Oregon voters will not decide this November whether hunting, fishing, and many common agricultural practices should be treated as animal cruelty. The Oregon Elections Division announced that Initiative Petition 28 failed to collect enough valid signatures to qualify for the November 3 general election ballot.
The campaign needed 117,173 valid signatures. State officials determined that 104,262 of the signatures submitted were valid, leaving the measure nearly 13,000 signatures short.
What Initiative Petition 28 Would Have Done
Known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act, or PEACE Act, the proposal would have removed several existing exemptions from Oregon’s animal-abuse laws.
Those exemptions currently cover lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife management, livestock slaughter, animal husbandry, scientific and agricultural research, pest control, and animal handling and training.
The measure would have kept an exemption for veterinary care and added an exception for actions necessary to defend people or animals. It also proposed a transition fund to assist workers and industries affected by the changes.
IP 28 drew opposition from hunting, fishing, ranching, agricultural, and business groups. Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek and Republican gubernatorial candidate Christine Drazan also opposed the proposal.
A Growing Ballot-Box Fight
This was the campaign’s third attempt to place the proposal before Oregon voters. Organizers collected roughly 2,000 signatures during their first effort, about 40,000 during the second, and more than 142,000 unverified signatures this year.
Chief petitioner David Michelson indicated that supporters may try again as the campaign continues working to shift public opinion on legal protections for animals.
At the same time, hunting organizations are pushing ballot measures in the opposite direction.
Florida voters approved a constitutional right to hunt and fish in 2024. Colorado officials are currently reviewing signatures for Initiative 302, which would add a similar protection to that state’s constitution. Supporters submitted more than 180,000 signatures on July 8, though the measure still must complete the verification process before reaching the November ballot.
The proposals move in opposite directions, but they point to the same trend. Hunting and fishing policy is increasingly being fought through statewide ballot initiatives rather than traditional wildlife-management channels.
Read the full article here