Yes, that’s right. Michelson has authored a ballot measure that would prohibit everything from the ownership of pets to the killing of mice in your home or restaurant. Simply tethering your horse to a hitching post would become a criminal act of cruelty. I’m not making this up.

This ballot measure is being marketed as the “PEACE Act,” or People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions.

In a nutshell, this measure would prohibit and criminalize all hunting and fishing (including all commercial fishing, which puts food on our tables). But it doesn’t stop there. The measure bans scientific research, ranching, animal husbandry, pest control, and literally any other activity that may have an impact on animals or insects. Yes, pest control, even for farmers, would be outlawed and criminalized for treating crops.

This ballot measure, Initiative Petition 28, isn’t exactly new. A facsimile of this ballot proposal has been floated, unsuccessfully, twice in the past four years. Previous attempts were poorly presented and grossly underfunded. However, this time they have carefully marketed the proposal as a measure to eliminate animal cruelty. Large, well-funded “animal rights” organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Karuna Foundation are now providing significant financial backing.

The measure defines animal cruelty so broadly that injuring or killing any animal, which means mammal, fish, bird, reptile, or invertebrate, would become a criminal act. Even raising chickens to produce eggs or treating your home-grown tomatoes against insects would become a criminal act. If you shot a coyote that was killing your pet dog, that would be a criminal act, except you would no longer be allowed to “keep or own” a pet, any kind of pet.

The measure criminalizes common breeding practices for domestic animals, livestock, and equine. It eliminates hunting and fishing, which would remove funding for fish and wildlife management. It directs the state to fund animal welfare and provide food assistance. However, it fails to indicate where the food would come from, since food production would essentially be outlawed. Finally, it requires the state to provide job training for people who lose their livelihoods due to the initiative’s enactment. For example, the measure would provide funding to teach a displaced fifth-generation rancher to become a sales associate at Walmart.

The prohibitions apply to vermin and nuisance animals and any activities that may kill or injure any sort of living creature. Animal husbandry, rodeos, slaughtering livestock and poultry for food would all be legally banned. Animal breeding, fishing, hunting, trapping, and most wildlife management practices would be outlawed. Scientific or agricultural research and teaching, along with the control of vermin and nuisance animals, would also be prohibited. Even reasonable animal handling and training practices would be illegal. The proposed measure would make those, and virtually all other common practices involving animals and pests, an illegal act. That’s right, you could not kill a rat or a mouse or even a fly in your own home. It would become a criminal offense.

Teams of well-paid representatives are, at this moment, canvassing the streets of Oregon, presenting deceptively worded and intentionally misleading endorsements of this petition, while simultaneously collecting signatures to endorse and ensure the measure makes it on the ballot. This is the third iteration of the measure.

This time around, with funding from PETA and other animal welfare organizations, it’s nearly certain to make the ballot. Expect to see Michelson and his supporters repackaging this measure in future election cycles until they get the wording just innocuous enough. “Why not just ban killing animals?” is their mantra. Remember, killing animals means any type of living creature.

Similar legislation was floated in Colorado a couple of years ago. It didn’t pass that time. Each repackaging basically says the same thing, but in a slicker and more palatable manner. Mindy Patterson, a spokesperson for American Agri-Women, stated, “This initiative is being promoted in a way that will intentionally mislead voters by playing on their emotions… this initiative is a recipe for starvation as it will place a noose on food producers across the state and force them out of business.”

If passed, the measure would redefine, for any animal, as sexual assault on an animal, including artificial insemination, castration, spaying, and neutering.

The opening paragraph of the IP28 website (yesonIP28.com) explicitly states, “You do not need to print out (read) the full text on pages 2 to 11, just go to Step 4, which is a signature page endorsing the ballot measure. Just fill out the page, sign it and send it back to David Michelson.”

In other words, don’t worry about the details; trust us, this is a great idea.

Supporters of this measure say, “Oregon has better options than killing animals.” But this isn’t about trophy hunting or banning some traps. It isn’t about abuse or neglect. This measure would criminalize the killing or injuring of any animal. Even claiming ownership of your dog or cat would be illegal. Ostensibly, one could become “the guardian” of an animal, but ownership would be viewed as akin to slavery.

As with many ballot measures, most voters will see the initiative for the first time while they’re in the voting booth or perusing a highly skewed and carefully worded handout that’s been prepared and presented by proponents. Once they’re inside the voting booth, they’ll view a very brief, emotionally charged summary of the proposal that’s almost completely lacking in detail but heavily weighted in emotionalism and propaganda. The average voter will see this and think, “Oh gee, this is to prevent animal cruelty. I’m for that.”

The biggest problem with this proposal, aside from outlawing a plethora of things necessary to the health and vigor of our population, is that the ballot initiative process completely circumvents the legislative process. There is no opportunity for amendments, judicial review, or even checks and balances on the legality. Once voted in, it becomes law as written.

David Michelson, animal rights activist and champion of this debacle, has openly stated that his intent in life is to “stimulate animal liberation.” However, there is surprisingly little available on the internet about his background. What is clear is that he is a skinny little vegan with “a background in psychology” — whatever that means.

Apparently, he also has some experience with creative writing. Michelson has compared this initiative to the women’s suffrage movement, writing, “We’re inspired by women’s suffrage, which used the ballot initiative to get the right to vote. In Oregon, it took six election cycles before it finally passed.”

Really? Are the rights of women akin to keeping a rat out of a trap?

Michelson has inferred that the intention is to continue to push this in the face of Oregonians and other states, repackaging the initiative over and over while rephrasing and modifying the verbiage in hopes of someday wearing down the voting public. The effect on the economy would be staggeringly catastrophic. Food products would have to be shipped in from other states, and entire economies based on outdoor activities and food production would be lost. Family farming and ranching practices would be banned. He and his supporters have one real goal: to eliminate the use or ownership of animals.

He expects to transition farms and ranches into “animal sanctuaries.” Michelson recently said in an interview, “About 13% of Oregon's overall gross sales product is agriculture, and of that, 30% is the sale of animals or their products, while 70% is crops. We can make 100% of that crops if we choose to do so.”

Think about that for a second. I wonder what he expects to eat or even how humanity would survive if his measure is successful and spreads to other states, which is his aim.

Initiative Petition 28 will make felons out of veterinarians, pet owners, farmers, ranchers, animal researchers, hunters, and fishermen. Yes, even taking your kids fishing on a Saturday afternoon would be outlawed as animal cruelty, even if it’s catch and release. The breadth of this idea seems to be without limits. The only exemptions to this initiative would be “some veterinary practices and self-defense.” Of course, he and his group are staunchly opposed to firearms and weapons, so self-defense becomes what, a stick maybe?

Michelson has also said, “Our campaign is saying: How do we shift society — all of society — toward not killing animals anymore?” Remember, this would make you a criminal if you dared to set a mousetrap in your home. Pest control is out. Rats in a restaurant are protected; if a farmer treats his fields to minimize pestilence, he becomes a criminal. Even exotic non-native invasive species that threaten native or endemic species cannot be treated or removed. Seafood would become illegal, and the Oregon coastal economy would collapse. Even wildlife conservation would be essentially eliminated, as fish and wildlife management activities are almost entirely funded and supported by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses via the Pittman-Robertson Act. Oregon would be forced to import nearly all of its food and agricultural products.

Huge portions of any state’s economy would be lost, but at least rats and mice would be safe, and dogs and cats would be free to roam the streets, searching for food and shelter because they no longer have homes.

The real fallacy and problem with this proposal is not the short-sighted idea of a bunch of malnourished vegans. The real problem is that groups like PETA and other proponents of this ballot measure are almost certain to gather enough signatures to put this on the ballot. Once they’re assured of a vote, hired writers will carefully skew the description of what this measure really means and why it’s necessary.