Oregonians could vote to ban hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming this fall.
The proposed Initiative Petition 28 (IP28)—or the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act—would amend Chapter 167 of the Oregon Revised Statutes to remove exemptions for lawful animal use, including hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming.
On May 29th, Yes on IP 28 supporters obtained 126,000 signatures—more than the 117,000 required—to qualify for the November 2026 general election ballot. Signatures must be verified before July 2nd, 2026, or four months before November 3rd.
Proponents argue IP 28 “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 Oregon Hunters Association notes that this ballot measure, if enacted into law, would adversely impact over one million Oregonians and their rural way of life.
American gun owners, hunters, and anglers are the largest funders of conservation efforts in the U.S. IP28 would essentially kill conservation efforts in the Beaver State. Most notably, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), supported by a $180 million annual budget, would be defunded. Over 830,000 licensed hunters and anglers would be displaced from their activities. Just last year, Oregon received $20 million and $9.7 million from monies generated from hunting and fishing activities under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, respectively. This is cruel to conservation, but that’s the intention of Yes on IP28.
Per the state’s farm bureau website, agriculture makes up 13% of the state’s GDP and has a $5.01 billion output. About 37,000 farms support 80,000 jobs. Almost all (96%) of farms operating in Oregon today are family-owned and operated.
Yes on IP28 proponents, however, concede that “this initiative is unlikely to secure 50% of the vote in 2026 (although we would of course love for that to happen).” Nevertheless, Oregonians aren’t sleeping on this radical ballot measure. In November 2022, the state narrowly passed IP 114 by a 50.7% vote to mandate permits to purchase firearms and restrict magazines holding more than 10 rounds. As of this writing, IP 114 is being legally challenged in the courts.
This, however, isn’t isolated to Oregon. Beyond Oregon, animal rights activists are deploying the ballot box biology playbook to “democratize” wildlife conservation decisions, particularly in blue states, to displace hunters, anglers, and gun owners from the landscape. Earlier this year, Colorado wolf reintroduction efforts, mandated by a 2020 ballot initiative, were paused due to high wolf mortality rates and pressure from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Even the progressive outlet Vox warned about the dangers of divorcing sportsmen and women from conservation funding:
Disentangling the firearm industry from conservation could also have other, less obvious consequences. Beyond funding state agencies, Pittman-Robertson has also helped build a diverse political coalition of support for conservation, Rea says. The firearm industry — which tends to be much more conservative than the broader environmental movement — strongly supports Pittman-Robertson, in part because it helps sustain the animals that hunters want to shoot. And, by extension, the law gives the industry’s right-oriented constituency a stake in conservation.
Ballot box biology, like climate alarmism, views hunters, anglers, farmers, and ranchers as despoilers of the environment. But the opposite is true. Those closest to the land are actually the best stewards—even in states like Oregon.
Oregon’s founders, who prided themselves on furbearing, fishing, and farming, wouldn’t recognize their state today. It’s up to Oregonians to fend off this cruel ballot measure.