About Initiative Petition 28

Given the wide-ranging impact IP28 would have, we have received many questions since the launch of this campaign about how, exactly, everyone’s needs can be met. We hear the understandable concern, frustration, worry, and fear about how this initiative will impact Oregonians. In addition to addressing these questions as best we can, we also want to welcome anyone to email the campaign with additional questions they may have. We have a team of volunteers who want to help connect you with the answers and resources you need.

If you would like help meeting a specific need that you are concerned about, please email us at team@yesonip28.org

​

Just to make sure I understand, what is the main effect of IP28?

​

The main effect of IP28 is that, if passed, it would criminalize the injuring, killing, forced impregnation, and masturbation of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish in the state of Oregon. IP28 would also prohibit animal ownership for anyone who is convicted of a crime of animal cruelty. Finally, IP28 would require that all animals under a human's care be provided with adequate food, water, bedding, shelter, and space to exercise (which is currently only required to be provided for companion animals).

​

How would we go about feeding the people of Oregon if IP28 were to pass?

​

Many of the people who have written into the campaign are understandably concerned about meeting their need for food. This is a vital need that we all share, and it is an important need to address. We want to assure you that there are ample resources to feed all Oregonians if IP28 were to pass. We are already producing far more food than needed to feed everyone. Oregon is a top-ranking producer of many field and seed crops, fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and IP28 could end up increasing our net agricultural production, depending on how the industry adapts. Because IP28 does not ban any specific industry, and does not dictate how industries or the government respond to the proposed changes in statute, it is ultimately up to them to do what they feel best meets their needs as long as it also protects the animals’ needs to be free from suffering.
 
Would IP28 make hunting, fishing, and trapping illegal?

If passed, IP28 would remove the exemption for hunting, fishing, and trapping from our cruelty laws, meaning that any practice that involves the intentional injury of an animal would be criminalized. Although the practice of seeking, pursuing, and in some cases even capturing an animal would still be legally protected, the practice of killing animals would no longer be protected. Many of those who are following the campaign are concerned about meeting the needs that they currently try to meet by hunting, fishing, and trapping. Those needs have included a need for food, a need for conservation, a need for recreation, and many others. We want to help show how all of those needs can still be met while also meeting the needs of animals to be free from unnecessary human-caused suffering. Within the state of Oregon we have ample food, as well as the resources needed to distribute that food to every citizen. There are also a multitude of humane and creative methods for conserving our environment and, in a state as wonderful as Oregon, there are countless activities we can engage in for recreation that do not involve taking the life of an animal; it is possible that everyone can get their needs met.
 
Could a rancher still raise cattle?

IP28 does not prohibit a rancher from strictly raising and caring for bovines or any other animal. It would, however, require that the rancher does not abuse, neglect, or sexually assault the animals under their care, meaning that the animals could not be killed or forcibly impregnated. This would certainly increase the cost to raise animals, since many are currently killed at a small fraction of their natural lifespan, which is why we encourage ranchers to transition to an alternative agriculture practice. If a rancher would prefer to continue caring for animals, there is also the possibility that they could help operate an animal sanctuary. At a sanctuary, they could still care for animals, while also letting the animals live out their natural lives.
 

How will IP28 support farmers through this transition?

​

In order to help support the transition to alternatives that do not rely on injuring and killing animals, IP28 also establishes a Humane Transition Fund to provide grants helping with food assistance, replacement of lost income, job retraining, and aid in conservation and rewilding efforts. The Humane Transition Fund will be administered by a council consisting of representatives from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Tribal Affairs, Oregon Department of Human Services, among other community members who would be impacted by the implementation of IP28. For a full list of those who would be recruited for the oversight council, see Section 13 of IP28.

​

Does this ban the sale of meat, leather, or fur?

To provide some clarity, IP28 would not ban the sale of meat, leather, or fur. This is not because our campaign supports animal product consumption, but because we are focused specifically on criminalizing the practice of killing animals. Once successful in Oregon, we hope to bring similar initiatives to every state until the killing of animals is against the law nationwide. 

​

Would IP28 affect the ODFW and its conservation efforts?

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is responsible for helping with Oregon's wildlife conservation efforts. According to their 2021-2023 Budget Summary, they receive $185 million from Hunter/Angler license and tag sales, which is 39% of their total revenue. While IP28 would remove this source of revenue, IP28 would also make it illegal for the ODFW to spend money on the killing and breeding of animals. This means that the $203 million it currently spends on fisheries and hatcheries, plus a portion of the $70 million it spends on managing hunting seasons, would have to be reallocated. Considering the ODFW spends only $8 million (just 2% of it's budget) specifically on Wildlife Conservation, the ODFW does not need to sell Hunter/Angler licenses in order to continue with its conservation efforts. Regardless, any organization involved with killing animals should not be responsible for protecting animals. We would consider it unjustified if we decided to kill human animals in the name of environmental protection, and it is just as unjustified to kill non-human animals in the name of conservation.

​

Would IP28 affect 4-H, FFA organizations?

Our need to nurture our kids and help them develop skills to empower themselves and their community is a noble and compassionate desire. We are assured that we can meet that need while also meeting our children’s needs to be compassionate towards animals and the animals’ needs to be safe from avoidable harm. Just as with other industries, IP28 does not ban participation in 4-H programs, provided the program areas are adapted to ensure they are in line with the changes in statute.
 
How does IP28 affect Rodeos?

As with other industries involving animals, IP28 does not ban Rodeos, only the intentional injury, withholding of care, and sexual contact of animals that are being used in Rodeos. This means that Rodeos can continue, provided that they adjust their practices in accordance with the proposed changes in statute so that the needs of the animals are being met. We are confident that our need for entertainment can be fully met while also meeting the animals’ needs for protection from harm.
 
Would IP28 ban spaying, neutering, or castration?

Everyone has a need to protect others we care about. This includes a desire to protect animals from the suffering caused by overpopulation, particularly when it comes to our domesticated companion animals. Spaying and neutering have become common strategies to meet that need. Such practices, if administered as part of veterinary medicine, would still be legally protected under the law. IP28 does not limit any veterinary practices.
 
Does this prevent assisting an animal in distress when in labor?

We all have a need to help others in distress. If a mother is in distress when in labor, the changes in statute proposed by IP28 would not prohibit you from helping in her delivery. Sexual contact with an animal would be defined specifically as acts that involve the contact of an animal’s mouth, anus, or sex organs for the purpose of either sexual gratification (of either the perpetrator or the animal) or for the purpose of forced impregnation. Since assisting in the delivery of a child is not done for sexual gratification or impregnation, it would not constitute a criminal activity.
 
How will IP28 affect Oregon’s economy?

Economic security is a critically important need for all of us, and we are confident that that need can be met while also meeting the needs of the animals’ to be free from human-caused suffering. The proposed changes to state statute in IP28 are focused exclusively on removing exemptions to animal cruelty laws. As such, IP28 does not mandate how industries or the government respond to the proposed changes so long as the changes are being followed. This means that the effect on the economy will largely depend on our response. According to the Office of Economic Analysis, the outlook for near-term economic growth is the strongest in decades. We have strong manufacturing, technology, apparel, and natural resource industries. Oregon can continue to be strong economically without relying on the intentional injury, withholding of care, and sexual contact of animals. A determined soul will always manage, and if we are determined to meet everyone’s needs (the animals’ needs included), we will be able to do so without sacrificing our economic security.
 
How will IP28 impact Indigenous populations?

 

Indigenous populations are historically marginalized groups who have been repeatedly and violently targeted. We understand the need to protect these groups from further injustice. Our campaign also recognizes that meeting the needs of Indigenous groups does not have to come at the expense of meeting the needs of the non-human animals with whom we share our world. IP28 only includes exemptions for self-defense and veterinary care, meaning that there would not be a cultural or religious exemption for injuring, killing, or sexually violating an animal. Just like with universal human rights, which by definition should apply universally, we believe that the universal right of an animal to their life and bodily autonomy should also apply universally. While our campaign does not target Indigenous populations—and we fully support a just transition to a world where no one is reliant on causing harm to animals in order to meet their needs—we also do not provide Indigenous populations with an exemption that would allow them to abuse, neglect, and sexually assault animals. We do want to note, however, that IP28 would not directly impact tribal sovereignty, and thus laws on land managed by a federally recognized Native American tribe may vary from those of the surrounding area.
 

How would this impact experimentation on animals?

 

Animal experimentation, whether it is cosmetic or medical, involves the intentional, knowing, and reckless injury of an animal, and would thus be recognized as animal abuse once IP28 were to pass. The practice of animal experimentation not only fails to recognize the needs of the animals themselves, it also fails to meet our own needs for drug safety. According to the FDA, between 92 and 96 percent of all drugs that pass tests in animals fail during human trials. That is why the FDA, as of 2023, no longer requires drugs be tested on animals before being given to participants in human trials. By protecting an animal's right to life and autonomy, we will be simultaneously encouraging us to shift towards more effective alternatives to animal testing: such as testing on human cells and tissues, organs-on-a-chip, computational models, and other advancements in modern technology. We also believe it is important to recognize that banning animal experimentation, even if such tests were effective, is not a sacrifice. After all, there are countless medical advances that don't exist today because we refuse to use human subjects for invasive experiments. In the words of Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, "It is hard to overestimate the advances that medical science could have made by now if researchers had been able to use human subjects, rather than imperfect animal stand-ins. Yet we do not view this as a sacrifice. We do not wake up every day lamenting all that untapped knowledge...we do not worry than an overly squeamish attitude about respecting the rights of a few humans is standing in the way of longer and healthier lives for the rest of us...We full understand, in the human context, that medical knowledge must advance within ethical boundaries, or it simply isn't knowledge that we have a right to."

​

Are you receiving funding from Bill Gates or George Soros?

A few people have been concerned about transparency and worry that their need for trust isn’t being met. We want to assure you that we report all of our financial records to the secretary of state, as required by state and federal law, which can be accessed online at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/GotoSearchByMnP.do by looking up our petition committee titled Yes On IP28. We have not currently received any donations from Bill Gates or George Soros, or any other billionaires.
 
What does the italicized and bolded text in IP28 mean?

We appreciate the need for clarity when it comes to understanding our initiative. Any text that is italicized is text that would be removed from state statute if IP28 were to pass. Any text that is bolded is text that would be added to state statute if IP28 were to pass. 

Who is considered an "animal" under the law?

It's important to understand who would be protected by the changes proposed in IP28. Under Oregon Revised Statute, an animal is specifically defined as any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. IP28 would not change this legal definition.

What is the difference between IP28 and IP3?

Both IP28 and IP3 would prohibit the intentional injury and killing of animals, as well as the forced breeding of animals. However, IP28 adds a rehabilitation program as an alternative to other criminal penalties. In lieu of a misdemeanor, anyone convicted of animal cruelty can choose to complete supervised community service hours at an animal care facility as well as relinquish ownership of any animals for either 5 or 15 years, depending on the severity of the conviction. IP28 also establishes a humane transition fund to help pay for financial assistance, food assistance, and job retraining for anyone impacted by the implementation of IP28.

​

Are you working with other ballot initiatives outside of Oregon?

We are excited to see the growing push among the animal rights movement to use the ballot initiative process to move the movement forward. While we are not formally tied to the Pro-Animal Future initiatives to Ban Slaughterhouses and Fur Sales in Denver Colorado, the Measure J Factory Farming Ban in Sonoma County California, or the Retail Pet Sale Ban in Del Mar California, we have been in contact with all three campaigns and maintain a mutually supportive connection.