There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and if there's one problem with citizen ballot initiatives, it's that those stupid people have the exact same say in matters that the rest of us do.
And now some of those well-meaning but stupid people are threatening hunting and farming in Oregon.
Yeah, it's well-meaning because of the way the initiative is framed. It's about animal cruelty, which should be non-controversial. Except that some people have a different definition of cruelty than others.
“Citizen-driven” ballot measures for hunting restrictions or bans are nothing new, but an Oregon initiative aiming to get on the ballot this November has the primary goal of establishing “a ban on any intentional injury of an animal except for self-defense and in the case of any veterinary care.”
Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), a citizen initiative for legislative change, is currently collecting signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot. The initiative, being marketed by its proponents under the voter-friendly, appealing title of The PEACE Act (People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions), claims that “if enacted, IP28 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.” The proponents “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,” including “utilizing non-lethal wildlife management practices.”
Translated into plain English, if IP28 succeeds it will criminalize lawful hunting (including sustenance hunting), fishing and trapping in Oregon, as well as a whole host of other traditionally accepted, essential, and economically vital activities across the state.
The Sportmen’s Alliance, a group advocating to protect and advance America’s heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping, succinctly summarizes how these initiatives get traction using emotion-driven appeals and voters’ lack of knowledge about hunting and related practices. “Urbanization has created epicenters of ignorance when it comes to wildlife management. These high population areas control the political discourse and application of policy in nearly every state, which has left the rural lifestyle and sportsmen’s heritage on the outside looking in. Disconnected from wildlife and the ramifications of bad policy, urban voters are susceptible to the emotional rhetoric and falsehoods of the animal-rights movement.”
That's a polite way to say that these are the people who think meat comes from the grocery store, so they don't see why people would need to kill farm animals.
Of course, some of them know, and that's kind of the point. I mean, they make it pretty clear they want to "protect those animals from slaughter."
That paragraph goes on, as you may have noticed, to specifically target hunting and fishing, lumping them in with lab experimentation.
This is basically a radical vegan measure that seeks to force their views of morality on the rest of Oregon. Because it's Oregon, which includes Portland, there's a better chance of something like this passing than one might find in most other states. Yet not everyone lives in Portland. A lot of people in Oregon hunt and fish. They do it as a means of supplementing their food supply. Some may even do it just to keep food on the table in lean times.
But because the vegans in Portland think meat is murder--mmmmm, tasty, tasty murder--they want to end it entirely.
Meanwhile, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is largely funded through hunting and fishing licenses, which would evaporate the moment it became illegal to kill an animal except in self-defense.
Then again, if I kill a deer to feed my family, I'm defending myself from starvation, which can kill, so there's that.
For years, the Fudds among us have thought that hunting was sacrosanct, that they didn't need to find common cause with us because their hobby was going to be safe and secure.
However, if you ban hunting entirely, why should they grant that your hunting rifle should be exempt from gun control?
Who knows if this will have the legs to actually pass? Of course, I wasn't sure Measure 114 had the legs, so I'm not banking on anything yet.
