Don't just vote no on IP28; give it a blistering rejection

Initiative Petition 28 has succeeded in placing the PEACE Act, short for the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act, on Oregon’s November ballot. And that has, understandably, caused quite an uproar.

Yes, the measure would criminalize recreational hunting and fishing, commercial and tribal fishing, crabbing and clamming, livestock neutering, insemination and slaughtering, lethal pest control and many wildlife management and biological research practices.

But no, it has not the slightest chance of passing. Even its chief petitioner, substitute teacher David Michelson of Portland, acknowledges that.

Michelson estimates vegans account for less than 2% the population. In light of that, he told The Oregonian: “If we get a number higher than 2% or 3%, I think that actually will already show that there are people out there who aren’t choosing right now to go vegan, to avoid animal products, but are interested in society moving in that direction altogether.”

He’s playing the long game, so would accept more than 2% or 3% as a powerful statement, a beacon of hope for the future, if you will. He failed to secure enough signatures on virtually identical measures in 2020 and 2024, so believes just getting it on the ballot this time shows progress.

The measure is actually very narrow in approach.

It would simply eliminate exemptions in Oregon’s animal cruelty law for traditional farming, ranching, fishing, hunting, pest control and wildlife management practices, leaving in place only exemptions for personal self-defense and neutering and euthanasia performed by licensed veterinarians. Essentially, it would give fish, wildlife, livestock and, yes, even sewer rats, the same protections as the family dog or cat.

However, the potential impact would be enormous, considering:

• Oregon is home to more than 500,000 anglers, 300,000 hunters, 35,000 farm families and 80,000 farmworkers. That’s not to mention more than 4 million residents who include commercially processed meat and seafood in their diet.

• Oregon’s food and agriculture sector employs more than 500,000 workers and generates more than $42 billion a year. Cattle, dairy, restaurant and commercial fishing operations are among Oregon’s economic mainstays.

Similar measures met with overwhelming opposition in previous introductions in California and Colorado. Yet they do have determined advocates willing to provide financing.

At last count, the Oregon measure had secured $305,000 in contributions, including $30,000 from Craig Newmark’s San Francisco-based Craigslist Charitable Fund, $28,000 from Michelson, $25,000 each from out-of-state animal rights advocates Owen Gunden, Postnov Leonid and Amit Dhuleshia, $20,000 from Virginia-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and $11,000 from London-based World Animal Protection. Other contributors included Portland’s Karuna Foundation and Berkeley’s Direct Action Everywhere.

On the campaign website, they argue: “We believe it is possible to meet all of our needs as human beings while simultaneously meeting the needs of the animals we inhabit this state with. Using the killing of animals as a strategy to meet our needs is a choice, and our campaign wants to propose making a different one.”

The opposition figures to raise many times as much money, run many times as much advertising and secure many times as much support.

Both Gov. Tina Kotek and Republican challenger Christine Drazan have denounced the measure in no uncertain terms. So have Oregon’s Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Association, Dairy Association, Hunters Association, Veterinary Medical Association and Native American tribes, and virtually the entire political establishment is likely to join them over the course of the next weeks and months.

We join in the condemnation.

Unbelievably radical in intent, this measure would also prove unbelievably damaging in practice. It would not only devastate treasured Oregon farming, ranching, hunting, fishing and tribal traditions, but also badly damage Oregon’s economy and severely disrupt its way of life.

We are under no illusion this measure has any hope of becoming law.

But we join Michelson in thinking the degree of support it musters matters. That being the case, we urge Oregonians to deny it the encouragement it needs to fuel future re-runs — to not simply vote no, but to send an unmistakable message by voting resoundingly no.