Dear editor:

As an ag producer, I have never been so insulted in my life. I am disgusted and outraged by our county's increasing war on agriculture. Anyone truly paying attention to the land use plan (LUP) process is already aware of the subliminal anti-ag/private property agenda. For those just tuning in for the regulations phase, questions five through seven in the newly released public survey reveal what was previously disguised.

The narrative during the LUP process was that ag was so important that farmers and ranchers should have their development rights largely taken away to stop subdivision. “Saving ag lands” was the buzz phrase. Many of us recognized this for what it was: a power grab on private property rights to preserve open space. What better than to force the lowly farmers and ranchers to provide and maintain the viewsheds of everyone else?

Last fall, Planning Director Joy Hill and County Commission Chair Dossie Overfield discussed the county’s agenda on the radio and admitted the larger conversation really was all about preserving open space, not protecting agriculture. Fast forward to the present, and question five on the new survey asks how much ag should be regulated. If this county valued ag and had no intent to regulate it, they would never include such a question. The county wants the open space ag provides, but now it has to be “just the right kind” of ag… “Not too hot or too cold,” as Goldilocks would say.

The Wyoming Right to Farm Act largely provides protection from bad actors — the intent is to keep ag-haters from shutting down things they find offensive or annoying such as mooing cows or barley chaff. The act states under Section 11-44-103 that ag operations are not a nuisance if they meet the following: (i) Conforms to generally accepted agricultural management practices; and (ii) Existed before a change in the land use adjacent to the farm or ranch land and the farm or ranch operation would not have been a nuisance before the change in land use or occupancy occurred. With this survey, the county has now declared the loophole for existing operations, and any potential new ag operations, part of their purview. Sadly, if the current trajectory continues, Park County producers can look forward to having more regulations and can be outright stopped from production ag activities if those certain activities were not in existence before a change in adjacent land use.

Consider this hypothetical: A young couple is trying to get their operation going and they only raise crops right now. Meanwhile, a subdivision goes in next door and the new neighbors hate ag. The couple finally gets to where they can start the cow herd they’ve always dreamed of. Now their neighbors can complain about the change in the operation and the county can deny the cows to preserve “harmony” in the neighborhood or because the new regs simply don’t allow it in that planning area. Additionally, the couple will have to get county review and a permit for their kids to raise 4-H animals because that is considered a “feedlot” (“enclosed facility where animals are confined for the purpose of feeding and growing prior to slaughter”) or they may be denied that request outright as well.

Park County has become a fiefdom ruled by overlords and “not in my backyard” hypocrites. Last summer, a man who just moved here from Colorado told me that in the county he fled, a person couldn’t even cut down a tree on their property without permission. That’s exactly where we’re headed too. Just because something can be regulated doesn’t mean it needs to be. Shame on you Park County.

Respectfully,

Carrie I. Peters

Powell