Editorials: Mixed reviews for Measures 96, 100

Let's resume our examination of some of the state ballot measures that haven't received a lot of attention during this year's election season.

Measure 96

…

Measure 100

Measure 100 would prohibit the purchase or sale of parts or products from certain endangered wildlife species; the measure, if passed, would specifically block the purchase or sale of parts or products from elephants, rhinoceroses, whales, tigers, lions, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, pangolins, sea turtles, sharks and rays.

The idea is to eliminate the Oregon market for these products, which presumably would throw a small wrench into the worldwide market poachers count on for their despicable trade. 

The measure would plug an odd hole in existing Oregon law, which does not prohibit the sale of wildlife parts and products from non-native species, except shark fins.

The measure does include common-sense exceptions; for example, if you've inherited an antique piece that contains, say, ivory, Measure 100 won't turn you into a criminal.

Oregon residents should not delude themselves into thinking that the passage of Measure 100 will immediately bring to a halt the global trafficking of poached wildlife parts.

But if you consider Measure 100 as the start of a national movement, a "yes" vote makes sense. The Oregonmeasure is based on an initiative that passed in Washington state in 2015. States such as New York and Hawaii have restricted the ivory trade. 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.