Support
grows for right-to-farm, by Bonner Cohen PhD, 9/29/16
Voters in Oklahoma will have the
opportunity this November to approve or disapprove amending the state’s
Constitution to include a Right-to-Farm amendment.
The ballot initiative, known as SQ
(State Question) 777, is in response to mounting pressure by interest groups,
many of them from outside of Oklahoma, to restrict the use of animals and
curtail other traditional agricultural practices on the state’s farms and
ranches. State Rep. Scott Biggs, a Republican, told oklahomafarmreport.com that the amendment “will keep outside interest groups from
coming to Oklahoma and telling us how to farm and ranch.” If approved by the voters, the
state’s Constitution will be amended to read:
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.
SQ 777 does not apply to and does
not affect state laws related to trespass, eminent domain, mineral rights,
easements, right of way or other property rights, and any state statutes or
political subdivision ordinances enacted before December 31, 2014.
The measure is supported by a host
of groups, including the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Oklahoma Cattlemen’s
Association, Oklahoma Pork Council, Oklahoma Cotton Council, American Farmers
& Ranchers, Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, The Poultry Federation,
Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council, Oklahoma Sorghum Association, and
Oklahoma Agri-Women.
Stewardship of Land by Farmers and
Ranchers
“Oklahoma farmers and ranchers work
hard raising wholesome and high-quality food,” said Michael Kelsey, executive
vice president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association. “State Question 777
gives assurance that they can continue their stewardship of the land, animals,
crops and ultimately all of us as consumers.”
Mark Yates, director of field
operations for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, accused those opposing the
Right-to-Farm amendment of using pretexts to cover their real agenda.
“The opposition is making this about
water, and it has nothing to do with water… They are also the ones putting the
billboards up in Tulsa and Oklahoma City (saying the same thing)”
Anti-SQ 777 billboards have in fact
sprung up in and around the state’s two largest cities. Opponents of SQ 777 are
focusing on what they say are the threats modern agriculture poses to bodies of
water as well as animals. Those groups include the Sierra Club, Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), Oklahoma Coalition of Animal Rescuers, Oklahoma
Municipal League, Save the Illinois River, Oklahoma Stewardship Council, and
the Conservation Council of Oklahoma. They urge voters to vote “No” on the
ballot initiative. They aim their fire at the effect confined animal feeding
operations have on poultry and other livestock, the use of genetically-modified
(GMO) crops, and pesticide runoff into the state’s rivers.
“State Question 777 amounts a
massive giveaway to corporate agriculture in a truly unprecedented way,” said
Denise Deason-Toyne, president of Save the Illinois River. “Oklahomans have a
right to clean water, clean air, and food safety. The ‘Right-to-Harm’ amendment
strips them of those rights in favor of an industry that cares only about its
own bottom line.”
Before the amendment could be placed
on the ballot, it first had to be approved by the state Senate and House of
Representatives. The Humane Society of the United States lobbied heavily
against the initiative, including showering state legislators with anti-SQ 777
emails. Despite HSUS’s efforts, legislation approving the ballot initiative
passed easily. HSUS, a radical national animal-rights organization, wasn’t
helped by its over-the-top rhetoric. The group’s CEO Wayne Pacelle has said, “I
don’t want to see another cat or dog born.”
Many states have right-to-farm
statutes, but right-to-farm constitutional amendments are something new. North
Dakota was the first state to adopt a right-to-farm constitutional amendment,
doing so in 2012. Missouri followed suit in 2014.
http://www.cfact.org/2016/09/29/support-grows-for-right-to-farm/?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign=7ba5be8fe7-Right_to_farm9_29_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-7ba5be8fe7-270308565
No comments:
Post a Comment