Irrelevant
Well-known member
Doesn't mean I can't soapbox against it!
OR ballot to end hunting, fishing, ranching, dairy farming. . .
- Thread starter elkduds
- Start date
elkduds
Well-known member
I posted the thread, FFS. Just as there is an extreme right, there is an extreme left. Democrats like me value public lands; fair distribution of wealth; separation between business, church and state; human rights over corporate privileges, that kind of radical politics. Rather than current extremes of polarization, why aren't our politicians racing to the middle? Plenty of room there.
Last edited:
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 805
Agree with a lot of what both of you have stated. Maybe the answer is raising the bar a bit on what gets put on the ballot. States like Oregon and Colorado set the bar so low for ballot initiatives that they really invite lots of fringe ideas. Some do get rejected, which is good, but many gain unwarranted “credibility”. In a constitutional republic form of government elected representatives make laws. That generally requires some level of compromise and after the fact accountability. If a poor policy is enacted via ballot initiative there is not a requirement to figure out how to implement or pay for it and after the fact no one to hold accountable for the failures. I say the bar for such ballot initiatives should be quite high and reserved for urgent policy changes that are more like 60/40 or 70/30 issues.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Only about half the states (mostly in the west, not sure why) have ballot initiatives and a good percentage are indirect so they don't immediately go to law. It is a way for the average person to suggest a change. Sort of a mix of a representative republic and true democracy. I don't mind it but know I have to expect some crazy stuff on occasion. Like I said, I think the problem is most people (certainly hunters fall into this group) want to ignore politics and just hit the button with the letter they like. They will keep taking in the shorts until they start paying attention.
This should be a gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/21/...e_code=1.sFA.KSEw.TtUv4bKbErav&smid=url-share
Spay and neuter the creator and signers of the petition
Hem
Well-known member
Visiting family in Washington over the 4th. Can't wait to hear from BIL who runs a dairy farm under contract with Tillamook.
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
Yes, but...
This is not a mainstream view. I hang out with a bunch of Democrats and folks even farther left and none of them support it. Talked to two vegan friends in the last month that are opposed to it. Even Tina Kotek, who if you ask most hunters in southern Oregon is a socialist fascist communist (insert your expletive), has come out against it.
Gov. Tina Kotek gives statement regarding IP 28
The measure would criminalize hunting and fishing practices, as well as some animal breeding and research.www.kdrv.com
Nobody except the fringe whackos and the woefully uninformed is aligned with PETA, and most folks know that.
I agree with your broader point that we should be meaner to folks with fringe beliefs.
Top comments on a recent NY Times article. This is a fringe, extremist idea that most people don’t align with. I’m not worried about this at all.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 805
For me I guess it depends on what exactly you are worried about. It is likely that this won’t pass, but there is no certainty in elections. Once something makes the ballot, anything can happen. Particularly in a mostly rural state with one major urban population center.
And the supporters have said they will continue to run this even it fails, steadily growing support over time. There is also much discussion on this type of initiative being exported to other states, likely in a more targeted version focused just on a ban on hunting and trapping, excluding agriculture and fishing. The anti-hunting folks will look to employ a strategy of shifting baselines, if they run a hunting/trapping ban later it doesn’t look so extreme compared to IP 28.
A more “modest, common-sense” proposal as the anti-hunting folks in Colorado like to say so often. I believe In Defense of Animals is supporting IP 28 and they were also involved in Prop 127 here in Colorado.
I don’t disagree with those NYT commenters, I think these initiatives do hurt their overall cause. But there is one thing I have learned attending Colorado Wildlife Commission meetings, never underestimate the zealotry and outright hatred that many of these activists have for hunting and hunters.
Brute
Well-known member
For the Love of God, Leave Oregon's Farmers Alone
Oregon can protect animals without treating farmers, ranchers, hunters, and fishermen like suspects in a barnyard crime drama.
cyrusjavadior.substack.com
Similar threads
