Oregon Ballot To CRIMINALIZE Fishing and Ranching

Two people on a boat navigating a misty lake

Oregon activists are collecting signatures for a ballot measure that would criminalize virtually every interaction with animals—from ranching cattle to casting a fishing line—transforming the state’s entire food system and rural way of life overnight.

Story Snapshot

Initiative Petition 28 (PEACE Act) would eliminate exemptions in Oregon’s animal cruelty laws, effectively banning hunting, fishing, ranching, livestock farming, and animal research
Activists have collected roughly 100,000 of the required 117,173 signatures needed by July 2, 2026, to place the measure on November’s ballot
Chief petitioner David Michelson admits passage is unlikely but frames the campaign as a long-term strategy to normalize animal rights ideology
Rural residents and agricultural groups warn the measure would devastate Oregon’s economy, disrupt wildlife management, and criminalize traditional livelihoods
Opponents call it a cautionary tale for other states with sharp urban-rural divides where metro areas can drive signature collection

The Scope of the Ban Reaches Every Corner of Oregon Life

Initiative Petition 28 strips away exemptions that currently allow Oregonians to hunt deer, raise cattle, conduct medical research, control pests, and fish for salmon. The measure defines animal cruelty so broadly that intentionally injuring or killing any animal—wild or domestic—becomes criminal. This sweeping redefinition would shut down ranches across eastern Oregon, empty rivers of anglers, and force restaurants to eliminate locally sourced meat from menus. Even Portland’s celebrated farm-to-table movement would collapse under regulations that make raising chickens for eggs a prosecutable offense.

Urban Signature Drives Fuel Rural Alarm

The petition’s momentum comes from Oregon’s population-dense urban corridors, where activists pitch the measure selectively. Reports indicate signature gatherers sometimes describe IP 28 as merely a primate research ban, conveniently omitting impacts on hunting and agriculture. This tactical misrepresentation exploits the state’s geographic divide: metro Portland voters, largely disconnected from rural realities, provide the numerical strength to qualify measures that devastate communities hundreds of miles away. Amy Patrick of the Oregon Hunters Association tracks the signatures closely and warns neighboring states to watch Oregon as a cautionary example of how urban majorities can override rural livelihoods through ballot initiatives.

Wildlife Management Would Collapse Without Hunting Revenue

Banning hunting eliminates the primary funding source for Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hunters purchase licenses and tags that pay for habitat conservation, species monitoring, and ecosystem management. Without this revenue stream, deer and elk populations would explode beyond sustainable levels, decimating forests and farmland through overgrazing. The ecological consequences extend beyond overpopulation: predator-prey balances would fail, diseases would spread through overcrowded herds, and vehicle collisions with wildlife would spike. KPTV’s coverage highlighted these risks, noting that hunting serves as essential population control that benefits entire ecosystems, not just game species.

Ranchers Face Criminalization of Daily Operations

Selah Tenney, a sheep farmer near Roseburg, articulates the absurdity facing rural Oregonians. Under IP 28, protecting livestock from coyotes or cougars would constitute animal cruelty, turning farmers into criminals for defending their animals. Ranching and livestock farming—cornerstones of Oregon’s economy—would cease immediately if the measure passes. The proposed “transition fund” offers no specific funding mechanisms or timelines, leaving entire communities economically stranded. Lauren Kuenzi of the Oregon Farm Bureau calls the initiative a misguided assault on animal welfare standards that farmers have refined over generations, standards that actually prioritize humane treatment while maintaining viable agricultural operations.

Activists Admit Defeat But Claim Ideological Victory

David Michelson, the Portland-based chief petitioner, openly acknowledges IP 28 has virtually no chance of securing the 50 percent voter approval needed to pass. He frames the campaign instead as consciousness-raising theater designed to shift social norms over decades. This strategy mirrors failed efforts in Colorado, where a similar 2021 initiative never qualified for the ballot. Michelson views even a landslide defeat as success if it plants seeds of doubt about humanity’s relationship with animals. This long-game approach alarms opponents who see it as normalization of extremism—using Oregon’s ballot system not to win policy changes through democratic consensus but to legitimize fringe ideology through repeated exposure.

The Oregon Hunters Association promises a “historic defeat” at the polls if IP 28 qualifies, mobilizing rural voters and educating urban residents about the measure’s sweeping consequences. Graphics circulated by opponents illustrate how the ban touches every Oregonian’s life, from eliminating pest control that protects homes and crops to shuttering university research programs. The measure’s opponents are united across traditional dividing lines: hunters, ranchers, farmers, and even local food advocates recognize that IP 28 represents an existential threat to rural Oregon’s economy and culture. Whether activists gather the remaining 17,000 signatures by July remains uncertain, but the fight has already exposed the dangerous disconnect between Oregon’s urban corridors and the rural communities that feed them.