Oregon could vote to ban killing animals, even for food

A petition initiative in Oregon that supporters are seeking to have put on the November ballot would make it illegal to kill or injure animals in the state, a move that opponents say would effectively ban hunting and fishing in the state.

The proposed initiative, called the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act, makes it a crime of animal abuse in the first degree if the person "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" causes the death of an animal. The initiative also includes a provision extending sexual abuse of animals to include artificial insemination used on farm animals.

Per KATU2, supporters of the measure have reached the number of necessary signatures, putting it one step closer to being on the November ballot. The Secretary of State’s Office now has to verify the signatures.

Industry groups have spoken out against the measure, with the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association saying that the PEACE Act "would prohibit processing of animals, in addition to restricting hunting and fishing, under the guise of preventing animal cruelty" and remove "the freedom of choice from every consumer."

The Oregon Farm Bureau wrote, "Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) asks Oregon voters to dramatically redefine animal abuse in state law by making the killing or injury of animals illegal. While the language may sound straightforward, the implications are sweeping. IP 28 would fundamentally alter Oregon’s animal abuse statutes in a way that criminalizes longstanding, lawful, and necessary activities across agriculture, natural resource management, and daily life."

"Most concerning for agriculture, IP 28 would redefine “sexual assault” to include routine breeding practices, potentially applying this classification to livestock, equine operations, and even domestic pets. This would expose farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, breeders, and animal owners to criminal liability for standard, humane practices that are essential to animal health, food production, and genetic management," the Bureau added.

The bureau said that passage of the measure would force Oregonians "either into a vegan lifestyle or to rely on food shipped in from other states or countries. This would increase food costs for families, undermine local food security, and make Oregon dependent on the national and global food supply chain."

The Oregon Hunters Association said that "approximately one million Oregonians who hunt, fish, trap, or work in agriculture would be at risk of criminal prosecution under IP28," adding that Oregon’s fishing and hunting industries generate over $1.9 billion in economic activity for the state.

Yes on IP28 states on its website that the measure "would extend the legal protections that keep our companion animals safe to animals currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild—which would then protect those animals from slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation." It adds,"IP28 would also expand protections against animal sexual assault by classifying both the masturbation and impregnation of animals as sexual assault even when done for agricultural purposes."

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. Whether that looks like greater investment in plant agriculture, utilizing non-lethal wildlife management practices, or implementing non-animal methods for research, many alternative strategies already exist to choose from," the group adds.