Supporters of Initiative Petition 28 say the proposal is intended to fundamentally expand Oregon’s animal cruelty protections by extending them to nearly all animals currently excluded under state law.
In an interview with the Rogue River Press, Chief Petitioner David Michelson answered questions submitted by readers regarding the proposal’s potential impacts on agriculture, hunting, wildlife management, the economy and Oregon communities.
Purpose of the Measure
When asked whether critics were correct in saying IP-28 would extend far beyond traditional animal cruelty laws, Michelson said that outcome is intentional.
According to Michelson, the measure seeks to apply the same protections currently afforded to companion animals to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. If approved, activities including slaughtering livestock, hunting wildlife, animal testing and other intentional killing of protected animals would no longer be permitted except in cases of self-defense or veterinary care.
“We’re trying to say all of those actions, which we would call cruelty when done to some animals, should also be considered cruelty when done to other animals,” Michelson said.
Agriculture and Economic Effects
Michelson acknowledged that industries relying on the killing of animals would be significantly affected.
Michelson said the long-term goal is to transition Oregon away from industries based on animal slaughter while helping workers move into alternative agricultural or other occupations through a proposed transition fund.
Asked about concerns from farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods depend on livestock production, Michelson said he understands those concerns but believes state-supported transition programs could help workers adapt without eliminating employment opportunities.
Legal Challenges
Responding to questions about whether portions of IP-28 could face court challenges, Michelson expressed confidence that the initiative is legally defensible and said public approval would demonstrate sufficient support for pursuing those changes.
Regarding economic studies, Michelson said he has not commissioned an independent analysis but noted that Oregon’s Financial Estimate Committee is preparing an official financial impact statement that would accompany the measure if it qualifies for the ballot.
Ballot Initiative Process
Asked whether such a significant policy change should come through the initiative process rather than the Legislature, Michelson said a statewide vote is the most democratic method because it requires majority approval from voters.
When asked about concerns that rural voices are often outweighed by larger urban populations, Michelson said every Oregon voter should have equal voting power under the state’s current system while acknowledging that some communities desire greater local autonomy.
Enforcement
Michelson said his primary objective is not increased criminal enforcement against individuals but ending state authorization of activities involving the intentional killing of animals.
According to Michelson, slaughterhouses, commercial fisheries and animal testing facilities would no longer be licensed or allowed to operate under the proposed law.
Long-Term Vision
Michelson confirmed that ending animal agriculture is consistent with his long-term goals.
“We want to be in a world where we don’t kill animals anymore,” Michelson said.
Communication and Public Understanding
When asked whether he would change anything about how the initiative was presented, Michelson suggested the proposal’s title could have been more explicit.
Michelson said a title directly referencing slaughter, hunting and animal experimentation would better communicate the measure’s intended scope and reduce public misunderstanding.
Wildlife Management
Several questions focused on wildlife management if hunting were prohibited.
Michelson proposed expanding non-lethal management techniques, including fertility-control programs, immunocontraceptive vaccines, disease prevention and other wildlife management tools currently available to state agencies.
One suggestion included creating a licensing program similar to hunting licenses in which participants would use dart guns to administer fertility-control treatments instead of firearms.
Michelson also pointed to existing wildlife vaccination programs, such as rabies vaccination efforts, as examples of large-scale non-lethal wildlife management.
Population Control and Invasive Species
When asked how Oregon would respond if wildlife populations exceeded the capacity of fertility-control programs, Michelson said the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would continue managing wildlife using non-lethal methods.
Michelson also said IP-28 would prohibit the intentional killing of invasive mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, requiring wildlife managers to rely on non-lethal alternatives except where self-defense or veterinary care applies.
Looking Ahead
Michelson confirmed the campaign has submitted more than 142,000 signatures, exceeding the statutory requirement of 117,173 signatures needed for ballot qualification. Those signatures are currently undergoing verification by the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office.
If enough valid signatures are confirmed, Initiative Petition 28 will qualify for Oregon voters to consider during the upcoming election.
Reach reporter Jared Pearson at [email protected].
Editor’s Note: The Rogue River Press, Publisher Teresa Pearson, and Jared B Pearson are providing this interview as part of the newspaper’s commitment to informing the public about issues appearing before Oregon voters. Publication of this interview does not constitute an endorsement of Initiative Petition 28 or its positions. The Rogue River Press, Teresa Pearson, and Jared B Pearson do not take a position in support of IP-28 through the publication of this interview. The newspaper remains committed to presenting factual information and providing readers with perspectives from multiple sides of issues affecting the community.