What IP28 Doesn’t Do
- 5 hours ago
- 5 min read
Sometimes we get more clarity about what something is by understanding what it is not. So in the service of such clarity, below are some things our initiative doesn’t do—despite some people online claiming otherwise.
IP28 doesn’t ban spaying, neutering, or euthanasia (if done by a veterinarian).
While IP28 does remove the exemptions that allow farmers to castrate animals using elastic bands, knives, clamps, or chemicals, IP28 does not remove exemptions that allow veterinarians to spay and neuter. This is an important, but often conflated, distinction. Section 9 of IP28 lists the exemptions to our animal cruelty laws that our initiative would, and would not, remove from state law. Notably, the current exemption for “Animals subject to good veterinary practices as described in ORS 686.030 (Acts constituting practice of veterinary medicine)” would be kept.
If you open ORS 686.030 (https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_686.030) you will find a list of veterinary practices. Number 2 and Number 4 are the two most applicable here.
2: Prescribes or administers a drug, medicine or treatment for the prevention, cure, amelioration, correction or modification of an animal problem or for euthanasia.
4: Performs a surgical or dental operation or procedure upon an animal.
Spaying and neutering, being surgical procedures, would be allowed even if IP28 were to pass. It would also allow for a veterinarian to euthanize an animal, and it would be the veterinarian’s responsibility for determining that that course of action was in the best interest of the animal, rather than in the best interest of a human being. That is why our campaign seeks to allow for veterinarians to euthanize an animal, but why our campaign would not allow farmers to simply shoot an animal that has been injured rather than seek medical care, because we are concerned that the motivation for that type of “euthanasia” is motivated more out of convenience and profit rather than concern for the animal.
For additional confirmation, the ballot title created by the Attorney General also notes that our initiative still provides "exceptions for ‘good veterinary practices’ and self-defense”.
IP28 doesn’t require us to be overrun by mice and rats.
The first widely recognized and commercially available humane live-catch mouse trap was patented in 1876. This is not a new technology. They are available at Target, Walmart, Amazon, and many hardware stores. And nothing about IP28 prohibits us from using them. IP28 also doesn’t prevent us from using birth control bait boxes (rather than poison bait boxes) to manage mouse populations. IP28 also doesn’t prohibit us from locating the spaces where mice may enter our home or business and blocking the passageway.
Yes, we acknowledge, these strategies may not be as convenient as killing. Violence often does seem attractive because of its convenience. But it also isn’t that inconvenient either, and that extra bit of effort saves a life. Fortunately for those not interested in even that level of effort, those currently employed as “exterminators” could easily continue their profession in the broader field of “rodent management” and be hired to catch and release any wandering mice or rats as well as identify and cover up the hole they are coming in from.
IP28 doesn’t remove funding for conservation.
It may come as a surprise to many that, according to ODFW themselves, they spend less than 2% of their budget on Wildlife Conservation. In the 2023-2025 budget, which I encourage you to open for yourself, they spent $8.7 million out of their total of $555 million in expenditures on conservation.
People are correctly pointing out that, if IP28 passes, then ODFW would no longer make revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. But the revenue from those licenses go towards creating the conditions necessary to keep hunting and fishing, not towards conservation. What do we mean by that? Well, two of the largest expenses for the ODFW are managing hatcheries (which wouldn’t be needed if we weren’t constantly killing the fish) and managing fisheries (which would be banned). Another large portion goes to what they call Wildlife Management, which in their more detailed budget white paper includes activities like “establish and regulate hunting seasons,” and “collecting hunter harvest information,” and “provide hunting access.”
In 2023-2025 the ODFW received $213.5 million from federal funding and $65.4 million from the state general fund. That is more than enough to cover their current $8.7 million conservation efforts. No hunting or fishing needed.
IP28 doesn’t ban wildlife management.
Animal abuse in Oregon is defined as the intentional injury of an animal. The reason many activities that currently involve intentional injury to an animal aren’t illegal is because they are explicitly exempt from being covered by our animal cruelty laws. One such exemption is for “wildlife management practices,” and this exemption would be removed if IP28 were to pass. That does not mean, however, that any and all wildlife management practices would be banned, it only means that such practices would be banned if they resulted in intentional injury.
This does rule out lethal forms of wildlife management (like hunting and poison), but it does not rule out non-lethal forms of wildlife management. What are some of these non-lethal measures? Well, both the ODFW and the USDA (neither of which are known to be hard-liner animal rights groups) have their own lists of such non-lethal measures. These include sterilization vaccines, contraceptives, habitat modification, fencing and other barriers, repellents and scare devices, translocation, reducing attractants, and other experimental practices.
It isn’t hard to imagine a world where, rather than tracking down and shooting an animal with a bullet, we could track down and shoot an animal with a sterilization vaccine. I’m sure many who currently hunt recreationally would find the latter similarly enjoyable. It would certainly require just as much skill. Heck, maybe we could even sell licenses for people to conduct this sterilization program, and use the funds for conservation.
IP28 doesn’t ban killing insects or other invertebrates.
In Oregon, an animal is already legally defined as a “mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish.” IP28 does not change this definition, and notably this definition already excludes invertebrates entirely. This definition is listed in ORS 167.310.
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.