“Citizen-driven” ballot measures for hunting restrictions or bans are nothing new, but an Oregon initiative aiming to get on the ballot this November has the primary goal of establishing “a ban on any intentional injury of an animal except for self-defense and in the case of any veterinary care.”
Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), a citizen initiative for legislative change, is currently collecting signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot. The initiative, being marketed by its proponents under the voter-friendly, appealing title of The PEACE Act (People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions), claims that “if enacted, IP28 would extend the legal protections that keep our companion animals safe to animals currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild—which would then protect those animals from slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation.” The proponents “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,” including “utilizing non-lethal wildlife management practices.”
Translated into plain English, if IP28 succeeds it will criminalize lawful hunting (including sustenance hunting), fishing and trapping in Oregon, as well as a whole host of other traditionally accepted, essential, and economically vital activities across the state.
The Sportmen’s Alliance, a group advocating to protect and advance America’s heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping, succinctly summarizes how these initiatives get traction using emotion-driven appeals and voters’ lack of knowledge about hunting and related practices. “Urbanization has created epicenters of ignorance when it comes to wildlife management. These high population areas control the political discourse and application of policy in nearly every state, which has left the rural lifestyle and sportsmen’s heritage on the outside looking in. Disconnected from wildlife and the ramifications of bad policy, urban voters are susceptible to the emotional rhetoric and falsehoods of the animal-rights movement.”
In the same way that gun control advocates present their initiatives as “gun safety,” the proponents of IP28 are counting on the easy sell of “ending animal cruelty.” To the claim that animal abuse is already prohibited under state law, they say, the initiative “doesn’t change that definition, it simply changes who is protected under that definition.” It is unlikely that any of the well-intentioned voters signing the initiative petition will bother to read any of the ten pages that make up the actual text of the legislative changes being proposed because. After all, who can possibly be for animal cruelty and against “PEACE”?
A closer examination at what IP28 would unleash if passed is extremely concerning – not just to hunters, anglers, and trappers in Oregon, but to farmers, ranchers and everyday consumers.
IP28 is grounded in the notion of “animals’ inviolable rights,” including a right to be free from hunting, slaughter and “other forms of exploitation.” The initiative would redefine the crime of “animal abuse” in state law and remove almost all current exemptions. “Animal abuse” would mean intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing physical injury to, or the death of, any animal, where “animal” means “any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish.” The existing exemptions in the law for “good animal husbandry” practices (“accepted practices of veterinary medicine or animal husbandry,” like neutering or dehorning livestock or the humane euthanasia of a farm animal unable to stand on its own) would be eliminated.
Further, Section 9 of IP28, amending the exemptions in Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.335, would also eliminate the specific exemptions for “commercially grown poultry,” the killing of livestock using the prescribed slaughter methods in state law (generally, those that render “each such animal insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or by an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective”); “lawful scientific or agricultural research or teaching that involves the use of animals;” “reasonable activities undertaken in connection with the control of vermin or pests;” “wildlife management practices under color of law,” and “lawful fishing, hunting and trapping activities.” Depending on the circumstances, violators would be convicted of a Class B misdemeanor, a Class A misdemeanor, or a Class C felony, with a maximum potential prison term of up to five years.
Hunting and fishing, trapping, farming, ranching, bee-keeping, scientific and agricultural research or teaching, pest control, horse racing, rodeos and zoos, pet stores, animal breeders, pet owners, and just Oregonians partial to a steak or cheeseburger – all are likely to be swept into the ambit of this foolish proposal. (And we do mean foolish: as one example, on pest control the proponents emphasize that the initiative “does not prevent ‘trapping’ mice, since humane traps have been around for a long time and some places (like NYC) use birth control for mice rather than poison…”)
A brief look at the role agricultural producers play in the Oregon economy is illuminating, as the enactment of IP28 promises to make continued operation for these producers too difficult or impossible. Statistics from the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Oregon show that that the state has over 15 million acres of farms, producing agricultural exports valued at $138M (beef and veal), $120M (dairy products), $21M (poultry products) and $130M for commercial fish operations, and more; cattle and milk rank second and fourth as Oregon’s top agricultural commodities. IP28 plans to address the impact on these farmers and ranchers through “restorative justice,” by creating “a Humane Transition Fund to help provide funds to those who need support transitioning into a world that no longer relies on injuring, killing, and breeding animals.” Predictably, the “transition” would be funded by the taxpayer through “moneys appropriated or otherwise transferred to the fund by the Legislative Assembly” and “all subsidies distributed in Oregon to be used for a purpose that would no longer be allowable” under IP28.
There’s no such relief for hunters, anglers, and indigenous tribes. The Q&A portion of the IP28 proponents’ website provides this information:
…we want to begin by acknowledging that communities are currently hunting and fishing in order to meet all sorts of important needs: sustenance, economic stability, belonging, protection. We want those same needs to get met, but using a strategy that also meets the needs of the animals being killed by hunting and fishing. That might look like increasing food access, transitioning to different agricultural practices, and utilizing non-lethal wildlife management practices.
What that “strategy” is and how those needs will be met is completely up in the air.
IP28’s proponents recently claimed they had obtained 102,473 signatures out of the necessary 117,173 valid signatures needed by July 2, 2026 to get on the ballot. Unfortunately, many people will sign the petition without further thought or examination, convinced they are doing good in the world, and making it all the more likely this disaster of a measure gets before the electorate in November. Oregon’s voters urgently need to wake up to the consequences of this animal rights measure – for hunters and anglers, obviously, but for the state economy and its food supply, too.
The fact is that far from driving habitat degradation and biodiversity loss, hunters and anglers support wildlife and fish welfare, habitats and conservation. A recent press release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on funding from federal excise taxes on ammunition, firearms, archery and angling equipment “established almost a century ago with the support of concerned conservation organizations, firearms manufacturers and conservation professionals who recognized the need to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat,” states that over $1.2B in wildlife and sport fish restoration apportionments were paid out this year, including some $30M to Oregon. Ironically, without hunters and anglers and their conservation dollars, there’s no guarantee that IP28 will actually do anything to safeguard Oregon’s fish and wildlife for future generations.
More Like This From Around The NRA
