In 2021, the IP13 was heavily trying to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot, but was unable to. The abandonment of that radical animal extremist ballot initiative was short-lived relief as in March of 2022 a new version was formed. It is now being re-introduce as P3 and has started gathering signatures again under the “Abuse, Neglect, and Assault Exemption Modification and Improvement Act.” They will need to collect 112,000 signatures to get this on the November 2024 ballot (this cannot be stopped by elected officials).
It is imperative for the livestock industry of Oregon that this DOES NOT BECOME LAW.
The goal of P3 is to make it illegal to utilize animals for food, fiber, or simply companionship. This is accomplished by creating stipulations where activities such as artificial insemination, standard training methods, and common and humane animal husbandry practices are illegal. These activities could then land farmers and pet owners with a criminal record and prison time. Both versions are harmful to Oregon families and animals. If passed it will only serve the ideological agenda of animal extremists who are vying to end animal agriculture and animal ownership.
About Oregon IP 13
IP13 was initially proposed by a group led by David Michelson who is a known animal rights extremist living in the Portland area. IP 13 proposed anti animal agriculture laws that would have subjected all animal owners and veterinarians which would put them in danger of amassing a criminal record.
The criminal implications proposed in IP 13 are vast and extreme. The bill was aimed to amend sections of already existing laws that protected animal agriculture and basic animal husbandry practices. These extremist goals were to make COMMON and HUMANE animal husbandry practices, and even fishing or hunting criminal.
A particular section of IP 13 that was of much concern was the redefinition of “sexual assault” on animals. Changes to Section 6 ORS 167.333, which is an already existing animal cruelty law in Oregon, would make it impossible for farmers, ranchers, and veterinarians to assist in NORMAL reproductive practices.
What is Petition 3?
Much Like its predecessor, IP 13, Petition 3 (P 3) uses words and statements intended to misrepresent animal agriculture, pet ownership, and livestock ownership in Oregon. The “people of Oregon” who filed this petition want its citizens to believe a “yes” vote means they are doing good for animals.
What they don’t want you to know is their real goal. This goal is to charge farmers, ranchers, pet owners, and even veterinarians with a felony or misdemeanor for using common animal husbandry practices.
Ultimately, they plan to take down animal agriculture and pet ownership. This becomes apparent in the amendment (see below) to Section 7 ORS 167.332. They want to take away animals they deem “abused” or “assaulted.” Their definition of “abused” includes an animal being tied up, undergoing certain veterinary procedures, and by being “assaulted” during standard breeding. Some of these practices include tying your dog or horse up and not providing “proper” shelter. This ignores the fact that livestock live outside.
Section 7 ORS 167.332 Amendment Proposition. The amendment reads as follows:
“[(b)](2) In addition to any other penalty imposed by law, a person convicted of violating ORS 167.322 (Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree), 167.333 (Sexual assault of an animal), 167.365 (Dogfighting) or 167.428 (Cockfighting) or of a felony under ORS 167.320 (Animal abuse in the first degree), 167.325 (Animal neglect in the second degree) or 167.330 (Animal neglect in the first degree) may not possess any animal [of the same genus against which the crime was committed or any domestic animal] for a period of 15 years following entry of the conviction. However, the sentencing court may reduce the prohibition period if the person successfully completes mental health treatment approved by the court.”
P 3 Language Includes Child Abuse
The animal extremists pushing P 3 are working to criminalize animal agriculture and pet ownership, and they are upping the ante to include criminal child abuse. This is accomplished in the language by stating it would be a “crime” and therefore “child abuse” if a child is exposed to standard animal husbandry practices. See their proposed amendments for Section 5 ORS 167.325 (existing Oregon animal welfare law):
“(c) The person knowingly commits the offense in the immediate presence of a minor child and the person has one or more previous convictions for an offense involving domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230 (Definitions for ORS 135.230 to 135.290). For purposes of this paragraph, a minor child is in the immediate presence of animal neglect if the neglect is seen or directly perceived in any other manner by the minor child.”
As any animal owner knows, pets and livestock may need to be tied up for one reason or another. Animal owners also know that sometimes animals can get injured while tied up and these extremists want to claim child abuse if a minor witnesses it. For instance, it is a fairly common occurrence among horses to set back (pull against their lead rope) when they are young and learning how to be tied up. In some cases, this can lead to them falling over from the force and injuring themselves. This is no different than a child being told not to touch a hot stove and them doing it anyways and getting burned. While this is always a concern of horse owners it is sometimes unavoidable. The same can be said for the children of horse owners. They know that it is just a part of horse training and are definitely not “abused” by watching it happen. The only repercussions to the child would be positive ones. They will learn how to safely tie horses up and gain experience with horses in difficult situations. If a horse does not learn to stand tied the consequences can be great. They would not be able to receive veterinary care, basic animal husbandry, trimming, or even training. When a horse is unable to be tied, there is greater risk of injury and less likelihood that they can receive basic, necessary care or help in an emergency as it would be difficult to move them from one location to another. The benefit of a horse learning to stand tied far outweighs the risks.
The Steps Needed to make Oregon Petition 3 Law
Supporters of P 3 must obtain 1000 signatures in order to send it to the Oregon State Attorney General. Once the signatures are obtained it will be given an official title (which they turned in already). Now they need to get 112,000 more signatures to be on the 2024 ballot. Once on the Oregon ballot, it will either be voted into law or defeated by the citizens of the state of Oregon. The concerning issue this time around is that they have investors who are funding signature gathering (they did not have this with IP13).
What Happens if P 3 Becomes Law
The passing of P 3 will set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow. Unfortunately, this attempt to criminalize animal ownership and animal agriculture is not the first. Colorado’s Initiative 16 proposed similar ideas under the guise of “animal welfare.” Thankfully it was thrown out on a technicality. It is crucial we keep legislation like this from passing to not give headway to more extremist initiatives.
What We Can Do To Stop This
These extremist groups will continue pushing their ideology and agenda across the country and we MUST step up to stop them if we want to continue our way of life. The best way to stop I3 is to spread the word to NOT sign the petition. If this makes it on the ballot, it will take a statewide grassroots marketing effort to get everyone to vote NO when they see it on the ballot.
Language of Oregon Petition 3 HERE
Language of Oregon IP 13 HERE
Protect The Harvest Articles About IP 13 HERE HERE HERE HERE
Much of the content provided above came from: