Proponents of the policy shot for the stars hoping to eventually land on the moon.
No meat, no problem. That’s the false bill of goods animal rights activists were selling as they tried to qualify Oregon’s Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) for the November ballot. IP 28 started a firestorm of criticism from across the state, which is exactly what it was designed to do. Ultimately the Oregon Secretary of State’s office denied the petition qualification to the November ballot.
IP 28 would have eliminated longstanding legal exemptions for animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, and pest control, effectively banning the killing of animals for any reason other than self-defense. While supporters labeled these “animal cruelty exemptions,” they are essential to Oregon’s agricultural industry and way of life. If passed, IP 28 would have effectively ended meat production in Oregon and criminalized common practices like breeding and livestock marking, potentially subjecting ranchers, zookeepers, and pet breeders to severe criminal penalties.
The economic impact of a measure like IP 28 would be devastating in Oregon or any state that adopts it. Meat prices would soar, while communities that depend on agriculture, hunting, and fishing would lose their economic backbone. Supporters have suggested ranchers could simply continue caring for their livestock as if they were running petting zoos, while consumers facing higher meat prices could turn to plant-based alternatives. Their perspective is perhaps best illustrated by a photo on the campaign’s website featuring a woman wearing a “Hail Seitan” tank top.
The impact on public health and safety would also be significant, as banning pest control and wildlife management would invite an explosion of rats, rodents, and other nuisance animals. More rodents would spread disease, squirrels would destroy gardens, and gophers would devastate crop fields. Larger game populations would bring more deer-vehicle collisions, black bears raiding dumpsters, and mountain lions preying on livestock left unprotected under IP 28.
IP 28 failed to gather enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Even if it had, it was never going to pass—and that was the intent. Chief petitioners have said they knew IP 28 would fail at the ballot box, but the intent was to grow the movement with each new attempt at passing the measure. Indeed, this is the closest they have ever come to qualifying.
This strategy is right out of the progressive playbook.
The goal of measures like IP 28 is to shift the political center by advancing an extreme proposal that makes more incremental policies seem reasonable by comparison. IP 28 gained attention because opponents recognized the threat and mobilized against it, but the broader strategy is unlikely to end with this measure. The next proposal will likely be narrower and more politically palatable.
Oregon has seen this pattern before—from marijuana legalization to Measure 110’s drug decriminalization, and from the defeat of Measure 118 to continued talks for universal basic income. It is the same strategy that has increasingly shaped policymaking in Salem: advance the extreme today so yesterday’s radical idea becomes tomorrow’s compromise.
With the growing influence of socialism, rejecting these radical ideas beyond reproach in all possible ways is vital to the future of the United States. Last fall, Oregon Freedom Coalition used the referendum process to send the largest tax increase in state history to voters. In May, they overwhelmingly rejected that increase 83% to 17%. We stand ready to deliver the same rebuke to the ideas of IP 28 and any other radical progressive agenda through any means necessary.
The progressive agenda will always shoot for the stars, hoping to land on the moon. Conservatives need to ensure that their agenda continually meets gravity.