A group in Oregon is pushing to ban hunting, fishing, and pest control. They call themselves the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE). Their proposal, known as IP28, aims to make it illegal to injure or kill animals for any reason, including food, research, or pest control. The only exceptions would be for certain veterinary practices and self-defense situations.
David Michelson, the chief petitioner, argues that many alternatives exist. He stresses that agriculture in Oregon is diverse, with 30% of sales related to animals and 70% to crops. He believes the state could shift entirely to plant-based agriculture, comparing it to existing efforts to turn research labs into sanctuaries for primates. However, he admits the initiative does not provide protection for insects.
Michelson insists that killing animals should not be the norm and argues that the current system prioritizes animal death over plant-based solutions. This move is not the first of its kind; past attempts to criminalize hunting and fishing have failed.
Business owners are particularly concerned about the potential impact. Michelle Wachsmuth, who runs a seafood restaurant in Portland, warns that the measure could devastate her business. If the initiative passes, she would have to rely on imported seafood, affecting local economies and jobs. She emphasizes that her restaurant is committed to sustainable practices, which would be undermined by this proposal.
The Oregon Hunters Association echoes these fears. Executive Director Todd Adkins highlights that hunting and fishing contribute significantly to the local economy—some estimates suggest hundreds of millions of dollars annually. He notes that fees from hunting and fishing licenses fund conservation efforts, essential for maintaining Oregon’s rich natural resources.
Interestingly, according to a recent survey, about 65% of Oregonians support animal welfare initiatives, but opinions are divided when it comes to restricting hunting and fishing. This split reflects broader societal discussions about how we treat animals and the ethics of food production.
The measure has garnered enough support to gather 105,000 signatures toward getting it on the 2026 ballot, needing 117,000 verified signatures. Michelson sees this as a starting point for critical conversations about animal rights and our relationship with nature.
In conclusion, while the initiative raises important questions about animal welfare, it also sparks concerns about economic viability for businesses and communities in Oregon. The dialogue around these issues is essential for understanding the balance between compassion for animals and the livelihoods of local people.
Source link
