Oregon Republicans Draw a Constitutional Line Around Hunting and Fishing
The debate over hunting and fishing rights in Oregon has been simmering for years, but after a sweeping animal rights measure came closer than ever to reaching the ballot this summer, Republican leaders in Salem decided that playing defense was no longer good enough. On August 4, 2026, a coalition of GOP lawmakers gathered at White's Country Meats in Gresham to announce something that would have seemed unnecessary to most Oregonians just a decade ago: a proposed constitutional amendment to permanently protect the rights of citizens to hunt, fish, gather wild foods, and raise animals and crops. For the millions of American men who rifle-hunt elk in the Cascades, fly-fish the Deschutes, or simply keep a chest freezer stocked with venison through the winter, the announcement was both a rallying cry and a warning about just how determined certain activists have become.
The Measure That Started It All: IP 28 and the PEACE Act
Initiative Petition 28, also known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act, would have dramatically reformed Oregon's existing animal abuse laws by eliminating the legal exceptions that protect lawful activities like fishing and farming from the state's animal abuse statutes. The scope of the proposal was staggering in its breadth. In addition to outlawing all forms of hunting, trapping, and fishing — including catch-and-release — IP 28 would also criminalize ranching, pest control, and many of the practices involved in wildlife and animal research. The measure went even further than most observers expected. Most forms of animal husbandry, for example, would be reclassified as "sexual assault of an animal" under the Act, with the only exceptions to these no-harm laws being for self-defense and some forms of veterinary care, including euthanasia.
The initiative would also have established a Humane Transition Fund and a Transitional Oversight Council to help Oregon transition into a "no kill or harm" sanctuary state. Supporters framed these mechanisms as pragmatic bridges for workers in meat and agriculture industries, but critics dismissed them as window dressing on an economically ruinous proposal. Wildlife conservation in Oregon is largely funded through hunting and fishing license sales and federal excise taxes generated through the Pittman-Robertson Act and Dingell-Johnson Act, and if those activities were eliminated, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would lose its primary source of funding for habitat management, species research, and public access programs.
A Third Attempt — and the Closest One Yet
This was the campaign's third attempt to place the proposal before Oregon voters. Organizers collected roughly 2,000 signatures during their first effort, about 40,000 during the second, and more than 142,000 unverified signatures this year. That trajectory alone told a story worth paying attention to. The animal rights coalition behind the measure had learned from prior campaigns, refined its signature-gathering infrastructure, and deployed paid canvassers statewide. In late July, the Oregon Secretary of State's Office announced the petitioners had less than 75% of the valid signatures needed from Oregon voters to make it onto the November ballot.
The verification process proved to be the campaign's undoing. Supporters of IP 28 submitted 142,784 signatures by the July 2 deadline, needing 117,173 valid signatures to appear on the ballot. After two rounds of statistical sampling and verification, the Elections Division determined that only 104,262 signatures — or 73.25 percent — were valid, leaving the effort about 13,000 signatures short. For hunters, ranchers, and anglers across the state, the news was a relief. But the chief petitioner made clear it wasn't over.
Who Opposed IP 28?
The opposition to IP 28 was one of the broadest political coalitions Oregon has seen on a single issue in years. It faced widespread opposition from Democratic and Republican political leaders, the farming, ranching and fishing industries, and Oregon's federally recognized tribes, whose treaty-protected rights to hunt and fish in their traditional land would not have been exempted from the ban. That last point was particularly striking. Tribal treaty rights would have been jeopardized, as the measure does not provide exemptions for Oregon Tribes.
The Democratic opposition was just as emphatic as the Republican. On June 18, all 37 Oregon House Democrats came out to publicly state their opposition to IP 28, saying in a press release that "criminalizing farming, ranching, hunting, and fishing is wrong." Democratic Governor Tina Kotek also weighed in plainly. Kotek opposed IP 28, saying criminalizing common agricultural practices and legal activities such as hunting and fishing would be detrimental for Oregon. The National Wild Turkey Federation joined a broad coalition of partners in opposition to IP 28, including the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Ducks Unlimited, and Safari Club International, as well as bipartisan leadership from the Oregon Sportsmen's Legislative Caucus.
The GOP Counterpunch: A Constitutional Amendment
For Oregon Republicans, watching a measure this extreme come within 13,000 signatures of the ballot was a wake-up call that demanded more than a collective sigh of relief. To counter the failed ballot initiative, the state's Republican leaders pledged to introduce their own constitutional amendment to guarantee fishing, hunting, and farming rights. The announcement was made at a working butcher shop — not a press conference room — a deliberate signal about who they believe this fight is really for.
State Sen. Christine Drazan, R-Canby and the Republican nominee for governor, is leading the campaign to enshrine the right to "hunt, fish, gather wild foods and raise animals or crops" in the Oregon Constitution. She announced the proposed amendment at White's Country Meats in Gresham, along with Senate Minority Leader Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, House Minority Leader Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, Sen. David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford, and Rep. Court Boice, R-Gold Beach. The lineup represented nearly every corner of the state's rural and coastal districts — the communities where hunting and fishing aren't recreational accessories but fundamental parts of how families live.
What the Amendment Actually Proposes
Drazan announced plans to introduce a Senate Joint Resolution to refer a constitutional amendment to Oregon voters that would protect hunting, fishing, and the cultivation of crops and livestock. The timeline is deliberate. A group of Republicans announced they'll introduce a resolution in 2027 to refer a constitutional amendment to Oregon voters guaranteeing fishing and hunting access. If the Legislature approves the measure during the 2027 session that begins in January, it would go to Oregonians for a vote in November 2028.
The resolution would be introduced during the 2027 legislative session and recognizes hunting, fishing, gathering, farming, ranching, and raising livestock and crops as long-standing and essential activities for Oregonians. There is also a logistical wrinkle to navigate. Another lawmaker will need to introduce the 1.5-page proposal because Drazan vacates her Senate seat next January whether she wins the governor's race or not. That detail underscores the measure's independence from any single political career — it's a movement that will outlast any one legislator's term.
Drazan's draft bill is more expansive than one prefiled for the 2025 legislative session by Senator David Brock Smith, who was also on hand at her announcement. Senate Joint Resolution 13 was introduced and referred to committee but didn't go anywhere. The new proposal draws broader strokes, covering not just hunting and fishing but the full spectrum of agricultural life — gathering wild foods, raising crops, managing livestock — to create a durable constitutional shield against future activist campaigns of any flavor.
The Bipartisan Calculation
Drazan and Starr repeatedly talked about hunting and fishing protections as a bipartisan issue and said they expect the amendment to pass handily through the Legislature. Senate Minority Leader Starr was particularly emphatic in making the case that this isn't a partisan culture war skirmish. "This is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democrat issue. It's an Oregon issue. I've served with Democrats who are passionate hunters, I know Democrats who spend their weekends fishing Oregon's rivers, and across our state families of every political persuasion make their living farming and ranching. They may vote differently, but they share the same deep respect for the outdoors, for conservation, and for the freedom to pass these traditions onto their children, and that's why I believe this constitutional amendment has the ability to unite Oregonians, not divide them," Starr said.
Drazan said she invited Democratic state lawmakers from the Clackamas County area to the event but they did not respond. That absence didn't faze her. The political math on this issue is clear enough that the Republicans are confident the amendment can earn Democratic votes on the floor — the same Democrats who unanimously opposed IP 28 have little political incentive to vote against a measure that simply puts existing traditions into the state's founding document.
Drazan's Language: Going on Offense
The framing Drazan chose at the Gresham announcement was notably more aggressive than a standard legislative presser. "Oregon should not be the testing ground for extreme measures that threaten affordability, local food production, consumer choice and thousands of jobs that connect us with putting food on the table with our farms and ranches," Drazan said. That framing — cost of living, food security, employment — is a direct rebuttal to the notion that this is merely a debate between hunters and animal lovers. "Oregon should not be the testing ground for extreme measures that threaten affordability, local food production, consumer choice and the thousands of jobs connected to putting food on our tables. Activities like farming, ranching, hunting and fishing are a part of our heritage, our economy and our everyday lives. It's time to stop playing defense," Drazan said in a press release.
"We have a responsibility to be proactive and give voters the opportunity to say, once and for all, that these activities deserve constitutional protection," she said. That framing — giving voters a proactive, affirmative say rather than simply reacting to threats — is politically smart. Rather than waiting for the next version of IP 28 to reach the ballot and then campaigning against it, Republicans are attempting to close the door for good through the amendment process.
The Animal Rights Side: Defeated but Not Done
IP 28's chief petitioner, David Michelson, a Portland-based animal rights activist, made no secret of his long-game strategy even as the initiative fell short. Michelson said even if the Republicans' ballot referral is successful, he and other petitioners could still try to put forth a ballot initiative in the future that would ban the killing of animals. That determination was already baked into the campaign's public posture long before the signature count came back. The proponents of IP 28 recognized that even if the initiative qualified, the measure faced a steep uphill battle and was unlikely to secure the simple voter majority needed to pass. They said the immediate goal was to establish a recurring political framework, shift public consciousness, and keep forcing the conversation on animal rights into mainstream state politics.
In other words, the movement is playing a generational game. Each campaign cycle, they refine their messaging, grow their donor base, improve their signature verification quality, and normalize ideas that would have seemed fringe a decade ago. Organizers collected roughly 2,000 signatures during their first effort, about 40,000 during the second, and more than 142,000 unverified signatures this year — a growth curve that sporting and agricultural communities cannot afford to dismiss. The GOP amendment is, in part, a recognition that the trajectory of these campaigns demands a permanent structural response rather than a cycle-by-cycle fight.
A Parallel Movement: The "Freedom Amendment"
Republicans in Salem weren't the only ones who saw the constitutional angle coming. Initiative Petition 25, called the Freedom Amendment, seeks to amend Oregon's constitution by adding the right to hunt, fish, farm, raise livestock, and manage wildlife, and recognizes the practices as a fundamental part of Oregon's heritage and its economy. That grassroots effort emerged directly from the IP 28 fight. Chief Petitioner Kari Goodheart, who lives in Irrigon, said the measure was a direct response to the PEACE Act. "I don't even think my petition would have even been a thought if it wasn't for IP 28," she said.
The existence of a parallel citizen-driven petition alongside the legislative referral effort signals the depth of feeling among outdoor communities across the state. Hunters, ranchers, and fishermen aren't waiting for politicians to save their way of life — they're filing their own paperwork.
What's at Stake Beyond Oregon
Oregon isn't an outlier. The same activist networks pushing IP 28 operate in multiple states, and the tactics are consistent: file, gather signatures, lose, refine, repeat. Hunting organizations are pushing ballot measures in the opposite direction in multiple states. Florida voters approved a constitutional right to hunt and fish in 2024. Oregon Republicans are now openly following Florida's playbook — using the constitutional amendment process to erect a legal barrier that a future ballot initiative cannot easily knock down.
For American men who hunt, fish, or simply believe in the right to do so, the stakes are concrete. If IP 28 were to make the ballot and pass, nearly one million Oregonians would become criminals. That's not hyperbole — that's a direct read of what the PEACE Act would have done to the legal status of licensed hunters, anglers, ranchers, and farmers overnight. The constitutional amendment approach Drazan is championing is an attempt to make sure that possibility is permanently foreclosed, regardless of which party controls the Legislature in 2030 or 2035.
The Road to 2028: What Happens Next
The path forward for Drazan's proposal runs through several distinct checkpoints. First, a willing lawmaker in the 2027 legislative session must formally introduce the joint resolution — since another lawmaker will need to introduce the 1.5-page proposal because Drazan vacates her Senate seat next January whether she wins the governor's race or not. Then the Legislature must approve the referral, sending it to voters. If passed by the Legislature, the measure would then go to Oregon voters for final approval. That final vote, should the process run on schedule, would come in November 2028.
The political environment strongly favors passage at the legislative stage. The unanimous Democratic opposition to IP 28 suggests that even in a blue-leaning state, there's no appetite in Salem for a fight over whether Oregonians should be allowed to pull a salmon out of the Rogue River. The harder question is what happens when Michelson's coalition regroups. Chief petitioner David Michelson indicated that supporters may try again as the campaign continues working to shift public opinion on legal protections for animals. A constitutional amendment, once ratified by voters, would require a subsequent constitutional amendment to undo — a much higher bar than simply running another initiative petition.
That's precisely the point. The proposed measure would seek to provide permanent protections for activities Drazan described as central to Oregon's identity. For the hunters who spend fall weekends in the Wallowas, the fly fishermen working the McKenzie, the ranchers running cattle in Harney County, and the crabbers working the coast, "permanent" is the only word that matters. Oregon's outdoor traditions built this state. The question in 2028 will be whether voters choose to say so in the plainest possible legal terms.
