Ballot SHOCKER: Hunting & Fishing Under Fire….

A man in hunting gear walking with a dog in a field during sunset

Oregon’s new animal-cruelty ballot fight could put hunting, fishing, farming, and ranching in the crosshairs if voters accept the campaign’s broad rewrite of state law.

Quick Take

Initiative Petition 28 is a proposed Oregon ballot measure for the November 2026 general election.^[3]
The campaign says the measure would keep Oregon’s cruelty definition but expand protections to animals on farms, in research labs, and in the wild.^[3]
Opponents say that change would wipe out exemptions for hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, and animal research.^[1]^[2]
The measure has been described as a live ballot fight after supporters cleared a key signature threshold, pending verification.^[2]

What the Measure Would Change

Initiative Petition 28, also called the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act, is being sold by supporters as a narrow change to Oregon’s animal-cruelty law.^[3] The campaign says the measure would not alter the state’s definition of animal abuse, but would change which animals receive protection under that definition.^[3] That legal distinction is the heart of the fight, because a change in coverage can be as consequential as a change in language.

Supporters say the proposal would extend protections now used for companion animals to animals on farms, in research labs, and in the wild.^[3] They say that approach would protect those animals from slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation.^[3] That framing is designed to sound like animal welfare reform, but it also confirms the measure is aimed at activities that many Oregonians consider lawful, ordinary, and deeply tied to rural life, food production, and outdoor recreation.

Why Hunters and Farmers Are Alarmed

Opponents argue the measure would remove the exemptions that currently shield hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming from animal-abuse charges.^[1] The Oregon Hunters Association says the initiative would strip those legal protections and place standard outdoor and agricultural practices at risk.^[1] KATU reported that the petition would make it illegal to injure or kill animals and would effectively ban hunting, fishing, and the breeding of animals.^[2] That is why the proposal has triggered such a strong backlash.

The concern goes beyond sport hunting. The available reporting also says the measure would affect commercial fishing, trapping, pest and wildlife management, scientific research, and tribal hunting and fishing rights.^[1] Ducks Unlimited says the proposal could reach farming, ranching, local food production, science-based wildlife management, and tribal and cultural practices.^[4] For conservatives, that raises a familiar warning sign: a sweeping regulatory proposal that starts with a moral slogan and ends with broad government intrusion into lawful private conduct.

Ballot Status and Political Stakes

KATU reported that supporters had reached the number needed to advance the measure toward the November ballot, subject to Secretary of State verification.^[2] Ducks Unlimited likewise said proponents must submit 117,173 valid signatures by July 2, 2026, to qualify for the ballot.^[4] That means the proposal is not some abstract activist wish list. It is a real election-year fight, and voters will soon be asked whether Oregon should loosen the line between cruelty and constitutionally protected, commonly accepted uses of animals.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), proposed for the November 2026 Oregon ballot, aims to ban hunting, fishing, and trapping by reclassifying these activities as animal cruelty.

The measure, supported by the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE), removes…

— Portland Moderate. (@pdxmoderate) May 27, 2026

The broader issue is how far a state can go when rewriting animal-protection law without collateral damage to agriculture, outdoor recreation, and traditional land use.^[1]^[3]^[4] Supporters present IP28 as a cruelty measure, but the language described in the available research shows a much larger target.^[3] Opponents say that makes the proposal an overreach, and on the facts provided, that criticism has real force because the campaign itself ties the initiative to hunting, fishing, slaughter, farming, and experimentation.^[3]