I live near, but not in, a small town in southeastern Idaho.

About 2/3 of my ranch is within the town's "impact area", which is defined as any property that is within one mile of the city limits.

Since I don't live within the city limits, I'm not allowed to vote in the election of the town's mayor or city council members. But they don't hesitate to tell me what I can or cannot do on my property within the town's city limits (about ten acres) or argue in county zoning board meetings and county commissioner meetings against my operations in the 870 acres that's not in the city but is in its "impact area". My interactions with the busybodies on the town council are often fraught with all the negative aspects of small town politics, and at times get very aggravating.

It has also been frustrating to discover that the several locals besides me who are affected by the town council's lack of understanding of the issues have been too apathetic to go to the council meetings and play defense. In the past the town council seats were filled by local farmers -- old, experienced men who believed in minding their own business and staying out of other people's business. But as agriculture wanes and our society changes, this small town is becoming a bedroom community for Pocatello, which is 30 miles to the north, and those seats are being filled by housewives and busybodies who have no background in the agriculture that has been the town's historical core business.

The busybodies complain that the cattle moo at dawn, the pigs stink, all the animals draw flies, the farm machinery is too big and too slow to be on the roads, the cows and horses shit on the roads when the cowboys move them, and on and on and on. Never mind that those animals and agricultural operations have been there since the 1860s and were obviously there and no secret when the busybodies moved into the community. You get an angry response if/when you gently suggest that maybe, if you don't like animals and agricultural operations, this little town isn't the best place for you to locate your bedroom.

As an example, during this past calendar year the town council tried to enact an ordinance that would limit livestock capacity to two animal units per acre, and defined an "animal unit" as one cow or horse, or two sheep, or ten chickens. The proposed ordinance also forbade any pigs whatsoever (as revealed at the October town council meeting, there are currently ten households within the city limits that have one or more pigs on their premises -- a lot of families raise one during the summer to slaughter in the fall, and they're a popular 4H project for the early teenagers). The proposed ordinance made no consideration of historical use of the property, the nature/type of soil and vegetation on the property, whether or not the area is irrigated, whether or not the area is fertilized, and whether the owner employs rotational grazing practices. For example, the proposed ordinance would allow me to put 20 head at all times on my ten acres within the town's boundaries. But it would not allow me to rotationally graze on the property, ie: to cyclically put 60 head there for a week, take them off for a month to irrigate and let the grass grow, then put them back on for another week.

I argued at several town council meetings that the proposed ordinance was not based in any rational application of agricultural science, promoted bad agricultural practices, and was bad for business. The solution proposed was to implement a "conditional use permit" process, whereby a landowner on a case by case basis could go to the city office on any Tuesday or Thursday between 8:00 AM and noon to fill out a conditional use application to temporarily exceed the number of grazing animals allowed, pay a $20 fee to process the application, then wait for the next town council meeting (which occurs on the first Wednesday evening of the month) for the town council to approve or reject the application. This would have to be done each time the number of animals permitted by ordinance was exceeded, even for a day. Members of the town council were shocked when I rejected this administrative abuse out of hand and asked them forthrightly "Who the hell do you think you are?"

The election yesterday included a race for a new mayor and to fill a vacated town council seat.

The race for mayor included two candidates. One favors severe restrictions on agricultural operations within the town and its impact area (he objects to cattle lowing in the mornings, flies, and the smell of livestock). The other candidate wants to absolutely minimize government intrusion into people's lives and business and to ensure that all ordinances are uniformly and equally enforced.

The race for the town council seat included two people similarly disposed as the two mayoral candidates.

I am truly happy to report that the two busybody candidates did NOT win -- the two candidates who support minimal government both received significant majority votes for their respective offices.

I suppose change is inevitable. If our society is in fact moving away from its agriculture base, if we no longer want to be the breadbasket of the world, then family farms and ranches will eventually disappear. Pastures, and their noise and stink and flies, will be replaced by paved basketball courts hosting midnight basketball for youths that in earlier times would've been sleeping after a hard day's work raising their livestock.

That's not a future I want to be part of.

Good thing I'm getting old and will be gone before it comes.

Sounds like you guys need to fire up an agri-Republican type party and take back your local government. Send the snowflakes back to the big city.

This happens all the time to old, well established gun clubs. Had an old, established Club shut down 40 years back when I was still in NJ. Shut down by one damned guy who constantly complained about the noise.

As the rural area changed, more NEW folks moving in, the Township Council and Mayor changed right along as well. Soon the Club was shut down.

NICE to read a positive story for a change.