"From now on…I choose to believe that the failure of our needs to be fulfilled results from insufficient dialogue and creativity rather than scarcity."
~ Marshall Rosenberg
Understandably, what most people know about Initiative Petition 28 (IP28)—if they’ve heard of it at all—is that it would ban the slaughter, hunting, experimentation, and breeding of animals in Oregon. In previous posts, I’ve expanded on our rationale for seeking such a revolutionary and radical ask (radical in the sense that it gets to the root of the problem) and why it meets our needs to do so despite knowing it is unlikely to pass in 2026. I’ve also attempted to draw on prior social movements, particularly the women’s suffrage movement, as evidence in favor of this strategy. In this post, however, I would like to explore one of the less-often discussed aspects of our initiative.
Of the 15 sections included in our 10-page initiative, eight of those sections focus on removing various exemptions from Oregon’s animal cruelty laws. In the remaining seven, the majority of the space is dedicated to creating what we call the Humane Transition Fund.
If IP28 were to pass, the State Treasury would be directed to establish a Humane Transition Fund—and the Legislative Assembly would simultaneously be given a mandate to transfer into the Fund an amount that is “sufficient to fully fund the grants program” that the Fund is tasked with administering. Legislators can choose to use any combination of funding streams they feel would best meet the needs given our State’s other budgetary priorities, with one exception: any subsidies distributed in Oregon that are currently used for a purpose that would no longer be allowed (e.g. slaughter, hunting, experimentation) must “to the greatest extent allowable by law” be credited to the Humane Transition Fund.
The purpose of the Humane Transition Fund is, as the name suggests, to help provide funds to those who need support transitioning into a world that no longer relies on injuring, killing, and breeding animals—a world we would describe as more humane. The Fund would attempt to accomplish this by providing grants that can be used for the following:
To help with food assistance, either directly (e.g. food and cash benefits to individuals) or indirectly (e.g. funds for opening private or state-run grocery stores in communities to improve food access).
To replace lost income due to the implementation of this Act until the individual has completed a job retraining program and acquired new employment.
To cover all the costs of operating a job retraining program.
To cover the costs of animal care for individuals or organizations supporting animals who could no longer be killed or harmed due to the implementation of this Act.
To assist in conservation and rewilding efforts.
Any other purpose that is unanimously agreed upon by all members of the Transitional Oversight Council.
That last purpose introduces another key element of the Humane Transition Fund; namely, who are the individuals tasked with administering it? While there is no set maximum number of people who may be invited to the Transitional Oversight Council, it was designed to be comprised of at least 26 individuals from the following 13 categories:
A representative of the Oregon Department of Agriculture;
A representative of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife;
A representative of the Office of Tribal Affairs;
A representative of the Oregon Department of Human Services Vocational Rehabilitation Program;
A representative of the Oregon Department of Human Services Self-Sufficiency Program;
A representative from each of the nine tribal governments in Oregon;
A representative from the Oregon Farm Bureau;
Three members of communities that would be directly impacted by the implementation of this Act;
Three members of communities not directly impacted by the implementation of this Act;
A professional in the field of veterinary medicine;
A person who works for a non-profit farmed animal sanctuary;
At least two people who have a documented history of advocating on behalf of animals who would be protected from harm by the implementation of this Act;
One of the chief petitioners of this Act or a person appointed on their behalf.
One of the questions we occasionally get asked is what we think a transition will look like for people who currently attempt to meet their needs through injuring, killing, and breeding animals. That question is difficult to answer to most individuals' satisfaction, however, because we think the best people to decide on what a transition would look like are the very people we are asking to transition. While we can certainly propose some ideas based on our general knowledge of farm transformation programs and non-lethal alternatives to so-called wildlife management, we do not claim to know what alternative strategies will work best to meet every individuals’ unique needs—all we know is that we want to live in a world where the strategy of injuring, killing, and breeding animals is taken off the table.
That is of course our practical reason for why we have not put forward specific strategies as part of the transition plan, but I’d be remiss not to also include my ideological reason for why I prefer remaining open to all the unknown possibilities. In a lecture by intellectual historian and self-described “everyday anarchist” Sophie Scott-Brown, Sophie shares what she would say in response to questions about how, in her mind, an anarchist society might operate:
If I was going to be both honest and keep faith with my concept of anarchism, what I’d really got to say is I don’t know. And I’d actually got to say something more than that, I’ve got to say: I also don’t have the desire to know, particularly. But what I can do is say: let’s talk about it. The kind of anarchism I want to discuss today is less about me having a vision of how everything would work—having it all sussed theoretically out in my mind, how it could all be put together—and it’s more about my openness to being able to discuss that and [to] work out what that society—what that social pattern—what that social relationship, would look like. My openness to being able to discuss that and my capacity to see that discussion as a social action in and of itself.
By including a broad spectrum of people, whose current relations with animals may vary quite considerably, as part of the Transitional Oversight Council, we’re stating clearly our openness to discuss what a world without animal exploitation would look like—and we are acknowledging that that very conversation contributes to a more humane pattern of social relations in and of itself.
Now, one thing people are used to seeing in transition plans are “phase-out” periods—usually, but not always, spanning multiple years. California’s Prop 12 initially provided farmers with three years before requiring pigs to be given 24 square feet instead of the 14 square feet they were given previously, and Sonoma County’s Measure J would have similarly allowed three years for existing Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to reduce the number of animals they confined. Denver’s slaughterhouse ban would have taken effect within just over one year from passing, and the city’s fur ban was given a window of just over six months. By contrast, IP28 would take effect within 30 days, the shortest time allowable under Oregon’s constitution.
My rationale for advocating that IP28 take immediate effect is two-fold. First, it is an authentic version of our conviction: if we want the killing of animals to stop immediately then I want us to ask for it to stop immediately. Second, I believe that if we are arguing that killing animals is violent, and that we are willing to utilize the force of law to prevent such violence from occurring, I fear it would weaken the perception of our conviction if we were to promote anything less than immediacy. If we are comfortable allowing the killing to continue at all—regardless of whether for six months or three years—the public (and possibly other animal advocates) might not come to understand just how violent we view the taking of life to be.
I have articulated elsewhere why I believe authenticity is important for our movement, and for inspiration I drew from the struggle for women’s suffrage. I’d like to return once again to the history books, albeit briefly, but this time by examining the words of slavery abolitionist Elizabeth Heyrick.
Elizabeth Heyrick was an English campaigner against the slave trade who, like William Lloyd Garrison in the United States, advocated for the immediate—rather than gradual—abolition of slavery. In 1824, she published a short book titled Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition; or, an enquiry into the shortest, safest and most effective means of getting rid of West Indian Slavery. In her appeal to the British public (which included a call for boycotts and pressure campaigns), she criticised the view that the abolition of slavery would “expire of itself” or “die a natural death” if given enough time and gradual reforms. Heyrick believed that, “while the abolitionists are endeavouring gradually to enfeeble and kill it by inches, it will gradually discover the means of reinforcing its strength, and will soon defy all the puny attacks of its assailants.” At the same time that she feared gradualism would ultimately strengthen the institution of slavery—just as one might become immune through inoculation to a weakened virus—she simultaneously worried that it would weaken the strength of her fellow abolitionists:
The slave-holder knew very well that his prey would be secure, so long as the abolitionists could be cajoled into a demand for gradual instead of immediate abolition. He knew very well, that the contemplation of a gradual emancipation would beget a gradual indifference to emancipation itself. He knew very well, that even the wise and the good may, by habit and familiarity, be brought to endure and tolerate almost any thing.
While both of her concerns resonate with my own understanding, it is the latter concern that mostly closely resembles what I attempted to describe above. If we get in the habit of asking for less than what we want, what we want becomes less than what we need.
Heyrick acknowledges that one of the reasons abolitionists argue for gradual emancipation is that it would be more agreeable to the slave owners (the other reason, which she describes as “absurd” and “revolting,” is that immediate emancipation would be “highly injurious to the slave himself” just as a “half-famished wretch” would die from overeating if a “sumptuous banquet” was placed before him). She says gradualism, however, does not actually tend to be met with agreeability in practice:
The planters have shown themselves just as much enraged at the idea of gradual as of immediate emancipation. They appear, indeed, either incapable of perceiving, or determined to confound all distinctions between them; for, in the bitterness of their invectives, they accuse the gradual abolitionist of endeavouring to bring upon their heads all the calamities and destruction which they formerly deprecated as the inevitable consequences of immediate emancipation.
This is not to say Heyrick is indifferent to what would become of the slave owners. It was her conviction that “the interest, moral and political, temporal and eternal, of all parties concerned [emphasis added], will be best promoted by immediate emancipation.” In the book’s preface, she noted that: “to the Planters, no ill will is entertained: it is the system of slavery alone that is aimed at.” Despite this recognition, she was firmly against compromising the freedom of those enslaved for the advantage of those keeping them in chains:
The right of the slave, and the interest of the planter, are distinct questions; they belong to separate departments, to different provinces of consideration. If the liberty of the slave can be secured, not only without injury but with advantage to the planter, so much the better, certainly; but still the liberation of the slave ought ever to be regarded as an independent object; and if it be deferred till the planter is sufficiently alive to his own interest to co-operate in the measure, we may for ever despair of its accomplishment.
Instead of waiting in despair, Heyrick calls for us to “compel the planter to set his slaves at liberty,” and that if “such a measure [is] to be ultimately injurious to the interest of the planter, that consideration ought not to weigh a feather in the scale against emancipation.”
Our campaign agrees in principle with Heyrick’s position as it could be applied to the case of animal liberation. We believe that everyone would benefit from ending systemic animal exploitation, and our aim is dismantling that system—no ill will is entertained with respect to the individuals participating in it. And yet, we do not want the freedom of animals to be deferred until a future date at which those who currently kill and breed animals have determined would be to their advantage—because we fear the countless lives that would be lost before that day would come. Our campaign wants to provide assurance that we strive for everyone’s needs to be met, and we are hoping the Transition Fund will demonstrate that commitment, but animals must be included in our concept of everyone.
Heyrick noted that “a gradual emancipation…appears not only the general, but almost universal sentiment of the abolitionists.” To oppose it, she says, “may seem a most presumptuous, as well as hopeless attempt.” Nevertheless, she did not yield her position. I cannot help but feel that we are among a similar general sentiment within the animal freedom movement, which is why I am that much more convinced of the beneficial potential of our campaign (and why those in favor of a diverse movement ecology would benefit from supporting us in our efforts). Concerning our call for immediate liberation, we are—like Heyrick—“stubborn and inflexible.”
Joining the campaign as a monthly donor would help meet our need for stability and support. As we move into the spring, the more funds we are able to raise the greater our chances of getting on the ballot. If you are inspired by our work so far, would you consider signing up to give, at any amount, as a monthly donor?
Do you know of other ideas for how we can either secure additional funding or how we can spread the word about our campaign? Email team@yesonip28.org and let us know.
Like / Share on Instagram:
