Oregon Measure Could Ban Hunting and Farming

Fishing gear including a hat, basket, and fishing rods arranged by a serene water body

A radical Oregon ballot measure would make everyday hunting, fishing, and raising livestock a criminal act under “animal abuse” laws.

Story Snapshot

Initiative Petition 28 (the PEACE Act) would remove legal protections for hunting, fishing, farming, and pest control by stripping exemptions from Oregon’s animal cruelty laws.^[3]
Opponents say the measure would effectively ban killing animals for food, shut down in‑state meat and dairy production, and criminalize normal breeding and husbandry practices.^[2]
Backers admit it would extend dog‑and‑cat style protections to farm, wild, and research animals, blocking slaughter, hunting, fishing, and many forms of animal research.^[6]
Supporters have already turned in more than the 117,173 signatures needed to reach the November 2026 ballot, pending state verification.^[3]

What IP28 Really Does To Hunting, Fishing, And Daily Life

Initiative Petition 28, branded the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions, does not tweak a few penalties or target rare abuse cases.^[6] It instead tears out the exemptions that keep normal life from being labeled “animal abuse.” Under current law, hunting, fishing, livestock farming, wildlife management, pest control, and research are carved out from cruelty statutes.^[3] IP28 repeals or sharply narrows those carve‑outs, then leaves only two narrow defenses: true self‑defense and licensed veterinary care.^[3]

Because those exemptions are the legal shield for almost every lawful use of animals, removing them flips the script overnight. A deer hunter who follows every season rule would still “intentionally cause injury or death” to an animal and could be charged under the abuse laws. The same is true for an angler landing a salmon, a rancher slaughtering a steer, or a homeowner killing a raccoon in the chicken coop. Supporters openly say the goal is to stop slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation.^[6]

How The Measure Targets Farming, Food, And Family Budgets

Oregon’s farm groups warn that IP28 would not just “reform” cruelty law, it would turn Oregon into a “no kill or harm” state where killing animals for food is illegal.^[2] Routine practices such as castration, dehorning, branding, tail docking, and artificial insemination would lose their “good animal husbandry” protection and could be treated as abuse or even “sexual assault” of animals.^[3] The Oregon Farm Bureau says that means meat, dairy, and egg production inside the state would effectively end, forcing families to rely almost entirely on imported animal products at higher cost.^[2]

National agricultural law experts back up the scope of that concern. They explain that IP28 broadens which acts can be prosecuted by removing protections for lawful slaughter and accepted husbandry, so even well‑run farms could face criminal risk.^[3] Animal‑care professionals add that breeding dogs or livestock, using animals for training or education, and some standard veterinary‑adjacent work would all be chilled or halted.^[5] For working families already battling Biden‑era inflation hangovers and high food prices, wiping out local protein production is not compassion; it is economic self‑harm dressed in feel‑good language.^[2]

Broader Consequences For Conservation, Culture, And The Constitution

Outdoor groups and wildlife advocates warn that IP28 would gut the very system that pays to protect Oregon’s lands and animals. License fees from hunters and anglers fund much of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s conservation work.^[7] If every lawful harvest of game or fish becomes a potential crime, licenses become meaningless and that revenue vanishes. Ducks Unlimited says the measure would criminalize hunting, fishing, dog training, and science‑based wildlife management, wrecking proven conservation tools that rely on active management and responsible harvest.^[13]

Critics also point out the cultural and legal fallout. Rural Oregonians, Native tribes, and multi‑generation farm and fishing families would see core parts of their way of life redefined as criminal conduct.^[7] Commenters note that the text does not carve out treaty‑protected tribal hunting and fishing rights, inviting federal conflicts and deep social division.^[18] More broadly, the pattern is familiar to many conservatives: activists use soft branding like “PEACE” and “anti‑cruelty” to push sweeping bans that grow government power over private life while ignoring real crime and border chaos.^[17]