Ag Perspective: For SQ777

A few weeks ago, I reached out to two individuals who work in the agriculture sector to get opposing views on State Question 777, the Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment. Both grew up in farm/ranch families, and continue to work in farming and ranching today.

This morning, Kenny Bob Tapp presented his arguments against SQ777, and this afternoon we hear from Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox arguing in favor of SQ777. My thanks to both of them for participating in this discussion.

Vote Yes on SQ 777, for Oklahoma’s Right To Farm

A Farmer's Perspective

by Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox

November 8th, 2016, Oklahomans have the chance to secure their freedom of food choice. State Question 777 (SQ 777), the Right to Farm bill, will protect Oklahoma’s farm family’s way of life and will allow every Oklahoman access to safe, affordable, abundant food. Right to Farm is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but it is a chance for all Oklahomans to unite for the right to choose whatever food fits their current and future need.

SQ 777 is not retroactive, and it will not change any existing federal or state laws. SQ 777 will not allow foreign corporations to buy up farmland. In fact, it is illegal for foreign corporations to own production agriculture land in Oklahoma. Right to Farm will not allow our rivers and lakes to be polluted. Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers are among the top in the nation in voluntary measures taken to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. [*1]

Farmers and Ranchers are consumers. We shop at the same grocery stores, buying our fruit, vegetables, and other staples just like everyone else. As consumers, we want choices. State Question 777 gives us a choice, so myself, or someone on a fixed budget can enjoy great food for the normal 9-10% of our budget, or the next person in line can enjoy spending 30% or more of their expendable income on their food choices for boutique labels.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the same group in trouble for raising thousands of dollars for “animal rescue” after the Moore tornado a few years ago, then using less than 1% for helping animals in need here in Oklahoma [*2][*3], is the main supporter for the opposition of SQ 777. HSUS has retained former Attorney General and failed gubernatorial candidate Drew Edmondson as their hired gun. Pushing their liberal agenda, Edmondson and the Kirkpatrick Foundation seek to hamstring Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers and are lining their pockets with HSUS’s ill-gotten funds under the guise of benevolent environmental warriors and champions of the small farmer.

Many have asked why do we need SQ 777? We need SQ 777 now due to our society being further removed from the farm with every generation. Few understand what it takes to grow a crop or to raise animals for food consumption. Less than 2% of the population farm and ranch, making it easier for extremist organizations like HSUS, PETA, or the Sierra Club to get an urban electorate to vote based on emotions and Chipotle-esque scare tactics instead of sound science. Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers watched as New York, California, and Maine, passed new laws and regulations that increase the cost of production and ultimately increase the cost of food to the end user. SQ 777 would allow Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers to continue to operate using scientifically proven methods, allowing us to continue to set the world standard for food safety and responsible stewardship.

My family has farmed in Muskogee County for several generations. We grow sweet corn for fresh markets, along with soybeans, corn, cattle, wheat, and hay. After obtaining a degree in Plant and Soil Science at Oklahoma State University, I married and moved to Major County where my husband I and grow wheat, beans, canola, grain sorghum, and cattle alongside his parents. His family has been farming in Major County since the Land Run. No one cares more for the land and their animals than a Farmer or Rancher. We understand that healthy, happy animals perform better, and that our water and soil is our legacy for future generations.

Join me in voting to keep the decision making in the hands of those who care the most. Farmers and Ranchers know too well the ramifications of burdensome, emotionally evocative regulations. Stand up for all Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers by voting Yes on State Question 777, for Oklahoma’s Right To Farm.

Respectfully,
Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox
Fairview, OK/Fort Gibson, OK

Ag Perspective: Against SQ777

A few weeks ago, I reached out to two individuals who work in the agriculture sector to get opposing views on State Question 777, the Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment. Both grew up in farm/ranch families, and continue to work in farming and ranching today.

This morning, Kenny Bob Tapp presents his arguments against SQ777, and this afternoon we will hear from Jessica Sheffield-Wilcox arguing in favor of SQ777. My thanks to both of them for participating in this discussion.

SQ777: Right To Farm Or Harm?

A Rancher’s Perspective

by Kenny Bob Tapp

Rights such as the right to your person, property, and own industry are Inalienable, granted to you by your Loving Creator, which means they cannot be tampered with, providing no one else is harmed by them.

I believe Oklahoma State Question 777 is being supported by mostly well intentioned people.  At first it sounded great to this Oklahoma Rancher, until I actually took the time to read the language. Not only was it too vaguely written, but I also started to see the red flags.

The first red flag was the "compelling state interest" language. Farm Bureau representatives have told me it would have to be decided in the courts, and the thought of 777 eventually winding up before the same State Supreme Court that opinionated against the last two Life initiative petitions should send chills up your spine. These two proposed amendments would have likely ended abortion in Oklahoma. This same Court also opined that the 10 Commandment’s monument be removed.  It’s also interesting that Farm Bureau President, Tom Buchanan, told a group in Norman back in September regarding the “Compelling State Interest” language, “I wish it wasn’t in there.” [*1] The major proponents  of  777 have taken one out of  Nancy Pelosi’s play book: "We'll have to pass it to see what's in it."

Also, it would hamper if not prevent the Oklahoma Farmer and Rancher from taking legal recourse against a major ag corporation if their property, water, crops, or livestock are harmed by the corporation's farming practice. To add fuel to this fire, OUR water was made a "Compelling State Interest"  with the passage of HB 2446 this last legislative session as a bone thrown  to the leftist groups in an attempt to get them on board with 777. [*2]

Concerns with this provision:  “Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.”  Many conservatives and those of us in agriculture see that our liberal State Supreme Court would very likely codify with a court opinion the detrimental eminent domain laws and laws prior to 2014 that attack our rights, such as prohibiting individuals from taking their eggs outside of their farm to sell without a license (state permission).

SQ777 does not protect our inalienable rights already given to us by our Creator to make a living and handle our property as we see fit, as long as we do not interfere with another’s right.  This proposed constitutional amendment simply removes the artificial controlling authority of those Inalienable Rights from the state legislature, whom we can easily replace with other candidates, to a tyrannical supreme court that is almost impossible to remove.

There are those who claim that 777 would prohibit unconstitutional intrusion into our farms and ranches here in Oklahoma by federal agencies such as the EPA, USDA, etc.  This is simply not the case, looking at the language and as also admitted by my State Representative and a Farm Bureau Rep at a town hall meeting I attended.

Many are supporting 777 out of blind fear simply because infamous groups such as HSUS oppose it. Our concerns should be with a group that has had a very detrimental effect to Life and Liberty in Oklahoma, The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce. If you look at the authors and sponsors of 777, the majority of them are State Chamber backed candidates.

For almost 10 years of my citizen grassroots involvement in promoting 2nd Amendment legislation, abolish abortion legislation, free market efforts, and opposing insurance exchange efforts (Obamacare) in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Chamber and their controlled legislators have been at the forefront of stopping or opposing all these efforts and more.

My point is, while we haven't had any negative effects by the infamous HSUS in Oklahoma who oppose 777, Life and our freedoms have taken a huge hit from the infamous State Chamber, who apparently is the huge reason we have 777 on the ballot in Oklahoma.

Our Inalienable "Right To Farm” is already protected in the Oklahoma Bill of Rights:  Section II-2: Inherent rights.   “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.” [*3]

Rights, such as the rights to our persons, property, and own  industry, are solely gifts from our  Loving Creator, not men.  I urge my fellow farmers/ranchers and conservatives to hold on to those rights and refuse to grant them to the state via a rogue Oklahoma Supreme Court by voting No on SQ 777 (Right To Harm).

Kenny Bob Tapp and his wife, Rachel, live in Cimarron County, where he works on his family's ranch.