A ballot initiative quietly collecting signatures across Oregon has the potential to upend more than a century of established agricultural and outdoor tradition — and opponents warn most residents have no idea how sweeping its reach actually is.
The measure goes by the name Initiative Petition 28, or IP28, formally titled the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act.
Supporters call it the PEACE Act. Critics call it a direct assault on rural Oregon’s way of life.
Backers of the petition announced they have crossed the raw signature threshold needed to potentially land the measure on the November 2026 general election ballot.
The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office now holds the power to advance or halt it, as staff must verify submitted signatures before the initiative can receive official certification.
IP28 requires 117,173 validated signatures by a July 2, 2026 deadline.
Organizers likely needed to collect well above that number, since signatures gathered over a prolonged period can be disqualified if signers have since moved or are no longer registered Oregon voters.
This is not the first time Oregon has seen this fight.
The initiative is the third version of a campaign that first surfaced in 2020, previously filed under different petition numbers before landing as IP28. It has failed to qualify twice before.
At the center of the proposal is a fundamental rewrite of how Oregon law defines animal abuse.
Currently, licensed hunters, commercial fishermen, and farmers operate under legal exemptions that shield their work from the state’s animal cruelty statutes.
IP28 eliminates those protections entirely. The initiative classifies causing the death of an animal — whether “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” — as animal abuse in the first degree.
The proposal goes further than most opponents initially expected.
It extends the legal definition of animal sexual assault to cover artificial insemination practiced on farm animals, a routine procedure used widely across Oregon’s livestock industry.
The Oregon Farm Bureau did not hold back in its assessment.
The organization stated that IP28 “asks Oregon voters to dramatically redefine animal abuse in state law by making the killing or injury of animals illegal,” and warned that while the language of the petition “may sound straightforward, the implications are sweeping.”
The Bureau further stated that passage 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.”
It added that Oregonians could be pushed “either into a vegan lifestyle or to rely on food shipped in from other states or countries,” driving up food costs and severing the state’s local food supply chain.
The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association declared that the measure would “prohibit processing of animals, in addition to restricting hunting and fishing, under the guise of preventing animal cruelty” and strip “the freedom of choice from every consumer.”
The Oregon Hunters Association put hard numbers behind the opposition, stating that roughly one million Oregonians involved in hunting, fishing, trapping, or agriculture would face criminal prosecution exposure under IP28.
The Association also cited over $1.9 billion in annual economic activity tied to Oregon’s hunting and fishing sectors alone.
Opposition has crossed party lines, with lawmakers from both major parties publicly warning that the measure’s consequences for conservation funding and rural economies could be severe.
The campaign behind IP28 drew financial backing from national animal rights organizations, including a $10,000 contribution from PETA and $30,000 from the Craigslist Charitable Fund — money that enabled organizers to hire paid signature gatherers and transform the effort from a local activist push into a funded political operation.
The Yes on IP28 campaign states on its website that the measure “would extend the legal protections that keep our companion animals safe to animals currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild.”
The group also states that IP28 “would also expand protections against animal sexual assault by classifying both the masturbation and impregnation of animals as sexual assault even when done for agricultural purposes.”
The campaign acknowledged on its own website that victory is unlikely in the near term, writing that the initiative “is unlikely to secure 50% of the vote in 2026.”
The group frames the effort as a longer-term push, suggesting alternative strategies including “greater investment in plant agriculture, utilizing non-lethal wildlife management practices, or implementing non-animal methods for research.”
Should IP28 clear verification and appear on the November ballot, only a simple majority would be required to make it law. For Oregon’s farming and outdoor communities, the clock is now ticking.
