Journalists' Questions & Replies
- 20 minutes ago
- 8 min read
Over the past 30 or so days, our campaign has received far more press coverage than we have previously; as well as far more visits to our website. While some great quotes and recorded segments from our campaign have been included by journalists in their reporting (for which we are very grateful), not every response gets included in those stories. Since many of the questions are asked by multiple reporters, and by many among the public more broadly, I wanted to post our written responses here for anyone to be able to access.
To be clear: does this petition look to criminalize hunting, fishing and trapping?
This petition does propose a ban on any intentional injury of an animal except for self-defense and in the case of any veterinary care. That would include banning slaughterhouses, hunting and fishing, and experimenting on animals. The initiative works by extending the legal protections our companion animals have currently to all other animals statewide (except for invertebrates, which are not legally considered animals under Oregon law).
If yes, what is the moral stance/explanation from those behind the petition?
Most Oregonians already recognize that the animals we share our homes with have needs for play, curiosity, affection, protection, etc. and we go to great lengths to meet those needs. Yet for other animals we either don't recognize those needs or, when we do, we don't value them enough not to injure and kill them. Although our campaign understands that currently we are killing animals to meet important needs of ours, such as sustenance, stability, belonging—and others—our campaign also believes it is possible to use a different set of strategies (ones that don't involve killing animals) that can meet our needs while also simultaneously meeting the needs of the animals we currently kill. There are already many alternatives to animal agriculture, lethal wildlife management, and animal research that exist, and it can be our choice as a society to move towards those pre-existing alternatives as well begin to create even more alternatives that don't yet exist today.
What is the state's landscape with animal cruelty? How big of an issue is it, just to put things into perspective.
Based on USDA data, in 2024 about 17,000 bovines were killed, 64,000 pigs were killed, and 54,000 sheep and lambs were killed in Oregon. According to OHA in 2023 15,550 elk were killed. For those animals, and for those wanting to protect them, it is a big issue. Now, compared to Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas (among others) those numbers look relatively small. Between 5-7 million bovines are killed in each of those states annually. But our campaign is focused on Oregon because our campaign is run by Oregonians (even if some would prefer that we weren't).
It seems the group behind the petition is very pro-veganism. What is the recommendation to Oregonians who aren't vegans now?
Most people who sign our petition, and even some people collecting signatures for the petition, are not themselves vegan. They are, however, interested in at least discussing what a world could look like if we moved away from using the killing of animals as a strategy to get our needs met. In our current society, everything is set up so that killing animals is the easiest option, it is often the default. Our initiative is asking voters, whether vegan or not, to vote in favor of shifting society so that the default becomes protecting animals instead.
What is your message to concerns surrounding ranching/farming lifestyles?
We absolutely want to acknowledge that there are understandable concerns about how those currently involved in raising and killing animals will still meet their needs for economic stability. While this would represent a significant shift, if a majority of voters are ready to stop killing animals we are confident we can effectively transition those workers into alternative forms of agricultures. The initiative even sets up a Transition Fund specifically to help with that transition. We are also aware and readily acknowledge that this initiative is unlikely to secure 50% of the vote in 2026 (although we would of course love for that to happen). It may take quite some time before a majority of Oregonians are ready to stop killing animals, and when that time comes I think many ranchers/farmers will have already began that transition process in response to shifting attitudes towards how we treat animals.
What is your message to concerns from hunters/fishers, indigenous tribes, etc.?
Similar to concerns from farmers, we want to begin by acknowledging that communities are currently hunting and fishing in order to meet all sorts of important needs: sustenance, economic stability, belonging, protection. We want those same needs to get met, but using a strategy that also meets the needs of the animals being killed by hunting and fishing. That might look like increasing food access, transitioning to different agricultural practices, and utilizing non-lethal wildlife management practices.
How many signatures have been collected so far? What is the end goal? What are the next steps after the number is reached?
We've collected over 100k signatures. The legal requirement is 117,173 valid signatures, but we will need to turn in well above that number to account for the signatures that won't be verified. We have until July 2nd 2026 to turn in all signatures, and will likely be petitioning up until that deadline.
Anything else to add?
Occasionally those opposed to the campaign imply that we could not intervene in the lives of animals at all, which is untrue. There are many non-lethal wildlife management strategies (even the USDA has been researching sterilization vaccines, for instance). This also does not prevent "trapping" mice, since humane traps have been around for a long time and some places (like NYC) use birth control for mice rather than poison.
What is the main goal of the PEACE Act, and why now? (This one I copied from my earlier response)
One of our goals for the initiative is to encourage people to talk about how we might move society in a direction that treats all animals—even the ones currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild—more similar to our companion animals. Our initiative, if passed, would extend the same legal protections our companion animals currently have to those other animals, which would consequently prohibit slaughtering, hunting, experimentation and any other intentional injury towards animals aside from self-defense and veterinary practices. We believe this initiative is needed because right now when we choose to kill animals to meet our own needs, we are doing so at the expense of the animals' needs—and we're confident that there are alternative strategies we can use to meet our needs and their needs simultaneously.
How do you respond to critics who say the measure could criminalize hunting, fishing, and farming?
IP28 would prohibit the intentional injury and killing of animals in Oregon with the only exceptions being for self-defense or veterinary care, so the intended effect is to ban killing animals in slaughterhouses, hunting and fishing animals, and experimenting on animals. Those opposed to our campaign are correct that it would ban killing animals, although they occasionally aren't as precise in their language as would be helpful. For example, this doesn't ban all farming, since it is possible to farm vegetables, fruits, legumes, etc. It is also possible to engage in so-called wildlife management, so long as we're using non-lethal methods rather than hunting. It is also possible to trap mice and rats in non-lethal traps for them to be released, and it is also possible to use contraceptives rather than poison to manage their populations.
Can you explain what exemptions would remain under this initiative?
The only exemptions would be for self-defense or veterinary care, which would cover activities like spaying, neutering, and vet-administered euthanasia. It may also be helpful to point out that accidental injury would not be criminalized by IP28, since we are not changing the definition of abuse which specifies the "intentional, knowing, and reckless injury" of an animal.
How many signatures have you collected so far, and do you expect to meet the July 2 deadline?
We've collected just over 100,000 and remain hopeful we will be able to turn in enough to qualify for the November 2026 election.
What changes would this law bring to how Oregon defines animal abuse and neglect?
Strictly speaking the definition of abuse and neglect largely remain the same. What changes is which animals would be protected under that definition. For example, animal abuse in Oregon is already defined as the "intentional, knowing, and reckless injury of an animal." But, because of the exemptions written into state law, that definition primarily applies to our companion animals and no one else. IP28 would protect all animals under that definition.
How do you hope this initiative will change the way Oregonians relate to animals?
We hope that 2026 represents the first time in history that large segments of the public start to consider what a world without killing animals would look like and move us closer towards adopting alternative strategies for meeting our needs that don't involve killing. Most Oregonians already would go out of their way to help meet the needs of the animals we share our homes with, and we'd like Oregonians to relate similarly to all the other animals that we share our state with.
Some opponents argue this could hurt agriculture and wildlife management. How do you address those concerns?
We definitely want to acknowledge the significant shift this initiative would create, given how many individuals are involved in some way in the killing of animals. We are also confident that there are alternatives to killing animals that we can transition towards, such as switching from animal agriculture to plant agriculture, or adopting non-lethal wildlife management practices rather than lethal wildlife management practices. According to the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Department of Agriculture, agricultural products account for about 13% of Oregon's gross product sales, and within that 13% about 30% comes from the sale of animals and products derived from them, while the remaining 70% come from crops. There is no reason we can't choose to make crops 100%. Even on marginal land with conditions less suitable for produce, that land has been shown to work for growing energy crops, like switchgrass and miscanthus, or Short Rotation Woody Crops like hybrid poplar and willow. Necessity breeds invention. If we committed to taking the killing of animals off the table, we can find, discover, or invent alternatives.
If the measure passes, when would it take effect, and what would the first steps be?
If it were to pass, which we acknowledge is an unlikely scenario in 2026, it would take effect within 30 days. The first steps would be to set up the Transition Fund, and the council created to oversee the fund, as quickly as possible so that we could begin to support individuals as society shifts away from killing animals.
Â
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.