Oregon’s Hunting Ban Measure Dies Before Ballot

Rifle scope aiming at a forest canopy — Photo: gan chaonan / Shutterstock

A sweeping Oregon ballot push that would have effectively outlawed hunting, fishing, ranching, and traditional animal agriculture has been stopped cold before voters ever saw it.

Story Snapshot

Oregon Initiative Petition 28 failed signature checks and will not appear on the November ballot.
The measure would have removed exemptions in animal-cruelty law and effectively criminalized hunting, fishing, and livestock slaughter.
Sportsmen, farmers, and bipartisan lawmakers warned it threatened food production, rural jobs, and wildlife management.
National animal-rights groups backed the campaign, signaling similar fights are likely in other states.

Radical anti-hunting measure falls short of the ballot

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Elections Division has confirmed that Initiative Petition 28, known as the PEACE Act, did not gather enough valid signatures to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Backers turned in more than 140,000 signatures, but after verification only about 104,000 were accepted, roughly 13,000 short of the 117,173 needed. That failure means voters will not decide this proposal that opponents say would have outlawed hunting, fishing, and most animal slaughter across the state.

Under Oregon law, citizen initiatives must clear strict signature thresholds before going to voters in a general election. Election officials first run a random sample to estimate the share of valid signatures, then expand the check if the result is close. In this case, Initiative Petition 28 failed an initial sample and then a larger review, with too many duplicate, unregistered, or otherwise invalid signatures to qualify. The setback forces supporters to start over if they want a future attempt.

What IP 28 really would have done to hunting, fishing, and ranching

Initiative Petition 28 was marketed by supporters as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions, or PEACE Act, and pitched as a way to expand animal-cruelty protections. The legal text went much further. It would have removed existing exemptions that protect hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, and animal research from Oregon’s animal-abuse statutes, turning many normal practices into potential crimes. Killing an animal would count as abuse unless done in narrow self-defense or by a veterinarian, sweeping in everything from deer season to ranch slaughter.

Oregon hunting groups warned that, if passed, all licensed hunting and angling would effectively become illegal because the underlying act of intentionally injuring or killing a wild animal would be defined as criminal conduct. The measure also targeted “good animal husbandry” exemptions, which cover routine farm work such as castration, dehorning, and breeding of livestock. Some breeding practices could have been treated as sexual assault of an animal, and commercial poultry and livestock operations faced an uncertain legal future under the new language.

Backlash from sportsmen, farmers, and both parties

Once details of Initiative Petition 28 became widely known, opposition built quickly among hunters, anglers, farmers, and ranchers, who saw it as a direct attack on their way of life. The Oregon Hunters Association and other sporting groups argued it would criminalize responsible hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming, and even prevent families from raising their own chickens or controlling damaging pests on their property. National Second Amendment and outdoor organizations also labeled the measure “radical” and warned it would wipe out conservation funding tied to license and equipment sales.

Concerns spread beyond rural communities. Reporting from Oregon outlets described growing bipartisan resistance, with lawmakers from both parties saying the measure went too far and would disrupt food supply chains and wildlife management. Animal agriculture advocates stressed that existing cruelty laws already ban abuse and neglect, while this proposal targeted entire categories of lawful activity instead of punishing bad actors. Critics argued that voters were told it was a simple anti-cruelty reform, but the legal changes would have upended daily life well beyond obvious cruelty cases.

Who backed the petition and what comes next

Supporters of Initiative Petition 28 said their goal was to “extend the legal protections that keep our companion animals safe” to farm animals, research animals, and wildlife, which they argued currently suffer from loopholes in state law. The official campaign website called for ending slaughter, hunting, fishing, and animal experimentation, and said the initiative would push Oregon toward a more plant-based food system. Organizers admitted they did not expect voters to pass the measure this cycle but hoped to spark a long-term shift in public attitudes.

Initiative Petition 28, which would have put the future of hunting, fishing, trapping, ranching and more in Oregon up for a vote, will not appear on the fall ballot.https://t.co/97COkctX9I

— Northwest Sportsman (@NWSportsman) July 25, 2026

Opponents countered that the campaign was driven by extreme animal-rights groups, many with national backing, rather than by local ranchers, tribal communities, or conservation experts who manage wildlife on the ground. They warn that even though IP 28 failed this time, similar initiatives will likely appear elsewhere, using kinder language while hiding sweeping consequences for hunting, fishing, and food production. For now, Oregon’s hunters, anglers, and farmers keep their traditions and livelihoods, but they are on notice that the fight over these rights is far from over.