Oklahoma Farm Report masthead graphic with wheat on the left and cattle on the right.
Howdy Neighbors!
Ron Hays, Director of Farm and Ranch Programming, Radio Oklahoma Ag Network  |  2401 Exchange Ave, Suite F, Oklahoma City, Ok 73108  |  (405) 601-9211

advertisements
   
   
   
   
   

Agricultural News


Farmers Push Back on Social Media Against Negatives on State Question 777 Raised by HSUS

Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:24:09 CDT

Farmers Push Back on Social Media Against Negatives on State Question 777 Raised by HSUS The Humane Society of the US continues the campaign against State Question 777- and have sent multiple emails in recent days to their email list in Oklahoma, calling for a "no" vote. The themes that HSUS is using in their call for a vote against Right to Farm have not changed.


The actual text of the latest email, sent on Tuesday and authored by HSUS Senior State Director Cynthia Armstrong, has the following two paragraphs which describes the opposition called for by HSUS:


"SQ 777 is a so-called "Right to Farm" measure that will provide a constitutional shield to big factory farms and foreign corporations, allowing them to pollute Oklahoma's land and water. It could open the door to puppy mills and cockfighting and take away voters' ability to protect our land and animals.

"Please help spread the word about the importance of voting NO on SQ 777 by sharing this with your friends on Facebook, Twitter or email."

Essentially, the HSUS email has several arguments packed into that first paragraph- including the following claims:

SQ777 benefits big factory farms unfairly

SQ777 benefits foreign corporations

SQ777 will promote pollution of land and water in the state

SQ777 "could" open the door to puppy mills and cockfighting

SQ777 would block efforts to protect Oklahoma land

SQ777 would block regulation of animal well being.


While this is not the total list of things that groups that are against SQ777 have cited- it is the majority of them.


HSUS then called on their supporters to take to social media to spread their concerns to others.



Well, supporters of SQ777 have noted that these concerns are circulating and have pushed back on the statements by the animal rights group.


One southern Oklahoma farmer posted on Facebook in a State Question 777 several paragraphs that address several of the claims that HSUS made in the email cited above. Becca McMillan writes on Facebook:

"Corporate Takeover of Farm Land The NO side alleges "It will allow corporate takeover of farming and ranching". First of all, under current state law, foreign corporations cannot own farmland in Oklahoma except in certain livestock and poultry feeding operations, which has been the law for several years. Furthermore, Oklahoma corporations cannot be formed for the sole purpose of owning land, but only to support their main business operations.

"According to USDA, on December 31, 2014 Oklahoma had about 38.3 million acres of privately held agricultural lands. Foreign ownership at that time was 370,000 acres, or less than 1 percent of all agricultural lands.

"Additionally, the leader of foreign owned ag lands was Italy with 201,000, Germany with 14,000 and the UK with 12,000, China does not have enough holding to warrant a breakout. Interestingly enough, the data suggests that the wind industry is the largest owner of foreign land.

"Antibiotics/GMO's/Pesticides The NO side alleges "It will allow no regulation of antibiotics in feed/animals, GMO's and pesticides". HSUS has made it clear that all of these should be eliminated. What they don't say is that these are all regulated by the FEDERAL government. Antibiotics by FDA, GMO's by USDA, and pesticides by EPA. SQ 777 has nothing to do with federal regulations, which by the way preempt state laws in these areas.

"SQ777 will protect ALL farmers, large, small, local and organic.
"SQ 777 will allow Oklahoma's family farmers to produce tasty, nutritious and affordable food.
"SQ 777 will allow farmers and ranchers to have the latest tools and technology to grow more abundant and nutritious food using less land and fewer natural resources.
"SQ 777 will not allow radical special interests groups to dictate what type of food consumers eat.

"All of this boils down to a pretty simple point...Who do Oklahoman's want to establish agriculture policy in their state, established long time agriculture interests or HSUS?"


In a lengthly facebook conversation that several proponents and opponents participated in- the issue of Puppy Mills was raised: "Puppy Mills The NO side alleges "It will allow puppy mills to go unregulated". The ballot language is specific in that is says that 777 would create constitutional rights to make use of agriculture technology; make use of livestock procedures; and make use of ranching practices. Wording in the state statutes does NOT include pets as livestock. This has nothing to do with pets. The language on the question clearly says "it guarantees rights to make use of agriculture technology, livestock procedures, and ranching practice".


Another farmer that has taken to social media to address the concerns of the groups urging a no vote is Matt Boyer who responded to a question on his Facebook thread:

"Ok, the squawking in the salon is that if 777 passes the Chinese will take over our farm lands, chicken poop will destroy our drinking waters & puppy mills will become a free for all..... tell me how to counter this insanity....

"This is what I deal with daily in Claremore. The response is the same.

"Clean water always has been and will continue to be vital for all Oklahomans. No matter what town you move to or where you go, fresh clean water is supplied to you at a cost. Water pollution will not be allowed, period. Any Oklahoma or Federal environmental statutes already on the books would be unaffected per the amendment's language. All water and environmental laws enforced by all state agencies or federal laws and agencies (particularly the Clean Water Act and the Safe Water Drinking Act) would also be unaffected by the amendment.

"Oklahoma statute, title 4, section 201.2 - Livestock Owner's Lien Act of 2011 - definitions of animals "Livestock" means cattle, bison, horses, sheep, goats , asses, mules, swine, domesticated rabbits, chickens, turkeys, or any domesticated animal raised primarily for human food consumption;

"Oklahoma statute, title 4, section 30.2 commercial pet breeders and animal shelter licensing act "Pet" means a dog or cat, including a puppy or kitten;

"Puppies are not included in the definition of livestock and definitely not used for human consumption.

"No law passed prior to Dec 31,2014 will be affected. *that is the key phrase everyone forgets *

"This doesn't change things now, it protects us going forward."

**********

A lawyer that took to Facebook to offer his thoughts on State Question 777 explained one of the other issues raised by many opponents of the Right to Farm Proposal- the issue of the language "compelling state interest" that is a part of the proposal that would be a part of the state constitution if State Question 777 is passed by the voters. Keenan Haught of Compton Law offered this breakdown of the actual language of the proposal:


"State Question 777 is asking for the approval of a constitutional amendment. This is the proposed language for the constitutional amendment.

"Section 38. To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the rights of citizens and lawful residents of oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.

"Nothing in this section shall 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."

"So the way I read this, I see four parts.

"1. The 1st part is the 1st sentence. This is the purpose of the amendment. It does not necessarily have any legal effect other than possibly being used as authority in explaining the legislative history of the amendment.

"2. The 2nd part is the 2nd sentence. A compelling state interest is the key phrase. This refers to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review. This is relevant when the Supreme Court uses judicial review to determine the constitutionality of a states law. But by including the compelling interest language in the oklahoma constitution, it gives the oklahoma supreme Court power to determine the constitutionality, in relation to the oklahoma constitution, of the Oklahoma laws relating to agriculture and ranching. When the state passes a law relating to agriculture or ranching, it must satisfy strict scrutiny or it will be struck down as unconstitutional. There is three levels of scrutiny in judicial review. The 1st is rational basis. This means the state must show it only had some kind of rational basis for passing the law. The 2nd is intermediate scrutiny. In this level the state must show it has an important government interest and the law passed (or means) is substantially related to that interest. The 3rd is strict scrutiny. This is the highest level of scrutiny. The state must show it has a compelling state interest and that the law was narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling state interest. Most state laws that are challenged involving the strict scrutiny test are struck down, not all laws challenged are struck down but most.

"3. The 3rd part is the 3rd sentence. This sentence basically preserves all common law and property rights, meaning one could still sue for any property related torts. For example, if someone moved a hog farm right next to a residential development and if there is not already a law on the books prohibiting this, there is still remedies available such as sueing for nuisance. Further, the state can still pass laws relating to this but they must pass the strict scrutiny test.

"4. The 4th part is the 4th sentence. This is what some people were referencing to in the comments about keeping things the same. The laws already on the books as of December 31st, 2014 remain in effect and if they were challenged the state would not have to prove their position by strict scrutiny. So most likely those laws would be upheld.

"So essentially by voting Yes, you are saying you would like the state to meet the highest level of scrutiny in making any laws that affect agriculture or ranching. For the most part, things will remain the same, but it does not mean the state can never pass any laws relating to agriculture or ranching. It just means it would need to do so by narrowly tailoring the laws in a way that is the least restrictive to agriculture and ranching. Also, a few people have mentioned the word "deregulate". This does not necessarily deregulate anything. It merely requires a harder test for the state to meet when adding new regulations.


Keenan Haught ends his post on social media by adding he plans to vote in favor State Question 777.


The Oklahoma Farm Report has assembled a page full of resources to help further study State Question 777- click here to review that information that looks at all angles of State Question 777.



   


 

WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI

 


Top Agricultural News

  • Oklahoma Youth Expo Sale of Champions Sale Order Available Here- Sale Set for 4 PM Friday  Fri, 17 Mar 2023 04:50:54 CDT
  • Rural Voters Dominated Vote to Defeat Recreational Marijuana March 7th  Fri, 10 Mar 2023 07:13:05 CST
  • Ron Hays Talks to Israeli Ag Tour Guide Colin Lotzof About the Miraclel of Ag in Israel  Wed, 22 Feb 2023 22:11:04 CST
  • OALP Members Experience First Hand View of Cutting Edge Drip Irrigation Technology as Israel Travel Ends  Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:51:49 CST
  • OALP Members Get First Hand View of Cutting Edge Drip Irrigation Technology as Israel Travel Ends  Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:50:10 CST
  • Oklahoma Ag Leadership Program Sees Fruit, Beef and Dairy Production North of the Sea of Galilee in Israel  Mon, 20 Feb 2023 21:56:02 CST
  • Oklahoma Ag Leadership Program Sees Diverse Farm Operations in Jordan River Valley of Israel  Sun, 19 Feb 2023 21:17:30 CST
  • Israeli Tour Guide Mark Kedem Talks About The Cultural Aspects of What Class XX of OALP is Experiencing   Sat, 18 Feb 2023 22:17:23 CST

  • More Headlines...

       

    Ron salutes our daily email sponsors!

    Oklahoma Beef council Oklahoma Ag Credit Oklahoma Farm Bureau National Livestock Credit Ag Mediation Program P&K Equipment Oklahoma City Farm Show Union Mutual Stillwater Milling Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association KIS FUTURES, INC.
       
       
       
       
       

    Search OklahomaFarmReport.com

    © 2008-2024 Oklahoma Farm Report
    Email Ron   |   Newsletter Signup   |    Current Spots   |    Program Links

    WebReady powered by WireReady® Inc.