Oregon Wildlife Trafficking Prevention, Measure 100 (2016)

Oregon Measure 100
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Treatment of animals
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Measure 94 d
Measure 95 a
Measure 96 a
Measure 97 d
Measure 98 a
Measure 99 a
Measure 100 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Wildlife Trafficking Prevention Act, also known as Measure 100, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting the sale of products and parts of 12 types of animals in Oregon: rhino, cheetah, tiger, sea turtle, lion, elephant, whale, shark, pangolin, jaguar, ray, and leopard.

A "no" vote supported retaining the ability to sell products and parts of these 12 types of animals in Oregon.

The measure took effect July 1, 2017.

Election results

Measure 100
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,306,213	69.45%
No		574,631	30.55%

Election results from Oregon Secretary of State

Overview

Background of Measure 100

Oregon Measure 99 was modeled on an initiative that appeared on the 2015 Washington ballot — Initiative 1401. The measure was the first comprehensive state ban on commerce in species targeted by trafficking in the U.S.

Initiative design

Measure 100 banned the sale of products and parts of 12 types of animals in Oregon: elephant, rhinoceros, whale, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, pangolin, sea turtle, ray, and shark, except the spiny dogfish. The measure exempted certain activities and commodities from the ban, including law enforcement activities, activities expressly authorized by state or federal law, antiques more than 100 years old, fixed components of musical instruments, transfers by inheritance, donations for scientific or education purposes, and parts possessed by enrolled members of Indian tribes. Violating Measure 100 is punishable by a civil penalty up to $6,500 or twice the prohibited product's value, whichever is greater.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

The Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals, the campaign in support of Measure 100, raised $3.36 million. The top donor to the “Yes” campaign was the Humane Society, which contributed $998,861. Opponents had not organized a political committee and therefore had not received contributions. Polls indicated that around 85 percent of voters favored the measure prior to the election. Gov. Kate Brown supported Measure 100.

Text of Measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Prohibits purchase or sale of parts or products from certain wildlife species; exceptions; civil penalties Result of “Yes” Vote: "Yes" vote prohibits purchase/sale of parts/products from certain wildlife species; exceptions for specified activities, gift/inheritances, and certain antiques/musical instruments; civil penalties. Result of “No” Vote: Maintains current Oregon law which does not prohibit purchase or sale of parts or products from species not native to Oregon, except for shark fins. Summary: Existing Oregon law does not prohibit sale of wildlife parts/products for non native species, except shark fins. Existing federal law does not prohibit intrastate sales of wildlife parts, with exceptions. Measure amends ORS 498.022 to prohibit purchase, sale, or possession with intent to sell of parts/products from elephant, rhinoceros, whale, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, pangolin, sea turtle, shark, ray. Imposes civil penalties. Creates exceptions: law enforcement activities; activities authorized by federal law; fish managed under federal plan; certain antiques (over l00 years old) and musical instruments with less than 200 grams of parts; noncommercial transfers through estates, trusts, gifts; possession by tribal members. Other exceptions. Fish and Wildlife Commission may adopt rules, including prohibiting purchase/sale of parts "closely" resembling listed species parts.

”

Ballot summary

The explanatory statement was as follows:

Ballot Measure 100 amends Oregon law to expressly prohibit the purchase of, sale of, offer for sale of or possession of with intent to sell a “covered animal species” part or product. The measure defines “covered animal species” to mean any species of elephant, rhinoceros, whale, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, pangolin, sea turtle, ray and, with the exception of spiny dogfish, shark. The measure creates nine exceptions to the prohibition. The exceptions are for law enforcement activities, activities otherwise expressly authorized by state or federal law, activities involving federally managed fish, certain antiques more than 100 years old, certain fixed components of musical instruments, transfers of ownership by inheritance, certain donations for scientific or education purposes, and covered animal species parts or products possessed by enrolled members of federally-recognized Indian tribes. Existing federal law generally allows for the sale, trade or distribution of wildlife parts if the transaction occurs wholly within the boundaries of a single state. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission may authorize the purchase, sale or exchange of other wildlife by rule. The rules currently adopted by the commission generally allow persons to purchase, sell or exchange the parts of animal species that are not native to Oregon. Current Oregon statutes expressly prohibit possessing, selling, trading or distributing only shark fins, except spiny dogfish fins. The measure provides that a violation of the prohibition is punishable by a civil penalty of up to $6,500, or twice the total value of the prohibited part or product, whichever is greater, and allows the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules necessary to implement the prohibition.

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:

SECTION 1. This Act shall be known and cited as the "Wildlife Trafficking Prevention Act." SECTION 2. ORS 498.022 is amended to read: 498.022. (1) Except as the State Fish and Wildlife Commission by rule may provide otherwise, but subject to subsection (2) below, no person shall purchase, sell or exchange, or offer to purchase, sell or exchange any wildlife, or any part thereof. (2) Wildlife Trafficking Prevention. (a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b) of this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, or rule enacted pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, a person shall not purchase, sell, offer for sale, or possess with intent to sell, any item that the person knows or should know is a covered animal species part or product. (b) Subsection (2) (a) of this section shall not apply: (A) To employees or agents of the federal or state government undertaking any law enforcement activities pursuant to federal or state law or any mandatory duties required by federal or state law; (B) When the activity is expressly authorized by federal law; (C) When the activity involves a species that is subject to a federal management plan under Title III of P.L. 94-265 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1851-1869), as amended; (D) When the activity is exempted by ORS 498.257(3) or ORS 509.160(3); (E) When the covered animal species part or product is a fixed component of an antique that is not made wholly or primarily of the covered animal species part or product, provided that the antique status is established by the owner or seller thereof with documentation evidencing provenance and showing the covered animal species part or product to be not less than one hundred years old, and provided that the total weight of the covered animal species part or product is less than 200 grams; (F) When the covered animal species part or product is a fixed component of a musical instrument, including, but not limited to, string instruments and bows, wind and percussion instruments, and pianos, provided that the covered animal species part or product was legally acquired and provided that the total weight of the covered animal species part or product is less than 200 grams; (G) To the noncommercial transfer of ownership of a covered animal species part or product to a legal beneficiary of an estate, trust, or other inheritance; (H) To the donation of a covered animal species part or product to a bona fide scientific or educational institution for scientific or educational purposes; or (I) To the possession of a covered animal species part or product by any enrolled member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe. (c) There is a presumption of possession with intent to sell a covered animal species part or product when the part or product is possessed by a retail or wholesale establishment or other forum engaged in the business of buying or selling of similar items. This rebuttable presumption shall not preclude a finding of intent to sell based on any other evidence which may serve to independently establish such intent. (d) Each violation of subsection (2) of this section shall be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $6,500 or an amount equal to two times the total value of the covered animal species part or product that is the subject of the violation, whichever is higher. The civil penalty authorized by this subsection shall be imposed in the manner provided by ORS 183.745. (e) Any covered animal species part or product that is subject to seizure by or forfeiture to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not be sold by the Department. (f) The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission may adopt rules necessary for the implementation of subsection (2) of this section, including rules restricting the purchase, sale, offer for sale, or possession with intent to sell, of parts or products of any animal species that so closely resemble in appearance parts or products of a covered animal species that law enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species. (g) As used in subsection (2) of this section: (A) "Covered animal species" means any species of: (i) elephant; (ii) rhinoceros; (iii) whale; (iv) tiger; (v) lion; (vi) leopard; (vii) cheetah; (viii) jaguar; (ix) pangolin; (x) sea turtle; (xi) shark (excluding spiny dogfish as defined in ORS 498.257(1)); or (xii) ray. (B) "Covered animal species part or product" means any item that contains, or is wholly or partially made from, any covered animal species. (C) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, corporation, limited liability company, joint stock company, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, association, or other legal entity. (D) "Sale" or "sell" means any act of selling, trading, or bartering for monetary or nonmonetary consideration, and includes any transfer of ownership that occurs in the course of a commercial transaction, but does not include a nonmonetary transfer of ownership by way of gift, donation, or bequest. (E) "Total value" means either the fair market value or the actual price paid for a covered animal species part or product, whichever is greater. SECTION 3. If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2017.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

There is less than a $100,000 financial effect on state government expenditures or revenues. There is no financial effect on local government expenditures or revenues.

”

Background

Voting on the Treatment of Animals
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

Washington Initiative 1401

See also: Washington Animal Trafficking, Initiative 1401 (2015)

Oregon Measure 99 was based on an initiative that appeared on the 2015 Washington ballot — Initiative 1401. The measure was the first comprehensive state ban on commerce in species threatened by trafficking in the U.S. Over 70 percent of Washington voters approved Initiative 1401, outlawing selling, offering to sell, purchasing, trading, bartering for or distributing any covered animal species or product, to include elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark and ray. Paul Allen, a philanthropist, co-founder of Microsoft and owner of Vulcan, Inc., lead the charge in support of Initiative 1401.

Legislation

In 2015, Senate Bill 913 (SB 913), which would have banned the commercial sales of ivory and rhino horn within Oregon, was introduced into the Oregon Legislature. SB 913 died in the House Judiciary Committee. Sen. Jeff Kruse (R-1) led the charge against the bill. The National Rifle Association also opposed SB 913.

Support

The Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals led the campaign in support of Measure 100.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Kate Brown (D)
• Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian (D)
• U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3)
• U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-5)
• Sen. Peter Courtney (D-11)
• Sen. Diane Rosenbaum (D-21)
• Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-18)
• Sen. Richard Devlin (D-19)
• Sen. Mark Hass (D-14)
• Sen. Jackie Winters (R-10)
• Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-17)
• Sen. Sara Gelser (D-8)
• Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-23)
• Rep. Jennifer Williamson (D-36)
• Rep. Knute Buehler (R-54)
• Rep. John Davis (R-26)
• Rep. Ken Helm (D-34)
• Rep. David Gomberg (D-10)
• Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer (D-46)
• Rep. Brent Barton (D-40)
• Rep. Dan Rayfield (D-16)
• Rep. Rob Nosse (D-42)
• Rep. Kathleen Taylor (D-41)
• Rep. Ann Lininger (D-38)
• Rep. Paul Holvey (D-8)
• Rep. Jeff Barker (D-28)
• Rep. Val Hoyle (D-14)

Former officials

• U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R)
• Sen. Jason Atkinson (R-2)
• Sen. Charles Starr (R-13)
• Sen. Bruce Starr (R-15)
• Sen. Chris Telfer (R-27)
• Rep. Lane Shetterly (R-23)
• Rep. Scott Bruun (R-37)
• Rep. Derrick Kitts (R-30)

Organizations

African Wildlife Foundation Animal Aid Animals Are Sentient Beings, Inc Audubon Society of Portland Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon Association of Zoos and Aquariums Big Life Foundation Born Free USA Center for Biological Diversity Coalition Advocating for Animals Defenders of Wildlife Democratic Party of Oregon Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Endangered Habitats League Elephant Aid International Elephant Voices Environmental Investigation Agency Environmental Protection Information Center Forge Humanity Funny Farm Early Learning Center Global Sanctuary for Elephants Greenhill Humane Society Humane Oregon Humane Society International Humane Society Legislative Fund Humane Society of Central Oregon Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association International Fund for Animal Welfare International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council Justice for Wolves Long Island Orchestrating for Nature Moms Advocating Sustainability National Wildlife Federation Never Again Coalition Northeast Oregon Ecosystems Oceanic Preservation Society Oregon Coast Aquarium Oregon Humane Society Oregon Sierra Club Oregon Wild Oregon Wildlife Society Oregon Zoo Foundation Performing Animal Welfare Society Predator Defense RESTORE: The North Woods Sea Shepherd SEE Turtles The Elephant Sanctuary The Humane Society of the United States The KOTA Foundation Tusk Task Force Walden's Puddle Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Center WildAid WildEarth Guardians Wildlife Conservation Society Wildlife Impact Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Northern Utah

Businesses

• Bend Veterinary Clinic
• Best Friends Animal Hospital, Talent
• Escape Your Chaos LLC
• Gomber Kite Productions, International Inc
• Kuebler No Frills Pet Clinic
• LaPaw Animal Hospital
• Mertens Mammals, LLC
• McKenzie Animal Hospital
• Oceana
• Picture Perfect
• Riverside Animal Hospital
• Second Nature Garden Design
• Tancho Images
• Village at Main Veterinary Hospital

Arguments

The Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals made the following case for Measure 100:

OR Coalition to Save Endangered Animals’ “Informational Video” on Measure 100

“

Oregon has a long tradition of conservation and animal welfare standards (ranked second in the nation on its animal welfare policies by The Humane Society of the United States). From elephants to sea turtles, many iconic species face the threat of extinction due to demand for their parts including market demand in Oregon. ... The killing of these creatures by poachers threatens the economies of so many nations dependent on wildlife tourism and it causes immense cruelty to wildlife. Sometimes poachers hack off an elephant’s or rhino’s face, while the animal is still alive, to retrieve their tusks or horn. Every year approximately 35,000 elephants are killed in Africa to supply the demand for their ivory. ... All seven sea turtle species are endangered, with three critically imperiled. ... Close to 100 million sharks are killed every year to supply the global demand for their products. One quarter of shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. Evidence and seizure data suggest that ivory trafficking is linked to transnational organized crime and even African armed militia with terrorist connections. Professional traffickers take advantage of lax enforcement controls to move illegal ivory across the globe. The likely annual income from ivory to militia in the entire sub-Saharan range generates millions of dollars for these terrorists, including the Lord’s Resistance Army, to buy weapons, hurt innocent people and destabilize governments. ... By penalizing those who traffic in these animal products, Oregon voters will help put an end to poaching cruelty and help save these iconic species from extinction.

”

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3) was one of three petitioners who filed the initiative. He argued:

“

Poachers and traffickers exploit weak laws and regulations to sell ivory, rhino horn and other endangered species parts with low risk of detection or prosecution. Oregon should not serve as a market for these illicit products, and we must do what we can to avoid contributing to the crime and cruelty.

”

Former Sen. Bruce Starr (R-15), one of the petitioners who filed the measure, stated:

“

Poachers can have ties to organized crime and terrorist groups and sell their products to buy weapons and hurt innocent people. They also employ cruel methods to kill a large number of animals at once, such as in one recent case where poachers poisoned a watering hole with cyanide. That is not in line with Oregonians’ respect and appreciation for wild animals.

”

Other arguments in support of Measure 100 included:

• Scott Beckstead, Oregon State Director for The Humane Society of the United States, said, "We are actively supporting federal efforts to crack down on the international and interstate trade in ivory. This ballot initiative can complement those efforts and contribute to a broad-ranging campaign to crack down on this inhumane and destructive trade."

Official arguments

A total of 14 arguments in favor of Measure 100 were filed with the Oregon Secretary of State. The following selection contains five of them:

“ Vote YES on Measure 100 to crack down on wildlife trafficking and protect wildlife from poaching. Sportsmen and all conservationists should unequivocally support Measure 100. As a law-abiding hunter (and member of the NRA), I, and others like me, share a great responsibility to be good stewards of global wildlife resources. Measure 100 gives Oregonians a real chance to benefit animals that are routinely and senselessly poached. Profiting from the sale of poached or endangered animals offends any honorable hunting tradition. Globally, these distorted practices affect wildlife populations and create a crisis of extinction for elephants, rhinos, and others species. All of the animals covered by Measure 100 are in high demand and are vulnerable to population declines because of continued trade in their parts. We must do whatever we can to stop the illegal trade of wildlife parts. Our collective responsibility is to provide these animals the opportunity to exist and thrive into the future; future generations want to see them in the wild, not as a picture next to Dodo birds in Wikipedia as a search result for the term “extinct species.” Before you dismiss this problem, please reconsider. Poachers kill 96 elephants a day. 672 per week. Over 35,000 annually. There is nothing sporting about these crimes against nature. These animals aren’t killed by hunters. They are mercilessly slaughtered by criminals for a quick profit. This measure will not criminalize people who own legal wildlife products. People who own products made from animals covered by Measure 100 can continue to possess and gift the items to others without fear of breaking the law. There are also reasonable exemptions for antiques and musical instruments. It’s unsustainable to commercially exploit these animals. Profiting from items like hunting trophies and ivory trinkets threatens animal populations. If we value wildlife, then our laws should protect them. These animals truly need our help and the best way to do so is by voting YES on Measure 100. (This information furnished by Rene Tatro.) ” “ Protect endangered animals: vote YES on Measure 100 Measure 100 is designed to help the animals that need it the most Measure 100 would help save endangered and threatened species by restricting the trade of wildlife parts and products made from imperiled and iconic species such as elephants, rhinos, and tigers. Demand for ivory carvings, rhino horn, tiger pelts, and other wildlife products are driving unstainable losses of these animals, and may even result in extinction. Stopping the trade of wildlife products is one of the most crucial steps towards saving vulnerable wildlife. The U.S., widely considered one of the largest markets for wildlife products in the world, creates a large part of the demand. Ivory and other wildlife products harvested from poached animals are smuggled into the U.S. on a regular basis. It is estimated that only 10% of these products are seized at the border. Once these products enter the country and into states like Oregon, they can be sold without fear of penalties. Illegal ivory from recently poached elephants is sold side by side with true antiques, often without the buyer’s knowledge. Measure 100 would end Oregon’s role in the slaughter of iconic animal species by clamping down on the trade of their parts and products within the state. The measure includes exemptions for musical instruments and bona fide antiques with small amounts of ivory. Help Oregon join the movement Washington State passed a similar ballot initiative last year, joining California, Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey as states that have restricted the ivory trade within their borders in the past 3 years.Measure 100 is a chance for Oregon to join the movement and show it values living, breathing wildlife over trinkets. Jeff Flocken, Regional Director, North America International Fund for Animal Welfare Adam Roberts, CEO, Born Free USA John Calvelli, Executive Vice President for Public Affairs, Wildlife Conservation Society (This information furnished by Mark Hofberg, Campaign Officer, International Fund for Animal Welfare.) ” “ Defenders of Wildlife Supports Measure 100 Help save some of the world’s most trafficked animals from poaching and the threat of extinction – Vote YES on Measure 100 As one of the largest consumers of both legal and illegal wildlife products in the world, the United States plays a crucial role in combatting wildlife trafficking. Oregon voters now have the chance to prohibit the sale of wildlife parts and products from 12 imperiled animals, including sharks, rays, sea turtles and whales. By voting yes on Measure 100, Oregonians can play an important part in reducing demand for illegal wildlife products. Wildlife trafficking is on the rise worldwide and is driving species like sea turtles, sharks, elephants, rhinos and rays to the brink of extinction. Wildlife trafficking is one of the most lucrative forms of illegal activity in the world, generating an estimated $7-23 billion annually. And the United States is one of the world’s largest consumers of illegal wildlife. There is a substantial market for wildlife parts and products in Oregon. For example, between 2004-2014, leopards were one of the most heavily traded animals in the state. Poachers and traffickers exploit weak laws and regulations to sell ivory, rhino horn, sea turtle shells, and other imperiled species parts with low risk of detection or prosecution. By banning the sale of illegal wildlife products in Oregon, we can help reduce demand and give authorities an important tool to stop the illegal wildlife trade. “Millions of shipping containers and shipments from foreign countries arrive at U.S. ports of entry each year, and only a small fraction are being inspected for illegal wildlife contraband. We can’t continue to treat the flood of illegal wildlife product into this country as a low priority issue. It’s time for us to act.” – Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO, Defenders of Wildlife. Vote YES on Measure 100 to fight the growing illegal wildlife trade that threatens our planet’s natural heritage. (This information furnished by Quinn Read, Oregon Representative, Defenders of Wildlife.) ” “ Vote YES on Measure 100 to Protect Endangered Animals from Cruelty Measure 100 will help save endangered sea turtles, elephants, rhinos, and other wild animals threatened with cruel poaching and extinction. Voting YES will Help End Illegal Killings and Trafficking of Iconic Wild Species. Endangered species products are found for sale in Oregon. Every day close to 100 elephants are brutally killed in Africa, their tusks hacked off, to supply the black market for ivory trinkets. Poachers poisoned a watering hole with cyanide, killing more than 300 elephants at once. Organized criminal gangs and armed rebels use military weapons to kill wildlife for the multi-billion dollar illegal wildlife trade. Measure 100 will ensure that Oregon does not provide a market for endangered species products resulting from wildlife poaching and trafficking. Vote YES for a Reasonable and Fair Measure to Combat the Illegal Wildlife Trade. Measure 100 is carefully crafted and does not affect legal antiques, and allows continued ownership and gifts and inheritance of existing products that do not contribute to the illegal wildlife trade. Often times, unsuspecting consumers are duped into purchasing wildlife products of illegal or dubious origins. Measure 100 will protect Oregonians from unknowingly contributing to the illegal wildlife trade. Voting YES Strengthens Conservation Laws. Several states have adopted laws complementing federal regulations and we are helping to do our part to dry up demand for the illegal wildlife trade. With the passage of this measure, Oregon will join California, Washington, Hawaii, and other states in shutting down local markets for those who seek to profit from this destructive wildlife trade. A YES vote is a vote for survival of sea turtles, elephants, rhinos, and other iconic wild animals decimated by trafficking and poaching. U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer Former Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr Metro Council President Tom Hughes ” “ The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International Urge a YES Vote on Measure 100 to Save Endangered Animals from Illegal Killings and Criminal Trafficking. Measure 100 is a local solution to a global conservation challenge. The illegal wildlife trade is a multi-billion dollar global industry that affects millions of animals and communities around the world. Majestic wild species like sea turtles, elephants, leopards and other animals are killed in massive numbers and suffer from horrific cruelty. Poachers brutally kill the elephants and harvest their tusks, sometimes when the animals are still alive, to make them into ivory trinkets. All seven sea turtle species are threatened with extinction. Animals are not the only casualty in the global poaching and trafficking epidemic. Tens of thousands of wildlife rangers have been killed, tearing apart families and weakening the social and economic foundation of the vulnerable communities. Criminal syndicates profit from trafficking of endangered species products and undermine the rule of law. Market demand drives the killings of iconic animals and provides an incentive for wildlife trafficking. Elephant ivory of dubious origins and other endangered species products have been found for sale in Oregon. Measure 100 will stop those sales, and ensures that Oregon does not contribute to the illegal wildlife trade. Measure 100 aligns with national and international conservation measures. Wildlife smugglers exploit insufficient enforcement control so that they can launder illicit wildlife products into the marketplace. State-based measures are a critical tool to close the gaps that international and federal authorities do not have the capacity to address. By voting yes on Measure 100, Oregon will join the other Pacific States including Washington, California and Hawaii in adopting laws to close their markets to endangered species products. Numerous countries, including China and France, are taking steps to halt their domestic ivory trade. Measure 100 is Oregon’s opportunity to join the national and international conservation efforts to save some of the earth’s rarest species. (This information furnished by Iris Ho, Humane Society International.) ”

Campaign advertisements

The following campaign advertisements were produced by the Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals:

OR Coalition to Save Endangered Animals' "Sold in Oregon" ad

Opposition

Arguments

Opponents argued that Measure 100 would ban the sale of animal products from hundreds of species that are not endangered, while most or all of the endangered species Measure 100 would cover are already protected by various federal and international laws.

• Robert Mitchell, a member of the Elephant Protection Association, said Measure 100 would make ivory collections worthless. He argued, "If you're going to try to protect elephants, focus the limited resources where they're going to do the most good. Don't create a new class of criminal (offenses) because you're frustrated you can't reach the poachers in some other country."

Official arguments

No arguments against Measure 100 were filed with the Oregon Secretary of State.

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Oregon ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$3,359,091.90
Opposition:	$0.00

Three campaign committees registered in support of Measure 100 as of February 7, 2017. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current of February 7, 2017.

Support

Cash contributions

The following ballot question committees registered to support this measure as of February 7, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of February 7, 2017. For a summary of in-kind donations, click here.

Defend Oregon was registered in support of seven measures on the 2016 ballot. Due to how committee’s report funds, it was impossible to disaggregate the committee’s contributions and expenditures between the measures.

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Save Endangered Animals Oregon	$590,109.00	$592,185.90
Save Endangered Animals	$335,001.70	$327,052.14
Defend Oregon	$1,627,079.90	$1,355,522.04
Total	$2,552,190.60	$2,274,760.08

In-kind services

As of February 7, 2017, the ballot question committees registered to support this measure received in-kind services in the amount of $806,901.30. The top in-kind donor was the Humane Society of the United States.

Top donors

The following were the top five donor who contributed to the Save Endangered Animals Oregon and Save Endangered Animals committees as of February 7, 2017:

Donor	Amount
Humane Society of the United States	$1,020,452.26
Vulcan, Inc.	$150,000.00
Saving Animals Facing Extinction	$100,000.00
International Fund for Animal Welfare	$5,859.00
Julie Fagan	$2,017.00

Defend Oregon was excluded from the top donors table because contributors were not donating to a specific measure. The top donors to Defend Oregon were: Citizen Action for Political Education ($706,750), AFT - Oregon Issues PAC ($250,000), National Education Association ($150,000), Nurses United Political Action Committee ($100,000), and Oregon AFSCME Council 75 ($100,000).

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• Corvallis Gazette-Times: "Passing Measure 100 in Oregon could fuel similar efforts in other states, and that could make a big difference. We recommend a "yes" vote on Measure 100."

• The Bend Bulletin said: "Making trafficking in these animals and their parts illegal in Oregon won’t solve their problems, unfortunately. But it will help. And for such creatures as the Amur Leopard, of which only about 40 remain, any help is good." The Bend Bulletin published this editorial on March 4, 2016. It later changed its position, publishing an editorial in opposition to Measure 100 on September 22, 2016, which is posted below.

• The Daily Astorian said: "African elephants and rhinos may seem far away, but Measure 100 is a small way to protect them. International animal welfare groups have bigger fights under way in Thailand and China, for example, but Oregon can be part of the solution in November."

• East Oregonian said: "African elephants and rhinos may seem far away, but Measure 100 is a small way to protect them. International animal welfare groups have bigger fights underway in Thailand and China, for example, but Oregon can be part of the solution in November. Measure 100 is a clear yes."

• Eugene Weekly said: "The measure plugs a hole in Oregon law that doesn’t prohibit the sale of wildlife parts and products from nonnative species, except shark fins, and it supports a national movement to restrict the ivory trade."

• The Mail Tribune said: "California and Washington have enacted laws against such trade. It's time for Oregon to join with them in cracking down on trade that hastens the decline of many beloved animal species around the world, including elephants, whales, jaguars, lions, leopards, cheetahs and sea turtles."

• The Oregonian said: "Rational exceptions are listed in the measure to allow certain law enforcement activities, the possession of antiques over 100 years old, and noncommercial transfers through gifts, among others. But the heart of the measure is sane, simple and overdue: Let's help stop the carnage. Vote yes."

• Pamplin Media Group said: “There is a growing international effort to provide armed protection for animals threatened by poaching. It may be difficult for Oregonians to join that dangerous effort, but they can help by squeezing the market for poached products.”

• The Portland Mercury said, "And because you’re not a soulless asshole who believes your desire to display the dead body parts of an endangered animal on your wall is more important than protecting endangered animals, you should vote “yes,” like voters in California and Washington recently have for similar measures."

• The Register-Guard said: "Poaching endangered animals is big business, and a dirty one — among illegally trafficked goods, only drugs, weapons and humans generate larger dollar volumes, and those who deal in one of these forms of contraband often deal in the others as well, corrupting governments and funding criminal enterprises. The poaching will continue as long as there is demand for animal parts. ... Measure 100 would reduce demand, shut down the legal market through which illicit animal parts continue to move, and contribute in a small but meaningful way to the survival of some of the planet’s most magnificent animals."

• Street Roots said: "This goes to the next critical and long-overdue step. Vote yes to join Washington and California in implementing stricter laws, and solidifying the West Coast as an obstacle to traffickers."

• Willamette Week said: “California and Washington both passed laws banning such sales in the past two years, but an Oregon bill was stymied by opposition from the National Rifle Association. … Score one for Cecil the Lion, and vote yes.”

Opposition

• The Bend Bulletin said the following on September 22, 2016: "Measure 100 is likely to have little or no impact on preservation of elephants and other creatures, while placing unfair limits on thousands of legally obtained items. It should be rejected." In March 2016, The Bend Bulletin published an editorial supporting this proposed initiative. This previous editorial is posted above.
• The Dalles Chronicle said: "The problem with M100, said the majority, is that legal hunts of exotic animals are allowed by very strict laws at a higher level of government. A state law was unlikely to stop poachers but could target people who import legally hunted trophies, and musicians and gun owners whose instruments and antique guns contain ivory."

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• An incitizen poll conducted in early September 2016 showed 85 percent of respondents in support of Measure 100.

Oregon Wildlife Trafficking Prevention, Measure 100 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
icitizen 9/2/16 - 9/7/16	85.0%	7.0%	8.0%	+/-4.00	610
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Bruce Starr and Thomas M. Hughes submitted a petition for the initiative to the Oregon Secretary of State on October 12, 2015. Supporters needed to collect 1,000 signatures to receive a ballot title from the secretary of state's office. To get the measure on the 2016 ballot, petitioners needed to collect 88,148 valid signatures.

Supporters submitted more than 150,000 signatures on July 7, 2016.

The Oregon secretary of state certified the measure on July 27, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired FieldWorks LLC and Defend Oregon to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $367,060.00 was spent to collect the 88,184 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $4.16.

State profile

Demographic data for Oregon
	Oregon	U.S.
Total population:	4,024,634	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	95,988	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	85.1%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.8%	12.6%
Asian:	4%	5.1%
Native American:	1.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.1%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	12.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	30.8%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$51,243	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.4%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Oregon. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Oregon

Oregon voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, two are located in Oregon, accounting for 0.97 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Oregon had two Retained Pivot Counties, 1.10 of all Retained Pivot Counties.

More Oregon coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Oregon
• United States congressional delegations from Oregon
• Public policy in Oregon
• Influencers in Oregon
• Oregon fact checks
• More...

Treatment of animals measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, Question 3 a
Montana	Montana Animal Trap Restrictions Initiative, I-177 d

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oregon 2016 Species Measure 100. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Oregon Wildlife Trafficking Prevention, Measure 100 (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• Oregon 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

External links

Basic information

• Measure 100
• Oregon 2016 Voters' Pamphlet
• League of Women Voters of Oregon 2016 Ballot Measures Guide

Support

• Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals
• Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals Facebook
• Oregon Coalition to Save Endangered Animals Twitter