A controversial ballot measure that would have criminalized activities like hunting, fishing, ranching, and farming failed to garner enough signatures to appear on the ballot this fall.
On Friday, July 24, Oregon Initiative Petition 28 failed to clear the 117,173 valid signature threshold required to appear on the general election ballot. The “Yes on IP28 campaign” only received 104,262 valid signatures, well below the aforementioned threshold. IP28, or the PEACE Act (People for Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions), would have amended Oregon’s animal abuse statute to prohibit fishing, hunting, trapping, ranching, farming, scientific research, and even dog breeding on animal cruelty grounds.
Supporters of IP28 argued the ballot measure, had it become law, “would extend the legal protections that keep our companion animals safe to animals currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild—which would then protect those animals from slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation.”
This proposed measure was so radical, progressive Gov. Tina Kotek (D-OR) condemned it and lambasted the campaign.
“I’m relieved IP-28 failed to qualify for the November ballot,” Gov. Kotek said in an official statement. “Efforts to criminalize activities like hunting and fishing are wrong for Oregon. I know from conversations with Oregonians across the state that this measure would have done nothing to help them. This is a win for tribal leaders, family farmers, ranchers, and every Oregonian who cares about protecting our lands and wildlife.”
The Oregon Hunters Association (OHA) also applauded last week’s news, writing in a statement: “The Oregon Secretary of State has officially confirmed that Initiative Petition 28 failed to gather enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. This is a major victory for Oregon's hunters, anglers, farmers, and everyone who stood up for our outdoor heritage.”
Over one million Oregonians would have been adversely impacted by IP28 had it moved forward and become law. Over 830,000 hunters and anglers would have lost access to fishing and hunting opportunities. Relatedly, IP28 would have defunded the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) of its $180 million annual budget. In 2025, the Beaver State received $20 million and $9.7 million from monies generated from hunting and fishing activities under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, respectively.
Not only would hunting and fishing have been outlawed, but farming and ranching would have been criminalized too–affecting 13 percent of the state’s GDP and agriculture’s $5.01 billion output across 37,000 farms supporting 80,000 jobs.
That’s why I referred to IP28 as a cruel ballot measure.
The Yes on IP28 perhaps foreshadowed its own demise, writing on their website: “...this initiative is unlikely to secure 50% of the vote in 2026 (although we would of course love for that to happen).”
Although animal rights activists suffered a momentary defeat here, the fight against ballot box biology, sadly, is far from over.
There are full-fledged campaigns to destroy wildlife agencies and stack anti-conservationists in positions related to wildlife conservation efforts supported by hunters and anglers. These nefarious efforts are abundantly clear in states like California, Washington State, and Colorado.
In the past decade, Colorado has been ruthlessly undermined by rewilders and anti-hunters. Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) stacked his state’s wildlife agency and related committees with individuals who actively undermine the fishing and hunting way of life. The most egregious example of ballot box biology came in 2020, when Coloradans narrowly voted in support of Proposition 114 to forcibly reintroduce gray wolves into the Centennial State. Conventional wisdom holds that wildlife biologists, not voters, should be solely tasked with decisions related to wildlife conservation and management efforts. Unsurprisingly, reintroduction efforts - beginning in 2023 - have largely failed–leading, ironically, to high wolf mortality rates. This botched campaign is likely to trigger federal intervention from the Trump administration.
This is why groups like HOWL for Wildlife, International Order of T. Roosevelt, and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management are supporting the proposed right to hunt and fish amendment going before Colorado voters this fall. As of this writing, 24 of 50 U.S. states protect hunting and fishing in their state constitutions–without infringing on property rights or excusing criminal acts. Colorado could realistically become State No. 25 if voters support Initiative 302 this November.
IOTR CEO Luke Hilgemann, writing at Outdoor Life, illustrated the need to go on offense to pass amendments to protect our hunting and fishing traditions: “The founders in Vermont got it right in 1777. Twenty-three states have now followed their lead, for a total of 24 states. And those of us who hunt and fish should no longer be content to play defense in states that refuse to protect these rights. We are on offense, armed with constitutional language that is proven in court and carried forward by citizens who refuse to surrender their heritage.”
While Oregon thankfully dodged IP28, blue states will continue to be targeted by animal rights activists. Let’s take the W and continue to go on offense.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.