The People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act — also known as Initiative Petition 28 — has gathered enough signatures to make it onto the November general election ballot. If passed, the initiative would effectively criminalize farming, ranching, hunting, fishing and animal research in the state.

Although the PEACE Act is probably destined for the same fate as the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights, which failed earlier this year, these two pieces of legislation raise an important question: Is litigation the best way to protect animals and watersheds?

I believe we need to pass strong, scientifically sound policies to protect the most vulnerable in our communities from harm. I am opposed to animal cruelty and believe in the idea that all living beings have a right to health, justice and dignity.

But from my perspective, Measure 20-373 and Initiative Petition 28 both miss the mark.

The legal system works in binaries — something is either legal or it isn’t; someone is either guilty or not guilty; decision-makers vote yes or no. The world is not black and white, but the legal system is not equipped to navigate the gray areas.

The legal system is also exclusionary. Defending the rights of nature through litigation is a surefire way to ensure that lawyers and those with the time and resources to dedicate to a lawsuit are the only ones who can participate.

There are important questions we need to answer here: What rights do other species have to be free from harm? How do we protect vulnerable populations — human and otherwise — who do not have a voice and cannot protect themselves? How do we feed, clothe and house billions of humans while also avoiding total ecosystem collapse?

Unfortunately, Initiative Petition 28 does not answer these questions, but rather furthers division in an already polarized political climate.

What is needed is not more litigation, but more communication, and we can’t leave it to lawyers in a courtroom or online comment sections.

This November, I hope you vote no on the PEACE Act. Until then, I hope we can talk about how to create the future we all want to see.

McKenna Pace
Springfield