The A1 story in today’s paper says that Initiative Petition 13 appears it will fall short of gathering the signatures needed to make it to the November ballot.

We celebrate that fact.

We opined on it several months ago, but as we read the initiative, it’s a takeover — or an attempt at destruction — of the way of life for many in Oregon, yet one that is pitched as an animal rights bill.

To be certain, nobody on our staff — and we hope nobody at all, though it’s likely some are out there — feels it is right to abuse an animal. Nor do hunters, fishers or those who work cattle for a living, to name just a few. There is a realization when you hunt — and, if you indeed, are successful — that you are taking the life of an animal for food. That reality should — and, we believe, does — garner respect and care, and requires it be done in a humane way.

We assume that those who crafted IP 13 also care about animals, though we believe they go a step way too far in what they are promoting. As we read the petition, it seems to us to say that any killing of animals should be outlawed. That practices of animal husbandry to continue building up a flock or herd should be considered sexual abuse. That even events such as a rodeo, or simply hauling animals in a trailer would be outlawed. Perhaps we have gone to the extreme in our take on the petition, but it’s hard not to see how that is what the supporters want.

Lewis & Clark College law professor Russ Mead doesn’t have quite the view we do. In the story, he says he believes the initiative wouldn’t ban those actions, but just say that they should be done in a humane way.

“The result is not that hunting and killing livestock will be illegal if IP 13 passes, it is just that when you hunt, you need to be humane,” he said. “When you kill livestock, you need to be humane.”

He later says that should IP 13 eventually make it to the ballot — be it in 2024 or later — and pass, it would face ample legal challenges and discussions, including one about the legal definition of animal cruelty.

Perhaps he is right on both points. Perhaps how the law is interpreted would make it less severe than what we read it to be. And there is no doubt that it would face a major legal battle.

At least for now, it appears, this is an initiative that won’t see the light of day for a couple of years, though we hope it never does again.

Then, we could really celebrate.