# New Law in Western Wisconsin - Opinions??



## livestoride (Mar 30, 2011)

There is a new law that was just passed in my neck of the woods. It is based on a new zoning format for small rural farms and neighborhoods. It does not change any "general agriculture" zoned farms, but a lot of areas around here have been switched to the new zoning. It seems a little complex, but boils down to placing new limits of the number of animals on these hobby farms. Under the new law animals are given farm units with 1 unit being 1000 pounds. A horse is by definition a minimum of 1 farm unit (not sure about minis). You can now have 1 farm unit per 3 acres of pasture. So a 10 acre field can now have 3 horses maximum (unless you also have a donkey, cow, pig etc... which takes up farm units). They claim it is to limit soil erosion and waste build up. 

I personally like the idea. It would limit hoarders and placing too many horses on too small a lot, however the regulations are nonenforcable and too broad. As far as I can tell it is based on TOTAL acres, not those taken up by buildings or left wooded or used for crops. So a person could have a 30 acre property but only fence in 5 acres and still be able to have 10 horses on it. 

So what are all of your opinions on this legislation? Good, bad, ugly? Better ideas??


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

What about the people who already have more animals than they'd legally be allowed once this goes into effect? Are they grandfathered in, or do they have to find homes for/euth the extras?

Frankly, unless you're primarily feeding animals ONLY by pasture, 10 acres for 3 horses is overkill.

Where I used to live in MD, the local laws stated you needed 3 acres for the first animal, and 1/2 acre for each animal thereafter. I think that's a more reasonable idea than the 3 acres per animal.

In my part of VA where I live now I can have more than 3 horses on 5 acres, but I won't do it because I don't want the pastures overgrazed.

You_ can_ have more than 3 horses on less than 10 acres with the right pasture maintenance.


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

livestoride said:


> There is a new law that was just passed in my neck of the woods. It is based on a new zoning format for small rural farms and neighborhoods. It does not change any "general agriculture" zoned farms, but a lot of areas around here have been switched to the new zoning. It seems a little complex, but boils down to placing new limits of the number of animals on these hobby farms. Under the new law animals are given farm units with 1 unit being 1000 pounds. A horse is by definition a minimum of 1 farm unit (not sure about minis). You can now have 1 farm unit per 3 acres of pasture. So a 10 acre field can now have 3 horses maximum (unless you also have a donkey, cow, pig etc... which takes up farm units). They claim it is to limit soil erosion and waste build up.
> 
> I personally like the idea. It would limit hoarders and placing too many horses on too small a lot, however the regulations are nonenforcable and too broad. As far as I can tell it is based on TOTAL acres, not those taken up by buildings or left wooded or used for crops. So a person could have a 30 acre property but only fence in 5 acres and still be able to have 10 horses on it.
> 
> So what are all of your opinions on this legislation? Good, bad, ugly? Better ideas??


Do you have a link to the information? I could not find anything newer than 2009.


----------



## christabelle (Feb 13, 2011)

Crazy. I would be allowed 0 horses with this law. Seems a little micromanaging to me. I think my four horses are fine On my two acres. It's dry-lot however. I don't know much about regulation for animal numbers on pasture.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

Stupid law. What happens to dairy/beef farmers or show barns where the horses don't go out or boarding barns?
Soil erosion? That's a lame excuse, where would it erode to, unless your land was on the side of a steep hill?
You should fight this law. Your part of the State doesn't need this rule. It's for subdivision type barns. Do we need the Gov. to tell us to pick up manure, which degrades anyway?
All this does is turn neighbor against neighbor.
Stupid law.
Oh, and nothing will stop a hoarder.


----------



## livestoride (Mar 30, 2011)

Speed Racer - Yes, animals already present get grandfathered in. I don't have any idea how they plan on enforcing this unless they looked at Coggins paperwork and where the horse was listed as residing. Otherwise you could easily just say the horse was present previously. 

MLS - Here is the news article about it: Horse owners say nay to animal limits 

Here is the link to the PDF file with the regulations in it. It is regarding all regulations and is throughout the document, but page 47 and Appendix A have it spelled out a little better. 
www.co.la-crosse.wi.us/zoning/Zoning/docs/Chapter17Revisions.pdf. 

Natisha - I don't know about those that have no outdoor facilities, but I would suspect that this would not allow them to have animals if the land is less than those required regardless of outdoor privileges to the animals. Feedlots would be under the "general agriculture" zoning which do not follow this new regulation. On a side note - I see you are in Palmyra - I am heading there next weekend for the DRAW ride as my first endurance event


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If they did that here, I'd have to shoot two horses. I have no pasture, and no one within 10 miles of me does, either.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

In Southern Arizona it would have to be 1 horse per 100 acres!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'll add that this sort of nonsense allows people who know nothing total control over those who do. I once spent 3 hours at zoning, arguing that a horse corral was NOT an accessory structure, limited to 1500 sq ft. Finally a supervisor was walking past, and he told the other guy that structures had roofs and it didn't apply to horse corrals.

Meanwhile, I cannot build a riding arena closer than 60 feet to the road. Why? Because accessory structure are not allowed within 60 feet. But a riding arena isn't even a corral - but I was told that both corrals and arenas "are considered" to be structures for zoning distances, even tho they do NOT meet the definition published in the code. It is "an internal memo" that spells it out...and if I don't like it, I have to hire a lawyer and sue the county.

At the same time I was there, a rancher was in trying to get permission to build a 400' long barbed wire fence to separate two different kinds of cattle. The county agent said he would need a survey done, along with an engineering plan. The following is a quote:

"I need to be able to conceptualize in my mind what this barbed wire fence will be like."

He wanted to see a plan with the number of T-posts, type of barbed wire, distances between posts, changes in elevations, how far apart the posts would be, etc.

I looked at the rancher, and he looked at me. He said, "OK, I'll get on it..." and walked out. Of course, he went and built the fence & the county be damned!

But what sort of idiot calls a riding arena - a flat spot with pipe fencing mostly around it, like a corral except the fencing doesn't go all the way around - an accessory structure, which is defined in the code as having a roof? A faceless bureaucrat can send a memo around, that we peons are not allowed access to, and redefine terms in the code, and our resource is to hire a lawyer to sue them? They have, in essence, total power since no normal person can afford the lawyer fees over a corral or riding area.

An arena is a corral, even if the fencing is only part way. A corral is an accessory structure for purposes of offsets, but it doesn't have a roof and they admit it isn't considered a structure for any other rule. Meanwhile, my property value has fallen 50%, but my property taxes only 10%, since they raised the rates to offset "their losses". Anyone want to bet that when values go up, they won't cut the rates? :twisted:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

kevinshorses said:


> In Southern Arizona it would have to be 1 horse per 100 acres!


In all honesty, it would have to be higher than that. Cattle are less picky about food than horses, and a guy working some near me told me they run 1 head/200 acres, and only part of the year. At 5000+ feet, there start to be grasslands. At 3600', where I am, there is mesquite & prickly pear & cholla...

This picture is from the web, but it looks like an area about 3 miles from me...maybe greener:










Still, a friend of mine runs sheep & cattle in the San Rafael swell area in Utah...I ought to ask him how many acres per steer:


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

this is another law caused by city people moving to the country because they liked the pictures in the magazines, then they want to change the country to be just like the city. Sorta like my neighbors, that moved next to a deer hunting club then call the sherrifs dept when someone shoots in the woods.


----------



## livestoride (Mar 30, 2011)

I agree - it is due to city folks moving to the country and buying small lots to have hobby farms. But don't you think this helps to protect horses at all? Honestly, horse like room. They like to run. They like to graze. From a public health point of view, if you cram 10 horses onto a 5 acre lot the worm load, the disease potential is exponentially increased versus having 10 horses on 30 acres. 1 horse per 3 acres limits the senseless cramming of horses onto tiny lots that can't sustain the animals.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

Why 3 acres per horse? Most places 1-2 acres per horse is enough if you want pasture to sustain them and not to mention sometimes you don't want pasture available to certain horses - like previously foundered or IR horses. What is 3 acres of grass going to do to help these horses? 

Its all in the way a property is managed. With proper management as little as 0.5 acres per horse can keep horses healthy and happy, while on the other hand 10 acres of nothing but weeds for pasture isn't going to do 3 horses a whole lot of good.

The last thing we need are more idiotic laws.


----------



## MySerenity (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm in Eastern Wi. I thought it used to be 2 acres for the first horse and 1 for each additional.... haven't really thought abt it I guess. Is this a local ordinance? There are so many variables but I think one horse is fine on one or two acres... and I don't have anything nice to say abt our gov so I wouldn't go to him looking for help ;p I think the line between preventing forms of cruelty and over managing the rest of us is incredibly fine.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

livestoride said:


> ...But don't you think this helps to protect horses at all? Honestly, horse like room. They like to run...From a public health point of view, if you cram 10 horses onto a 5 acre lot the worm load, the disease potential is exponentially increased...


Horses are lazy. They like to stand and eat. If I wanted my horses to have unlimited happiness, I'd put a couple of couches in their corral and let them watch Jerry Springer on TV.

I've got two horses sharing a 70' diameter corral. Most boarding places around here provide 12x20 pens...maybe 16x30 if you pay lots more.

As for worms, my horses haven't had any problem in the 5 years they've shared a corral.

My mare & I chatting next to her too-small, worm-infested corral that doesn't allow her to run singing "Born Free":


----------



## livestoride (Mar 30, 2011)

BSMS - I'm not trying to say that your horse is unhappy. The law doesn't state pasture, just acres. It can all be a dry lot, it doesn't matter. There is a petition going around to change it to 1:1, but a lot of the boarding facilities are actually petitioning against the change. My horse loves room. Yes she will stand and eat at the hay for a while, but she adores being able to kick up her heels and go.

Also - I'm not arguing that a SINGLE horse can be fine in a smaller space than 3 acres. I was always taught an acre per horse. I'm just against the piling up of multiple horses in a small space where there is no room for them to get away from the other horses. Yes, some horses need to be kept away from grass for various reasons, but that is the exception, not the rule. Horses graze. It is what they do.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

natisha said:


> Soil erosion? That's a lame excuse, where would it erode to, unless your land was on the side of a steep hill?


_Actually, soil erosion can also be considered more then just dirt crumbling down a steep hill. Soil erosion can include erosion by water and wind._

_Dry lots can equal a chance for soil erosion, since there is no vegetation to keep the soil in place (obviously)._



_To be the devils advocate, half an acre per horse really isn't much Cat, if you are wanting to have pasture horses. Not everyone wants to feed hay all year long. _


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

An acre a horse is unheard of in many places. I'd guess the large majority of horses in the Tucson area live in far under an acre. Boarded horses typically have around 200-400 sq ft. My two horses share around 3500-4000 sq ft. That is 1/10th of an acre for two horses.

"Yes, some horses need to be kept away from grass for various reasons, but that is the exception, not the rule. Horses graze"

Not around here. There is no grass. Horses eat hay brought in, at prices that currently resemble shredded dollar bills. I doubt 1 horse in 100 within 20 miles of me has pasture to graze all day in.

So either we are all cruel to our horses in Arizona, OR it isn't cruel to let horses eat hay and live in far less than 1 acre/horse. From what I've seen, horses value security far more than freedom. I've sometimes had a horse reluctant to LEAVE the corral, but never to get back in.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_I would think deserts would be the exception to the rule as well, since grass isn't as readily available (or available at all really) as compared to someone in lush grass country, such as Kentucky, Virginia, the Carolinas, etc._


----------



## livestoride (Mar 30, 2011)

Velvets - Exactly! I'm not trying to argue if a horse is happy or unhappy with grass versus hay. There are plenty of horses who are very happy in grassless areas with nice hay and a loving owner to take care of them. Here in WI that is not an issue - there is grass everywhere. I was just looking for a nice debate on the new law that was passed.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_Well, depending on what side you are on, is how you will view the new law._

_Hobby farmers with a higher number head will be grumbling about it, even if they get grandfathered in. They will believe since it is their place, they should be able to have the say in how many animals they have on their property._

_City people will be happy about it, because they won't have to worry about the overly pungent smell of poo, from hobby farmers higher number of horses._


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

VelvetsAB said:


> _To be the devils advocate, half an acre per horse really isn't much Cat, if you are wanting to have pasture horses. Not everyone wants to feed hay all year long. _



Where did I say everyone wanted to feed hay all year long or that anyone _had_ to have half an acre per horse? That is plain silliness. However - I have seen it done. It takes more work but you can maintain pasture at half an acre per horse by staying on top of maintaining the field and utilizing rotational grazing and sometimes rotate horses in stalls so they are not all out at once. And believe it or not - the horses still had plenty of room to kick up their heels when they so desired. In addition - VelvetsAB - you specifically say pasture horses. You do realize that this law that is being discussed applies to all horses and not just those that are pasture-only? 

On the other hand I've seen 2 or 3 horses in the middle of a 10-15 acre field that was nothing but bare dirt and weeds and showing a full set of ribs because their owner figured 10 acres was "enough" for their horses and did nothing to manage it. 

My whole point is that laws like this do not equate good horse care practices or better lives for those horses. Rather than focusing on arbitrary laws such as this - they should be focusing on putting the power behind their animal neglect laws already on the books and improving upon those so that they can be used towards animals that really need the help.


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

the boarding places want the intrusive law so it will increase their business. My land my horse, stay the heck out if you dont like it. Its not anyone else's business.


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

livestoride said:


> MLS - Here is the news article about it: Horse owners say nay to animal limits
> 
> Here is the link to the PDF file with the regulations in it. It is regarding all regulations and is throughout the document, but page 47 and Appendix A have it spelled out a little better.
> www.co.la-crosse.wi.us/zoning/Zoning/docs/Chapter17Revisions.pdf.


 
Thank you.

Contact your state horse council. In Minnesota our council lobbied to have horses seen as livestock vs pets to remove tax from feed, etc. More recently the council went to the law makers to fight for stables and farms so they can be taxed as agriculture instead of commerical. (HUGE $$ in the tax base)


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

VelvetsAB said:


> _Well, depending on what side you are on, is how you will view the new law._
> 
> _Hobby farmers with a higher number head will be grumbling about it, even if they get grandfathered in. They will believe since it is their place, they should be able to have the say in how many animals they have on their property._
> 
> _City people will be happy about it, because they won't have to worry about the overly pungent smell of poo, from hobby farmers higher number of horses._


DOnt wanna smell horse poo ? dont move to the country, stay in the city and suck down exhaust fumes, and smell garbage. People that move to new areas need to assimilate to the new areas and not expect those areas to change to suit them,


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

I have a bumper sticker I had custom made. It states:

*Welcome to the country. We have dirt, noise, and smells. If you wanted quiet, scenic vistas, you should have stayed in the suburbs.*


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

livestoride said:


> Speed Racer - Yes, animals already present get grandfathered in. I don't have any idea how they plan on enforcing this unless they looked at Coggins paperwork and where the horse was listed as residing. Otherwise you could easily just say the horse was present previously.
> 
> MLS - Here is the news article about it: Horse owners say nay to animal limits
> 
> ...


Cool. Are you staying at the Horse Park? I'm about 1 mile from there. I have extra stalls & turnout if you don't want your horses to camp. No charge.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

There is an argument for 'directing' land management for grazing on a regional basis but a local government official is perhaps not the best manager of horses or people. 

In green grassy Britain we usually allocate 1 acre for the upkeep of one horse but there are no hard and fast rules. A high percentage of British sports horses live overnight in stables during the winter months and they are fed hay whenever in the stable. They graze outdoors during daylight hours. 

Farmers hate keeping horses on their land because horses are bad grazers especially those shod with steel shoes. There is also the matter of dung, which, without a doubt, should be collected up almost on a daily basis. Horses won't eat soiled grass and uncollected dung brings flies which in turn bring diseases. Often we run sheep together with horses. Sheep eat the vegetation which horses will not.

Personally my horse comes in around October and will rest indoors in a 12x12 ft stable overight until next March. In the winter months she goes out during the daylight hours unless the weather is foul. She has a wardrobe of rugs, one thick and waterproof, one light, one purely waterproof, one to repel the flies. She also has a face mask to protect against the flies. I do not feed her to keep her warm - that is what the rugs do. All dung is collected almost on a daily basis. Her own grazing pasture is fenced off with broad electrified tape run off a car battery. 

We operate a rotation system over 8 x 1 acre paddocks, whereby the big eaters amongst the 5 horses get the longest grass. We are constantly worried about laminitis so the condition of each horse is watched carefully and regularly measured by tape. Without a doubt, horses in Britain are molly coddled but what they are fed determines how healthy and how active they are.

Interestingly the local governments in Britain do not classify horse establishments as 'farming'. Cows and sheep are 'farming' whereas horses are 'leisure' and different rules apply especially regarding taxation.

But nationally we have only got 95,000 square miles for all usages. Gt Britain is a small island about the size of Arkansas. The one plus million horses have to share the grass especially with the sheep. 

Whereas you Americans have all that lovely open space.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Horses need food and they need exercise. They do not need lots of room.

I sold a mare last December because we didn't keep 3 horses exercised enough. The 2 remaining horses are normally each ridden 3-5 times a week, depending on weather - which is often good in southern Arizona. They are fed 3-4 times daily, poop gets scooped twice daily, and they share roughly 4000 sq ft. When turned loose in a larger area, they don't do much. Once in a great while, particularly if the weather has been bad for a few days, they will run for 5 minutes...and then not run. But normally, they will just walk around and look for something to eat.

The idea that they NEED 2 acres minimum (or 6) is silly. It is very rare for a horse to have access to pasture where I live. The pasture doesn't exist. Yet the horses seem content. The horses I've met value security, not freedom, and they find security in their 'safe place' - home. Wherever that is, and whatever it is. 

My horses like to look around, but they don't seem to need to run around...


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

Joe4d said:


> the boarding places want the intrusive law so it will increase their business. My land my horse, stay the heck out if you dont like it. Its not anyone else's business.


You are certainly welcome to your opinion but the fact is that is not true.

Any negative laws governing horse keeping impact the whole industry - not just the small operations.


----------



## ShutUpJoe (Nov 10, 2009)

If I put my Haflinger on that much land all by herself... It wouldn't be pretty. I've got five horses on a little over six acres. The one acre paddock with one horse in it is worse than the five acre pasture with four horses in it... It's not about land per animal it's about how the person manages the land.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

Cat said:


> . In addition - VelvetsAB - you specifically say pasture horses. You do realize that this law that is being discussed applies to all horses and not just those that are pasture-only?


_Uhm. Yes, I realize that it applies to all horses, and other such farm animals._

_Pasture horse--horse kept out on pasture all year long. _

_Half an acre would not be able to sustain a horse all year long._


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

VelvetsAB said:


> _Uhm. Yes, I realize that it applies to all horses, and other such farm animals._
> 
> _Pasture horse--horse kept out on pasture all year long. _
> 
> _Half an acre would not be able to sustain a horse all year long._


Your point?


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

I find it to be an absurd law. Just one more way for the government to control what we do. There is no reason that a law like this is needed.


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

Ridiculous. Many show horses around here are stalled 23 hours a day and worked the other hour. These owners now need to buy three acres just to have them?

We have 4 adult horses and 3 miniatures on 7 acres. They spend the majority of their time on an acre dry lot with open access to stalls. 6 hours a day they get put out on the 7 acres of grass. If this rule came here, I would be allowed two horses....somehow, I believe my property can accomodate more than that....However, we do not rely on grass as their main source of nutrients. The Thoroughbreds and Arthur practically eat dollar bills in the grain department, and free choice hay is always available.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

VelvetsAB said:


> _Uhm. Yes, I realize that it applies to all horses, and other such farm animals._
> 
> _Pasture horse--horse kept out on pasture all year long. _
> 
> _Half an acre would not be able to sustain a horse all year long._


Here in Wisconsin no amount of pasture would sustain a horse all year long. All forage dies & gets buried with ice & snow.


----------

