Link: https://www.kdrv.com/news/ip-3-could-have-broad-effects-for-oregon-animal-care-and-abuse/article_88bc3420-006d-11ed-9687-d701f496f17e.html
SALEM, Ore. — An Oregon initiative petition up for public consideration is getting resistance today from the Oregon Farm Bureau. The Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) says it opposes Oregon initiative petition 2024-003 (IP-3) as a ballot measure. The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office (OSOS) shows IP-3 is an eight-page measure about animal rights and care in Oregon with the heading, “The People of Oregon therefore propose the Abuse, Neglect, and Assault Exemption Modification and Improvement Act to amend Chapter 167 of the Oregon Revised Statutes—which currently provide unnecessary exemptions to laws governing animal abuse, animal neglect, and animal sexual assault—in order to reduce the suffering of animals and improve their quality of life.” Its Section 2 goes into detail about provisions that constitute adequate shelter for animals, including pets. It also addresses animal agriculture to allow practices of “good animal husbandry.” IP-3 Section 3 goes further to amend ORS 167.315 to read, “(1) A person commits the crime of animal abuse in the second degree if, except as [otherwise authorized by law] necessary to defend against the threat of immediate harm to oneself, to other humans, or to other animals, the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to an animal.” OFB says the breadth of the proposal could “criminalize hunting, fishing, good animal husbandry practices for caring for livestock, and a myriad of other animal management practices” if passed by voters. The Bureau says, “On June 13th, the Oregon Attorney General certified the ballot title for IP-3, which would broadly criminalize hunting, fishing, good animal husbandry practices for caring for livestock, and a myriad of other animal management practices. IP-3 is even more expansive than its failed predecessor, IP-13, and would have dramatic negative impacts on Oregon’s farm and ranch families. The Oregon Farm Bureau joined several other organizations in submitting detailed comments on the ballot title that helped shape the title to ensure Oregonians understand just how extreme this measure is. Given that the petitioners are aiming to have IP-3 on the ballot in 2024, we encourage Oregonians to urge their friends and neighbors not to sign the ballot petition for IP-3 over the next two years. The Oregon Farm Bureau is committed to fighting IP-3, and we hope you’ll join us.” OSOS shows prospective Petition 2024-003 was filed March 16, 2022 and, “To begin the ballot title drafting process, chief petitioners must submit 1,000 sponsorship signatures” for the measure intended for a 2024 public vote. OSOS records show the petition’s sponsors submitted signatures April 20, 2022, with signatures verification completed for 1,224 signatures May 4, 2022. OSOS has filed more than 50 pages of comments about the proposed measure, including Ralph Wiley’s opening line, “Outlawing meat in Oregon! Someone is off their rocker to even consider this idea and even trying to implement it in any form.” IP-3’s Section 9 lists exemptions from the proposed petition’s penalties for animal abuse and animal sexual assault, which can include denial of animal ownership for five to 15 years. It says exceptions include:
Though exceptions are listed, Oregon’s Department of Justice issued its analysis of IP-3. It says the measure would remove most of the exceptions allowed under current Oregon law for hunting, fishing, pet breeding and animal harvest for food. It wrote: “In analyzing the effects of the proposed measure, we believe that it is helpful to consider the measure in the context of current laws regarding animal abuse and neglect. The proposed measure amends ORS 167.315, ORS 167.320, ORS 167.325, ORS 167.330, ORS 167.333, and ORS 167.335. Under ORS 167.315, it is a misdemeanor to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly injure an animal. Good animal husbandry practices are exempted, as are numerous practices set forth in ORS 167.335, including transportation of animals; rodeos; growing of poultry; the slaughter of animals by methods authorized by law; fishing, hunting, and trapping; lawful wildlife management; lawful scientific or agricultural research; control of vermin or pests; and reasonable handling and training techniques. The proposed measure removes all of those exceptions. Under ORS 167.320, it is a crime, and may be a felony, to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause serious physical injury to an animal, or to cruelly cause the death of an animal, subject to the same exceptions included in ORS 167.315 and 167.335. Once again, the proposed measure removes all of those exceptions. It would therefore be a crime, under this proposal, to slaughter livestock for food, or to kill rats, mice, or other vermin and pests. Under ORS 167.325, it is a crime to intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence fail to provide minimum care for an animal in a person’s custody or control, or to tether a domestic animal in a way that causes physical injury. ORS 167.330 provides greater penalties if that conduct results in serious physical injury or death of a domestic animal. The proposed measure removes the exception to these provisions for practices that are otherwise authorized by law. ORS 167.333 makes sexual assault of an animal a felony. As currently defined, the crime applies to touching of the mouth, anus, or sex organs of an animal for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person. The statute does not apply to the use of animal products, and thus allows, for example, artificial insemination. The proposed measure would make many current practices for breeding pets, livestock, and horses a criminal offense. The proposed measure would thus criminalize many common farming and ranching practices, as well as recreational and commercial hunting, fishing, and trapping, pest control, and many other practices that are now specifically authorized by law. Commenters noted this would be a far-reaching change to the laws currently governing treatment of animals.” |