The right to farm using acceptable farming practices is a long accepted tenet for those living on the Prairies.
Farming is the backbone of the region’s economy. It defined how the Prairies were settled and how we live today.
In clashes involving the right to farm, it has usually involved acreage owners who moved from the city to the country, but once they got there, found the smells, noises and dust intrusive and offensive.
That’s why right to farm legislation, and a person’ ability to legally infringe on another person’s right to make a living from his or her property, hinge mainly on whether the farm is using acceptable practices and on providing indicators as to what constitutes a fair complaint.
Read Also
Petition launched over grazing lease controversy
Battle continues between the need for generation of tax revenue from irrigation and the preservation of native grasslands in southern Alberta rural municipality.
A situation in Saskatchewan has added a new and difficult twist to the issue.
The owners of two farm operations in the southeastern part of the province have been trying to reach a resolution over sheep ranchers’ right to use their property to graze sheep and a bison rancher’s right to earn a livelihood on his adjacent land.
Both parties have a right to farm their land as they wish, and by all accounts, both are using acceptable farming practices.
The trouble is that all sheep are considered to be carriers of malignant catarrhal fever, which is spread through nasal excretions and the air. All bison are acutely susceptible to MCF and it is always fatal for them.
Until recently, the two ranches existed peacefully because the sheep operation was about four kilometres away from where the bison were kept. The sheep ranchers have since bought more land and want to move the sheep to property that would place them about one kilometre away from the bison.
Understandably, the bison rancher is concerned about the health of his herd and his future ability to stay in business.
However, the sheep producers, too, have the right to use their property as they choose.
All property comes with restrictions on what people can do with it. There are provincial statutes and municipal bylaws to control weeds, protect the environment, preserve wildlife, prevent reckless spray drift and protect human and animal health.
The question in the Saskatchewan case is whether one party has a strong enough argument to force limitations on how the other can use their land.
Sheep, generally speaking, pose a threat to bison; that much scientists agree on. Animal handling guidelines recommend no contact between the two.
However, the science is unclear on how great a distance is necessary to stop any potential spread of MCF.
Saskatchewan’s Agricultural Operations Act bases its right to farm protections around whether the farmer is adhering to acceptable practices.
If the bison rancher has been operating in his location for years and has acceptable fencing, herd management and other farming practices, he should be allowed to continue.
On the other side, a buffer zone of about one kilometre will exist even after sheep are moved onto the new pasture and no weaned sheep between the ages of six and nine months will be kept on the closer property. Those are the animals thought to be primarily responsible for spread of the disease.
The sheep ranchers apparently are doing their due diligence as well.
The parties have taken their arguments to the Agricultural Operations Review Board, which is empowered under Saskatchewan’s Agricultural Operations Act to mediate such disputes.
Hopefully, the board will provide direction not only for this case, but also set out rules and provide a reference for similar cases in the future. It is the sort of information farmers need before they make business investment decisions.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen and D’Arce McMillan collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
