Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on IP 28’s impact on pest control. 

Imagine seeing mouse droppings in your basement, crawl space, garage or shed, setting a trap, catching and killing one (or more) and then being charged with a crime for doing so. Sound crazy? That is exactly what may happen if a radical animal rights ballot initiative passes in Oregon. 

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) removes animal cruelty exemptions from state statute for about every reason or activity, except self-defense. That includes pest control. You read that correctly. If you trap and/or kill a mouse, IP 28 would label you a lawbreaker and you would be subject to criminal punishment and penalties. 

“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,” said IP 28 chief petitioner David Michelson.  

So, “birth control” for mice and rats so they can freely live in homes, stores, restaurants and other food suppliers as well as on produce-producing farms? According to the Centers for Disease Control, rodents can carry or spread more than two and a half dozen bacterial, parasitic or viral diseases. Plus, they may also be carriers for fleas, mites and ticks that also spread disease. Not eliminating the rodents may mean risks to human health and the food supply. 

What about larger vermin that destroys food and crops, infest property or spread disease? Examples include raccoons, skunks, chipmunks, squirrels, foxes or others? The same holds true. IP 28 would not allow citizens to trap and kill them.  

A February incident in Salem, a city about 55 miles southwest of Portland, highlights the public safety danger IP 28 may introduce and perpetuate. A coyote bit a woman as she walked her dog, leaving her with minor injuries. That prompted the local sheriff’s department to notify residents and schools to keep a close eye on young children and pets. 

A Google search shows Oregon has 270 to 360 pest control businesses with scores of employees, all of whom would be out of a job. 

Animal rights activists equate animals to humans.  

“We want the immediate liberation of animals,” said Michelson. “Let’s stop the state from allowing all this violence to happen.” 

They do not want any animals to be removed. They want more of them, despite the inherent dangers many of them carry or propagate. Therein lies the danger of the ballot initiative.  

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it. 

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.

Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on the impacts of outlawing hunting and fishing. 

Oregon is home to black-tailed and mule deer, elk, black bears, mountain lions, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, mountain goats, small mammals, nongame, birds, fish and other wildlife. One key factor that plays a critical supportive role in the sustainable and successful management and conservation of all wildlife species is hunting.  

Hunting is a highly regulated tool used by professional game managers and biologists to maintain sustainable populations for the benefit of healthy and balanced animal populations and ecosystems. It is the main mechanism utilized within the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and its two main principles that fish and wildlife belong to all Americans and they need to be managed in a way that their populations will be sustained forever. 

The mission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)is to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. To do so, it relies on hunters and anglers who combine to generate roughly 50 percent of ODFW’s $488.9 million annual budget to carry out wildlife management, land conservation and access projects, habitat stewardship work, wildlife research and disease mitigation, law enforcement, human-wildlife reduction and other responsibilities. Breaking down ODFW’s numbers, $198.9 million is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses while $44.3 million is allocated to the state via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from excise taxes on the purchase of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear.  

A 2019 study shows the statewide economic impact of hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing in Oregon was $19.1 billion. Hunting generated $227,820,317 in spending or the equivalent of about 2,219 jobs, which translates to nearly $294 million in 2024 dollars.  

Initiative Petition 28 calls for a ban on hunting, fishing and trapping. If those traditional activities are criminalized and eliminated, ramifications would include: 

• The gutting of ODFW’s budget 

• Hunters and anglers would not be allowed to acquire meat for their families 

• Removal of recreational activities to connect people with nature, wildlife and sustenance that began before our nation’s founding  

• Would end successful wildlife management practices with no proven means for biologists and professional game managers to sustainably manage big game and non-game species alike 

• The elimination of Oregon’s commercial fishing industry, which generated $642 million in income for the statewide economy in 2021 or the equivalent of about 9,200 jobs with a total output (total quantity of goods and services produced) of $1.2 billion  

• Significant impacts to global seafood markets – the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division reports Oregon exported nearly $50 million in 2024 

• An uptick in vehicle-wildlife collisions on roadways and highways – national data shows1 in 219 Oregon drivers hit an animal in 2025, with deer the most likely species  

• Would cancel or greatly diminish the five-day Pacific Northwest Sportsmen’s Show, which reportedly generates a $105 million economic impact annually 

• Major impacts on small businesses including restaurants, motels, gas stations, etc., used by hunters and anglers, and greatly increased everyday costs for consumers and business owners alike 

• Utilizing the ballot measure process and/or other means to expand this ideology to every nation across the country 

“It would be devastating for our business. I would still be serving seafood, but we would have to import everything from another state,” Michelle  Wachsmuth, owner of Dan & Louis Oyster Bar in Portland, told KATU-TV. “It would just devastate not just restaurants, not just grocery stores, but it hits the farmers. It hits everybody. It would devastate this entire state to shut down hunting, fishing and animal farming." 

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it. 

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. 

Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on IP 28’s devastating impact on wildlife management. 

If anti-hunting fanatics get their way, they will force a vote and their ideology on more than 4.27 million residents in Oregon. If ultimately successful in their quest, they will greatly frustrate a long-standing, proven approach to safeguarding wild animals and their future. 

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) is a potential ballot measure that would outlaw hunting, fishing and trapping, which are the main tools used by professional game managers and biologists to successfully manage wildlife populations in line with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. 

Extremists pushing the measure have zero understanding on the issue. 

“People ask how are we going to manage populations? I tell them there have been programs that introduce sterile males into a population. That tends to work pretty well, and that doesn’t involve killing anyone,” said David Michelsen, IP 28 chief petitioner. 

In reality, there is no successful record of any such pie-in-the-sky practice, although some people around the country looked into that possibility with hopes of better dealing with ballooning deer populations within city limits. According to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, sterilization, hormone implants and contraceptive vaccines are all extremely labor-intensive techniques without proven effectiveness.  

In 2016, former New York City mayor Bill de Basio proposed spending $2 million for fertility control practices to reduce Staten Island’s growing deer population. The idea was to capture and sterilize about 400 male deer at an estimated cost of $5,000 per buck. The proposal did not move forward. 

More recently, Cornell University conducted a sterilization study that kept eggs from reaching the uterus by blocking fallopian tubes. Researchers found it would cost more than $1,200 per deer and extremely time-consuming. Ironically, fertility control flies in the face of stipulations specifically spelled out in IP 28, amounting to “animal sexual assault.” 

Hunting as a means of wildlife management is not only proven to be effective but hunters willingly pay for the opportunity in the form of licenses and fees, which generates $198.9 million annually for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).  

“The General Fund, or Oregon’s taxpayer dollars, makes up only 10 percent of ODFW’s budget, nowhere close to the amount needed to operate the agency and benefit Oregon’s wildlife,” said Senator Brock Smith (R-Port Orford). 

Outlawing hunting and fishing would also cost ODFW billions of dollars for fish and wildlife management going forward. The Pittman-Robertson Act places an excise tax on the purchase of all ammunition, guns and archery equipment. From 2023-2025 alone, that tax, thanks to Oregon hunters and recreational shooters, generated $75.9 million dollars that was distributed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the state of Oregon for public access projects, research, wildlife management and restoring, conserving and managing habitat for wildlife and birds. The Dingle-Johnson Act places an excise tax on fishing equipment and boat fuel, which generated $26.8 million doled out to Oregon from 2023-2025. But here is the catch: those federal funds are allocated based on the number of hunting and fishing licenses sold in the state, which would be zero under the IP28. 

Removing hunting as a wildlife management tool would have measurable impacts on many species across the landscape. To cite one example, the Blue Mountains, which are mostly in northeast Oregon but stretch into southeast Washington, are home to a shrinking elk population due to declining calf-to-cow ratios. Wildlife managers use funding to: 

• Implement forest management projects that enhance wildlife habitat including year-round big game range and calving/fawning areas 

• Identify big game migration corridors to promote habitat conservation and connectivity 

• Identify where habitat loss is taking place so plans can be made to rectify it 

• Set science-based hunting quotas for predator species like mountain lions, black bears that impact elk, deer and other wildlife 

In other areas, expanding ungulate herds are causing crop damage. Without proper management, a potential overpopulation of wildlife species could trigger a lack of quality forage, which could lead to starvation. 

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it. 

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. 

(Photo credit: Chad Carman & Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) 

Below is a news release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will provide approximately $12 million to support efforts by States and Tribal governments, research institutions, and universities to control and prevent chronic wasting disease (CWD) in wild and farmed cervids (e.g., deer, elk). 

“Chronic wasting disease poses a serious threat to U.S. wildlife and agriculture. This funding reflects our commitment to working collaboratively with States, Tribes, and research partners to develop innovative solutions and protect the health of our nation’s cervid populations,” said Dr. Alan Huddleston, Acting U.S. Chief Veterinary Officer. 

APHIS will competitively fund the most promising projects that develop innovative tools or methods, support State and Tribal CWD control programs at the local level and provide indemnity payments to cervid owners with pending claims. This includes: 

• Approximately $6 million to support critical projects to control and prevent CWD in farmed cervids, 

• Approximately $5.5 million to support research and management of CWD in wild cervids, and 

• Approximately $500,000 to support CWD prevention and management on Tribal lands. 

CWD is an infectious, degenerative disease of cervids that causes brain cells to die, ultimately leading to the death of the affected animal. The incubation period can be lengthy, and infected animals may look healthy until the end stages of the disease, making it difficult to distinguish affected animals from healthy animals. Animals infected with CWD can transmit the disease to other animals during the “silent” incubation period. The disease has spread widely and the limited number of tools, as well as their efficacy, impacts the ability to effectively control the disease. 

Cooperative agreement funding in previous years has resulted in the development and implementation of predictive genetics to assist farmed cervid owners in breeding for less susceptible deer, the removal of CWD-positive farmed cervid herds, increased diagnostic capabilities, increased CWD surveillance in wild cervid populations, hunter and public education, and carcass disposal options to reduce spread of CWD. 

This year’s investment will allow State departments of agriculture, State animal health agencies, State departments of wildlife or natural resources, federally recognized Native American Tribal governments and organizations, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement CWD research, management, and response activities. 

(Photo credit: Courtney Celley/USFWS)

If you live in Washington and spend time outdoors with your dog while hunting or doing other recreational activities, there is a new health warning, of sorts. A longtime threat, but one considered extremely rare in North America until 15 years ago, showed up for the first time on the West Coast of the United States. Researchers at the University of Washington confirmed the presence of a tapeworm, called Echinococcus multilocularis, in coyotes.  

Researchers made the discovery after examining 100 coyotes in the Puget Sound region. They found the tapeworm in 37 of them. 

“This parasite is concerning because it has been spreading across North America. There have been numerous cases of dogs getting sick, and a handful of people have also picked up the tapeworm,” said lead author and researcher Yasmine Hentati. “The fact that we found it here in one-third of our coyotes was surprising, because it wasn’t found anywhere in the Pacific Northwest until earlier this year.” 

The tapeworm lives as a parasite in coyotes, foxes and other canid species. 

Exposed humans and dogs may or may not become sick. Those infected can have cancer-like cysts that form in the liver or other organs. But if left untreated, it can be fatal. 

Researchers urge the need for increased wildlife surveillance to better manage the disease and reduce the risk to people and pets. 

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. 

(Photo credit: Samantha Kreling)

California’s first-ever annual wolf management report shows the state’s wolf population increased by 10 percent over the last year. It also showed a sizable jump in the number of wolf-livestock attacks and the compensation costs associated with them. 

The 2025 California Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Annual Report, prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shows a minimum of 55 wolves in the Golden State. Eight of its nine wolf packs are in northeast California,while the other is about 400 miles to the south, just north of Bakersfield. Four new packs formed in 2025 and six of the packs reproduced with a minimum of 32 pups. 

However, as wolf numbers grew, so did the number of problemslinked to them. CDFW reports depredation investigations increased from 74 in 2024 to 267 in 2025, or a 261-percent increase. Of those wolf-livestock incidents, officials verified 198 of them as confirmed or probable. Ninety of them came from one pack in the Sierra Valley, a wolf pack no longer in existence because CDFW lethally removed the animals in October 2025 because of repeated chronic depredation. 

“Despite extensive non-lethal efforts, including hazing and adaptive tools used by our Summer Strike Team, these wolves continued to prey on livestock,” said then-CDFW Director Charlton H. Bonham.“The BeyemSeyo pack became so reliant on cattle at an unprecedented level, and we could not break the cycle, which ultimately is not good for the long-term recovery of wolves or for people.”   

As incidents increased, so did cost. CDFW doled out $354,795 in 2025 compensation payments compared to $48,070 in 2024, a 638-percent increase. 

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. 

(Photo credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Below is a news release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Department of the Interior announced the largest proposed expansion of hunting and sport fishing opportunities in the history of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, opening or expanding more than 1,450 opportunities across 111 stations in 32 states. 

The proposal would make more than 92 million acres, or over 95% of National Wildlife Refuge System lands, available for hunting, marking a significant milestone in expanding public access to America’s lands and waters and reinforcing the Administration’s commitment to outdoor recreation, conservation and rural economic growth. 

This effort advances President Donald J. Trump’s priorities to expand access to public lands and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, including Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” It also implements Secretary’s Order 3447, which directs the Department to remove barriers to hunting and fishing access and better align federal regulations with state wildlife management frameworks. 

“For too long, access to hunting and fishing on federal lands has been limited by unnecessary restrictions and disconnected federal rules,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, we are opening more land, aligning with state expertise, and putting decision-making back where it belongs. This is about commonsense access, supporting rural economies, and ensuring the next generation can experience the outdoors the same way so many of us did growing up.” 

The proposed rule would increase access at 111 field stations, including 107 national wildlife refuges and four national fish hatcheries. It also includes first-ever hunting or sport fishing opportunities at 14 refuges and three hatcheries, reflecting continued progress toward maximizing access where compatible with conservation goals. 

In total, the proposal would deliver more than 1,450 new hunting and sport fishing opportunities. An “opportunity” is defined as the ability to hunt or fish a specific species at a specific location, providing a clear measure of expanded access across the system. 

The rule also reflects a broader effort to simplify and modernize federal regulations. The Service is proposing more than 500 revisions and deletions to existing regulatory provisions, reducing complexity and making it easier for hunters and anglers to understand and comply with applicable rules. 

By better aligning federal regulations with state fish and wildlife laws, the proposal reduces confusion for the public, improves consistency across field stations and reinforces the role of states as primary managers of fish and wildlife resources. 

“Hunting and fishing are traditional recreational activities that bring families and communities together. Many national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries and other Service lands and waters offer hunting and fishing access that helps boost local economies and affords high-quality publicly available recreational opportunities to all Americans,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik. “We are pleased to continue to increase access for hunters and anglers while fulfilling our conservation mission, and we are committed to responsibly managing these areas for the benefit of future generations.” 

Examples of proposed changes include: 

• Opening hunting or fishing opportunities for the first time at multiple refuges and hatcheries.  

• Expanding upland game, migratory bird and big game hunting across additional acres. 

• Increasing access to sport fishing, including new opportunities at previously closed locations. 

• Updating station-specific regulations to reflect current conditions and management practices. 

The proposal also includes targeted regulatory updates to improve clarity and consistency across the Code of Federal Regulations, helping reduce confusion caused by overlapping or outdated federal requirements. 

Hunters and anglers play a central role in conservation in the United States. According to the Service’s most recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, more than 39.9 million Americans fish and 14.4 million hunt, contributing more than $144 billion annually to the U.S. economy.  

These activities support jobs, fund conservation efforts and sustain outdoor traditions that connect communities to the land and to each other. Hunting and fishing also provide important sources of protein for many people, which supports the Trump Administration’s updated Dietary Guidelines that puts real food back at the center of preventing chronic disease and promoting lifelong wellness. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, established to conserve fish, wildlife and plant resources, is the world’s largest network of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation. The system includes 573 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts, with more than 71 million visitors each year. 

National wildlife refuges provide vital habitat for thousands of species while also offering high-quality recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography and environmental education. 

The National Fish Hatchery System complements these efforts by raising and releasing millions of fish each year to support recreational fisheries, restore native species and fulfill tribal trust responsibilities. The system includes 71 hatcheries that collectively welcome more than one million visitors annually. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages hunting and fishing programs to ensure sustainable wildlife populations while balancing recreational access with conservation responsibilities. Hunting and fishing are permitted on refuges when determined to be compatible with each station’s purpose and mission under federal law. 

The Service seeks public comments on the proposed rule for 30 days, beginning with publication in the Federal Register on May 27, 2026. The notice will be available athttp://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number: FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223, and will include complete details on the proposed hunting and sport fishing rule and how to submit comments. 

(Photo credit: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on the chief petitioner behind IP 28.

I was just about to walk into a bookstore in downtown Portland, Oregon, with family members when a man approached. I did not know him or what he wanted, but that changed the moment he opened his mouth. “Do you want to stop the abuse of animals?” 

Even though I live in Montana, I knew this was a signature gatherer for extremists trying to get a radical measure on the Oregon ballot. At the time, I headed up public relations for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and had previously written a couple of outreach pieces to keep our members in the know. I did not need to have anything more said to me to read between the lines. I knew what was wanted and what this petition would do. 

I was not alone. A signature gatherer approached a woman at the Oregon State Fair last summer (go to 21:05) and told her about a petition to end primate research. There was no mention of any other petitions, yet she noticed orange IP 28 signature pages and recognized them for what they were, sandwiched among the others. 

“They are collecting these signatures, I would say, under false pretenses or not saying the whole truth to get folks to sign this,” she said. 

We are two exceptions who knew better. Unfortunately, most Oregonians know little to nothing about it.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) is the third iteration (the previously two failed) of an effort by anti-hunting and animal rights activists. The way they are going about it is as deceiving as the initiative’s title: People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act. In short, the petition removes exemptions from state law resulting in making it a crime to hunt, fish, trap, raise animals for food or carry out pest control, animal husbandry, research, rodeos, transport animals and many other things. Doing so would result in felony or misdemeanor charges.

Signature gatherers are doing the absolute minimum to get what they want – a signature. Detailing what their petition is about is not at the top of their list.

“We’re trying to get signatures as quickly as possible, not necessarily telling them all up front like this is going to criminalize killing animals,” said David Michelson, spokesman and one of three chief petitioners for IP 28.

The man behind IP 28

Michelson is a substitute teacher for the Portland Public Schools, a prekindergarten-12 urban school district in Portland. He became a vegetarian at the age of 14 and fully embraced veganism four years later after taking drugs known for producing hallucinations and altered consciousness.

 “The most mystical experience that I would probably describe is when I started engaging with psychedelics, which had a pretty big impact on my life at one point,” said Michelson. “For the better, I think it made me much more naturalistic and gave me the final push to go vegan as well. My mental health, just my sense of self. It changed a lot of things in a positive direction.”

Michelson became disenchanted with religion and adopted more naturalistic tendencies. As an undergraduate, he studied some neuroscience, among other things, and moved to California and Colorado where he became more involved in activist causes. In Berkeley, he collected signatures for the successful 2024 voter-driven ban of factory farming facilities within the city limits (even though there were none at the time of the vote). 

“It’s amazing how many things are connected. We kept making connections to all these different...psychedelics and meditation and nonviolent communication and needs. It really does all fit together really nicely,” said Michelson. 

What does not seem to fit is his involvement with animal rights activism. Ironically, Michelson does not like them.

“I lived with some dogs and cats growing up. I was never really very close to animals. Still to this day, I’m not very much of an animal lover. And I don’t really like being around animals,” he says. “I want them to be happy, healthy and protected but I don’t really want to hang out with them.”

The campaign

Quoting a book about animal rights, Michelson said, “Accepting that animals are selves or persons will have many implications.” Those implications, or should we say consequences, are spelled out in IP 28, with its tremendous negative impacts on Oregon’s statewide economy, wildlife management, hunting, fishing, farming, ranching and both residents’ day-to-day lives and their livelihoods. 

Yet, it is with that mindset that Michelson references the ballot initiative as “a beautiful thing” that is “authentic to me” and is “an embodiment of what I really want.” He is using the ballot initiative process, referred to by some as ballot box biology, as an end-around tool to the legislative process.

“Since the United States is unique in that many localities allow citizens to circulate a petition to initiate a binding public vote on changes to city, county, and state law—bypassing their local and state legislatures—animal advocates in the U.S. have an opportunity to force a vote,” said Michelson.  

If IP 28 qualifies, the vote would be statewide. However, the signature-gathering process is anything but that. Paid signature gatherers earn up to $25 an hour and focus almost exclusively on Portland and Eugene with limited activity elsewhere. 

An out-of-state effort

In a self-published video lobbying for help, Michelson’s words highlight how the campaign is largely supported by out-of-state individuals and organizations: “You don’t need to be a resident of Oregon. You don’t need to be a U.S. citizen. You don’t have to be 18 to volunteer to petition,” he said. “Anyone around the world can donate for this campaign. Foreigners, any non-U.S. citizen…can donate to a ballot initiative.” 

IP 28 campaign donation data from the Oregon Secretary of State’s website highlights exactly that. Among the top campaign contributors are the Craigslist Charitable Fund (California), Postnov Leonid (a Russian national), Owen Gunden (New York/Puerto Rico), PETA (Virginia), World Animal Protection (London), Friends of DxE (California) and Strategic Action for Animals (California). Other supporters include the Vegan Hactivists (Maryland). 

Oregon today, nationwide tomorrow 

The petition’s non-Oregon supportive web may be by design as Michelson wants to spread his ideology beyond the Beaver State in the form of targeted action. 

“If Oregon is the first state, which could be the next? Colorado and California might be top contenders—although Arizona and Florida may prove as formidable contenders given they each allow for two years of signature collection (similar to Oregon) and their warmer winters and longer days are ideal for petitioning,” Michelson wrote on his website. “If we’re able to form an organization that gets it on the ballot in multiple election cycles – 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034 – that can hopefully stimulate a lot more grassroots mass protests who are calling for a state amendment in their state and potentially a federal constitutional amendment.”  

Some states, like Missouri and North Dakota according to Michelson, may seem more protected since they have constitutional amendments protecting “the rights of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.” Michelson’s end-around solution is to use ballot initiatives to upend standing law with newer statutes. 

Deceptive and misleading

Michelson’s goal is straightforward and blunt: “We want the immediate liberation of animals.” Much like his signature gathering process, the words and terms he uses to talk about the initiative are scattered, deceptive and misleading. Below are a few examples:

“We understand that right now people are contributing to killing animals, either directly or indirectly, because they are attempting to meet their needs…We’re not trying to ban people from meeting their needs. We actively want to meet everyone’s needs.”

“Animals have needs too and we want people to meet those needs as well as our needs. And we don’t believe they’re in conflict. The needs are not in conflict.”

“We’re not asking individuals to adopt really a change to their individual lifestyle. They might choose to do that and I would certainly support them doing that. We are trying to shift people away from thinking animal rights as solely an individual issue.”

“We do acknowledge there is real tension in Oregon between the urban-rural divide. I think that’s gotten much more prevalent in this country. We don’t want to intentionally increase that. We do want to feel that everyone’s needs matter including people in rural Oregon.”

“We have had hunters sign the initiative that would end up banning hunting. They knew it would ban hunting…but they will sign because they think it’s worthwhile to have a conversation.”  

There are some real head scratchers there amidst the conflicting statements, much like the name of the petition itself – the Peace Act. If passed, its ramifications would be anything but peaceful by triggering a massive statewide upheaval in the costs of acquiring food, vastly altered property rights and recreational impacts, and devastating impacts on business, industry and Oregon’s economy.

Michelson’s buzz words and phrases like “essential needs,” “non-human animals,” “shared needs,” “authenticity,” “cognitive dissonance” and others paint a hazy picture. But do not be fooled. He and his team understand the impactful implications of their petition, if it were to become law. 

Humane Transition Fund

The Humane Transition Fund was not part of Michelson’s previous failed ballot initiative efforts. The approximately two-page proposal creates a landing spot for funding in Oregon’s State Treasury to deal with the ramifications of IP 28’s passage. Although no totals are specified, it calls for “moneys transferred to the fund by the Legislative Assembly” to address food assistance, income for job loss, employment retraining, animal health care, rewilding and “any other purpose that is unanimously agreed upon by all members of the Transitional Oversight Council.” 

Who sits on this Transitional Oversight Council that would distribute Humane Transition Fund dollars? Eighteen different people from various state agencies and other organizations including “a person who works for a nonprofit farmed animal sanctuary,” at least two animal advocates and “one of the chief petitioners of this act or a person appointed on their behalf.”

“We want everyone sitting at a table talking about what are some alternative strategies. We don’t claim to know all of them,” said Michelson. “All we know is we want the animals’ needs to be protected and we want everyone else’s needs to be met at the same time.”   

Wait, what?

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and hopes Oregonians reject it.

Mark Holyoak is the director of advocacy communications for Hunt 2 Conserve.

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.

“Hunting Is Conservation” is a catchy phrase, but it is much more than that. Created and trademarked by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, those three simple words highlight an undeniable and beneficial relationship between hunting and its vital financial link to the conservation of wildlife species and landscapes where they live. 

A new breakdown provided by the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation breaks down the numbers. And they are impressive. In 2025 alone, funding generated by the Pittman-Robertson Act – legislation that places excise taxes on guns, ammunition and archery equipment – totaled $833.1 million. The users who generated that funding are hunters and recreational shooters. There were 15,650,606 hunters that spent $1.05 billion on hunting licenses and fees that year.  

Those who fish did their part, too. In 2025, 29,492,356 anglers generated $841 million by buying fishing licenses. The Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breau Fund, which places excise taxes on fishing equipment and motorboat and small engine fuels and equipment, generated $431 million. Combing those four figures highlighted above equals a total of $3.57 billion for conservation in one calendar year.  

Dating back to 1939, if you add all the funding paid by sportsmen and women for hunting and fishing licenses combined with excise taxes, the total is a staggering $89.26 billion. That money goes to state fish and wildlife agencies to carry out science-based wildlife management and research, habitat treatments, land conservation and public access projects, species restoration and protection, enforcement, recreational projects, education, outreach and other aspects that fall under the umbrella of conservation. 

One other number is highly notable. Though varying from state to state, most state fish and wildlife agencies receive more than 60 percent of their budgetary funding from hunters, recreational shooters, anglers and boaters. No other users, groups or organizations do more for conservation. 

Below is a 2026 state-by-state breakdown of revenue generated by hunters through the purchase of hunting licenses and fees combined with Pittman-Robertson funding: 

Alabama – $44 million 

Alaska – $52 million 

Arizona – $43.6 million 

Arkansas – $34.5 million 

California – $52.6 million 

Colorado – $106.6 million (ranks 1st)

Connecticut – $8.1 million 

Delaware – $6.5 million 

Florida – $30.2 million 

Georgia – $48.4 million 

Hawaii – $5.95 million 

Idaho – $56.5 million 

Illinois – $50.3 million

Indiana – $30.5 million

Iowa – $33.6 million

Kansas – $36.9 million 

Kentucky - $37.9 million

Louisiana – $28.3 million 

Maine – $19.3 million

Maryland – $14.2 million 

Massachusetts – $12.1 million

Michigan – $57.9 million 

Minnesota - $56.7 million 

Mississippi – $27.4 million 

Missouri – $50.3 million

Montana – $63 million (ranks 4th)

Nebraska – $33.7 million

Nevada – $23.3 million 

New Hampshire – $10 million 

New Jersey – $15.7 million

New Mexico – $40 million 

New York – $43.8 million 

North Carolina – $35.6 million 

North Dakota – $24.4 million

Ohio – $43.2 million 

Oklahoma – $31.6 million 

Oregon – $51.1 million 

Pennsylvania – $72.6 million (ranks 3rd)

Rhode Island – $5.6 million 

South Carolina – $21.3 million

South Dakota – $37.4 million

Tennessee – $26.7 million

Texas – $87.7 million (ranks 2nd)

Utah – $39.2 million

Vermont – $9.2 million

Virginia – $37.6 million

Washington – $32.8 million

West Virginia – $18.9 million

Wisconsin – $59.7 million (ranks 5th)

Wyoming – $47.2 million

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. 

Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on IP 28’s devastating impact on the state’s industry, economy and various educational and other programs and activities.

Industry

The Tillamook County Creamery Association is a true American rags-to-riches story. Based in a small town near the Oregon Coast about 75 miles west of Portland, it is one of the state’s must-see (and must-taste) destinations thanks to its dairy delights. 

One big reason for its success is its location. Tillamook County has more cows (30,000) than people (29,000). It relies on 60 nearby dairy farms and 1,100 employees to churn out cheese, ice cream, yogurt, butter and other products to the tune of $1.2 billion in sales over the last ten years, according to the Bend Bulletin. And as the fastest growing cheesy brand in America, nearly 1 in 4 households buy Tillamook products. Plus, its visitor center sparks the economy with about $300 million in visitor spending annually. Having expanded to a second site in Oregon and another in Illinois, it provides food, jobs, stability and a future of growth and economic prosperity.

That will all change if a radical ballot initiative passes in 2026. Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28), created and promoted by animal rights and anti-hunting advocates, would remove animal cruelty exemptions, making it illegal for Tillamook and its supporting dairy suppliers to conduct business as it currently does. It would shutter the farms and force the company, if feasible, to import milk and other products from another state, greatly increasing production costs which would be forwarded to consumers and drive down profitability. On a simpler level, it would end the ability for Oregonians to buy and enjoy made-in-Oregon Tillamook dairy products altogether. 

“It’s (IP 28) very radical. It would create a sanctuary state,” said David Michelson, IP 28 chief petitioner.

Tillamook is just one of many Oregon-based businesses, both large and small, that IP 28 would close down or otherwise drastically impact. Among them are Reeser’s Fine Foods, Threemile Canyon Farms, Eberhard Dairy, Fitzpatrick’s Tuna, Darigold, Burgerville, Salt & Straw, Willamette Valley Meat Company, Oregon Beef Company, Oregon Fish Company, Pacific Seafood, Hallmark Fisheries and on and on.

“Buying locally raised foods at the local farmers market would be outlawed, while restaurant and grocery prices would increase substantially due to the need to ship meat and dairy products in from out of state,” Sen. Anthony Broadman (D-Bend), told KTVZ-TV. 

Animal Handling and Training

IP 28 bans “teaching that involves the use of animals” and “reasonable handling and training techniques.” Such verbiage would seemingly remove or restrict experts from implementing animal training techniques for companionship, protection and other means. It would deny youngsters in agriculture organizations (see youth ag programs below) from learning responsibility, nutrition and care while rearing horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, rabbits and other animals for show and/or food. 

And what about dog training, whether for personal use or for use by law enforcement? Would that also be banned? It seems that way. Proponents offer no clarification.

“None of these exemptions are specific to our companion animals except perhaps handling and training techniques. This would actually help companions a little bit more because there are potentially some techniques that would be no longer allowed,” said Michelson.

Transporting Animals by Owner or Carrier

IP 28 offers ambiguous language for transporting animals. Removing the exemption of “the treatment of livestock being transported by owner or common carrier” seems to mean that animals that become injured during movement would result in their owners being subject to animal cruelty or animal abuse charges. Such penalties would be applicable for farmers and horse owners who use their animals for chores, recreational riding, search and rescue, therapeutic riding and other specialized roles, community events or parades.    

Also unclear is IP 28’s impact on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists tasked with moving wildlife for restoration purposes or to relocate problem animals.

Research

According to the University of Stanford, “The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals.” 

The Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC), affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, is one of seven such centers designed to help people live longer, healthier lives through scientific breakthroughs. IP 28 would ban such research. 

“We often get asked what would we do if we don’t use animals in labs. We get to share them,” said Michelson. “Things like doing testing on human tissue cells, growing human organs in a lab, using more computer models.”  

Shuttering ONPRC could lead to setbacks in research linked to behavior and psychology, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, aging, genetics, infectious disease, metabolic disorders, reproduction, transplant biology and regenerative medicine, and neuroscience and brain disorders. 

Banning the trapping of animals and placing GPS collars on them would also greatly frustrate the growth and accumulation of science-based wildlife research. It would prevent Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists and researchers from learning more about population dynamics, chronic wasting disease, hoof disease, migration patterns and tendencies, predator-prey relations, habitat usage, herd survival and overall health, that leads to more effective wildlife management (link here) practices.

Animal Husbandry

Livestock managers, including farmers and ranchers, agriculture workers and others carry out accepted husbandry practices to best care for their animals to provide the best day-to-day care, production, nutrition, breeding and management to avoid injury and disease. IP 28 would ban such activities labeling them as “sexual assault” and abuse. According to the American Kennel Club, it would also outlaw dog breeding but, ironically, still allow for veterinary practices like spaying, neutering and vet-administered euthanasia for domestic animals. 

Additionally, IP 28 would also eliminate or greatly impact higher education and practices related to veterinary degrees such as the Oregon State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital and similar programs.

Personal Property Rights

IP 28 would weaken personal property rights by forcing residents to do activities and practices (or not do them) on their land that have been legal since the state’s founding in 1859. 

Youth Ag Programs

The mission of 4-H is to give young people access to opportunity. Almost six million girls and boys nationwide participate in a wide range of programs. Among the most popular are agriculture, plant and animal science, including raising animals and sustainable farming. 

Like 4-H, Future Famers of America has more than one million student members across the country. Founded by a group of younger farmers in 1928, its goal is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premiere leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education. 

IP 28 would greatly deter or eliminate participation in these programs, denying opportunities for youth to learn, grow and develop skills and careers in these fields.

Rodeos

On September 29, 1910, the largest crowd in the history of Pendleton witnessed what became known as the Pendleton Round-Up. Today, the annual four-day rodeo attracts 50,000 visitors and is still a celebration of western heritage, rodeo excellence, volunteerism and community spirit. It is also a major economic driver for eastern Oregon.  Past statistics showed tourism, hospitality and spending generated an estimated $50 million economic impact in the region.

Other rodeos highlight similar positive impacts. The Sisters Rodeo generated $10 million in economic benefit in 2025, including $61,150 for a scholarship fund. The Farm-City Pro Rodeo in Hermiston generated more than $3.2 million in spending in 2024.

IP 28 would ban the participation of animals in rodeos or similar exhibitions.

Radical is Nothing New to Oregon

Many people claim IP 28 is too radical to have any chance of passage. Oregon’s history shows otherwise. In 2020, citizens passed Ballot Measure 110 which reduced criminal penalties for possession of hard drugs including heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, oxycodone and PCP. As a result, drug overdoses and related quality of life and public health problems skyrocketed, leading to lawmakers to amend and repeal the measure in 2024. As of September 2024, the penalty for possessing hard drugs changed to a misdemeanor with a six-month jail term that can be waived if those convicted enter mandatory drug treatment. 

“In Oregon we have quite a record of passing some pretty bold initiatives, and so we are trying to take that tradition and use it for the animal rights movement,” said Michelson.

Past Newspaper Editorials

IP 28 proponents, under different numbered initiatives in previous years, tried on two previous occasions to place their ideology on the ballot. Both times, they failed. And both times, Oregon publications raised the warning flag over their intentions. 

La Grande Observer (June 26, 2021): “The economic destruction that Initiative Petition 13 could cause in this state is so severe, and so widespread, that the effort, however quixotic it might be, simply can’t be ignored.” 

Wallowa County Chieftain (March 23, 2022): “It’s a takeover — or an attempt at destruction — of the way of life for many in Oregon, yet one that is pitched as an animal rights bill.”

La Grande Observer (May 13, 2021): “It is an assault on food production, and on Oregon’s farmers, ranchers and fishermen.”

The Bigger Picture

Those who live outside of Oregon may not think IP 28 is a threat to their way of life. Proponents have other ideas. Their game plan is to gather momentum and push animal rights beyond the Oregon state line by using ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments.

“The goal is not to just stop in Oregon. The goal is to end it everywhere. This is just the starting point,” said Michelson.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

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.