The initiative to criminalize hunting, fishing, and ranching in Oregon will likely be on the ballot in November. While the initiative will surely fail at the polls, the fact that campaign organizers were able to get enough signatures and raise funding from out-of-state sources hints at a long-term effort that outdoorsmen everywhere should pay attention to.
Initiative Petition 28, the PEACE Act (People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions) is funded by several donors totaling 2,154 transactions worth $315,008.33 in the last two years. Some of those donors are not based in Oregon or even in the United States. The Oregon Secretary of State keeps a log of campaign contributors and it shows out-of-state donors including $30,000 from Craigslist Charitable Fund in California and out-of-country donors including $35,000 from Leonid Postnov, a financial consultant from St. Petersburg, Russia.
“It seems more ominous than it is,” David Michelson, IP28 chief petitioner, told KLCC. “[Postnov] is just the father of someone in Oregon who was a volunteer for the campaign.”
The campaign is years in the making and has more funds now than ever before, but it’s still considered small money in terms of statewide ballot initiatives.
Brian Lynn, Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president of marketing and communication, tells Outdoor Life that campaigns with significant traction usually start with $2.5 million so it’s not the purse that’s concerning. It’s the time commitment that should trouble outdoorsmen. This is the initiative’s third attempt in six years. The campaign’s long-game strategy is the red flag for the agricultural industry and for sportsmen.
“This extreme proposal is causing a lot of heartburn for a lot of folks across the state of Oregon,” Todd Adkins, Oregon Hunters Association executive director, told KATU. “It would literally flip this state on its head.”
Oregon Farm Bureau has a No on IP28 notice on its website and is accepting donations. Sportsmen’s Alliance is in contact with boots on the ground in Oregon, including Adkins. Opposition groups will officially put money toward pushing back if the initiative makes the ballot. Both Oregon Republicans and Democrats have come out against the initiative.
“Once something qualifies for the ballot, it’s a sprint to election day and the biggest hurdle is raising money. Whoever raises the most money usually wins,” Lynn says. “This one shouldn’t be hard to raise funds for. It’s offensive. Everyone is watching. If it makes the ballot, things start to happen and ads start rolling from both sides.”
The most money usually wins, but not always. Case in point, two initiatives in Colorado. Wolf reintroduction in 2020 raised $2.4 million in favor of it and $1.04 million against it. Those in favor had more money. They won. But in 2024, more money didn’t win. For Colorado’s mountain lion, bobcat and lynx hunting ban, supporting funds accumulated to $3.66 million versus $3.09 million opposed. The opposition, with a little less money, won.
Michelson admits that IP28 probably won’t pass this year, but starting the conversation is the point, he says. Michelson, an animal rights activist and vegan advocate, likens repeated attempts at criminalizing animal harvest to the women’s suffrage movement more than a century ago. Women’s right to vote in Oregon took six tries before becoming law in 1912.
“Those organizers, in their own writings and reflections of the movement, mentioned that simply forcing the conversation made it more likely to happen,” Michelson said. “We want to do the same thing with animal rights.”
There are a reported 142,784 signatures on the petition and at least 117,173 of those signatures have to be verified as legitimate by the state this summer to put the initiative on the ballot in the fall.
“The fact that this is even a legitimate discussion is mind-boggling,” Lynn says. “How does this become a legitimate discussion let alone get on a ballot? But here we are.”
Read Next: The World of Anti-Hunting and Animal-Rights Activism Is Getting Weirder
If IP28 were to pass, animal abuse exceptions would be removed from Oregon law. Those exceptions apply to hunting, fishing, trapping, and livestock husbandry.
“I want to see it fail, resoundingly, so they don’t try again or try to put more financing behind it,” Lynn says. “At some point common sense has to kick in, even in Portland.”
Read the full article here
