your attack was intentional. Sad it has come to this.

      • Kurtis, sometimes I wonder why there seems to be always a last punch of
        animosity after an honest attempt of trying to create more understanding amongst those involved.
        Let’s work on this

      • Kurtis

        It’s not animosity MIchael. It is clarity, and honesty. Although we don’t agree on all aspects of approach, and I believe there is a real need to help keep shares out of the legal gun sights the best we can, there is common ground and I thought better of you than to threaten a share and its vulnerable members.

      • Michael I agree with most of what you do – but yes freedom at all costs.
        The freedom to choose the risks you take and what you put in your body.
        This is the only reason governments should exist. And that is to protect these freedoms.

  16. Wow Kurtis
    I did not see your last posting before I responded to BC Food Security.
    Any reference points where I might have done what you describe above would be helpful.
    If in fact that has been the case than I need to review my writings carefully if in fact there was a total misinterpretation of what I was trying to express.
    If you took that personally then I wonder why.
    Please some clarity is helpful.
    You can phone me without disclosing your number if you are concerned.
    That’s what I meant with constructive dialogue.
    I am for diversity and multi pronged approach.
    Please give me a call.

  17. Mona

    Upon returning to post my sharing, of which the page only held my comment box to paste my observations and my thoughts on the article and comments, I posted them; then saw your wish to edit and delete what the writers of comments have written and posted. I agree is it unfortunate that someone would attack another because they have a differing of opinion. Raw Milk advocates, which I count myself as one, will surely have many ideas and opinions they hope in impart on others who might glean new insight from them. To be attacked personally for sharing insight, and personal opinion, is most unfortunate. To defend one’s position, when maligned, seems reasonable. And it shows the character of the writers; which in itself is not always a bad thing. If strongly held thoughts and opinions are going to be shares by invitation, then the character might best be shown of the person making their statements. It is probably better that we each edit ourselves more carefully, for the good of the cause, rather then manipulate the posts.

    B.C. Food Security, it seems imperative, as you proceed, that you ask yourself if you are trying to manipulate the comments for your own purpose, before you take the control to edit others. I am glad you have asked both parties their view on this. For the comments have been published and read already.

  18. BC Food Security

    Mona : I made a broad suggestion that the comments follow principles and not get personal in a destructive manner. Mature facilitators and moderators understand full well how to do that . You need to ask yourself if you have manipulative intention in your way and manner of communication just from your last statements. Talk about the principles of good and constructive communication. I think it is imperative that you look at the way you are pointing fingers at others about what they should or should not be doing . What is your intention ? Whose side are you really on ? I am for the truth and not taking sides . There are some people who don’t mind swearing and racism and attacks in blogs and think that is “free speech ” . I see this all the time . All the issues raised in the above paragraphs by people could have been successfully done in terms of principle without attacking anyone .

    • Frank

      Objectively, your comments might also be just as well directed at Michael. But I suppose if you are on one side or another (i.e. on Michael’s side?), it might be difficult to be objective.

  19. miro

    Let me first begin by bringing attention to the very fact that Michael has been involved with RawMilk for close to thirty years. Much of what we know about Raw Milk has come from his efforts, whether due to his public struggle in the courts or those wishing to find some gain or livelihood doing much of the same. I suspect that the vast majority of Cow Share operations have used, in some way, the knowledge that has come to light through his work. That many have benefited through his efforts and not theirs alone. How many of the posts on this site use the details of his court battle in their own aruguments? How many can say that they were even aware of the issues way back in the 1980’s when Michael was first standing up for the freedom to choose what goes into our bodies.

    What seems to be brought to light is that there is a rift of kind between how people go about profiting from raw milk. Some hold the view that there is no merit to the governments claim of hazard. That it should be legal and people should not have to be quite about it. Others are all too happy to be quite and unseen and feel that bringing attention to it threatens them in some way.

    Some argue that pot should be legal too. The ones that do are often those that find themselves entangled with the law or prefer to use it then other pharmacueticals, trying to keep their lives from being completely ruined, trying to expose the real nature of the legal system and how it profits from illegality. All the while, others are all too happy that they are still able to profit from the lucrative business of pot cultivation and demand, while squirting the law.

    Raw milk has become the symbol of food freedom in North America. It represents a stand to defend one right to self determination and put a limit to the expansion of economic interests into the realm of our freedoms. Is it too hard to understand why a German Farmer might feel strongly that it is important to make a public stand? That a man should be concerned about how governement is acting without any accountability moving in taking away the powers of the people?

    Personally I am not for antagonizing an issue as sensitive as this one. We have a real opportunity here to establish a justifiable right. Does it help anything to be quiet about it? Has that worked up till now? There is momentum and the will to see this through.

    Many people have come forward wishing for a national body, for a concerted effort to collectively bring froward our resources to work to figure this out. Yes. after hearing this said all over the country Michael went forward and created it. Yes, the first part of that was setting up an education system where farmers can announce that they are learning from “the guy that was doing it for 30years” and announce that they are following through with that education. Yes, it takes time to develop an education process and documentation toward accreditation and it costs money. Is it fair to ask other to pay for that? Is it fair to go ahead and do this without your consent? Guess what? The farmers who are attending RawMilk college are not looking for accreditation from anyone, they specifically want what Michael is doing and want to operate at a standard of quality where the issue is not going to be one of safety but of the right to consume rawmilk.

    There are those out there that feel that one can put anything they want into there mouth and that providing that has no responsability to the consumer or public at large. That is a different issue then the issue of “is raw milk safe to consume”. The question of “is it safe to consume” is at the heart of this struggle. Now ask yourselves what makes food safe? and how do we take precautions to increase the chances of safety and present a case of due diligence to the public at large? It does not have to be expansive or cost prohibitive, it has to be intelligent. CowShare Canada and the stadards of quality control are about making this possible in the real world of today.

    The conflict of these two men, seems to me, to be one in which we all need to sit with and figure out. And it is going to take some time and lots of discussion.

    • Frank

      That Michael has 30 years under his belt, or that others have gleaned from his expertise, does not give him credibility in the domain of good politics, or law. Propping Michael up (i.e. suggesting Michael was the first to stand up for freedom) comes off more as an emotional appeal, rather than a consideration on the substance of what he did or does stands for.
      Profiting from raw milk. Interesting phrase. I would suggest some seek profit in the political arena. Some seek to profit in the monetary arena. And perhaps some seek gain in educating and empowering people. To be frank, Michael has clearly come off in categories one and two.
      I would suggest the rift has been generated by virtue of Michael’s own conduct and statements in public, but more so in private (hence his people are not inclined to engage in so called “constructive” dialog with him in private – we’ll see what his “constructive” dialog looks like out in the open)
      Is it possible that some are not coming from a place of “how it should be”, but are calling things out for what they are, and are simply contemplating the consequences?
      There is momentum… towards what? Government regulations/quota? Corporate raw milk? Less small farms? One size fits all? Loss of freedom? Yes, I think you are right. There is momentum to an ever increasing police state, including the dictation of raw milk production standards.
      To suggest that “is it safe to consume” is at the heart of the question I believe highlights the actual rift. Many see that freedom is the heart of the question, and Michael does not represent that. I would suggest the pain is that producers want to be free (which is like herding cats), and the consumer which want to be protected by the government. Michael represents the latter, not the former.

  20. BC Food Security

    Miro : Thank you for your elegant and principled discussion and overview of ,as you say, a delicate and “sensitive ” situation . It is quite refreshing to read your post after reading the previous posts .

  21. Raoul

    After listening to some of the above “noise” I would like to add this quote from Alice Jongerden which I feel sweetly and succintly summarizes in a practical manner Michael’s contribution in BC, Ontario and other realms : “If it was not for Michael Schmidt there would not be any raw milk flowing right now to coop members in the lower mainland of Vancouver “. So, politics aside, whatever his methods he has delivered the goods to the Greater Vancouver,BC and Ontario raw milk mothers and low income families where nobody else could have even if they wanted to regardless of the brilliance of their schemes.

    • Frank

      Are we to assume that, because it is Alice’s opinion, it is necessarily so? Politicians are quick to step in where they see opportunity to “save the day”. Plenty sell out the future for immediate gain, so to speak.
      When we have increased dictatorship, and no one has access to raw milk, would you put politics aside and/or give Michael the same accolades for his “ways”?

  22. Miriam

    Divide and conquer.
    Be divided and be conquered.
    It saddens me to find the Canadian raw milk community in such disarray; we all risk losing our rights/traditions/wishes/health with such a chasm.
    My father and aunts grew up on raw milk. Milk and eggs, among other foods, were bartered just as seeding and harvest jobs were. The choice to buy/trade was done with a simple private contract – a promise and not even a handshake.
    Today, my farm and meat and fish CSAs satisfy my producer-direct relationships for the freshest food possible and a connection to my food. It’s a simple contract I make directly with my farmers who then strive to meet the needs of their clientele. A cow share is the best design I can find for those who want raw milk to directly choose their farmer. Farm gate sales would be great, no doubt, for those who simply want a jug of milk. Wider availability is a great thought, but not at the risk of the artisan farmer. It seems to me Big Industry eliminated the direct sale of raw milk in many provinces. After listening to how quota systems wreak havoc with the ability of young farmers and fishermen to enter into food production and the control they give up to become part of The System, I don’t see an improvement with federal regulations for milk. Provincial regulation neither. I would like to see an egg farmer, veggie farmer, meat rancher, dairyman all free to sell via contract or farm gate whenever they want. I choose my produce and meat CSAs depending on the soil health. Raw milk can be chosen by soil health, grass-fed vs grain-fed, color, cream line – just as it used to be done. Having quarterly, or other interval, microbial testing seems reasonable.
    However, with such an obvious rift in the agister community, what will this leave shareholders with if the leaders cannot agree to what is in the best interests for the raw milk suppliers and customers nationwide?

  23. Kurtis

    Personally, I feel it would be more CURRENTLY accurate saying that if it wasn’t for the continued resolve of the existing shares, members and supporters …

    The above refinement to the statement says “community” or “family” and without that we are all lost. Like any community or family, it doesn’t mean we all have to agree on everything. But does mean we have a common cause.

  24. Mona

    Thank you Michael, for writing and clarifying. I have picked up much of this from your previous comments, my reading, and interviews, but I have also heard words such as ‘quotas’ and of course getting the government to change.
    I am concerned with the part of your explanation that reads, “All the discussion of private or public is irrelevant because it does not fall under the envisioned mandate of cow share Canada.”
    My thoughts to share –
    If on a farm with a cow/goat share, quality control is excellent (which I believe can happen reasonably easily with a small number of healthy cows/goats with an excellent understanding of cleanliness and how contamination happens and can be prevented – whether milking by hand or with a portable machine and processing the milk in a farm kitchen or separate room – larger cow/goat herds would move up to a different level of equipment and concerns when it comes to how contamination can happen and how to prevent it).
    That if the consumer is fully informed about the cow/goat/herd/farm they are buying into and how their cow is being housed, pastured, cared for, milked and how and where their milk is prepared and stored for them. Then they can make an informed choice.
    “That the farmer under the cow share, goat share, herd share, farm share arrangement does not get prosecuted under any current act.”

    My continued thoughts are –
    Do you feel that a cow share agreement can be written so well, and followed so exactly that there can never be any reason the law enforcers could not charge them with selling milk or milk products? An agreement so clear which would hold up under the reality of current acts in today’s world/Canada’s laws? Do you teach the premises of writing such an agreement between farmer and cow share owner?
    Would a lack of understanding of Private vs Public, our natural rights and our rights under the Charter of Rights, not pose a threat of a farmer or a consumer of their cow’s milk unknowingly speak publicly or advertise publicly and thus move them both into the reality of today’s Public venue and thus find they are being prosecuted under current acts?

    I feel that education of our Rights as Canadians, of Natural Law, and a willingness to live them by staying private and absolutely not being Public – would be a great addition to your teachings, if you could find such a knowledgeable person to teach this well. My personal view is that it would be as important as the teaching of cleanliness and management of cows/goats and of the processing of milk for others as the farmer of a cow share.

    I also have observed that transporting milk for share holders has been seen as being public as well, and gotten cow shares in trouble. Avoiding that might be another consideration for teaching.

    I believe that if you were to recognize the input of others who have made comments in the areas of our present rights as private individuals’ vs what the government sees as their mandate to do; in protection of the “Public” it would be educational for all. Then you can respond with your point of view, like you have with me, and then read their comments with an open mind and respond once again. I feel it bring forth education by discussion of the points made. The giver of the thoughts would be heard and you would be heard and the readers would have more information then they may have had prior. Is that not the point of comments?

    Thank you for the venue in which I can now share my thoughts and comments with you and others.

    Have a Merry Christmas, Mona

  25. Mona

    BC Food Security: You wrote, “Gentleman : Personal attacks are not appropriate in a public context . I suggest we ” make a deal ” and delete the arguments (from both sides ) that get too personal here in nature. I am talking both in this case and in general as well.” To me, this quote from your comment looks quite particular in the first sentence and both particular and then broader in the second. I saw only one attack, from Michael towards Kurtis and then a rebuttal.

    You wrote,‘You need to ask yourself if you have manipulative intention in your way and manner of communication just from your last statements.” My intentions primarily are to provoke thought and discussion about the rights we all have as private citizens in Canada, when entering agreements privately in the case of Cow Shares; and to help people see the difference between Private and Public in relationship to Raw Milk. I would like to see people looking at the nature of Public and the Government’s Laws to protect the public. I feel it has been the missing link in knowledge when “chooses” Cow Share as a farmer or a consumer. Without this understanding, I believe there is greater weakness in proceeding and greater chance of tripping up and falling into the Laws created to protect the public – thus court. It is my observation that this is true. I also have the intention to encourage people to read the legal documents of the Appeal and the Decision to educate themselves and be fully aware to make informed choices and opinions. I have other interests, but they are not intentions.

    You earlier wrote: “I think the cosmetic thing is only a temporary band-aid solution so that the mature adults who happen to be cow share members still have something or some product (actually their paid for property ) to use as they so choose.” I ask, if fraudulence has been the right way to deal with this?

    And earlier you wrote, “In my opinion it is too idealistic to expect the world of the small herdshares in terms of their short term negotiating strategy with the government when many of the government’s actions and responses (on this particular topic ) are guided by ANYTHING BUT principle.” I ask, do two wrongs create a right, eh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s