The Radical Left in Oregon have Lost Their Minds
- Rex Ballard
- 6 hours ago
- 3 min read
Ballot Initiative IP28 (PEACE Act) Would Effectively Ban Hunting, Fishing, Livestock Farming, and More
In a move that has hunters, anglers, farmers, and rural Oregonians sounding the alarm, animal rights activists have gathered enough signatures to likely qualify Initiative Petition 28 (IP28)—known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act—for the November 2026 statewide ballot.
Supporters submitted over 120,000 signatures (exceeding the required ~117,173 valid signatures), with verification pending. If it qualifies and passes, the measure would dramatically rewrite Oregon’s animal cruelty statutes by removing long-standing exemptions for hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock production, pest control, scientific research, rodeos, and certain breeding practices.
What IP28 Would Actually Do
The initiative amends ORS Chapter 167 (animal abuse, neglect, and sexual assault statutes). It would criminalize the intentional, knowing, or reckless injury or killing of animals, with very narrow exceptions limited essentially to immediate self-defense and standard veterinary care.
Current exemptions that would be stripped include:
Lawful hunting, fishing, and trapping
Wildlife management
Slaughter of livestock
Agricultural and scientific research involving animals
Reasonable pest/vermin control
Certain handling and training practices
In practice, this would outlaw sport and commercial fishing (including catch-and-release in many interpretations), deer and elk hunting, rodent control in homes and farms, castration/neutering for livestock management, and standard animal agriculture practices.
Supporters’ View (Yes on IP28): The group argues animals are sentient beings capable of pain and suffering. They want to extend the same legal protections currently given to pets (dogs and cats) to all animals, including wildlife and livestock. They frame it as ending “unnecessary” cruelty and exploitation. Campaign materials emphasize building toward long-term cultural change on animal rights.
Opponents’ View: Hunting, fishing, and farming groups call it an extreme attack on Oregon’s rural economy, culture, and food production. Critics warn it would:
Devastate the $6+ billion agriculture sector and related jobs
Eliminate funding mechanisms for wildlife conservation (tag fees, etc.)
Make basic activities like trapping mice in a home or fishing for dinner illegal
Harm rural communities while being pushed largely by urban activists
Organizations like the Oregon Hunters Association, Oregon Farm Bureau, Ducks Unlimited, and others are mobilizing against it.
Broader Impacts
Hunting & Fishing: Oregon’s rich outdoor heritage—salmon runs, elk hunts, bass fishing—would face existential threats. Catch-and-release fishing could also be at risk.
Farming & Food: Livestock operations, including dairy, beef, poultry, and even backyard practices, would be heavily restricted.
Wildlife Management: Pest control and population management tools would be curtailed, potentially leading to ecological issues.
Economy: Significant job losses projected in rural areas already facing challenges.
This isn’t the first attempt— a similar measure didn’t make the 2024 ballot, but activists regrouped with paid signature gatherers.
What’s Next? Signature verification continues, with final certification expected in early August. Opposition coalitions are ramping up education and fundraising efforts to defeat it at the polls if it qualifies.
This initiative highlights the deep urban-rural divide in Oregon. Traditional outdoor enthusiasts and food producers see it as an assault on their way of life, while proponents view it as moral progress. Voters will ultimately decide in November 2026.
Shasta Unfiltered will continue tracking this story. Share your thoughts below—should Oregon ban hunting and fishing?
Sources include official filings, Ballotpedia, Oregon Hunters Association, major news outlets, and campaign sites.
