Oregon is edging closer to a ballot vote that could fundamentally reshape how residents interact with animals — banning everything from deer hunting and salmon fishing to cattle slaughter and dairy farming. The initiative, known as IP28 or the PEACE Act, has collected roughly 112,000 signatures, putting it at about 95% of the 117,173 needed to appear on Oregon's November ballot. The deadline to hit that threshold is July 2.
But getting enough raw signatures may not be enough. Marie Neumiller, the Western states' policy team manager for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, told the Deseret News that the number being reported hasn't been validated by the state yet — and that matters more than people might think.
"They've been collecting signatures since 2024 for this ballot petition, so in that time, people could have moved out of Oregon and are no longer registered voters," she explained.
That means the campaign likely needs to clear well above that 117,000 mark just to be safe.
This is the third time this initiative has made a run at the ballot. The previous two attempts fell short of the signature threshold. This time around, opponents aren't counting on it failing again.
What the PEACE Act Would Actually Do
The name sounds straightforward enough — PEACE Act — but the scope of what it would criminalize is anything but simple.
IP28 dramatically expands Oregon's existing animal abuse laws to cover activities that are currently not just legal, but central to Oregon's economy and culture. Under the initiative, the following would become criminal offenses:
All forms of licensed hunting, including deer, elk, and upland bird hunting. Commercial and sport fishing, with the initiative going so far as to classify the physical trauma caused by a fishing hook as a "physical injury" — even if the fish is caught and released. Trapping animals for fur or for wildlife management purposes. Killing livestock for meat, covering cattle, poultry, and pigs. Standard livestock management practices like dehorning cattle, docking tails, and castration. Pest control. Any killing or injuring of animals involved in scientific research, agricultural research, or even 4-H programs.
On top of all that, IP28 expands Oregon's definition of "sexual assault of an animal" to include artificial insemination — applying that classification to all livestock, horses, and pets.
That last point hits the dairy industry especially hard. Nearly 80% of dairy producers across North America rely on artificial insemination to breed cows. Amy Patrick, a policy representative for both the Oregon Hunters Association and the Oregon Wild Sheep Foundation, didn't mince words about what that means for Oregon's dairy sector.
The bill's classification of artificial insemination, she said, would "decimate" Oregon's dairy industry.
The Only Legal Way Left to Kill an Animal
If IP28 passes, there would be exactly one legal pathway to killing an animal in the state of Oregon — self-defense against an immediate, active threat.
That's not a broad carve-out. It's a narrow one, and Neumiller walked through exactly what it would mean in practice by pointing to a real incident from Salem, Oregon, in February, where a coyote bit a woman who was out for a walk.
"If a coyote ran by, nipped a kid in the heel and kept running, his parent wouldn't be able to do anything, even if that coyote kept coming back and harassing people," Neumiller said.
Under the bill's language, even a repeat-offending animal could not be killed unless the person doing so was in immediate danger at that exact moment.
"The only exception carved out by this law would be if you were actively being attacked," Neumiller explained.
Wildlife managers would also be prohibited from using lethal methods to control animal populations that have grown beyond what an ecosystem can support. That's a standard, widely used conservation tool — and it would be off the table.
The Economic Reality Nobody Is Ignoring
Oregon's animal agriculture sector contributed more than $4 billion to the state's economic output in 2022 and employed more than 30,000 people. Hunting and fishing alone generate more than $1.9 billion annually, according to Oregon's Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Patrick was blunt in her assessment of what happens if IP28 becomes law.
"Economically, it would gut Oregon," she said.
She went on to describe just how central these industries are to the state's overall financial picture.
Oregon's beef, fishing, crabbing, and hunting sectors "are usually in our top economic industries," she explained. "There's not a lot of money to go around in the state. We're facing budget cuts. So to come in and pass something that would just absolutely take the legs out of our major economy-driving industries would further hurt our economy."
Patrick also made a point that goes beyond the big-picture economic numbers — one that connects directly to how everyday Oregonians buy and eat their food.
"Folks who don't hunt and fish for their food may not think too much about it, but as soon as you start talking about the local farmers market, where they go down every Saturday and they buy their lamb or beef from the same person each week — that would not be an option for them to connect with their food locally like that. That's when people start to pay attention to this."
It's a point worth sitting with. Oregon has a strong culture of local food, farmers markets, and direct relationships between producers and consumers. That entire ecosystem — built on trust, tradition, and transactions that happen face to face — would be wiped out.
The Transition Fund: A Solution or a Placeholder?
The initiative's authors are not entirely ignoring the economic damage the bill would cause. IP28 includes provisions for a "Humane Transition Fund" designed to cushion the blow for farmers and others whose livelihoods would suddenly become criminal.
The fund would establish a "Transitional Oversight Council" with the authority to issue grants covering food assistance — either through food and cash benefits or through the opening of privately or state-run grocery stores. The council would also cover the full costs of running a job retraining program and would replace lost income for affected individuals until they either complete that retraining or find a new career.
The fund would also cover the cost of caring for animals that could no longer legally be killed or otherwise used.
It's a sweeping set of promises. Whether the fund would ever be adequately financed — or whether any government program could actually replace billions of dollars in lost economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs — is an entirely different question, and one the initiative doesn't clearly answer.
Unlikely Opposition
One of the more striking aspects of the pushback against IP28 is just how wide the coalition of opponents actually is.
"I haven't met anyone that's excited to see this bill passed," Neumiller said. "And I've even had some meetings with people who are vegan, but they understand what harm this bill would cause."
That's not a throwaway line. When people who have personally chosen not to consume animal products are still raising concerns about an animal rights ballot initiative, it signals something significant — that the problems with IP28 go beyond a simple disagreement between hunters and activists.
Patrick, who has now watched this initiative fail to make the ballot twice, said her organizations are no longer banking on a third failure.
"We're just taking the stance that they're going to make the ballot," she said, indicating that the Oregon Hunters Association and Oregon Wild Sheep Foundation are preparing to fight the measure directly if and when voters get the chance to weigh in on it.
She also didn't hold back on her overall assessment of the proposal.
The bill is a "bad idea all the way around, and it has not been properly thought through," Patrick said.
What the Supporters Say
Supporters of the initiative argue that the relationship between humans and animals in Oregon needs to be fundamentally reconsidered. In their words, they believe "it is possible to meet all of our needs as human beings while simultaneously meeting the needs of the animals we inhabit this state with. Using the killing of animals as a strategy to meet our needs is a choice, and our campaign wants to propose making a different one."
It's a philosophical position, and a sincere one. But the practical implications of translating that philosophy into law — for farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, wildlife managers, and rural communities — are what the rest of Oregon is now being asked to reckon with.
What Comes Next
The campaign has until July 2 to reach and surpass the validated signature threshold. If it does, Oregon voters will see IP28 on their ballots in November.
That would set up one of the most consequential wildlife and agriculture votes in modern state history — a direct public referendum on whether hunting, fishing, and animal agriculture have a future in Oregon, or whether the state is ready to chart a radically different course.
The stakes couldn't be much higher, and the clock is ticking.
