Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregon’s residents to reject it.

It’s a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. The spokesman for a highly extreme yet still potential Oregon ballot initiative freely admits it is “radical” in nature.

Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) seeks to not only legally ban hunting, fishing, trapping, farming and ranching but make it a crime for anyone taking part in those activities. Proponents are currently gathering signatures with hopes to place the issue on the November 2026 ballot.

“Given the radical nature of the campaign, we’re aware that it is almost certainly not going to pass in 2026. Despite that, we believe getting it on the ballot now will make it more likely to pass in a future election cycle, and that it will help us build the organization we’d need to keep getting it on the ballot,” David Michelson told Current Affairs magazine.

Michelson is a well-known animal rights extremist from Portland who initially proposed IP 13 in 2022, a similar initiative that was abandoned due to a lack of support. Among other things, IP 13 sought to criminalize hunting, fishing, farming, animal husbandry and giving all animal owners and veterinarians a criminal record. Michelson labeled those activities and professions as acts of violence.

With IP 13’s failure, he then shifted his focus to the 2024 ballot with IP 3. Once again and yet despite an influx of out-of-state donations from extremist organizations, the regurgitated measure did not gain momentum or gather enough signatures.

“Numerous rights and freedoms have been won through the ballot initiative process,” Michelson told The Oregonian.

It is with that mindset that Michelson and IP 28 proponents eye the ballot initiative process as an end-around to circumvent current law by bypassing state lawmakers, as per his comment of “it is almost certainly not going to pass.”

However, that statement is deceptive. The fact is that history shows radical initiatives can and do pass and only become law after first qualifying for and appearing on the ballot. Michelson and his proponents know that. National examples include steep increases in minimum wage, gun control, abortion and anti-abortion measures, banning or reinstating the death penalty, physician-assisted suicide, tax hikes, sin taxes and reducing criminal penalties. In Oregon, voters passed a 2020 ballot initiative that reduced penalties for those convicted of possessing hard drugs. Today, perpetrators and hardened criminals can avoid and discard prison sentences if they enter drug counseling.

Colorado is another recent example. Extremists tried to pass an anti-wildlife management bill to ban the hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats in 2022. A new coalition at the time called the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, of which the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a member, gathered support, provided testimony and a legislative committee rejected it. Extremists then tried to circumvent lawmakers by taking the ballot initiative route. In 2024, they gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the ballot. In addition to banning the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats, it also sought to ban hunting lynx. Again, this was deceptive in nature as it was already illegal, and remains illegal to this day, to hunt lynx in the Lower 48. Thanks to an educational campaign that included warnings about the dangers of ballot-box biology, including more than $340,000 contributed by RMEF, voters overwhelmingly defeated the measure by more than a quarter of a million votes.

Four years earlier, also in Colorado, extremists used the ballot initiative process combined with emotion and a lack of education to gather enough signatures to qualify a measure to forcibly introduce wolves into the state. Colorado Parks and Wildlife examined the issue over several decades and issued findings four different times that doing so would not be a good idea and would frustrate wildlife management. Pre-election polling and predictions said the measure would easily pass by receiving 80 percent of the vote. RMEF supplied more than $300,000 and combined its resources with other partners as part of a statewide educational campaign. Unfortunately, the measure passed by less than two percent, and the program has faced serious issues and livestock depredations since implementation.

Circling back to IP 28, the dangers of passing this initiative which would destroy wildlife management and the health of Oregon’s fish and wildlife populations are very real. Banning hunting and fishing would mean the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, with its duty to manage fish and wildlife populations, would lose 40 percent of its budget that comes from hunting and fishing licenses. It would also negate millions of dollars earmarked for conservation in Oregon by losing the excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear that Oregon receives. Banning hunting and fishing would trigger food insecurity by ending opportunities for hunters and anglers to acquire meat to feed their families.

Looking at the bigger picture, IP 28 would instigate a larger statewide food insecurity concern by making it against the law for farmers and ranchers to raise livestock and poultry for food, especially for those who rely on meat as part of their day-to-day nutritional needs. Proponents glaze over the issue by saying, “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.”

In fact, by seeking to end ranching and farming, IP 28 proponents would force such operations to leave the state or transform into economically qustionable “alternative” farms.

“Some of the most talked about transitions have been helping turn chicken farms into mushroom farms. Growing these types of organizations would be instrumental in transitioning away from killing animals for food,” Michelson told Current Affairs magazine.

IP 28 would also outlaw animal research and education, ban pest control and remove the ability for residents to protect themselves.

"For research, we can use human tissues and cells, organs-on-chips and computer models. For wildlife protection, we could use the introduction of sterile males or birth control,” Michelson old Current Affairs magazine. “Our campaign doesn’t have a prescribed alternative that we think works best in every situation, but we do think that by recognizing animals as individuals with needs that we are committed to protecting, then we’ll be able to find or create alternatives together.”

Click here for a Q&A about IP 28.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Hunt 2 Conserve is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization affiliated with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Its mission is to advance a legacy of hunting and conservation by educating, activating and developing stewards and defenders of these fundamentally American ideals. For more information, go to hunt2conserve.org.