Tulsa World endorsement: Against State Question 777

Both sides in the debate over State Question 777 — the so-called Right to Farm proposal — have been guilty of excesses in their arguments.

The proponents have suggested that only a state constitutional measure could shield cherished rural values of decent working farmers from the meddling hands of bureaucrats and lunatic eco-extremists.

Letters to the Editor

Barry Switzer: SQ 777 eases the way for puppy mills and dirty water

My passion for the gridiron is well known. What a lot of people don’t know about me is my love of animals.

My wife, Becky, and I own several dogs and they are a big part of our life. We have trained working dogs, and we own others that are being trained for search and rescue missions. We’ve also rescued many dogs over the years who were abused or neglected and we do whatever we can to elevate animal welfare, including facilitating adoptions.


City is officially opposed to State Question 777

At its most recent meeting on Monday, July 11, the Edmond City Council formally passed a resolution opposing State Question 777 (Oklahoma Right to Farm). Resolution No. 18-16 lays out the reasons for opposition to the proposed question.

About the Issue

State Question 777 is a threat to Oklahoma. Family farmers, voting rights, our voices, and even basic protections for animals are at risk. We need to stand up to corporate interests and foreign corporations to ensure Oklahomans have a fair say in what happens on our state's lands. We can't let corporations use "right to farm" as an excuse to harm our lands, weaken our state's traditional agricultural standards, and remove our ability to protect our land, our animals, and our environment.

Learn More