Oregon's PEACE Act: The Ballot Initiative That Would Criminalize Hunting, Fishing, and the American Outdoor Way of Life
It started as a fringe idea championed by a small circle of Portland-based animal rights activists. Now it's a genuine political flashpoint with national implications. A petition to ban hunting in Oregon is starting to look like it could end up on the November ballot. The driving force behind that possibility is the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act — known as the PEACE Act — which currently has more than 125,000 signatures in support of the measure, exceeding the 117,173 required to be added to the ballot. For anyone who has ever picked up a rifle in the Cascades, pulled a steelhead out of the Deschutes, or raised cattle on Oregon's high desert, the stakes could not feel more personal.
This is not a narrow, incremental animal welfare proposal of the kind voters in Western states have grown accustomed to seeing. While previous animal treatment measures in the country have addressed certain hunting methods, wildlife trafficking, farm animal confinement, animal fighting, racing, and animal experimentation, none have sought to criminalize all hunting, fishing, the slaughter of animals for food, and livestock husbandry. In plain terms, Initiative Petition 28 is in a category entirely its own — a proposal so sweeping that even its own architects acknowledge it has no realistic chance of passing in 2026.
What IP28 Actually Says — And Why the Details Matter
The ballot title tells you almost everything you need to know. The certified ballot title — the description of the measure that would be used on the ballot — clearly states that it "criminalizes breeding practices, injuring/killing animals, including for food, hunting, fishing." That's not spin from the opposition. That's Oregon's own Secretary of State putting it in plain English.
Oregon Initiative Petition 28 would eliminate the legal exemptions that currently protect hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming from Oregon's animal abuse statutes (ORS 167.315–167.333). Under current Oregon law, these activities are explicitly exempted from criminal animal abuse charges. IP28 strips those exemptions away entirely. The reach of the proposal is almost difficult to fully absorb. In practice, the measure would prohibit hunting, fishing, slaughtering livestock, conducting scientific research on animals, using animals in rodeos, operating a commercial poultry business and castrating or neutering livestock, among other activities.
The law's definition of which animals would be protected is equally broad. Under the initiative, protected animals would include any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish. That means the guy who sets a mousetrap in his garage could be on the wrong side of the law. Certain wildlife management practices — such as culling programs, invasive species control, and predator management — as well as setting mousetraps, pest extermination, or rodent control if it causes physical injury or death to a protected animal would all be criminalized.
In addition to outlawing all forms of hunting, trapping, and fishing — including catch-and-release — IP28 would also criminalize ranching, pest control, and many of the practices involved in wildlife and animal research. Most forms of animal husbandry, for example, would be reclassified as "sexual assault of an animal" under the Act. The only exceptions to these no-harm laws would be for self-defense and some forms of veterinary care, including euthanasia.
The Third Time Around: A History of Persistence
This proposal didn't emerge from nowhere. IP28 is the third iteration of an initiative first introduced by animal rights advocates in 2020. Each version carries the same core goal: eliminate Oregon's statutory exemptions for hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming. The first two attempts — IP13 and then IP3 — both failed to gather enough signatures to reach the ballot. Supporters have been collecting signatures for this since 2024, and their persistence is finally paying off in raw numbers, even if the political calculus remains deeply unfavorable.
The signature-gathering effort is not purely a grassroots movement powered by small donations and volunteer canvassers. The committee supporting the measure, Yes on IP28, reported raising $304,818.28 through May 26. The top donors were Craigslist Charitable Fund ($30,000), David Michelson ($28,110), Owen Gunden ($25,000), and Postnov Leonid ($25,000). According to campaign finance records, the initiative's supporters include both private individuals as well as advocacy groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
The threshold the campaign crossed is a significant one on paper, but it is not yet a finish line. Because some signatures will be invalidated during verification, proponents typically need to collect approximately 140,000 total. A portion of those signatures will almost certainly be ruled ineligible, such as any from individuals who are not registered voters. At least 15% of signatures were rejected from each of the four initiative petitions that have qualified for the ballot since 2022, state records show. Supporters plan to keep pushing. While the signatures have not yet been verified by the secretary of state's office, supporters of the measure tell KOIN 6 News they plan to continue submitting additional signatures until the July 2 deadline.
The Architects of the Campaign: Who's Behind the PEACE Act?
The chief petitioner on record is a man named David Michelson, who has offered a disarmingly candid explanation of what motivates the campaign. "We felt moved to file this petition after recognizing that the animals we currently injure, kill, and forcibly impregnate have the same needs, such as for affection, play and understanding, that our companion animals have," said Michelson. It's the kind of language that resonates deeply with a certain segment of urban progressives and strikes rural Oregonians — and much of the rest of the country — as profoundly disconnected from the realities of food production, wildlife management, and the natural world.
Michelson has been forthright about one striking aspect of the campaign: he doesn't actually expect it to win. Supporters have said they don't expect the measure to pass and that their goal is to change attitudes on animal rights and welfare. That candor raises an important question that opponents and policy analysts are openly wrestling with — if the point isn't to win the election, what is the point? According to Michelson himself, "We want people to actually recognize that is a choice that we could make to shift away from killing animals, to treat all those other animals the same way we treat our companion animals." The ballot initiative, in other words, is being used as a vehicle for public consciousness-raising rather than immediate legislative change.
The petition campaign website states: "The reason we are seeking to prohibit these activities is not to be punitive towards anyone currently involved with the injuring, killing, or breeding of animals, but rather to be protective of the needs of the animals and to codify their right to life and bodily autonomy in law." Whether voters across Oregon find that reasoning compelling or absurd will ultimately be decided in November — if the petition qualifies.
The Economic Damage Would Be Staggering
Setting aside the philosophical debate, the financial math of what IP28 would do to Oregon is sobering. Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching activities account for $1.2 billion in spending and supported over 11,000 jobs, according to a 2019 study completed by Earth Economics. That figure represents the outdoor recreation economy alone. When you add agriculture into the equation, the numbers grow considerably more alarming.
Criminalizing those practices would have significant repercussions on key industries such as Oregon's beef industry, which brought in $127 million worth in exports in 2023, the fishing industry, which generated $517 million in household income and supported 10,300 jobs in 2025, and for research at public universities that bring in billions across the state. Oregon's Department of Fish and Wildlife would effectively be defunded at the source. In 2024, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife received more than $55 million in hunting and fishing licensing revenue. That money doesn't just pay salaries — it funds habitat conservation, wildlife monitoring, fish hatcheries, and the stewardship programs that keep Oregon's wild lands and waterways healthy.
A Northwest Sportsman Magazine editor put it bluntly. Andy Walgamott said, "Initiative Petition 28 cloaks itself as an anti-animal cruelty campaign, but in reality it would essentially criminalize hunting, fishing and trapping in the Beaver State, put ranchers out of business, and prevent you from even raising your own chickens for the table or trapping rodents damaging your home or business." Walgamott added that "IP28 represents an existential threat to our shared way of life, not to mention all Oregon-based fishing and hunting businesses such as guide and outfitter services, gear and tackle makers, magazines, sporting goods stores, sportsmen's shows, fishing boat dealers and even an entire state agency, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is funded in no small part by our license revenues."
The Oregon Farm Bureau put an even finer point on the agricultural implications, specifically calling out the initiative's extraordinary redefinition of routine farming practices. "Most concerning for agriculture, IP 28 would redefine 'sexual assault' to include routine breeding practices, potentially applying this classification to livestock, equine operations, and even domestic pets. This would expose farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, breeders, and animal owners to criminal liability for standard, humane practices that are essential to animal health, food production, and genetic management," the Oregon Farm Bureau shared on its website. The Farm Bureau's statement continues: "The passage of IP 28 would effectively turn Oregon into a 'no kill or harm' sanctuary state, eliminating in-state meat, dairy, and animal protein production."
Industry and Political Opposition: A Rare Bipartisan Front
The coalition fighting IP28 is unusually broad, cutting across political lines in a state that has grown increasingly partisan. Powerful industry groups whose members would be impacted by the measure, including the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and the Oregon Hunters Association, have expressed strong opposition to the ballot initiative. They say the measure would force Oregonians to rely on food shipped from other states and hurt local ranchers and others who work in the cattle industry.
Legislative voices across party lines have joined the fight. Oregon Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chairs, Senators David Brock Smith and Anthony Broadman, oppose Initiative Petition 28. Even Oregon's sitting governor weighed in against it. Governor Kotek said in a campaign video posted to social media: "I know tribal leaders, family farmers and ranchers and Oregonians across the state who care deeply about protecting our land, waters and wildlife. This petition does nothing to help that, and it risks criminalizing common agricultural practices that are critical to Oregon's economy."
The opposition has also attracted national political attention. The petition has already drawn national attention, including coverage in Field & Stream magazine. Texas Governor Greg Abbott even weighed in. Abbott wrote on Facebook: "This is exactly what happens when Democratic Socialists take power, they come for your way of life. Not in Texas. As Governor, I guaranteed the right to hunt and fish are protected in our state Constitution and I made constitutional carry the law of the land in Texas."
Abbott's commentary points to a larger constitutional dimension of this fight. While this measure is the first in the country to propose criminalizing hunting, fishing, and intentional injury to animals, 24 states have a right to hunt and fish amendment in their state constitutions. Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777, and Florida was the most recent state to adopt one in 2024. Oregon is notably not among that group of 24, which is precisely what makes the state a viable testing ground for this kind of initiative.
The Humane Transition Fund: A Carrot Amid the Chaos
In what reads as an acknowledgment that the economic devastation would be immediate and severe, the initiative includes a provision meant to soften the blow. The initiative would establish a Humane Transition Fund to fund food assistance, income replacement, job retraining, animal care costs, and conservation and rewilding efforts for individuals affected by the initiative's changes. The initiative requires the legislature to allocate money to the fund. It would also establish a Humane Transition Fund and a Transitional Oversight Council to help Oregon transition into a "no kill or harm" sanctuary state.
Critics have not been kind to this element of the proposal. The notion that a state legislative appropriation could offset the loss of a billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy, a $127 million beef export market, half a billion dollars in fishing-generated household income, and the institutional infrastructure of an entire state agency strains credulity. The fund provision, in the view of many analysts, reflects the campaign's awareness that the policy would cause harm — while doing little to quantify or address the actual scale of that harm.
What IP28 Means for Every Man Who Hunts, Fishes, or Farms
The implications of IP28 extend well beyond Oregon's borders, and men who hunt and fish in other states — or who simply value those rights in principle — should be paying close attention. While attacks on hunting and fishing practices have become common in recent years, IP28 is notable for its extremity, as well as the wide range of practices it would apply to. If a ballot initiative this radical can gather more than 125,000 signatures in a single state, it signals that the organized animal rights movement has developed the infrastructure, the funding, and the strategic patience to push these campaigns further than most people expected.
The initiative's own architects have been transparent about the long game. Even if IP28 fails spectacularly at the ballot box in November 2026 — which most observers on both sides expect — the campaign's stated mission is to shift public discourse. Every news story, every debate, every voter education forum that the initiative generates moves the Overton window at least slightly. Hunters and anglers who have long treated their way of life as a settled cultural given may be forced to reckon with the fact that it is increasingly contested terrain.
There is also a conservation argument that IP28's advocates never seem to engage with seriously. Consider the role hunting plays in conservation efforts. Hunters not only fund those efforts via their licenses, but they also serve to control populations to prevent things like animal starvation due to overpopulation. Without regulated hunting and the licensing revenue it generates, Oregon's wildlife management apparatus would collapse — with consequences for the very animal populations the initiative purports to protect. Deer and elk herds that grow unchecked in the absence of hunters don't live longer, healthier lives. They overgraze, contract disease, and die in far larger numbers than hunting ever produced.
The research angle is equally damaging to IP28's credibility. The ban is also anti-science, since it would prevent a lot of research, including many studies of wildlife where the animal isn't used for some kind of horrific testing. Oregon's public universities — Oregon State, University of Oregon, Portland State — rely on animal research not just for agricultural science but for medical breakthroughs that benefit humans and animals alike. The initiative would put that research infrastructure in legal jeopardy.
The Road to November: What Happens Next
The immediate hurdle is signature verification. The group surpassed the required 117,000 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, submitting more than 126,000 signatures to the Oregon Secretary of State's Office. The office must verify those signatures using statistical sampling procedures before the petition can officially make it to the November ballot. After the July 2 deadline, the secretary of state will work to validate the signatures and determine whether the measure will head to the ballot.
Given the historical disqualification rates — at least 15% of signatures rejected in each of the four recent qualifying initiatives — the campaign needs all the cushion it can get. It's likely some signatures will be rejected, but petitioners can still submit signatures until July 2. Petition circulators generally aim to gather about 150% of the required signatures to account for invalid or duplicate signatures. At 125,000 to 126,000 submitted, the campaign is tracking above the bare minimum but remains below the 150% target that experienced campaign managers consider the safe zone.
If it qualifies, this is the first initiative in Oregon to submit more than the required number of signatures for the November ballot. Oregon voters would then face a measure unlike anything that has appeared on an American state ballot before — a legally binding proposition that would transform the state's relationship with the natural world overnight.
For sportsmen, ranchers, guides, outfitters, and anyone with a freezer full of elk meat, the practical response is clear: stay informed, get registered, and show up in November. The Oregon Hunters Association is already mobilizing, having received outside funding to build out its counter-campaign. The most impactful actions, according to the OHA, are registering to vote, educating family and friends about IP28's effects, donating to the Hunter Victory Fund, and sharing informational materials at sport shows and community events.
The broader lesson, though, is one that resonates far beyond Oregon's state lines. The organized movement to criminalize hunting and fishing is no longer a theoretical threat whispered about at sporting goods counters. It has a name — the PEACE Act. It has a war chest. It has a strategy built on incremental cultural erosion rather than immediate electoral victory. And it has, as of this spring, more than 125,000 signatures. The question for every man who has ever woken before dawn, pulled on his waders, or drawn back a bowstring is simple: are you paying attention?
