Right To Farm Measure On November Ballot

Signs urging Oklahomans to vote “Yes on 777" are a common sight here in rural Major County, where agriculture remains a dominant industry and where the natural question is: who wouldn't be for the state question that is better known as 'Right to Farm?'

But, in fact, there are farmers, some even in Major County, who feel a more accurate name for the November ballot measure would be 'Right to Harm' and oppose it vehemently.

According to those on both sides of the debate, the stakes are very high, with long-term implications for farming and ranching in Oklahoma, as well as, for animal welfare and the environment.

Jessica Wilcox and her husband farm about 1,500 acres west of Fairview. They also have a little more than a hundred head of cattle. Wilcox argues that approving State Question 777 would help preserve an important source of food for Oklahoma consumers, and also help preserve a way of life for family farmers like herself.

"We are a very small minority, and we need every protection we can get," Wilcox explained in a recent interview.

The protection that Wilcox and other SQ 777 supporters are asking for would come in the form of an amendment to the state Constitution, guaranteeing "the right to make use of agricultural technology, the right to make use of livestock procedures," the ballot measure reads, "and the right to make use of ranching practices."

But these farming "rights" don't require constitutional protection, SQ 777 opponents say.

"My family's been on the farm for 123 years, five generations," said farmer Kim Barker. "I've got the right to farm, that's not what this is about."

Barker said the term "Right to Farm" is extremely misleading, and this won't protect him or other family farmers, but will empower corporate agriculture interests.

"This is not written by farmers for farmers," Barker stated. "It's written by corporations for corporations, and not Oklahoma corporations, but out of state and even international."

Barker said the real agenda of those behind SQ 777 is clear from the second part of the question, where it declares that these rights get "extra protection" that not even all other constitutional rights have. That extra protection, it states, would be "a limit on lawmakers' ability to interfere with the exercise of these rights."

Legal experts say passage of the measure would make it extremely difficult for lawmakers, at the state or local level, to pass any new regulations that might infringe on agriculture.

"I think the real issue here is that you have certain interests that are shrouding themselves in the family farmers, and that are trying to create an exemption from laws," said Bud Scott.

Scott is with Oklahomans for Food, Farm and Family, an umbrella organization dedicated to educating people about SQ 777. He said the only winner, if the question is approved, will be corporate agriculture.

Officials at the Oklahoma Farm Bureau disagree wholeheartedly.

"[The] story about this empowering corporate farming is a half-truth, at best," said Tom Buchanan, Oklahoma Farm Bureau president.

Buchanan said this would not exempt agriculture from state or local laws; what it would do, he said, is protect against "arbitrary regulations," such as the cage-free rules approved by voters in California recently.

SQ 777 supporters acknowledge there are no measures like California's proposition 2 currently standing in the way of Oklahomans' ability to engage in their preferred ranching and farming practices, but say they want to keep it that way, which is why they're being proactive with Right to Farm.

"The same people that pushed that legislation in California are active in Oklahoma, and they are pushing that same agenda in Oklahoma, as was pushed in California," Buchanan stated.

Agriculture accounts for about 2 percent of Oklahoma’s gross domestic product, but, despite that, Buchanan said farmers and ranchers remain the true backbone of the state.

“Oklahoma is still a good bastion for agriculture, but farmers and ranchers are under the gun -- from a regulation standpoint, both federal and statewide, there are many burdensome regulations that are causing problems for us to continue to operate,” Buchanan said.

Wilcox echoes that concern, and said the threat -- from the Humane Society of the U.S. and environmental groups -- is out there.

"There's been a lot of outside Ag interest in the last five to ten years from groups that just don't understand what we do," said Wilcox.

But Kim Barker said animal rights and environmental groups, even if they don’t have the answers, often raise good questions. Sadly, he said, most farmers automatically discount anything associated with them.

“If Humane Society's for it, we're against it -- they're against it, we're for it,” lamented Barker. “I mean, that's all you gotta say, it just stops the conversation, and that's what's happening here, people aren't even thinking.”

HSUS is one of many organizations that have come out against SQ 777. Tribal nations, numerous municipalities, and organizations that represent cities and towns (e.g., Oklahoma Municipal League, Association of Central Oklahoma Governments) have also adopted resolutions stating their opposition to the measure.

“I believe that those communities and municipalities have been misled, there's some fear-mongering occurring here,” said Farm Bureau President Buchanan. “The truth of the matter is that, if I'm a local community … it says that any ordinance, any zoning issue that was in effect December 31, 2014 will be in effect after this passage.”

But opponents say that’s the problem: any attempt to regulate the industry in the future – and any measures passed in the past two years – would likely be quashed without proof that there is a “compelling state interest” for the regulation.

Barker said, if his fellow farmers would look at the issue objectively, they would see that concerns over arbitrary regulation from groups like HSUS or PETA pale next to concerns over an industry that is no longer subject to regulation.  

"Because we don't know what the future holds," said Barker. "They could be the best neighbor in the world today, but who's gonna be there fifty years from now?"

Voters will make their decision November 8.

Click here to read the State Question 777 in its entirety.

Below is a PDF from a group against the measure:

Below is a PDF from a group supporting the measure: