Oregon’s ballot drive for the PEACE Act, known as IP 28, has cleared a major hurdle after supporters reported more than 120,000 signatures—more than the 117,173 required for an Oregon November ballot. The proposal would effectively prohibit hunting and fishing
By the time supporters reached the paperwork stage, the intent was already clear: they want Oregon to treat animals outside the backyard the way it treats pets.
A proposed ballot measure known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act—IP 28—has now cleared a major threshold toward reaching voters. Supporters say they have collected more than 120,000 signatures, surpassing the 117,173 required to qualify for Oregon’s November ballot.
If the measure makes it to voters. Oregon’s animal cruelty laws would be rewritten in a way backers say is meant to eliminate exemptions that allow routine harm. Opponents argue the change would go far beyond animal welfare—effectively criminalizing hunting and fishing. and altering farming. ranching. and other activities across the state.
The proposal would redefine Oregon’s animal cruelty laws and allow animals to be killed only by veterinarians or when they pose an immediate danger to people or other animals. Supporters say the measure would extend protections currently afforded to pets.
But the potential reach of IP 28 is what has alarmed opponents. They say it would effectively prohibit hunting and fishing in Oregon. They also argue it would ban a wide range of agricultural and livestock practices. including slaughtering animals for food. castration and neutering of livestock. rodeo participation. some forms of animal research. and even pest control.
The initiative includes a transition fund intended to provide job retraining, income replacement, and food assistance for people affected by the changes—an attempt, backers say, to cushion the shift.
Economic worries run alongside moral arguments. Hunting and fishing generate an estimated $1.9 billion in economic activity every year, according to the Oregon Hunters Association.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that more than 630,000 people participate in fishing and shellfishing each year. The agency estimates those activities generate about $150 million in yearly income and contribute to thousands of jobs.
Hundreds of thousands of people travel statewide to fish. Tens of thousands go hunting. Nonresidents. too. matter to the equation: the Department of Fish and Wildlife says nonresidents purchase upwards of 15. 000 short-term or annual angling licenses every year and more than 20. 000 big game hunting tags.
License sales also feed state wildlife work. The agency estimates hunting license sales generate between $28 million and $32 million each year, dollars it says help fund wildlife management, conservation, and agency operations.
Gov. Tina Kotek has publicly opposed the proposal. In a statement. Kotek said she does not support IP 28 because “criminalizing standard agricultural practices and lawful activities like hunting and fishing would be the wrong direction for Oregon.” She added that as governor. she would “continue to champion strong animal welfare protections while respecting the long-standing traditions and livelihoods of farmers. ranchers. fishermen. and hunters across our state.”.
State Sen. Christine Drazan also criticized the measure, calling it “an all-out assault on Oregonians’ way of life.”
For supporters, the signatures count is the clearest sign yet that the issue is no longer niche. They say they’ve exceeded the threshold needed for the measure to advance—but Oregon’s election officials still must verify the signatures before it can qualify.
Even backers concede passage could be difficult in a state where hunting, fishing, farming, and ranching remain major industries. Their case, at least, is rooted in an appeal to how animals are valued.
Petitioner David Michelson told the Statesman Journal that supporters want people to “actually recognize that is a choice that we could make to shift away from killing animals, to treat all those other animals the same way we treat our companion animals.”
The next step will not be about persuading voters in the abstract. It will be about whether the ballot measure survives signature verification—and then, whether Oregon decides it wants to redraw the line between animal protection and everyday life.
Oregon IP 28 PEACE Act animal cruelty laws hunting fishing ballot measure Tina Kotek Christine Drazan Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife economic impact