Oregon activists have pushed an initiative that could outlaw many common hunting, fishing and animal-use practices, and they say they collected more than enough signatures to try to get it on the ballot this fall.
In Oregon, a coalition calling itself “End Animal Cruelty” launched the PEACE Act effort in 2024 and has reportedly submitted over 120,000 signatures for what organizers call Initiative Petition 28. State rules require 117,173 valid signatures by July 2 for a measure to qualify, so the campaign claims it has passed the initial hurdle. That claim now moves the fight from organizers’ meetings into an official verification process.
The proposal would change the state’s animal cruelty statutes by removing longstanding exemptions that currently protect hunting, fishing and trapping from prosecution when done lawfully. Under the measure, intentionally injuring or killing an animal could become a criminal offense in far wider circumstances than today’s law allows. The campaign’s text also targets breeders and a long list of routine activities that interact with animals in agriculture and wildlife management.
If enacted as written, the initiative would reach into animal husbandry, slaughtering of livestock and poultry, wildlife management, rodeos, research, and control of nuisance animals, according to summaries circulated by supporters. It would eliminate hunting and fishing licenses as a policy instrument and divert state funds toward animal welfare programs, food assistance and job training for workers displaced if their work becomes illegal. The breadth of those changes would touch rural economies and longstanding cultural practices across Oregon.
The state must still verify those submitted signatures to confirm they meet legal standards, so the measure is not guaranteed a place on the November ballot yet. Signature gathering by modern campaigns can be an industrial operation: paid petition circulators, targeted mail and digital outreach can produce large totals quickly. Verification is a technical step, but it is also a substantive filter for measures that would remake thousands of livelihoods if adopted.
There are two obvious readings of what the signature numbers mean: either a lot of Oregonians understood the full scope and signed anyway, or many people were persuaded by a short pitch without grasping the sweeping consequences. It’s reasonable to suspect a strong urban-rural split here, with most backers clustered in cities and many opponents living in rural counties where hunting, fishing and animal husbandry are part of daily life. Whatever the mix, the petition drive shows modern advocacy groups can mobilize significant public pressure quickly.
From a Republican perspective, this measure represents a profound attack on personal liberty and private property rights dressed up as compassion for animals. The approach is punitive: it uses the criminal law to reshape ordinary life and work rather than relying on private standards, voluntary reforms or narrow regulatory fixes. That weaponization of the criminal code threatens people who make their living with animals and folks who simply follow cultural traditions like licensed hunting seasons.
Passage would not only disrupt local economies but also create legal confusion for farmers, fishers and wildlife managers who rely on clear rules to work safely and sustainably. State agencies would face new enforcement burdens and court fights over where exemptions used to stand, and small businesses tied to outdoor recreation could see licenses and longstanding regulatory frameworks vanish. The ripple effects would be felt far beyond activists’ intentions.
The signature total also signals a strategy: organized groups are willing to push ballot measures that substitute criminal enforcement for policy debate, then try to export those models to other states if they succeed. That playbook bypasses legislatures and federalism, replacing deliberative institutions with yes-or-no votes that hinge on short campaign messaging. The scale of the petition drive should remind citizens and officials alike to read initiative language carefully and to insist on transparent processes during verification.
At minimum, Oregon’s process will test whether supporters can meet legal thresholds and whether voters will accept sweeping criminal penalties for activities long protected by exemptions. The coming weeks of verification and any subsequent legal challenges will determine whether Initiative Petition 28 advances to a statewide vote or falls short on technical grounds. Either way, the debate it has sparked about property, liberty and the proper reach of criminal law is now very public.
