State Question 777

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Here is some information that came from a group of guys that I grew up with.

A yes vote would insure every farmer and rancher that they will be able to continue using good sound proven farming and ranching practises without having to hire a vet to do them or not be able to at all. Over and over HSUS, PETA, the Sierra Club, headed by Wayne Pacell and Drew Edmonson pushes to pass legislation that creates more regulation and law by polar vote of the people which hinders production agriculture in an affordable and efficient manner. More than 98% of the population is removed from agriculture and the common sense practises used. We care for the land we Farm and the animals we raise because both cares for us. The special interest groups convince those who do not castrate or tag or even doctor, feed, load, transport, etc... animals and when they show them the difficult times it looks cruel and in humane. It is easy to persuade a populous in a direction that they are ignorant of by making it appear as it is an industry standard when it is not. All for the intended purpose of putting all of animal agriculture out of business and making everyone vegan.
We cannot afford to have a vet out to castrate for us or give meds and vaccinations at every turn. This is just the beginning. It began with laying hen crate sizes and wing span availability and moved to the ban of calf stalls and gestation stalls... of which is the best thing ever for a pregnant sow so she doesn't have to be beat up by other sows and compete for her food and water and live with unavoidable injuries. In the stall I can give her 100% care that she needs according to her condition. It is common sense. But you can make it look cruel and sway a populous that has no idea...
The flip side can have some negative consequences as well. Could some use this amendment to pollute our waters and streams with pesticides and herbicides and eliminate rezoning of agricultural lands... could there be a chicken or hog farm, a feed lot or dairy built on 51st and Riverside and ruin the Tulsa city parks...? That is absurd! No... Nothing changes for regulation by USDA and DEQ. It is just easier for those special interest groups to change legislation on a state or local level than on a national level. For that reason they are fighting hard. They lose this battle it is up hill all the way for them. None of the downside hypotheticals have taken place in the states that have already passed similar measures.
Just look at who is for and against this amendment. That should speak volumes. Is it the best way to go about achieving the goal of production agriculture? Maybe not, but it is a very good start. Doing nothing is going to cost us farmers and ranchers big in the coming years and it will be effected in the market place shortly there after.
We already are paying $4 for a dozen eggs. Two times as much as just a short few years ago. Milk nearly $5 a gallon compared to $2.50 just a couple years ago. It will happen. You want affordable and available choices for food... vote "yes" for our right to farm in common sense ways and out of the hands of special interests from outside our state.

There is good reason I am voting YES on State Question #777. Over the last 25 years I have been more regulated, not because I abuse my animals or the land that I farm/ranch, but because of special interest groups from outside the state putting pressure on our legislature to do so for one reason above all else... to put me and the rest of animal agriculture out of business.

In a letter published in the Monday Daily Oklahoman- Senator Jim Inhofe proclaimed his support for State Question 777- here are his comments about why Right to Farm needs to be approved on November 8th:

"Some people think the "Right to Farm" vote on November's ballot is unnecessary, but they don't see what I've seen in my years of public service.

"The goal of liberal activists is to intimidate states in how they regulate. We're seeing this with the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which consists of two carbon mandates - written primarily by activist groups - that would attempt to strong-arm states to re-engineer their utility grids and reassess how they regulate local energy resources. Then there is the WOTUS rule, in which the administration inappropriately collaborated with radical environmentalists in an unprecedented federal land grab. These activists won't stop there.

"In July 2015, I held a committee hearing where a witness testified that environmental activists are setting their sights on the agriculture industry next. Amending the state constitution is about sending a signal to liberal extremists on the outside not to waste their time and money on Oklahoma. With Right to Farm, the state can continue putting forward proper safeguards for its residents, while our constitution will protect our farmers and ranchers from being unnecessarily over-regulated as a result of external pressures and big-money liberal campaigns. With Right to Farm, Oklahoma will protect its own for generations to come.

"There is a national effort to stop one of the greatest engines of our economy - agriculture. I don't want to see it succeed. I want to see Oklahoma agriculture and Oklahoma families succeed. Join me and vote "Yes" on SQ 777."

I will be voting YES on SQ 777 with Senator Jim Inhofe.
Will you join me?

 

[Shadowrider]

Thanks S4F! Good info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Thanks S4F! Good info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't get used to that sort of thing.

 

[IndVet]

I dunno either Dennis, but I'm pretty sure they can do that right now and whether this passes or not.

Of course they can do it right now, but why would they? They'd have to comply with all existing AND future laws to protect the environment and their neighbors.

Once they they get a constitutional amendment that gives them an extra layer of protection, it becomes infinitely more attractive.

 

[dennishoddy]

Of course they can do it right now, but why would they? They'd have to comply with all existing AND future laws to protect the environment and their neighbors.

Once they they get a constitutional amendment that gives them an extra layer of protection, it becomes infinitely more attractive.

Again, who are the Corporate Farms that are going to swoop down and buy up the family farms?

 

[dennishoddy]

I did some research:
Right-to-Farm laws are on the books in all fifty states. They are enshrined into some state constitutions, including in Missouri, where the state constitution now guarantees, in perpetuity, "the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices" in the state.

Right-to-Farm laws like Missouri’s generally serve two key purposes. First, they protect farm owners from state and local regulations that might restrict farming. For example, Louisiana recently issued a statewide ban on all private burns in the state, a measure adopted as a result of dry conditions. But the state’s farmers are exempt from the ban. That’s because Louisiana’s Right to Farm Law defines burning as a generally accepted agricultural practice.

Second, Right-to-Farm laws also protect farmers against the real specter of nuisance lawsuits. In particular, they help protect farmers against lawsuits by neighbors who—in legal parlance—come to the nuisance. "Many agricultural areas have seen individuals without farm backgrounds and little understanding of farm operations moving into the neighborhood," reads a 2013 University of Maryland report on the state’s Right-to-Farm law. "Once there, they find noises, insects, farm equipment on the roads, smells and normal characteristics of agricultural and rural life unexpected and objectionable and then they complain."

More: http://reason.com/archives/2015/10/24/right-to-farm-debate-heats-up

 

[Shadowrider]

z

Of course they can do it right now, but why would they? They'd have to comply with all existing AND future laws to protect the environment and their neighbors.

Once they they get a constitutional amendment that gives them an extra layer of protection, it becomes infinitely more attractive.

I agree that it becomes more attractive, but I fail to see how it can possibly be a game changer. I work in oil & gas which is regulated out the ass. We still operate, we just find ways to make it work. Farming is no different and in some ways it's the same (land intensive). If the money is there they'll do it. I don't see the possible cost of litigation as being a huge deal to a big corporate farming operator's bottom line. And that's about the only thing this changes in that regard that I can think of. If I could see that it would really bump their balance sheet I could see your point. Remember this doesn't take any laws or regs off the books, but it might after litigation. So they can come in right now OR after this passes and follow the existing laws and regs and it does nothing to them at all. As a matter of fact, I can see big corporate meat packers actually benefitting from it passing as it would protect them from the PETA types filing bogus law suits and messing with their practices just like the small family owned ranchers.

 

[sanjuro893]

I did some research:
Right-to-Farm laws are on the books in all fifty states. They are enshrined into some state constitutions, including in Missouri, where the state constitution now guarantees, in perpetuity, "the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices" in the state.

Right-to-Farm laws like Missouri’s generally serve two key purposes. First, they protect farm owners from state and local regulations that might restrict farming. For example, Louisiana recently issued a statewide ban on all private burns in the state, a measure adopted as a result of dry conditions. But the state’s farmers are exempt from the ban. That’s because Louisiana’s Right to Farm Law defines burning as a generally accepted agricultural practice.

Second, Right-to-Farm laws also protect farmers against the real specter of nuisance lawsuits. In particular, they help protect farmers against lawsuits by neighbors who—in legal parlance—come to the nuisance. "Many agricultural areas have seen individuals without farm backgrounds and little understanding of farm operations moving into the neighborhood," reads a 2013 University of Maryland report on the state’s Right-to-Farm law. "Once there, they find noises, insects, farm equipment on the roads, smells and normal characteristics of agricultural and rural life unexpected and objectionable and then they complain."

More: http://reason.com/archives/2015/10/24/right-to-farm-debate-heats-up

Good info, Dennis! Thanks! After reading a little more about it I think I know which way I'm gonna vote.

 

[p238shooter]

Like most questions, seems full of mumbo jumbo.

Ok, I live in the country but do not "farm" just a small garden and no livestock. By what I am reading here a YES vote seems to be the way to go for our best future for food prices and availability and less regulation. Agreed?

 

[dennishoddy]

Like most questions, seems full of mumbo jumbo.

Ok, I live in the country but do not "farm" just a small garden and no livestock. By what I am reading here a YES vote seems to be the way to go for our best future for food prices and availability and less regulation. Agreed?

That's the way I see it. I don't need anymore gov regs.