Oregon voters may soon decide whether the state will effectively criminalize many ordinary uses of animals, including hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock production, animal husbandry, and some forms of research. Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), also known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act, is being promoted as an animal-protection measure.
Under current Oregon law, activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock slaughter, and accepted animal-husbandry practices are generally not treated as criminal animal abuse because they serve legitimate purposes in agriculture, food production, conservation, and human life. However, IP28 would remove these exemptions, leaving only limited exceptions for veterinary care and self-defense against immediate harm.
As of late May, IP28 supporters had submitted more than 120,000 signatures—exceeding the 117,173 valid signatures required to appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The initiative must be verified by Oregon election officials before it can be certified.
The PEACE Act defines an animal as any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish. By removing exemptions in Oregon’s animal-cruelty laws, the measure would make it a crime to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly injure or kill such animals except in narrow circumstances.
The “Yes on IP28” campaign states that the initiative would criminalize the “injuring, killing, forced impregnation, and masturbation” of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. It also requires all animals under human care to receive adequate food, water, bedding, shelter, and space for exercise.
In practice, the measure would effectively ban hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock slaughter, and many farming practices. Ranchers could still care for cattle but could not kill them for food or forcibly impregnate them for breeding. Hunting and fishing would lose their legal exemptions, meaning the act of killing animals for food, recreation, or wildlife management would become criminalized.
The initiative would also expand Oregon’s animal-sexual-assault statute to include certain breeding practices. For livestock producers relying on artificial insemination or reproductive-management practices, these activities could lead to criminal prosecution unless performed by a veterinarian.
Opponents warn that IP28 threatens Oregon’s rural economy and the livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, hunters, anglers, wildlife managers, researchers, and tribal communities. The Oregon Hunters Association estimates that over 330,000 licensed hunters and more than 500,000 licensed anglers generate $1.9 billion annually in economic activity.
IP28 supporters argue that Oregon can meet human needs through plant-based alternatives and nonlethal methods. However, they acknowledge the initiative could create a Humane Transition Fund for food assistance, income replacement, job retraining, conservation, and rewilding efforts.
The measure also reflects a broader ideological shift. Instead of recognizing hunting, fishing, and farming as God-given rights protected under constitutional principles, IP28 treats animals as rights-bearing beings whose “bodily autonomy” must be protected by criminal law.
A chief petitioner of IP28, David Michelson, stated that the initiative is part of a broader effort to bring similar measures to other states. If passed, it could reshape agriculture and wildlife management across Oregon and beyond.
Oregonians should carefully study IP28 before voting. Behind the peaceful-sounding name lies a sweeping proposal that would reshape agriculture, wildlife management, research, and rural life.