By Gene Hall

Does being an author on this blog give me the right to air a pet peeve? Well I’m gonna do it. We don’t pay enough attention to Thanksgiving! We are all cruising along in our busy lives toward the end of October, buying Halloween candy and costumes at Wal-Mart and Target. Go back November 1 and poof—wall to wall Christmas!  Sometimes I want to stand in the middle of the store and scream, “What happened to Thanksgiving?”

I suppose it has to do with money. What doesn’t? All who read this blog know I’m a big fan of capitalism, so I won’t complain too much about that. What we buy most of on Thanksgiving is food. Total dollars pale in comparison to Christmas, even in a bad year. I’m a big fan of food, too, but it means that Turkey Day is not high on the list of big commercial holidays. Valentines Day gets more shelf space.

Christmas joy and Christmas bills will come soon enough. Thanksgiving is, hands down, my favorite holiday. I have always loved it. The cool fall days, the smell of turkey in the oven, family getting together, football on the TV—these things are golden to me. It would be better this year if the Texas Aggies got off the mat and beat the Longhorns Thanksgiving night, but the anticipated defeat at the hands of the orange team won’t spoil it for me. Food, football and family are part of the magic, but the most important thing is the need to give thanks. I have my own ideas as to the man upstairs and the gratitude I owe to him. I’ll leave you to your own beliefs on that.

I am thankful for my new healthy grandchild. I am thankful that my three sons grew up to be fine men. One of them survived cancer as a child. I am thankful for my home and a few luxuries. I’m grateful that my parents are still living and for growing up on a farm with my grandparents. I am thankful for America and the fact that we can argue on this blog.

We need to celebrate Thanksgiving, more than we do. After all, it IS our holiday, first celebrated in 1621 in the Plymouth Colony. President Abraham Lincoln gave it official status in 1863. What did they have to be so thankful for? Plymouth Colony was almost swamped by starvation and disease. Lincoln proclaimed a day of Thanksgiving during a bloody civil war. Yet, it was somehow important to pause and, in humility, give thanks for the blessings they enjoyed.

Today, we also have war. Many American families will sit down to their feast knowing their sons and daughters are in harm’s way. The economy is jittery. Some face the holidays with economic uncertainty. Most of us, though, have many things for which to be thankful. I’m going to think about that this Thanksgiving. How about you?

By Mike Barnett

I never met a steak I didn't like. Grass fed or corn fed, it's a taste I crave. I like beef  braised, broiled, roasted, fried and grilled. It goes great with a glass of milk.

I like the people who raise cattle–beef and dairy  They’re genuine. They’re sincere. I wish more of them would speak out for their industry. But that’s a subject for another blog  post.
 
What makes me bovine crazy are those with outside agendas who have a goal of eliminating modern beef and milk production. They fall into two categories. The ones I call the food crazies advocate a meatless society. Ecologically speaking, they maintain modern beef and dairy production is destroying the world.
 
The other faction urges you to eat grass fed beef exclusively. Feedlots are bad for the environment and waste huge food  resources (i.e., corn) which should feed hungry people, the argument goes. Grass fed, they maintain, is the environmentally correct way to raise beef.
 
Let me make it clear before the comments start flying. Grass fed is good. Corn fed is good. I don’t have problems with either. Each serves a market. There’s opportunity for both. Corn fed beef, however, has been taking it on the chin in environmental circles.
 
So let’s get down to the nitty-gritty in addressing beef  and dairy production that adds some interesting perspectives to the environmental claims.
 
A paper recently presented at the 71st Cornell Nutrition Conference in Syracuse, New York—Demystifying the Environmental Sustainability of Food Production– is not going to make the “back to 40 acres and a mule” people happy. The paper suggests that grass fed beef and organic milk might be more harmful to the environment than their traditional counterparts.
 
I can see the storm brewing now.
 
The authors argue that a true picture of environmental impacts of modern beef and  milk production will only be realized when the focus shifts from impact per animal or facility to volume of meat produced, taking into account the resources used for production.
 
They use the following example with dairy cows to explain the theory. Greenhouse gas (GHG) per cow has increased from 13.5kg in CO2 equivalents to 27.8kg since 1944. However, if you use the life cycle assessment of productivity—a model used by the EPA that takes into account all inputs and outputs to assess environmental impacts—the emissions per kilogram of milk fell from 3.7 kg in 1944 to 1.4 kg in 2007.
 
The authors also offer a different perspective on the carbon footprints of grass fed versus grain fed beef. At first take, it would seem correct to assume that beef cattle fed on pasture would have a lower carbon footprint. Those assumptions are wrong, the authors maintain, because grass fed advocates assume both systems have equal energy requirements, take the same amount of time to finish the animal, and produce the same quantities of GHGs.
 
When you deal in reality, a different picture emerges. Because of the slower growth rate of grass fed cattle, they take nearly 201 more days than grain fed to achieve a finished weight of 635 kilograms, the authors say.  They maintain grass fed cattle use nearly 3 times the total energy of grain fed and emit nearly three times the total methane emissions.
 
They add that  the resource inputs and greenhouse gas outputs generated by finishing the current U.S. population of 9.8 million fed cattle on intensively-managed pasture would require an extra 24.2 million hectares of  pastureland and massive amounts of energy. One hectare equals about two and a half acres. Do the math.
 
In short the authors say, “The increases in resource use per unit of output associated with ‘traditional’ dairy and beef production systems demonstrate that the popular perception of low-input sustainable systems does not align with true sustainability when trying to meet a static or increasing demand for food.”
 
I am in no way knocking grass fed beef. It’s a growing market and people who are raising it are meeting a demand. Kudos if you fall into that category.
 
What I am knocking are the environmental and food crazies. If they take time to read this report, I believe it will truly open their eyes. I believe they will see the error of their ways and I believe they will stop attacking modern beef and dairy production  methods.
 
I also believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and that pigs can fly.

By Gene Hall

Time to eat the dog? Now there’s an eye catching headline. Pet lovers across America have bristled at the thought. Just between us, I rebel at using the politically correct “companion animals.” Ginger is a pet, the third and probably last of my long-lived dachshunds.

Yes, I own her. I am not a pet parent, a caretaker or a companion. I am her owner and for 13 years I have accepted the responsibility of that. She likes it that way. She gets fed on time every day, gets the proper veterinary care and gets her belly scratched whenever she wants. With hand or foot, this is her most favorite thing in the world. 

Brenda and Robert Vale, two New Zealand architects, recently published an environmental diatribe called “Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.” Since media coverage promoted this misguided tome, the Web has become a platform for people “barking” at them and their ideas, according to Energy and Environment Daily. In the book, the New Zealanders have calculated that a medium-sized dog has twice the ecological footprint of an SUV. The book then suggests ways to cut down on the impact.

“The reason we called the book ‘Time to Eat the Dog?’ with a question mark is, we were not actually suggesting that you should actually eat your dog,” Robert Vale said in an interview. “And we didn't provide any recipes in the book.” The Vales claim that household pets have a large environmental footprint because their diets consist largely of meat. Dogs eat meat? No kidding?

This is another good example of a political genre I have come to call “trivial pursuit.” It’s a ferocious attack on modern life, modern agriculture and modern science, tearing at the fabric or our lives in search of tiny incremental gains in environmental improvement. Like all other aspects of environmental activism, the fact that our environment has improved and is still improving is really beside the point. Activists can generate no passion and few dollars by stating the truth that, “We are making substantial gains in environmental safety.” There always has to be a crisis somewhere.

Too bad. There are such big problems that deserve this passion. Billions stand to starve in the coming decades. We have the technology to prevent it, but this mindless game of trivial pursuit stands in the way. Instead, we are about to pass climate change legislation that will lower the American standard of living and help bring about famine. All for gains that are not only trivial, but non-existent. Instead, architects are writing books to convince people to give up their pets. They should stick to building things.

My financial investment in Ginger has reached a level I’d prefer not to think about.   She’s had some health problems. She lived with a brain tumor for two years and is now blind in one eye. She’s not as spry as she used to be.

However, I think she knows more about what we humans say than should be possible.  When she has a bad day, I wonder out loud if it’s time to take that last trip to the vet.  Before you know it, she’s bouncing around like a puppy. So, don’t let it slip that someone has suggested we eat her. She’s fat enough to dress out nicely, but she’s earned the right to her ecological footprint. I think I’ll keep buying her favorite can of meat without worrying too much about its impact on the planet. I think Mother Earth can stand it. It will be a sad day when I no longer have to.

The extremists and activists had better pay attention. As long as they’re advocating shutting down family farm operations with glib allegations of “factory farming,” the public won’t be too alarmed. They might even go along. When you suggest they give up their pets—well, at that point they’ve “stopped preaching and gone to meddling.”

By Dakota Fleming
As a kid, can you imagine not having your dog Rover to play with; or not having him to tell your most valuable secrets? If your parents wouldn’t allow you to have a dog or cat, maybe you had fish that you loved to watch swim in their perfect world. What would it feel like if your animals were taken away? If PETA had a picture perfect world, that is what they would want to happen.

On PETA’s website, it states that they want total animal liberation. This means no more meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing and no pets. This even includes Seeing Eye dogs. To PETA, every animal is treated unfairly. Owners may place pets on a pedestal with proper care, attention and the best food and shelter, but for PETA, that’s just not enough. 

For many people—especially Texans—taking away our juicy and tender meat is unacceptable. It’s in the same category with taking away our guns. Just thinking about a good steak can make mouths water and stomachs grumble. Texas is the leading cattle feeding state, along with breeding cattle. If feedlots were taken out of operation, our giant state wouldn’t be as great as it is now. Who wants that to happen? PETA, apparently.       

As if taking away your pets and steak is not enough, the way PETA targets kids is absurd. They have “comics” that target kids with bright colors and splashy graphics. On the front covers are pictures of a mom stabbing a rabbit that is obviously still alive, and a dad that has a fish in one hand and a knife in the other, gutting it over the kitchen counter. 

Once kids open the comic books, they get images in their heads that their mommy and daddy are the evil ones, because they are eating meat and serving it to their family. In reality, parents are just trying to raise strong and healthy kids. The comic that blames moms for the killings of animals for fur tells the readers that their mommies “paid men to hurt and kill the animals…. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner that animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy—she’s an animal killer!”  The daddy “comic” tells the reader that their daddy is “hooked on killing defenseless animals” and that they should keep their “doggies and kitties” away from him as well. 

PETA is well known for using shock tactics to scare kids to believe in not eating animals. They have camped outside of Christmas performances of The Nutcracker and as kids came outside, they shoved their “comics” into their hands. They have distributed “Buckets of Blood” to children outside middle schools, high schools, and KFC restaurants. These buckets are filled with “fake blood and bones, a bloodied plastic chicken, and a cardboard picture of a blood-splattered Colonel Sanders holding a butcher knife toward a terrified-looking chicken.” They have waited for kids after school to hand them anti-dairy cards listed with alleged illnesses and embarrassing conditions that can occur from drinking milk.

Milk is a necessary nutrient to help kids grow big and strong. How do you become a star athlete without milk?  It is impossible!  Not only is milk a necessary nutrient in our diets, but so is meat.  Humans are omnivore, which means that we eat both meat and plants.  It has been researched and proven that without meat in your diet, you will be malnourished and could possibly die at a younger age.

To make kids think that being a vegetarian/vegan is cool, they have major celebrities that have jumped on their campaign wagon. One such celebrity is country singer Carrie Underwood.  If you ask me, she is not representing her title well. Country means that you eat meat, not that you try to save all the animals by going veggie. 

The media loves these types of people and the videos that PETA creates. They also love to play and talk about them repeatedly. This does not help agriculture’s image and unfortunately, many people believe that all animals on farms are treated like what they see on these horrible videos. While a few misguided individuals may treat their livestock badly, the vast majority of producers don’t.

Many procedures that livestock producers practice are necessary to assure their animals stay healthy and grow properly.  Sometimes, it is even necessary to make sure that animals don’t hurt the others around them. PETA makes a big deal out of these practices, but they don’t realize how necessary they are. One example of a procedure that increases the animal’s safety would be the cutting of baby pigs’ tails and the clipping of their teeth. If this is not done, cannibalism is enticed and the pigs would suffer as they were eaten by their pen mates. Livestock producers are trying to make a living off of the animals so why would they treat them badly? Just like humans, if animals are treated badly and are not afforded the things they need to succeed, they will not.  For a livestock producer to make money, they need the animals to do their best, not their worst. 

Picture this one last time. A life without animals. No pets to play with and love. No zoos to go to so you can learn about exotic animals. No meat to eat, not even fish.  Animals to be left as they please, running around everywhere. This is the way that PETA wants it.  Total animal liberation.

The people in this group mean business and they will stop at nothing. If people start to realize the horrible lengths PETA is willing to go to, fewer people will convert to their side. As agriculture producers become a smaller part of the Unites States population, PETA grows stronger. Sadly, the media helps them with every step and more people believe agricultural producers are the bad guys in the world.  Agriculture needs everyone’s help in realizing that PETA abuses the media and forces their views on children during their steps to total animal liberation.  

By Gene Hall

One Saturday evening a few weeks ago, my Texas Aggies were losing badly on TV and I turned to some web surfing to get my mind off it.  I stumbled across the Wikipedia site on Luddites.  This was a group that began in the early 19th Century and named for an early leader.  They were against anything that remotely smacked of technological progress.  As the Industrial Revolution took hold, they sometimes attacked factories and destroyed manufacturing equipment.

The followers of Luddism were afraid of change.  They were worried about losing jobs and they were hostile to the free market.  As I gathered these nuggets of information, I realized that Luddism is alive and well in the 21st Century.  The most extreme of modern Luddites was Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber.  Other notable Luddites include the extreme environmental and animal rights groups that burn subdivisions and laboratories. 

But Luddism has a less extreme, though just as destructive, face.  This includes the people who just stop their collective feet and shout, “No!” to every agricultural advance that science can produce.

I keep thinking about those more than 9 billion people that will inhabit Planet Earth just four decades from right now.  How will we feed them?  The answer is we can’t, if our farmers and ranchers are forced to use the production tools of the 19th Century. 

Modern America has become a nation where most people enjoy a comfortable life.  That will change if acquiring food becomes our top priority, as it was with our great-great grandparents.  Modern agriculture uses efficiencies of scale to feed more people at a lower cost.  It also uses chemical and genetic technological advances to grow food that is less troubled by insects and less dependant on ample water.

There are always those that oppose progress, but this time the consequences are too terrible to contemplate.  If we don’t accelerate our food production, we could face starvation on a global scale. 

Today, in a land of plenty, we don’t worry much about food, other than to make emotional and ill informed decisions that make growing it much harder.  We are going to need much more food than we are able to grow even today.  What will happen if the Luddite agenda is adopted?  Ask the Luddites.  They seem to have all the answers.

By Kenneth Dierschke
Texas Farm Bureau President

           Texans scored an “important but incomplete” victory by an overwhelming margin in the battle for private property rights with the passage of Proposition 11.
            The approximately 80 percent favorable vote is a clear message to the Legislature and the Governor that Texans are tired of eminent domain reform taking a back seat to political ambitions and business interests. But even with the passage of Proposition 11, Texas eminent domain laws still favor the condemner.
            True reform will happen only when additional protections are added to eminent domain law such as offers to landowners that represent fair market value, compensation to landowners for lost access to their property and the right of landowners to repurchase land not used for condemning purposes.
            Texas legislators in the last two sessions have proven willing to level the playing field for property owners. Except for his support for Proposition 11, the governor hasn’t.
            Hopefully, whoever sits in the governor’s seat when the legislature meets again in 2011 will hear Texas Farm Bureau’s message loud and clear. Proposition 11 is an important step for eminent domain reform in the Lone Star State, but only a step.
            Texas Farm Bureau members worked hard to ensure the overwhelming passage of this important private property rights amendment to the Texas Constitution. We will redouble efforts to make sure the job is complete.

By Mike Barnett

The mixed breed canine wasn’t a planned dog.  It was 15 years ago when I bought this young pup home from the Waco Humane Society. The reason was Old Rip, my border collie, barked incessantly. My choices were two, my veterinarian said. Buy Rip a flock of sheep to keep him entertained. Or get another dog to keep him company.

Thus Rowdydog came to live in our home. He lived a long life. He lived a good life. He was my friend. I had to put him to sleep yesterday.

Reflecting upon Rowdydog’s life, I realized dogs have so much to teach, if only we’d take the time to listen, see and learn. For example:

• Wag your tail. Rowdydog was a happy dog. His tail wagged constantly. He didn’t take life too seriously. Neither should you. Life is too short to frown. Smile.

• Scratch that itch. Rowdydog scratched immediately when he had an itch. He attacked the source of his problem wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. Tackle the flea bites of life head on. Don’t procrastinate on worrisome problems. Take immediate action.

• Knaw a bone. Rowdydog loved to chew on bones; didn’t matter if it was a t-bone or came from a chuck roast. He ate the same food every day. He slept on the same old blanket for years. He never complained. Be thankful for what you have. Don’t let “want” overcome “need.”

• Roll in the grass. Rowdydog took great pleasure rolling in the grass, fetching a ball, taking a nap and laying in the sun. Sometimes we overlook the simple things of life. Enjoy them.

• Don’t bite. Growl only when needed. Rowdydog helped raise four grandchildren, outlived two other dogs and for the past few years suffered the affections of a boisterous miniature dachshund and a high-strung schnauzer. He suffered indignities from both kids and canines but never got angry, never bit. He growled only in extreme circumstances. Keep your head in times of stress. Stay calm in times of trouble. Bark if you have to, but only as a last resort.

•  Be loyal, faithful and true. Rowdydog practiced that for 15 years. It’s the greatest lesson our canine friends can teach.

Rowdy joins a long list of other dogs I have known and loved: Topper, Dusty, Sam and Reno, Chumley, Bo and Rip.

There was nothing remarkable about any of them.

But there’s something special about them all.

By Gene Hall

I read this week an endorsement from an obscure Austin paper that advised against voting for Proposition 11.  I will not mention their name here because I don't want to lend legitimacy to an irrelevant publication.  Like many newspapers these days, they may fail some day soon because they ignore public opinion at a time when many printed newspapers face incredible odds of survival.
 
The recommendation said something about "eminent domain hysteria" that is sweeping the state.  Hysteria?  Come on.  I think a better word is "passion."  Texas has talked so long and so often about private property rights that some fail to understand that the reality does not match the rhetoric.  This is the case with Proposition 11.  This amendment is needed to fix the abuses generated by the U.S. Supreme Court case of 2005—“Kelo  v. New London."  The court, in that case, inexplicably ruled that those with eminent domain power may take private property and give it to another private entity for economic development.  But, the court also ruled that states may make their own law.  Proposition 11 is Texas' response.
 
It is true that Proposition 11 is the beginning, not the end of eminent domain reform.  We do have some misguided souls out there actually advocating defeat of Proposition 11 because it does not accomplish everything we set out to do.  That's like refusing to eat your steak because you don't like the potatoes served with it.  The folks over at the anti-toll road shop—TURF—are making this wrong headed argument.  In fact, Proposition 11 can be viewed as a referendum on future eminent domain reform.  We need to pass it with 70 percent margins.  When this happens it will represent a mandate for future eminent domain reform.
 
The people opposing Proposition 11 fall into two categories.  There are those turning down a half loaf because they can't have it all, choosing to starve instead.  Then of course, there are those who would prefer to take private property, do it on the cheap and redirect ownership of private property to others in order to collect more tax revenue.  The latter group deserves to be the target of "hysteria" or "passion."
 
Both these groups are out there, and there is a chance they could do some damage.  Too many people have worked too hard for too long to allow that to happen.  In the handful of days remaining, we should all do those last minute things that can assure Proposition 11 passes overwhelmingly.  Take a look at your Christmas card list and send a note to everyone urging a “Yes Vote.” Send an email to everyone in you address book.  Stop by the Kiwanis or Rotary Club and let everyone know.  Keep talking about Proposition 11 until the polls close next Tuesday.
 
If Proposition 11 fails, or even if it passes by a whisker, the eminent domain reform effort will be badly damaged.  Until meaningful reform is achieved all the talk about Texas, with a "proud tradition of property rights" will be "all hat and no cattle." 

By Mike Barnett
What would happen if farmers could choose who they feed? Would our society look at farmers differently?

Those questions were posed the other day on Facebook by Chris Chinn. An interesting challenge…and this young lady who raises hogs with her family in Missouri received some interesting responses.

So be honest. What’s the first thing that popped in your mind?

My first thought—like many who responded to Chris’s question—was the people I wouldn’t feed. You know, like the food crazies who 1) want to dictate what you eat; 2) find fault with every aspect of modern agriculture; 3) who want to legislate livestock agriculture out of business; 4) all of the above; 5) all of the above and more.

I pick No. 5. Just desserts, I say.

Only Chris has a much more charitable side.

“I would elect to not feed the activists who want to run agriculture out of the U.S by banning modern ag practices which protect our food supply and the environment…,” she wrote. “I would give their food to the hungry.”

A common thread ran longer.

“Funny that I thought of who I’d choose NOT to feed first…those wacky activists…and then I thought of all those innocent hungry people worldwide, second…I think I need to do some praying about that,” added one responder.

I need some spiritual guidance, too. There’s a lot of hunger, pain and suffering in the world. There are hungry people in our country. I should have thought of them first.

Then there’s the thought that we ransom appreciation.

“Maybe the unappreciative would understand the long hours, hard work and dedication we put into our operations/livelihoods,” wrote another Facebook responder.

I had fun fantasizing other possibilities.

• “Want to start a war? No food for you!”

• “Try knocking beef again, Oprah. We’ll put you on a diet!”

• “Hey newscaster: Want to eat? Call it H1N1!”

• “I’ll trade you a loaf of bread for a barrel of oil.”

Okay, back to reality.

The verity, I think, lies in the nature of those who make their living from the land. A fellow named Glenn Brunkow summed it up best.

“The truth of the matter is, as farmers and ranchers, we are too ethical to deprive another of food,” he wrote. “My guess is that even though now we say we may pick and choose, the reality is that we would treat everyone fairly. I just wish the activists had a hint of the ethics those of us in agriculture have.”

Thanks, Glenn, for that great response. And thanks, too, Chris, for asking questions that make us all think.

By Mike Barnett

Keep your eyes on Proposition 11. That’s the Texas Farm Bureau backed constitutional amendment which will stop the government from taking private property to give to another entity for the primary purpose of economic development or to enhance tax revenue.

Early voting started Monday and will continue through Oct. 30. The general election is Nov. 3. The last of the constitutional amendments on the ballot, Proposition 11  is an important step toward eminent domain reform and protection of private property rights in the Lone Star State. I urge you to check yes on the ballot.

What a long, strange journey for property rights Texans have traveled over the past few years. Sparked by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave cities the right to use eminent domain for private development, the Texas Legislature ramped up efforts to reform Texas archaic laws.

In the 80th legislative session, the House passed a reform bill overwhelmingly and the Senate unanimously that would have leveled the playing field between private property owners and condemners. Gov. Perry vetoed it.

Disappointment was huge in rural Texas. The Trans-Texas Corridor had captured headlines across the state and private property owners were up in arms as the proposed route was going to cut right through the heart of some of the richest farmland in the state.

So we enter the 81st legislative session. Bills are introduced in both House and Senate. Senate Bill 18 by Craig Estes wins unanimous support in the Texas Senate. It contains the reforms Texas Farm Bureau and a host of other organizations concerned with private property rights said were needed; reforms which would have added protections such as compensation to landowners for lost access to their property, offers that represent fair market value and the right to repurchase land not used for condemning purposes.

What was not anticipated was the furor over another issue in the House at the end of the session that effectively killed the legislation. HJR 14, the basis of Proposition 11, was hurriedly passed instead.

Governor Perry signed HJR 14 into law.   Eminent domain reform did not make it into the special session. And that’s where we are today.

Both Republican candidates for governor have urged voters to vote for the private property rights protection.

Gov. Perry said he’ll be checking the box for Proposition 11 “which sustains our state’s forward momentum in protecting private property rights and builds a firewall between the misguided principles of the Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling and our state’s private property owners.”

His opponent in the Republican primary, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, is also urging voters to say aye to Proposition 11.

“I think all of us need to support Proposition 11. But we also need to be very clear that this is a step, not the end of the road,” Hutchison told the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinal. “We will protect private property rights in Texas with legislation after we have passed this constitutional amendment.”

Texas Farm Bureau agrees. Proposition 11 is important. Farm Bureau members are working hard to ensure its passage. But they also realize this constitutional amendment is only the beginning.

My wish is we wake up Nov. 4 with the protection in the Texas Constitution which Proposition 11 affords. That will send a clear signal to our state lawmakers that Texans are truly interested in eminent domain reform.

Passage of Proposition 11 will be the start of another journey for protection of private property rights and true eminent domain reform. Let’s hope this one will not be as long and strange as the last one.

Vote for private property rights. Vote Yes for Proposition 11.