An extreme initiative in Oregon that would ban hunting and fishing is one step closer to making the November ballot. Oregon Initiative Petition 28—which would categorize hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming as forms of animal cruelty—has now garnered more than 117,000 signatures, making it eligible for ballot consideration by the Secretary of State.
According the Oregon Hunters Association (OHA), the so-called PEACE Act would eliminate legal exemptions that currently protect hunting, fishing, trapping, and farming from prosecution under Oregon’s animal abuse statutes. If passed, the referendum would open more than 330,000 licensed hunters and 500,000 anglers to criminal liability. It would also jeopardize the treaty-protected hunting-and-fishing rights of nine sovereign tribes.
Fighting the Ban
OHA says out-of-state animal rights organizations are organizing and driving the ballot push. A broad coalition of conservation and special interest groups—from the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association to Ducks Unlimited and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers—has come out against it. The Oregon Sportsmen Legislative Caucus, made up Democrats and Republicans in the Oregon State Senate, has also issued a joint statement opposing IP28, calling it an attack on the state’s rural economy and cultural heritage.
Todd Adkins is OHA’s newly appointed Executive Director. He comes to the organization after three years as the Executive Director of Sportsmen’s Alliance, where he fought hunting-and-fishing threats at the national level. He tells Field & Stream that canvassers have amassed more than 120,000 signatures in support of the measure as of May 26. “It’s a remarkable example of extremism,” Adkins says. “This is what animal extremism looks like if it’s left unchecked.”
The attempted ban has been in the news on and off since it was first introduced in 2020 as Initiative Petition 13. It failed to qualify for the ballot in 2022 before supporters reintroduced it with the same core language in 2024. When it failed again, in July 2024, the groups immediately reintroduced the measure in its current form.
Impacts to Conservation
Adkins says a referendum to cancel all hunting and fishing in the state would cripple the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, which relies on dollars generated by hunting and fishing license fee as well as federal excise taxes on guns, ammo, and other sporting goods items. “I’m not even sure we can project or estimate the hit that Pittman-Robertson would take,” he says. “The agency’s budget for wildlife management would just be gone instantly.”
Read Next: Feds Order Bison Off Public Lands in Montana
The ban would extend well beyond recreational hunting and fishing to commercial fishing and crabbing on the Oregon coast, Adkins said. And it would even criminalize routine pest control in urban areas. Supporters will continue to gather signatures until July 2, Adkins says, which could further pad their efforts in the event that some of the existing signatures are invalidated. If at least 117,173 signatures are verified, early mail-in voting on the ballot initiative could begin 14 to 18 days before the general November election cycle.
THE 1871 CLUB
7 Comments
why not just pass a law making the state vegan?
Most of Oregon (and some of Calif.) wants to be Idaho. rigged elections are a real problem for the entire world. easy to fix if a solution was actually sought.
Certainly, we’ve all heard and met and seen bad hunters and cruel people. They suck. However, essentially outlawing meat and fish eating and other forms of human traditional and NECESSARY nutrition is a bridge too far. This referendum indicates clearly what has been kind of knows across the land since probably the time of the beatnicks, that Oregon, specifically, attracts and extreme personality type, it seems.
I mean, there are strong feelings I have but the thing is, I don’t get together with thousands of other people to impose them on the polity. These people have no problem trying that.
I would normally think this was a cruel joke – but then again it IS crazy left Oregon
I dont think the Vegetarian/ Vegan folks understand the impact they have on or the amount of living life forms affected and ki im sorry unalived farming the land to grow your crops!!! The very waist that come from the animals needed to help fertilize those crops are also the animals we harvest for food to keep population in check!!! Who has the right to stop anyone from feeding and providing food of any form to anyone ! So many pray to a god but dont practice these things so quick to take from another no matter the consequences!!!! maybe look at mother nature and praise her ,we are all part of the food chain! Even the worms need food!!!
This write up seems a little disingenuous. In section 9 they propose that ORS 167.339 be rewritten to specify that other proposed changes do not affect fishing, hunting, and trapping (h). The slaughter of livestock is still permitted (e), and vermin and pest control are unchanged (j).
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the proposal, but let’s argue about it on its merits without making stuff up.
Agree with Julian. I’m not a lawyer, but I scanned through and in Section 9, I’m seeing exceptions that will still allow (e) killing of livestock and (g) fishing, hunting, trapping. So where exactly does it say it’s going to ban livestock slaughter and hunting/fishing?
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, unless gross negligence can be shown, the
provisions of ORS 167.315 (Animal abuse in the second degree) to 167.333 (Sexual assault of an
animal) do not apply to:
(a) [The treatment of livestock being transported by owner or common carrier;]Situations of self-defense
when it is necessary to defend against the threat of immediate harm to oneself, to other humans, or
to other animals;
[(b) Animals involved in rodeos or similar exhibitions;]
[(c) Commercially grown poultry;]
[(d) Animals subject to good animal husbandry practices;]
[(e) The killing of livestock according to the provisions of ORS 603.065 (Slaughter methods);]
[(f)](b) Animals subject to good veterinary practices as described in ORS 686.030 (Acts constituting
practice of veterinary medicine)[;].
[(g) Lawful fishing, hunting and trapping activities;]
[(h) Wildlife management practices under color of law;]
[(i) Lawful scientific or agricultural research or teaching that involves the use of animals;]
[(j) Reasonable activities undertaken in connection with the control of vermin or pests; and]
[(k) Reasonable handling and training techniques.