IP 28
Oregon’s IP 28: What Every Oregonian Needs to Know About the PEACE Act
A Deep Dive into One of the Most Controversial Ballot Measures in Oregon History.
Most Oregonians have never heard of Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28), also known as the PEACE Act. Yet if it qualifies for the November 2026 ballot and passes, it could fundamentally change hunting, fishing, ranching, farming, veterinary practices, animal research, and wildlife management throughout the state.
Regardless of where you stand politically, this is one of those measures that deserves careful attention before casting a vote.
The purpose of this blog post is not to tell you how to vote. It is to help you understand what is being proposed, why supporters believe it is necessary, and why opponents believe it could have sweeping consequences across Oregon.
What is IP 28?
IP 28 stands for Initiative Petition 28. Supporters call it the PEACE Act, short for “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions.”
The proposal seeks to remove many of the exemptions currently found in Oregon’s animal cruelty laws.
Supporters argue that animals used for food production, hunting, research, and other purposes should receive protections similar to those currently afforded to companion animals such as dogs and cats.
As of late May 2026, organizers reported collecting more than 120,000 signatures, surpassing the approximately 117,000 signatures required to potentially qualify for the November ballot. State election officials must still verify those signatures before certification.
Why Supporters Favor the Measure
Supporters argue that society has evolved in its understanding of animals and animal welfare.
Their central argument is simple:
Why should some animals receive protection from cruelty while others do not?
Advocates believe Oregon can reduce or eliminate practices that involve killing animals for food, sport, research, or entertainment.
They envision a future with greater reliance on plant-based agriculture, non-lethal wildlife management, and alternatives to animal testing.
From their perspective, IP 28 is a moral issue rather than an economic or political one.
Supporters see the initiative as an opportunity for Oregon to become a national leader in expanding legal protections for animals.
Why Opponents Are Alarmed
Opposition to IP 28 extends far beyond hunters and anglers.
Organizations representing ranchers, farmers, horse owners, conservation groups, veterinarians, and outdoor recreation advocates have expressed concerns about the measure’s potential consequences.
Critics argue that the initiative’s language could effectively criminalize many activities that are currently legal and widely practiced.
Potential impacts identified by opponents include:
Hunting
Fishing
Trapping
Livestock production
Animal breeding
Rodeos
Wildlife management
Certain veterinary procedures
Scientific research involving animals
Common animal husbandry practices on farms and ranches
Opponents argue that these activities are not fringe pursuits. They are deeply woven into Oregon’s economy, food systems, conservation programs, and cultural heritage.
The Hunting and Fishing Question
This is where much of the public attention has focused.
Critics contend that the proposal would effectively end legal hunting and fishing in Oregon because intentionally injuring or killing animals could be treated as animal cruelty under the expanded framework.
Supporters often frame the issue differently, arguing that recreational killing of animals should no longer receive special legal exemptions.
The disagreement is not merely about hunting or fishing itself. It reflects two fundamentally different worldviews:
One views hunting and fishing as legitimate tools for conservation, food gathering, recreation, and cultural tradition.
The other views the intentional killing of animals as an ethical issue that should be reconsidered regardless of historical practice.
What About Conservation?
This is where the debate becomes particularly interesting.
Many Oregonians may not realize that hunting and fishing licenses generate substantial funding for wildlife conservation.
Revenue from licenses, tags, and excise taxes on outdoor equipment helps fund habitat restoration, species monitoring, law enforcement, public access, and conservation projects throughout the state.
Even some organizations focused primarily on fish and wildlife conservation have expressed concern that a complete prohibition on hunting and fishing could unintentionally undermine funding mechanisms that currently support conservation efforts.
Supporters counter that conservation funding could eventually come from other sources and that protecting animals should not depend on systems that involve killing them.
The Agricultural Impact
Agriculture may be one of the sectors most affected by the proposal.
Oregon’s ranchers and farmers raise cattle, sheep, poultry, goats, and other livestock that contribute significantly to local food production and rural economies.
Opponents argue that IP 28 could expose farmers, ranchers, breeders, and veterinarians to criminal liability for routine and humane practices that are currently considered standard animal care.
Supporters respond that many current practices exist primarily because exemptions have been written into animal cruelty laws and that those exemptions deserve public scrutiny.
Why This Matters Even If You Don’t Hunt
Many urban Oregonians may assume this issue only affects hunters or ranchers.
That would be a mistake.
The measure raises broader questions that affect everyone:
How should society define animal cruelty?
Should all animals receive the same legal protections?
How should food be produced?
What role should hunting play in wildlife management?
How should conservation be funded?
Where should the line be drawn between animal welfare and human use of animals?
These questions extend well beyond hunting season or agricultural policy.
They touch on ethics, economics, environmental stewardship, and the relationship between humans and the natural world.
What Happens Next?
The immediate question is whether enough submitted signatures will be validated by Oregon election officials.
If certified, the measure will appear on the November 2026 ballot, where Oregon voters will have the final say.
If that happens, expect one of the most passionate and expensive ballot campaigns Oregon has seen in recent years.
Final Thoughts
IP 28 is far more than a hunting measure. It is a philosophical question disguised as a ballot initiative. At its core, Oregonians will be asked to consider how we define our relationship with animals, food production, wildlife management, and the natural world.
Whether you ultimately support or oppose the measure, one thing is clear:
There is a difference between reacting to an issue and responding to it with awareness.
Most of us carry strong feelings about subjects like hunting, farming, conservation, and animal welfare. Those feelings often come from our experiences, our values, and our relationship with the natural world. But meaningful dialogue begins when we become curious enough to listen before we judge.
Nature itself offers no simple answers. Life feeds on life. Predators and prey exist in a delicate balance. Human beings are part of that equation whether we like it or not.
The question before Oregon is not simply whether we are for or against hunting. The deeper question is how we choose to live in relationship with the animals, landscapes, and ecosystems that sustain us.
This is not a proposal that should be voted on based solely on a slogan, a social media post, or a conversation in a parking lot.
Read it
Study it
Listen to both sides
Then decide for yourself what kind of future you want for Oregon.
Whatever position you hold, may it come from thoughtful consideration rather than fear, understanding rather than outrage, and a sincere desire to leave this place better than we found it.
Awareness without compassion becomes cold.
Compassion without wisdom becomes blind.
The challenge, as always, is finding the balance.