Fall Turkey

My daughter Charlotte, who is six years old, wanted her first hunt badly; so rather than chase squirrels, I opted for a fall turkey hunt, given Thanksgiving is just around the proverbial corner. We headed for our woods, down to "the gully," where a logging road cuts down one side of the gully and up the other, switch-backing on the western side. Many of the leaves from maples, tulip poplar, beech and oak are already down, which makes for crunchy walking. On the other hand, everything walking in the woods is crunching, so if one listens long and hard enough, one can eventually blend in and be relatively unnoticed. This is especially true if there are 3 foot berms on each side of the logging road.

So Charlotte and I were still-hunting along the logging road in the gully, and before too long, we could hear rustling in the leaves that sounded too big and vigorous to be a squirrel. We stopped and knelt, conferencing in a whisper about the sounds. Could it be turkeys digging through the leaves looking for beech nuts and acorns? Charlotte thought "maybe." So, we scratched the leaves ourselves and I did my best vocal imitation of a hen turkey. Lo and behold, a turkey answered, and we had confirmation...they were close, and it sounded like a lot of them.

I glanced at my watch after noticing the low sun casting beautiful slant-y golden light on the tops of the trees, 5:15 PM. I whispered to Charlotte that I surmised that the turkeys were headed to one of their roosting areas, a draw with big old beech trees at the bottom. I asked if she wanted to try to intercept them. She was game, so we crept along the berm, me calling, Charlotte scratching leaves.

We got to a point where the logging road was about to crest and we were going to lose our berm. We knelt again to conference, but just then, we heard a cluck, looked up , and there was turkey poking its head over the berm briefly. The rest, as they say, is history.

We hope to see the Stedman et al. family, the Tantillo et al. family, and the Winchell et al. family at Thanksgiving.

Lake Friendly Farm Award

Wineries win Lake Friendly Farm Award

by Debra J. Groom / The Post-Standard

Monday September 29, 2008, 12:09 PM

Hosmer Winery, Long Point Winery, Canoga Creek Farms and Switzer Farm have received 2008 Lake Friendly Farm Award.

Farmers receive this special award when they incorporate practices that conserve and protect their local water resources. Lake-friendly farming can include tree planting along streams, conservation of wetlands and manure handling practices.

These four wineries are all located within the Cayuga Lake Watershed area -- where agriculture is very important to the community culturally, economically and ecologically.

A Midsummer Night's Eve: Cayuga Cat!

My friend and colleague Jeremy Dietrich recently asked me to take his younger brother Wade and his friend and fellow graduate student Laura out on a fishing trip on the north end of Cayuga Lake. So, the crew met me at 5 pm Sunday evening for a 4 hour excursion on the "Rough Draft."

We tried a bit of trolling, but the recreational boating of the weekend had chopped up so much vegetation that it was nearly impossible. We switched to drifting and casting. Before long, Wade had boated a perch and a nice chain pickerel. Within an hour, Laura had boated a nice pickerel also, and a smaller "hammer handle."

We were drifting the navigation channel, out in front of the state park and working our way south towards Canoga Creek. Wade hooked a nicer perch, a keeper. I boated a couple of pickerel. And then, Laura hooked into a bruiser.


We watched her fight this fish. Both Jeremy and I quickly ascertained that we were clearly out of the 3-4 lb pickerel class. The tension rose, instructions were helpfully peppered at Laura...drag settings, reeling instructions, etc. Then we saw a flash of the huge fish as it bulled under the boat. She fought for long minutes more until it began to tire. Slowly she horsed it to the side of my boat. Jeremy was leaning over the edge, ready to help land it...he looked over his shoulder with a surprised look and exclaimed "Its a huge catfish!" He reached for it and it dove again. Now we were all quite engaged and invested in boating this strange and unusual Cayuga Lake trophy. After a few valiant misses, Jeremy finally managed to gill it, and hoisted above decks. It was a leviathan.

Congrats Laura and Wade! Come back fishin' any time.




































After picture taking and all of the fun, we fished a bit more in the channel, and then headed for the mouth of Canoga Creek for a large mouth Bass or two. But the group was pretty satiated with having caught the Channel Cat, (According to Wikipedia, realistically, a channel catfish over 20 pounds (9 kg) is a spectacular specimen, and most catfish anglers view a 10 pound (4.5 kg) fish as a very admirable catch. Furthermore the average size channel catfish an angler could expect to find in most waterways would be between 2 and 4 pounds) and our bass fishing resulted in just on beefy Rock bass, along with enjoying a good summer's eve sunset over Canoga Creek Farm and Conservancy. Stats? 5 pickerel, 2 perch, 1 rock bass, and one 30 inch, 12 pound Channel Catfish.

The Cayuga Flora

I was recently contacted by Robert Meadows of the State of Delaware's Division of Fish and Wildlife. Robert is an environmental scientist who has lots of experience with wetland restoration, and also, coincidentally, some family roots in the area. He is interested in at least two very cool things...1) unraveling the mysteries of whether or not cattails are native, and 2) the study of a native Phragmites species, which I will cover shortly.

But first, Robert turned me on to this little gem:

The Cayuga Flora Part I: A Catalogue of the Phaenogamia Growing Without Cultivation in the Cayuga Lake Basin By William Russel Dudley: ""


Now, to the Phragmites... Robert inquired as to whether he could do a survey of my portion of the Canoga Marsh. He was intrigued by the fact that the above referenced Flora accounting hints that Phragmites were "abundant" in the Canoga Marsh at the time of the survey, whereas now it is a pretty mono-typical cattail marsh...what happened?

Stay tuned...

Blue for Brant!

My eldest daughter Tori took 1 year old "Brant" (Chesapeake Bay Retriever ) to the county fair and won a Blue Ribbon in domestic pets! Hurray for Brant! Hurray for TORI!!

Artemis puppies! German Shorthair Pointer party

Musing on Roosevelt and Farm Land Protection

It seems the greatest opponents of farm land protection are farmers. In my community, those calling themselves farmers often end up appearing a hell of a lot more like land speculators and developers, which gives rise to the following adaptation of a famous TR quote.

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful FARM LAND sometimes seek to champion them by saying that 'FOOD PRODUCTION belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the AGRICULTURAL heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of FARM LAND and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

-adapted from Teddy Roosevelt’s A Book-Lover's Holidays in the Open, 1916

The original quote follows:

Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

Late June Lakers and Spiny Water Fleas

Capt. George Havelin and his boat, the "Miss Lizzy," found the fish yet again on Cayuga Lake.
Lake Trout were the species de jour, though we did boat one undersized landlocked Atlantic salmon.








































































Capt. George inquired about the globs of aquatic gunk that accumulate on the trolling lines this time of year. He called them "spinner fleas." This is an example of good dissemination of mostly correct information, though the technical name for the phenomena he is referring to is "Spiny and/or Fishhook water fleas," Bythotrephes spp and Cercopagis pengoi respectively. The range of these invasive species is highlighted in the map red below...notice the Finger Lakes region :















In case Capt. George is unavailable, there are other Finger Lakes guides.

Grassland Establishment

USDA/NRCS and NYS DEC experts recently (5/20/08) assessed the warm season grassland establishment project at Canoga Creek Farm and Conservancy.

Their assessment was generally positive. They said "Overall the site looked very good as far as establishment. There was excellent wildrye throughout. There were differences in stand establishment and survival with the poorest along the Southern side of the field. The planted and/or volunteer clover which overlapped the warm season grasses is posing serious competition as well as golden rod and other broad leaf weeds. On the North and West side of the field there was some dense rows of warm season grasses... some of it had little weed competition but the farthest area to the North had an excellent stand of warm season grasses. We also noticed more little bluestem on the North side which may have been due to how the seed was planted. Most of the weeds are broadleaved so that an application of 2,4-D is possible and would improve the stand. This would be a good year to do this to insure a vigorous stand of warm season grasses which may then have a chance to maintain itself with future encroachment of broadleaf forbs."

The team also noticed the prairie cord grass and Canada blue joint that was planted by Ducks Unlimited and Cayuga Lake Watershed volunteers is still growing on the edge of the field in the wetland margin.

I am particularly intrigued/encouraged by the following in their brief report/assessment:

"On the North and West side of the field there was some dense rows of warm season grasses... some of it had a little weed competition but the farthest area to the North had an excellent stand of warm season grasses. We also noticed more little blue stem on the North side which may have been due to how the seed was planted."

The reason this is of interest to me is that the areas described on the field are not in the conservation easement area, but were planted at the same rate as the rest of the field. The difference, from a management perspective, has been that, given those areas are not in the easement and therefore not restricted as to use, I have been practicing classic "timely mowing and/or grazing"...basically taking a cutting of hay as appropriate on these areas. I am not ready to assert direct causality but think it warrants further consideration.

As I am attempting to convert my entire farm (160 acres) to organic, I am particularly interested in methods of establishing this warm season planting without the use of chemicals. Would there be interest in a scientific trial here? Half of the field hayed/mowed, half treated with chemicals? I think there may be some value in exploring this.

At any rate, I appreciated the focus being on establishing the warm season grasses first, and then managing as habitat for associated wildlife secondarily as appropriate, when there is sufficient establishment. I believe the southernmost swath of the field was not planted to warm season due to excessive rills, so what is there is predominately volunteer or drift. The upland pond and drainage areas were planted to clover for erosion control...should there be changes in these areas (also not planted to warm season grasses)?

I was also very happy to hear about the prairie cord grass and Canada blue joint survival/growth. A group of volunteers who "sweated" (sweat?) on a hot day planting will be pleased to hear of it!

For an interesting discussion of ag practices, grasslands, and birds, try here.

Woodcock 07

Marsh Work

Putting in some mallard condos...

More Owls

While doing the annual April Wood duck box clean-out, a "different" resident was discovered...

Owl Rehab

A few nights ago, my next door neighbor was driving past my house in the dark when an owl struck his mirror. The neighbor stopped to check on the owl, which was still very much alive, and picked it up out of the road to keep it from being crushed. The owl recovered in my neighbor's kitchen from what was probably similar to a concussion. The neighbor let it out an hour later. The owl flew into an apple tree, where it remained for a few minutes, and then flew off, looking healthy. Hopefully, the owl is back on the job controlling rodents.

Coyote

Took this Coyote on a crisp February afternoon. Over 300 meters, trotting shot with this Remington 7 .203 rifle. Thanks to George and Ann for the push through the apple orchard thicket.

07 Bucks

This hunting season, two noteworthy bucks were killed at Canoga Creek Farm & Conservancy.







































In addition to these fine bucks, 1 six pointer was killed, one spike horn, one button buck, and 3 does. Deer management in progress.

GEHA - A Mauser conversion 2-shot shotgun

In the early spring of 2002, when Willis Cosad was packing up the accumulated ephemera of 90 plus years of occupying what would later become Canoga Creek Farms and Conservancy, a decision was made by Willis' son, executor of the Cosad estate, to sell at auction and yard sale all the items not desired by family members. Included in this collection of odds and ends were old farm and shop equipment, including almost one hundred year old stable equipment and tack. Of course there were the expected antique furnishings, and knick knacks, but what caught my eye, especially as I envisioned myself as the new "owner" of the farm and steward of its natural resources and bounty, was an old bolt action shotgun.

I picked up the gun, and Willis' son approached. "That was Dad's goose gun," he said. "It was his favorite." Sold. Though I would have paid significantly more, I acquired the gun for $75.00.








As chance would have it, I had become friends with Nick Tooth, a gunsmith who was responsible for the intricate checkering on the wood for some of the fancy but no longer made Ithaca Classic Doubles (closed their doors in May of 2003--for a brief and incomplete history, click here)
Nick had a look at my prize and quickly pronounced that its future should be as a deer gun. We drilled for some scope mounts, mounted a red dot, and the GEHA has performed well as a big game gun.






























Recently, I discovered some research on GEHA published on the web. The article, entitled GEHA, A Little-Known Prime Example of Germany Maintaining its Arms Industry Between the World Wars, sheds additional light on my "deer gun," which I thought would be worth sharing. The following is excerpted from the article: “What on earth is a GEHA?” Simply put, it’s a converted Mauser Gewehr 98 rifle bored out for a 12, 16, or 20 Gauge shotshell, with 1 shell in the magazine plus 1 in the chamber capacity. It is half-stocked, and the wood is usually military grade and was never changed from the Gewehr 98 to the GEHA. It uses a sprung, detachable bolthead that fits over the old Gewehr 98 bolthead, and also utilizes a receiver strengthener/shell deflector that was added because so much metal was removed from the original rifle action. A new trigger assembly and triggerguard were also fitted so as to be more suitable to a shotgun. For one, the triggerguard was quite beefy. For another, the trigger itself was single-stage (as opposed to the two-stage military rifle trigger of the Gewehr 98). These trigger and triggerguard features are shared by the Remo and Hard Hit Heart, the two other Mauser conversion shotguns. Another feature of these guns is that the bolt handles were bent."

"The GEHA was simple. It was cylinder-bored; although a few GEHA’s have been noted with fully-choked bores, they seem to be in a small minority. Frank de Haas notes one of the guns appearing in his book Bolt-Action Rifles co-authored by Dr. Wayne van Zwoll. It retained the military Gewehr 98 stock, and was a no-frills gun without any provisions for a front sling swivel (although it retained the rear swivel mount from the Gewehr 98). The hole for the Gewehr 98’s bolt takedown donut was filled with a medallion reading "GEHA" in script. It was put on the market around 1920 or 1921."

I continue to hunt with this gun today, and am planning to get further information on it, especially specifications I do not have the technology to measure or ascertain, likely with the help of Turnbull restoration, who have done minor work on the gun recently. Those details will be appended to this post. Detailed photos below.











































More Geha web resources:

http://www.texastradingpost.com/militaria/geha.html

Guns Magazine May 2008 article

Firearms forum research- very thorough and complete

Tis the Season...some wildlife humor

This comes from my father, a minister and my original outdoors mentor. Enjoy.


An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees!"
"What powerful rivers!"
"What beautiful animals!"
he said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.


He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.


At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?

"Very Well," said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

It won't be long...

A Nice Archery Buck

Yesterday, George H. took a beautiful 11 pt buck out of the Canoga Creek Farm & Conservancy. I won't tell George's story for him in hopes that we will hear from this future Grouser in person on the subject, but suffice it to say that this may be his best archery deer to date, and it is the second "big boy" to grace my lawn since I've been the steward of this here parcel. Hearty congratulations to George.

Woodcock 06

Update on Canoga Marsh restoration

Before... (with sketches of pothole locations)












After...













For a full report, go here

A New Arrival

Ella, our thoroughbred, was bred to a registered Cleveland Bay stallion almost a year ago. Their lovechild is now munching grass at Canoga Creek Farm & Conservancy. Welcome "Wicca"!!

Canoga Creek Stocked!!

Recently the newly reinvigorated Finger Lakes Chapter of Trout Unlimited decided to do an experimental stocking of the lovely spring creek called Canoga. Needless to say, the Canoga Creek Farm and Conservancy has been "encouraging" this action for some time now. What can I say, membership to the chapter is inexpensive and a good investment.

So, we have 200 yearling Brown trout (roughly 6 inchers) and 20 two year old brown trout (roughly 14 inchers) newly in the neighborhood. That oughta' keep me busy for awhile.

Snow Buntings

Have been noticing pre-migratory flocks of Snow Buntings using the newly established grassland near the lake (you can see it in the background of the ice skating pictures below.) Amazing synchronized flock maneuvers.

For more on Snow Buntings, see http://www.birdsbybent.com/ch91-100/snobunting.html

Ice Skating

Ice fishing 2007

Streaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0vVLrm5o-I

Piggies

Photo by Harold Saltzman

A Canoga Creek Thanksgiving II

23 November 2006

4:30 Cocktails

First Course Hors D’oeuvres
Pheasant in a Bramble
Petite Duck a L’orange
Fall Creek Trout Spread and Blue Corn Tortillas
Pepper Jack and Venison Stacks
Rabbit Rouge
Faisan Pate
Grouse Saut?
Cherry Goose

Wine- Swedish Hill Reserve Chardonnay (2003)

Second Course- Soup
Woodcock, Minnesota Wild Rice, and Mushroom Soup
Brie and Baguette

Third/ Main Course
Grilled Wild Turkey Breast with Horseradish Hollandaise
Farm Fresh Turkey Stuffed and Roasted Traditional
Creamed Ginger Garlic Butternut Squash
Mashed Potatoes with Garlic and Parsley
Caribbean Mashed Sweet Potato es
Green Bean Casserole
Chanterelle, Sage and Chestnut Stuffing
Corn Bread and/or Cranberry Orange Bread

Wine- Campo Lagaza, Navarra, Spain (2005)

Fourth Course
Cranberry Parks Glace

Wine- Knapp Vignoles (2005)

Fifth Course
Wild Greens with Bleu Cheese, Cranberry and Walnut Vinaigrette

Sixth Course
Homemade Apple Pie a la mode
Homemade Pumpkin Pie Cake
Homemade Chocolate Pie

Seventh Course-Digestif
Fonseca Guimaraens Vintage Port (1995)
Xocolata Picant, Artesanals La Vall D’Or (Barcelona)
La Gloria Cubana Maduro Cigar

Property Rights vs. Agland Protection

“It is the policy of this state... to conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food, and other products, and also for its natural and ecological value.” Article 25AA-NYS Agriculture and Markets Law

Background
Recently in Seneca County, New York, a conflict arose between environmental sustainability proponents and property rights advocates. This in itself is in no way surprising. However, because the opposing views were both held by members of the agriculture community, a specific and well organized segment of rural society unified under Farm Bureau, a unique opportunity presents itself to better understand some of the nuances of collisions of property rights advocacy with a particular kind of sustainability and open space preservation that favors continuing agricultural practices.

By way of background, according to a 2001 USDA Economic Research Service report on development impacts on farming[1], development in agricultural districts may cause the following:
Suburban neighbors’ complaints about farm odors and chemical spraying may force farmers to turn to enterprises that produce fewer negative side effects. Some of the alternatives will be more profitable and some will be less.
Conflicts can arise between growers and new suburban neighbors over early morning noise, and increased traffic can hinder farmers’ ability to move their equipment along overcrowded rural roads being used as commuter routes.
Markets for traditional dairy products or field crops may be reduced, as milk-collection routes are curtailed and grain elevators go out of business. In some areas, farm input suppliers, machinery dealers, and other forms of agricultural support may decline.
Real estate taxes may rise as land prices rise to reflect the potential for non-farm development.
Growers may face increased pressure from water- and land-use restrictions.
Farms may face deteriorating crop yields from urban smog, theft, and vandalism.


Farm Bureau at the local and state level supported and favored passage of Article 25AA- NYS Agriculture and Markets Law, commonly called “The Ag Districts Law” and/or “The Right To Farm Law.” [2] The law declared that many of the agricultural lands in New York State are in jeopardy of being lost for any agricultural purposes, and that when nonagricultural development extends into farm areas, competition for limited land resources results. The law also registered concern over ordinances inhibiting farming, rising farm taxes, and hopes for speculative gains that discourage investments in farm improvements, often leading to the idling or conversion of potentially productive agricultural land.

The law makes it the “policy of the state to conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for production of food and other agricultural products.” It is also the declared policy of the state to conserve and protect agricultural lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide needed open spaces for clean air sheds, as well as for aesthetic purposes.

The legal basis of the law, it was argued at its passage, was that the constitution of the state of New York directs the legislature to provide for the protection of agricultural lands. Therefore, the law was intended to provide a locally-initiated mechanism for the protection and enhancement of New York State's agricultural land as a viable segment of the local and state economies and as an economic and environmental resource of major importance. The problem is, the law anticipated only fending off attacks from the non-farming public. As a result, the law has two major “blind spots” as we shall see shortly.

New York State Agricultural Districts Law

Sixteen different states in the U.S. have developed agricultural district programs. They allow farmers to form special areas where commercial agriculture is encouraged and protected. Participation by farmers is voluntary and in exchange for enrollment, farmers receive packages of benefits including favorable tax treatment, right-to-farm protections and shielding from infrastructure financial assessments. Some states (e.g. Pennsylvania) also make it very difficult to extend public improvements into farm areas that could cause negative impacts on agriculture.

In New York State, an agricultural district is an area containing important agricultural land that is created through petition by farmers and officially designated by a County Legislature. Under provisions of the Agricultural Districts Law as amended, an agricultural district is comprised of 500 or more acres of reasonably contiguous, viable agricultural land. Districts are reviewed every eight years to determine the current extent of agricultural land in the area and to identify whether inclusions or exclusions to the district will be made.

Agricultural District programs offer several strengths as farmland protection tools. These
include the following according to the American Farmland Trust[3] and others:
Agricultural District programs are very flexible; benefits and restrictions can be tailored to local conditions.
Agricultural Districts help stabilize the land base at low public cost.
Agricultural Districts provide multiple benefits to farmers, including tax relief, protection from local regulation and eligibility for purchase of development rights
programs. These benefits help support the economics of farming.
Agricultural Districts help create a critical mass of land to keep farming viable.
Enrollment in Agricultural Districts is voluntary, making the programs popular with farmers.
A landowner in an Agricultural District can take advantage of farmland protection
techniques that would otherwise require agricultural zoning. Such zoning can impose strict restrictions on farmland and is not part of New York's Agricultural District Law, although individual communities can opt to pursue such options as part of their own programs.

These strengths are accompanied by some drawbacks, however. Again, the American Farmland Trust suggests these include:
Sanctions for withdrawing land from agricultural districts may not be strong enough to discourage conversion.
Limits on non-farm development may not prevent expansion of public services such as water and sewer lines into agricultural areas. New York State's Agricultural District Law, fortunately, does address this issue with exemption from special district levies based on frontage and specific planning and notice requirements.
The benefits provided by Agricultural Districts are not always enough incentive for farmers to enroll. Owners must also pay penalties to remove themselves from a District prior to its eight-year term.
The procedure for creating agricultural districts can be lengthy and complex.

More Background-The Specifics of the Seneca County Case

As has been described above, the “Ag Districts Law” seems to protect farmers from undue persecution, and protect farmland from conversion to residential or commercial development. The perpetrators of these “attacks” upon farming are of course assumed to be non-farmers. But what happens when a farmer threatens the future of farmland by pushing to convert his farmland into residential development, and neighboring farmers want to fend off such an attack by invoking the “Ag Districts Law?”

In 2003, a local property owner in Seneca County New York, formerly a farmer, decided that he would provide for his retirement by converting his farmland into residential development lots. After hiring a surveyor and making appropriate drawings, maps, and plans, he approached the Town Planning Board for approval for a major subdivision. The Town is required to hold a Public Hearing for major subdivisions, and at this particular hearing, a significant public outcry ensued over the proposed subdivision. Concerns ranged from the loss of views and open space, to negative effects of sprawl upon neighboring farms, to environmental concerns about overloading a fragile water table with septic systems and consumption of potable water. A petition was circulated and many signatures were collected. The land owner had few people speak in favor of his project.

The town planning board, recognizing the furor of the proposed subdivision, decided to enter into the New York State Environmental Quality Review process using “rigorous” interpretations. The Board found that the environment would potentially be harmed by the major subdivision, and forwarded the opinion to the county planning board. The county, however, found that there would be no significant adverse impact of the conversion of this agricultural land. Taking into consideration the public’s concern with this project, the planning board recommended that the land owner revise his plans to only convert one lot to residential development at that time. The hope was that the planning board, which was nearing the end of writing a comprehensive plan for the town, would be in a better position in the future to deal with land use issues, especially if new zoning were adopted that would protect agricultural land within agricultural districts. In spite of the public outcry over the proposed subdivision, the single lot split was approved.

In 2006, the same farmer appeared again before the town planning board, this time to split off a second lot from his original farm, one of the seven lots proposed in the initial major subdivision proposal. Predictably, the farmer encountered the same adversity, perhaps with even more intensity. This time, the neighboring farmers attempted to invoke the “Ag Districts Law” while appealing to Farm Bureau and county agencies, setting in motion a pitched battle over the intent of agriculture protection laws and opening up new legal questions that remain unanswered.

The Arguments

Attempts to block or forestall conversion of the farm in question originally hinged on two related arguments; 1.) that by virtue of Agricultural Districts law, it was illegal, or at least in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Agriculture Districts law, especially provisions to protect and preserve farmable land, for the Town Planning Board to approve residential development in a certified agriculture district, even if town zoning did not specifically prohibit it, and 2.) that allowing residential development in an agricultural district where neighboring farms had properly registered their concern through Agriculture Data Statements caused harms to the livelihoods of neighboring farms and violated their “rights to farm,” also protected in the Agriculture Districts Law (AML §305-a).[4]

A third, unique argument to block agriculture land conversion to residential or commercial development was also presented. This argument takes a creative “future tense” interpretation of the “Right to Farm” provision in the Ag Districts law. At issue is the future “Rights to Farm” of future farmers if current farmable land is converted to commercial development. In other words, if I am a 12 year old boy with aspirations of farming in my home county, my “Right to Farm” may be impinged upon if my opportunity to farm is foreclosed by dwindling farmable land in my community.

Arguments supporting a farmer’s inalienable right to do whatever he desires with his land were not particularly new or unique, and followed strict property rights movement rhetoric closely.

Two Blind Spots

Among the threats to agricultural land, one of the largest threats is farmers who, because of development pressures, become real estate speculators and sell their land for commercial or residential development. Despite the noble and well meaning aims of Agricultural Districts Law, it seems that an overarching “problem” with the law is that it does not anticipate conflict between and among farmers about land use decisions within the agriculture community, and therefore has two significant blind spots, which prevent the law from effectively addressing one of the largest threats to farmland.

The first “blind spot” is that there is no language in the law suggesting penalty or punitive damages for violation of Agricultural Districts Law, jurisdiction, or even guidance to municipalities on what they should do to enforce. The second is that the agricultural real estate assessment “penalty upon conversion” provision intended to be a disincentive, is so small as to be meaningless. As a result of these two blind spots, among those who have the most “agency” in terms of the threat of development, there is least enforceability or accountability.

Conclusion
The Ag Districts law limits a town or municipalities ability to restrict or regulate agriculture, but it does not limit a towns’ ability to protect agriculture, even if it protects agriculture from some farmers who want to cash out and sell their farms. Therefore, towns and municipalities should strengthen local “Right to Farm” ordinances and impose significant penalties upon farmers wishing to cash out of agricultural districts, especially if they have reaped tax savings for having been in Ag districts. These penalties could be reduced based upon selling farmers willingness to enter into other farmland preservation programs (percentage of land in easements, PDR/TDR, etc.). This kind of approach will help create locally based agricultural enhancement initiatives that provide both incentives and disincentives in efforts to protect agricultural and open space, while preserving property rights.
[1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer803/

[2] http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/agservices/2004C115.pdf

[3] See: http://www.farmland.org/resources/publications/documents/NewYorkLandownerGuide.pdf
and: http://www.farmland.org/resources/reports/default.asp

[4] http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/ap/agservices/new305/guidance.pdf