Hardy County stands as a cornerstone of West Virginia’s agricultural economy, with farmers and poultry growers supporting the local community and contributing to America’s food supply. As the top producer of poultry products and leading agrarian county in the state, Hardy County’s agricultural strength should be supported, not undermined. Pilgrim’s takes a firm stance that current proposed language to misidentify farms in the comprehensive plan threatens to do just that.
Pilgrim’s has sent several letters to the Planning Commission and County Commission opposing divisive terms and definitions that can be harmful to the future of not only poultry production but farming in general. Several misleading terms and definitions are being downplayed as innocent classifications. Unfortunately, they lay the foundation for future regulation that would hurt farmers and divide the agricultural community.
The new plan would define a farm as “industrial” if it focuses on a single crop or livestock (like poultry), is owned by non-local entities, and impacts the environment. As a border county, we have all kinds of farms that grow poultry and are owned by people on both sides of the state line. As for impacting the environment, that is already the purview of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection which has strict regulation over all of those matters.
These definitions mirror actions that well-funded, out-of-state activist groups take to shut down farming operations. It is even more shocking that several members of a radical organization spoke in support of these definitions at the recent county commission public hearing. These groups have similar agendas, which is to halt agriculture as we know it, affecting all poultry growers in Hardy County.
The message should be clear — agriculture is agriculture.
If the terms are truly not attempts to restrict agriculture, as stated by the county planner, they should be left out of the plan entirely. Leaving them in the current plan opens the door to regulation under the guise of planning.
Over the last few years, passage of laws like West Virginia Senate Bills 242 and 171 explicitly forbid counties from zoning agricultural land or adopting regulations more burdensome than those already in state law. These laws, together with the state’s Right to Farm Act, create one of the strongest agricultural protections in the nation, defending agriculture from the reach of radical extremist groups. Despite this, it seems there are those in the county working to undermine these laws even though they are clearly defined.
Before these laws were enacted, various radical extremist groups were attempting to influence local zoning to force unnecessary regulation here in Hardy County. The same people who spoke in favor of these misleading definitions were also actively lobbying the West Virginia Legislature against passage of the very laws that protect farmers. Thankfully, they lost.
What is being proposed locally in the Hardy County Planning Commission’s comprehensive plan undermines those protections and show signs of extremist outside political efforts.
We cannot afford to gamble with the livelihoods of our farmers. The future of farming in Hardy County depends on preserving the freedom to operate — without being boxed into misleading terms and restrictive definitions.
Pilgrim’s urges that these terms and definitions be removed for the sake of Hardy County’s agricultural and economic future.
Allen Collins, Pilgrim’s Moorefield Complex Manager
