Just driving around NE Oklahoma, based on yard and fence signs alone, I'd say over 90% are voting YES.

Yes, the bill is confusing. There are things in it that I agree with and thing that I don't agree with. I actually don't think it should even be presented in its current form, but the big guns are pushing it thru. You can look it up on line and read the bill as written and then decide how you will vote.

I think you will agree it's what affects you most that will decide your vote on this badly written bill.

I have to agree with stockergal. A Shawnee farmer I know says it will hurt him and other small farmers, as written. I'm voting No.. Oh, and most of the messages, such as TV ads and yard signs, that I have been seeing are No. sounds like most of the other things we'll be voting on...split!

Thanks, George.

When is the vote?

May I copy this and republish?

Thanks
bon

**Hi everyone**

I see it's on the same fateful day, November 8.

Sure, copy and republish. I did read testimony from a veterinarian, which explained why such an amendment could be very good. But I don't think that changes the fact that the language of this piece could make it very dangerous.

I decided a long time ago that I would be voting NO, but I have been surprised at the signs I have seen on ranch land where they say they are voting yes. I think it has the "super large" companies behind it. It is poorly written and makes it sound like voting yes gives them the right to farm. They already have the right to farm, so I don't see that it helps farmers and ranchers at all, and is likely to hurt them.

You can always google Oklahoma Ballot 2016 and it will ask where you live so it knows your voting district. Click on State in the blue border and you can read all of the bills. I always do this before election day so I can study them on my own time. Only one gets a yes from me this year.

I worked on a ranch, and know a few people who are in favor of it. Some animal people are afraid PETA will get regulations passed that that will effect how they handle their animals. There are high tech things going on in cattle breeding that could be effected. I understand their point of view, but I don't like the wording of this bill either.

This is also a little scary, "without a compelling state interest".

I don't like the wording of the bill either, and the phrase "without a compelling state interest" is especially troubling to me, and even more so when you read the whole bill and discover the double negative that George mentioned.

I believe I am seeing more signs against it than for it posted on the property of ranchers and farmers near us. Honestly, I have been surprised to see that anyone in farming and ranching is supporting this bill.

As I have contemplated this bill over the last few weeks, I have thought over and over again of the mighty words of the great Ronald Reagan, who said in a speech in 1986, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'." When I think of his words (and how they resonate with many Americans) and read this current bill, I feel like this law was not written for the benefit of all the "little people" who work in agriculture. (And aren't all of us the little people when it comes to our government entities?) I feel like it was written to benefit the big agricultural corporations and that's got to mean it is bad for all us regular people.

I will be voting no, not because the entirety of the bill is bad, but because - like ya'll mention - the wording needs to be rearranged so we can have some assurances for protection of our rights. After all, it can be submitted again.

I have seen over 1000 YES signs easy in yards and on fences here in NE Oklahoma, and have seen exactly 1 NO sign. Easily the vote will be over 80% YES for small farmers/ranchers. I do not know if I will vote Yes or No, but it is certainly not something being pushed by and for big outside AG. It is being pushed by farmers and regular rural people because outside animal rights groups have a long-range plan and have been progressing down their plan at the state level throughout the US to control farmers/ranchers/rural way of life to match what they say is the "right" way to live and act according to their ivory tower belief system.

It is very sad to think that rural people feel the need to push something like this to protect a way of life that their families have lived for generations. They feel they have no choice, and I think they may be right The outright lies and outside money on the NO side will make it very hard for me to vote NO, even though I think I would likely vote NO even 5 years ago on something like this.

I can't find it, but I read an article a couple of days ago that showed some poll data. Earlier this summer, this question was getting 70-80% YES, but in early October it was down to about 35% YES.

The reasoning was that at face value, "Right to farm" sounded like a great thing to get behind. But as more and more people do a little research and actually read the bill, they're switching to No.

If there is anyone who is disparaged by big government or by big industry, it's the tribes and they are an unequivocal 'No' to State Question 777.

It's all right here.

It lists the big Ag or big Farm in support of State Question 777 and how much they have funded this bill.

It also lists the opponents including several large municipalities and much more.

My guess - and it is only a guess - this legislation was passed overwhelmingly by the senate and the house, because they were paid to do so.

We can do better than this, in my opinion.

Respectfully,

bon


Here is the link, again.

I was torn on this. I read the SQ and still torn.

I've decided to vote yes because Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe support the bill. I especially trust Coburn, and since both of these men have spent considerable time in Wash DC, I think they may have better insight.

But it is a very difficult issue, especially with the TV ads against this SQ, makes me wonder whose paying for all that.

It is pushed by farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma, and opposed by environmentalists and animal rights groups inside and outside of Oklahoma. It is designed to give Oklahomans another way to stop lawsuits by outside groups. Whether it is a good idea or not is a matter or opinion. Nobody cares more about Oklahoma's environment and conservation and rural way of life than I do, and people that spend their entire lives improving our agricultural production and conserving our resources while improving people's lives are sick and tired of stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about in the cities telling us we are trying to destroy the country for profit.

Oh, and the people giving money FOR 777 are all out there to see, but the NO people are hiding behind a front organization so few of them are known. Wonder why.