FASCISM Oregon Ballot Initiative to Ban Hunting, Fishing Unofficially Achieves Signature Threshold
- Thread starter CaryC
- Start date
CaryC
TB Fanatic
For informational purposes:
When we moved here in 1969 Whitetail deer hunting was by purchasing a tag. They came in a 3 tag lot. 3 different types of hunting seasons 1 tag per season, no carry over. The total deer I saw, not killed, just saw, was 0. Granted I may not have been a good hunter, either. But I bought my tags and went.
A few years after that, the law changed, no tags, and only one buck all season long, spikes were included. I bought my license and went and now was seeing some deer, all does. Killed one 3 point.
A few years after that it was one buck and one doe all season long.
A few years after that it was one buck and one doe in each of the 3 seasons.
Now it is one buck and one doe per season, but the buck has to have a 11 inch main beam, and a 13 inch spread, and the doe has to weight at least 75 lbs. And they have changed the way you can hunt to where you can now hunt over bait and corn feeders.
There are two thing you should take away from that story that covers some 55 years.
1) the population of the deer in MS has increased a lot. MS has gone from very limited deer population to No. 2 in the US behind TX, which has a much, much larger land size. There are roughly 3000 deer accidents a year in the state. I have stopped hunting due my physical condition, but we have a herd of about 8 does that visit us almost every day in the back yard. The buck that breeds these deer is a total nocturnal animal.
2) the hunter in MS, caused this, through herd management. And license fees. My son generally takes 3 legal bucks a year. And a couple of does, if they force him to shoot them. This year he took one 6 and two, 8 points.
There will always be herd management, always. Once a herd gets so big, the food won't support them and they have a die off. That goes for any wild animal population. Starvation is a mean and cruel way to die. Take your pick herd management by gun/hunter or by starvation the natural way. Those that vote for starvation, are some of the meanest people on the planet. Probably vote for abortion too.
When we moved here in 1969 Whitetail deer hunting was by purchasing a tag. They came in a 3 tag lot. 3 different types of hunting seasons 1 tag per season, no carry over. The total deer I saw, not killed, just saw, was 0. Granted I may not have been a good hunter, either. But I bought my tags and went.
A few years after that, the law changed, no tags, and only one buck all season long, spikes were included. I bought my license and went and now was seeing some deer, all does. Killed one 3 point.
A few years after that it was one buck and one doe all season long.
A few years after that it was one buck and one doe in each of the 3 seasons.
Now it is one buck and one doe per season, but the buck has to have a 11 inch main beam, and a 13 inch spread, and the doe has to weight at least 75 lbs. And they have changed the way you can hunt to where you can now hunt over bait and corn feeders.
There are two thing you should take away from that story that covers some 55 years.
1) the population of the deer in MS has increased a lot. MS has gone from very limited deer population to No. 2 in the US behind TX, which has a much, much larger land size. There are roughly 3000 deer accidents a year in the state. I have stopped hunting due my physical condition, but we have a herd of about 8 does that visit us almost every day in the back yard. The buck that breeds these deer is a total nocturnal animal.
2) the hunter in MS, caused this, through herd management. And license fees. My son generally takes 3 legal bucks a year. And a couple of does, if they force him to shoot them. This year he took one 6 and two, 8 points.
There will always be herd management, always. Once a herd gets so big, the food won't support them and they have a die off. That goes for any wild animal population. Starvation is a mean and cruel way to die. Take your pick herd management by gun/hunter or by starvation the natural way. Those that vote for starvation, are some of the meanest people on the planet. Probably vote for abortion too.
I love it. You cant fix stupid but you can put it on full display. I want to see this go to vote and see what the numbers are.
If anyone wants to lose their mind here is an article from their website:
www.yesonip28.org
If anyone wants to lose their mind here is an article from their website:
What IP28 Doesn’t Do
Sometimes we get more clarity about what something is by understanding what it is not. So in the service of such clarity, below are some things our initiative doesn’t do—despite some people online claiming otherwise.
www.yesonip28.org
What IP28 Doesn’t Do
- Mar 5
- 5 min read
Sometimes we get more clarity about what something is by understanding what it is not. So in the service of such clarity, below are some things our initiative doesn’t do—despite some people online claiming otherwise.
IP28 doesn’t ban spaying, neutering, or euthanasia (if done by a veterinarian).
While IP28 does remove the exemptions that allow farmers to castrate animals using elastic bands, knives, clamps, or chemicals, IP28 does not remove exemptions that allow veterinarians to spay and neuter. This is an important, but often conflated, distinction. Section 9 of IP28 lists the exemptions to our animal cruelty laws that our initiative would, and would not, remove from state law. Notably, the current exemption for “Animals subject to good veterinary practices as described in ORS 686.030 (Acts constituting practice of veterinary medicine)” would be kept.
If you open ORS 686.030 (https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_686.030) you will find a list of veterinary practices. Number 2 and Number 4 are the two most applicable here.
2: Prescribes or administers a drug, medicine or treatment for the prevention, cure, amelioration, correction or modification of an animal problem or for euthanasia.
4: Performs a surgical or dental operation or procedure upon an animal.
Spaying and neutering, being surgical procedures, would be allowed even if IP28 were to pass. It would also allow for a veterinarian to euthanize an animal, and it would be the veterinarian’s responsibility for determining that that course of action was in the best interest of the animal, rather than in the best interest of a human being. That is why our campaign seeks to allow for veterinarians to euthanize an animal, but why our campaign would not allow farmers to simply shoot an animal that has been injured rather than seek medical care, because we are concerned that the motivation for that type of “euthanasia” is motivated more out of convenience and profit rather than concern for the animal.
For additional confirmation, the ballot title created by the Attorney General also notes that our initiative still provides "exceptions for ‘good veterinary practices’ and self-defense”.
IP28 doesn’t require us to be overrun by mice and rats.
The first widely recognized and commercially available humane live-catch mouse trap was patented in 1876. This is not a new technology. They are available at Target, Walmart, Amazon, and many hardware stores. And nothing about IP28 prohibits us from using them. IP28 also doesn’t prevent us from using birth control bait boxes (rather than poison bait boxes) to manage mouse populations. IP28 also doesn’t prohibit us from locating the spaces where mice may enter our home or business and blocking the passageway.
Yes, we acknowledge, these strategies may not be as convenient as killing. Violence often does seem attractive because of its convenience. But it also isn’t that inconvenient either, and that extra bit of effort saves a life. Fortunately for those not interested in even that level of effort, those currently employed as “exterminators” could easily continue their profession in the broader field of “rodent management” and be hired to catch and release any wandering mice or rats as well as identify and cover up the hole they are coming in from.
IP28 doesn’t remove funding for conservation.
It may come as a surprise to many that, according to ODFW themselves, they spend less than 2% of their budget on Wildlife Conservation. In the 2023-2025 budget, which I encourage you to open for yourself, they spent $8.7 million out of their total of $555 million in expenditures on conservation.
People are correctly pointing out that, if IP28 passes, then ODFW would no longer make revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. But the revenue from those licenses go towards creating the conditions necessary to keep hunting and fishing, not towards conservation. What do we mean by that? Well, two of the largest expenses for the ODFW are managing hatcheries (which wouldn’t be needed if we weren’t constantly killing the fish) and managing fisheries (which would be banned). Another large portion goes to what they call Wildlife Management, which in their more detailed budget white paper includes activities like “establish and regulate hunting seasons,” and “collecting hunter harvest information,” and “provide hunting access.”
In 2023-2025 the ODFW received $213.5 million from federal funding and $65.4 million from the state general fund. That is more than enough to cover their current $8.7 million conservation efforts. No hunting or fishing needed.
IP28 doesn’t ban wildlife management.
Animal abuse in Oregon is defined as the intentional injury of an animal. The reason many activities that currently involve intentional injury to an animal aren’t illegal is because they are explicitly exempt from being covered by our animal cruelty laws. One such exemption is for “wildlife management practices,” and this exemption would be removed if IP28 were to pass. That does not mean, however, that any and all wildlife management practices would be banned, it only means that such practices would be banned if they resulted in intentional injury.
This does rule out lethal forms of wildlife management (like hunting and poison), but it does not rule out non-lethal forms of wildlife management. What are some of these non-lethal measures? Well, both the ODFW and the USDA (neither of which are known to be hard-liner animal rights groups) have their own lists of such non-lethal measures. These include sterilization vaccines, contraceptives, habitat modification, fencing and other barriers, repellents and scare devices, translocation, reducing attractants, and other experimental practices.
It isn’t hard to imagine a world where, rather than tracking down and shooting an animal with a bullet, we could track down and shoot an animal with a sterilization vaccine. I’m sure many who currently hunt recreationally would find the latter similarly enjoyable. It would certainly require just as much skill. Heck, maybe we could even sell licenses for people to conduct this sterilization program, and use the funds for conservation.
IP28 doesn’t ban killing insects or other invertebrates.
In Oregon, an animal is already legally defined as a “mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish.” IP28 does not change this definition, and notably this definition already excludes invertebrates entirely. This definition is listed in ORS 167.310.
IP28 doesn’t prevent you from owning a companion animal.
When I first came across this claim, I was truly confused, but I believe I now understand where this misconception is coming from. IP28 does not prohibit animal ownership nor does it prohibit residing with an animal on your property. IP28 does, however, prohibit someone who has been convicted of animal abuse, neglect, or sexual assault from owning an animal for up to 15 years following the conviction. This prohibition applies even if the animal you want to own is of a different species from the animal whom you were convicted of abusing, neglecting, or sexually assaulting. So, if you've been convicted of intentionally injuring or killing a pig, you would not be able to own a dog, for up to 15 years (depending on the severity of the injury to the pig).
Vulture45-70
Veteran Member
Go get your beef at the super market they don't kill steers, lambs, etc. Stupidity at its best. Me, a good ole deer steak will do just fine
CaryC
TB Fanatic
Wondering if you can hunt on federal "Public Lands" even in OR. Over which states have no authority.
By: Chris Bray
May 27, 2026
2 min read
Image CreditOutdoor Ways / YouTube
You can comment on the proposed rule changes here, and scroll down below the comment form to read the proposed rule changes in detail. Public comment must be received by June 26 to be considered.
The X account known by the username Rodeo Professor provides a detailed state-by-state breakdown of the local effects of the proposed rule change, giving you a quick way to see what it means where you live.
The proposed rule change follows an order from Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, which found that “public and federally managed lands should be open to hunting and fishing unless a specific, documented, and legally supported exception applies.” The order changes the underlying presumption in the federal management of public lands, applying what is sometimes called an “open unless closed” premise in which hunting and fishing access is the default position that requires specific exemptions.
“Hunting and fishing are foundational components of the Nation’s conservation tradition,” Burgum wrote in his order. “For generations, sportsmen and women have contributed to wildlife and fisheries management through license sales, excise taxes on equipment, and voluntary conservation efforts. Expanding opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on Department-managed lands not only strengthens conservation outcomes, but also supports rural economies, public health, and access to America’s outdoor spaces.”
While new rules from Department of the Interior agencies like the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management are expected to follow, the rule change proposed this week affects public lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“This includes opening hunting or sport fishing opportunities for the first time on 14 National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and 3 National Fish Hatcheries (NFH),” the summary of the rule change says. “The proposed actions will open or expand more than 1,450 opportunities for hunting and fishing.”
The 30-day public comment period is now open.
thefederalist.com
The Trump Administration Proposes A Big Expansion Of Hunting Rights On Public Lands
By: Chris BrayMay 27, 2026
2 min read
Image CreditOutdoor Ways / YouTube
Share
- Share Article on Facebook
- Share Article on Twitter
- Share Article on Truth Social
- Copy Article Link
- Share Article via Email
You can comment on the proposed rule changes here, and scroll down below the comment form to read the proposed rule changes in detail. Public comment must be received by June 26 to be considered.
The X account known by the username Rodeo Professor provides a detailed state-by-state breakdown of the local effects of the proposed rule change, giving you a quick way to see what it means where you live.
The proposed rule change follows an order from Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, which found that “public and federally managed lands should be open to hunting and fishing unless a specific, documented, and legally supported exception applies.” The order changes the underlying presumption in the federal management of public lands, applying what is sometimes called an “open unless closed” premise in which hunting and fishing access is the default position that requires specific exemptions.
“Hunting and fishing are foundational components of the Nation’s conservation tradition,” Burgum wrote in his order. “For generations, sportsmen and women have contributed to wildlife and fisheries management through license sales, excise taxes on equipment, and voluntary conservation efforts. Expanding opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on Department-managed lands not only strengthens conservation outcomes, but also supports rural economies, public health, and access to America’s outdoor spaces.”
While new rules from Department of the Interior agencies like the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management are expected to follow, the rule change proposed this week affects public lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“This includes opening hunting or sport fishing opportunities for the first time on 14 National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and 3 National Fish Hatcheries (NFH),” the summary of the rule change says. “The proposed actions will open or expand more than 1,450 opportunities for hunting and fishing.”
The 30-day public comment period is now open.
Trump Admin Looks To Expand Hunting Rights On Public Lands
New rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will substantially improve access for hunting and fishing on public lands.
thefederalist.com
State will lose many millions just in lost game license fees, with much bigger deficits in related lost income
Still requires a state license.Wondering if you can hunt on federal "Public Lands" even in OR. Over which states have no authority.
The Trump Administration Proposes A Big Expansion Of Hunting Rights On Public Lands
By: Chris Bray
May 27, 2026
2 min read
Image CreditOutdoor Ways / YouTube
Share
Let’s call this a moment of multicultural understanding: An administration led by a real estate developer from Manhattan is proposing a federal rule change that will substantially improve access to public lands for hunting and fishing. But there’s an important proviso, as federal rule changes require a public comment period, and anti-hunting groups will certainly flood the comment period with opposition.
- Share Article on Facebook
- Share Article on Twitter
- Share Article on Truth Social
- Copy Article Link
- Share Article via Email
You can comment on the proposed rule changes here, and scroll down below the comment form to read the proposed rule changes in detail. Public comment must be received by June 26 to be considered.
The X account known by the username Rodeo Professor provides a detailed state-by-state breakdown of the local effects of the proposed rule change, giving you a quick way to see what it means where you live.
The proposed rule change follows an order from Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, which found that “public and federally managed lands should be open to hunting and fishing unless a specific, documented, and legally supported exception applies.” The order changes the underlying presumption in the federal management of public lands, applying what is sometimes called an “open unless closed” premise in which hunting and fishing access is the default position that requires specific exemptions.
“Hunting and fishing are foundational components of the Nation’s conservation tradition,” Burgum wrote in his order. “For generations, sportsmen and women have contributed to wildlife and fisheries management through license sales, excise taxes on equipment, and voluntary conservation efforts. Expanding opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on Department-managed lands not only strengthens conservation outcomes, but also supports rural economies, public health, and access to America’s outdoor spaces.”
While new rules from Department of the Interior agencies like the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management are expected to follow, the rule change proposed this week affects public lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“This includes opening hunting or sport fishing opportunities for the first time on 14 National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and 3 National Fish Hatcheries (NFH),” the summary of the rule change says. “The proposed actions will open or expand more than 1,450 opportunities for hunting and fishing.”
The 30-day public comment period is now open.
Trump Admin Looks To Expand Hunting Rights On Public Lands
New rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will substantially improve access for hunting and fishing on public lands.
CaryC
TB Fanatic
I didn't notice if OR will continue to sell license or not.
But reg's on federal public land can be vastly different than state laws.
The federal public land known as the Tenn-Tom Waterway, will only allow hunting with a primitive weapon, all season long, no dogs. When they instituted that about 20 years ago, we quit hunting there. So there may be even more rules and regs now.
I was only trying to offer to the Oranigians one last ray of hope, anyway.
I called out the Sheriff's department last night to put down a young buck who had been hit by a car. (I heard it happen from my yard.) He was a road hazard. Although severely injured, and obviously in pain, he tried at least twice to get on his feet, once heading for the road again. I watched over him from a safe distance and slowed the few cars that came past.
The deputy came out and humanely took him out of his misery, and avoided a potential second accident. Under this law, it would have been illegal for the deputy to do so. The poor animal would have been left to suffer longer, someone else may have hit him (I think someone lost their radiator to this deer strike) and as it was getting dark fast, someone could have wrecked and gotten hurt either hitting him or avoiding him.
Who ever writes dangerous drivel like this initiative must live in the city with no exposure to real life in the country, or farming and ranching practices. They have no concept of sound wildlife management practices. In short, they are idiots. Uneducated, inexperienced, idiots who will get people killed, put ranching and farming out of business, and cause more suffering to the very creatures they are trying to help. Did I mention that they are idiots?
(Less than two weeks. I can't get out of here and close on my home fast enough!)
The deputy came out and humanely took him out of his misery, and avoided a potential second accident. Under this law, it would have been illegal for the deputy to do so. The poor animal would have been left to suffer longer, someone else may have hit him (I think someone lost their radiator to this deer strike) and as it was getting dark fast, someone could have wrecked and gotten hurt either hitting him or avoiding him.
Who ever writes dangerous drivel like this initiative must live in the city with no exposure to real life in the country, or farming and ranching practices. They have no concept of sound wildlife management practices. In short, they are idiots. Uneducated, inexperienced, idiots who will get people killed, put ranching and farming out of business, and cause more suffering to the very creatures they are trying to help. Did I mention that they are idiots?
(Less than two weeks. I can't get out of here and close on my home fast enough!)
day late
money? whats that?
Over the years, I have discovered that most of these people will claim that hunters are inhumane for killing these poor defenseless animals. I always ask, "Have you seen how they treat each other? They EAT one another while the victim is still alive. At least I give them a quick death".
babysteps
Veteran Member
So according to their website, I will have to spend a couple hundred dollars every year, for a farm call, anesthetic, and surgical castration of our crop of lambs and calves every year. Instead of numbing spray and banding, which costs around $10. Because someone who doesn't know anything about livestock, thinks that my method is less humane... which is interesting since my VET is the one who taught me and supplies me with the numbing spray. And I only have 2-5 calves a year and 5-15 lambs a year. Picture a huge ranch with hundreds or thousands of cattle, sheep, or goats.
Huh. I would've though the price of beef and lamb were high enough already.
I notice they didn't touch on slaughtering animals for food, nor did they address ai breeding, or milking dairy animals, which would all be considered abuse or sexual abuse of livestock under their stupid law.
And they can twist things all they want - they are still going to make it dang near impossible to control rodent infestations.
They'll talk you in circles but the end result is still going to be a freaking nightmare.
Huh. I would've though the price of beef and lamb were high enough already.
I notice they didn't touch on slaughtering animals for food, nor did they address ai breeding, or milking dairy animals, which would all be considered abuse or sexual abuse of livestock under their stupid law.
And they can twist things all they want - they are still going to make it dang near impossible to control rodent infestations.
They'll talk you in circles but the end result is still going to be a freaking nightmare.
Big Kahuna
Contributing Member
Big Kahuna
Contributing Member
That is progress!
WorkinStiff
Senior Member
Given the amount of money to be lost by the companies who sell the gear used in commercial fishing, the livestock industry and recreational fishing and hunting coupled with the fact that if it passes here it will be proposed in every other blue state, a lot of corporations will probably spend whatever it takes to defeat it...........Can you imagine how much they'd lose if such a law were passed in blue California, not to mention Wash, NY, NJ Mich, Wis, Minn, Ill, Ohio, Mass, Conn, RI, Vermont, N Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, and possibly AZ, NM and Colo, all states who always or often vote blue..........They've got to nip it in the bud here..................
WorkinStiff
Senior Member
HEY!!..You sayin I got low T..............Gee, Maybe that's why I never get second dates?.........
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
so.........there would no longer be ANY animals raised for food in the entire state of Oregon?
And........."injuring"............would this bill classify pulling on the teats of a cow to milk her as "painful" or "injurious" to the cow?
What about eggs? If fertilized, they are embryonic chickens/birds; and wouldn't taking them from the hen "hurt" the hen? (her Feelz, at least..........)
[Foghorn Leghorn's "Miss Prissy" and her egg...."Mah BAAABY!!"-- full 47-sec clip at
]
Last edited:
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
What state are you moving into? (hope it's Georgia; we need more sane people here. And you'd fit right in with our pine trees.........)
beaglemama
Senior Member
Don't go giving them any ideas.
EasyMoney
Senior Member
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. And we should have used it a long time ago. It applies here...
MountainBiker
Veteran Member
They didn't forget about mice and rats. The proposed law allows you to block how they get into your home, use birth control methods to reduce their populations, or deploy catch and release devices. Just when you thought the crazy couldn't get crazier, along comes Oregon.....
naegling62
Veteran Member
Psst…hey Oregon come here. I’m not sure but I’ve heard mowing hurts grass, got any ideas?
Zahra
Veteran Member
Well...... they didn't say where you had to release them at least, so how about into a bucket of water to drown? Not as humane as an instant kill, but hey, you complied with the idiotic law. Either that or they all get rounded up and released in Portland for the morons so concerned about their welfare to enjoy their company!
CaryC
TB Fanatic
LOL and that is exactly how AOC thinks. Remember her statement a couple of years ago (those crazy statements never go away) We don't need farms we have grocery stores.
Thank you, Countrymouse. A mid- western state. I hope to be close enough to meet you one day!
BUBBAHOTEPT
Veteran Member
Democrats………
Love that idea. Don't forget to release some in Salem, the state capital.
West
Senior
I could catch some racoons, if someone wanted to relocate them to Oregon.
Just needs a days notest. I'll catch at least two.
The funny thing is that it is illegal in Oregon to relocate wildlife that you have livetrapped. This includes rodents of all types. One of the main reasons is for preventing the spread of disease. To relocate wildlife requires a special permit. This could be fun to watch - from several states away!
day late
money? whats that?
THIS reminds me of something I heard one time. A lady called into a radio show and complained that they should move the deer crossing signs. Because these poor deer were crossing in high traffic area and were being injured and killed. The state simply had to move those signs so the deer would cross the road in a less hazardous area.
I admire the host of the show for not busting a gut by laughing at her.
Last edited:
babysteps
Veteran Member
Point A - correct. We would no longer be able to slaughter/harvest/butcher/whatever your euphemism is
Anything.
Point B -.oh. No no no. THAT would be aggravated sexual assault of an animal.
As would castration and artificial insemination.Tell you what, I dunno what they're putting in the water but it kills brain cells like nothing I've ever seen.
ginnie6
Veteran Member
When Oregone is completely over run by rats and mice, when deer are everywhere, predators will come. Personally they want to be that stupid let them be over run by rats. Mouse comes in my house it doesn't leave the same way. Luna makes sure of that.
And whatever will they say when they let their precious Fido out and a mountain lion eats him? Cause you know they came for the deer those hunters let overpopulate......
And whatever will they say when they let their precious Fido out and a mountain lion eats him? Cause you know they came for the deer those hunters let overpopulate......
Last edited:
JMG91
Veteran Member
Make the plague great again!Living here most of my life... I can.
Folks around here keep saying "it'll never pass" and I'm just shaking my head thinking of all the other "it'll never pass" bills that passed.
The only exception i know of on the bill is you'll still be able to get dogs and cats fixed. Won't be able to castrate cows, sheep, goats, etc... but you can neuter your dog.
And "illegal to injure or kill any animal" INCLUDES MICE AND RATS.
The stupid is THICK, lemmetellya.
Hubs can retire in just under 3 years. Unless something drastic improves in this state between now and then (highly unlikely) we'll be moving ASAP.
