Sportsmen in Oregon are watching closely as a controversial ballot initiative moves closer to a statewide vote, with opponents warning that the proposal could dramatically reshape hunting, fishing, agriculture, and animal-use practices across the state.
The measure, known as Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) or the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act, has reportedly gathered 120,735 signatures, surpassing the 117,173 valid signatures required to qualify for the ballot. Although election officials must still verify signatures before the July 2 deadline, supporters appear well-positioned to secure a place on the statewide ballot.
Unlike previous efforts focused primarily on hunting or trapping restrictions, IP28 reaches far beyond outdoor recreation. The proposal seeks to remove several exemptions currently contained within Oregon's animal cruelty statutes. Critics argue that doing so would effectively prohibit hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock slaughter, poultry production, rodeos, many animal breeding practices, and certain forms of animal-based medical research.
Supporters of the initiative openly acknowledge that the measure is intended to challenge long-standing assumptions about human use of animals. According to campaign materials, proponents believe society can meet its needs through alternatives that do not involve killing animals, while also addressing what they view as the interests of the animals currently used for food and other purposes.
One of the initiative's backers, David Michelson, told Willamette Weekly earlier this year that he views the campaign as part of a broader cultural shift. Comparing the effort to historical social movements, Michelson said he did not expect IP28 to pass immediately but believed that placing the issue before voters would help normalize discussion surrounding animal rights and the use of animals in modern society.
That perspective has only intensified opposition from hunting and conservation organizations throughout Oregon and across the country.
Todd Adkins, executive director of the Oregon Hunters Association, has been among the most outspoken critics. He argues that the proposal would fundamentally alter life in Oregon by targeting activities that many residents consider essential traditions, economic drivers, and conservation tools.
The Oregon Hunters Association points to the state's more than 330,000 licensed hunters and over 500,000 licensed anglers as evidence of the proposal's broad potential impact. The organization also notes that hunting and fishing contribute an estimated $1.9 billion annually to Oregon's economy through equipment purchases, travel, lodging, licenses, and related spending.
National conservation organizations have also entered the debate. Groups including Ducks Unlimited, the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership have publicly opposed the initiative, expressing concern that a successful campaign in Oregon could inspire similar efforts elsewhere.
Opponents further argue that IP28 threatens the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the conservation framework that has guided wildlife policy in the United States for generations. Under that model, revenue generated through hunting and fishing licenses, excise taxes, and related activities helps fund habitat restoration, wildlife research, and species management programs.
The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation warned that eliminating hunting, fishing, and trapping would dramatically reduce funding for those efforts while disrupting wildlife management practices that rely on regulated harvests and scientific oversight.
Whether IP28 ultimately succeeds remains uncertain. However, with signature totals already exceeding the qualification threshold and organized opposition rapidly mobilizing, the proposal has emerged as one of the most closely watched wildlife and animal-rights battles in Oregon's recent history. For many hunters, anglers, ranchers, and conservation advocates, the coming vote is shaping up as a defining fight over the future of wildlife management and animal use in the state.