A controversial ballot measure in Oregon that could effectively ban hunting, fishing, livestock slaughter, and several common agricultural practices is moving closer to qualifying for the state’s November election ballot.
Known as Initiative Petition 28, or IP 28, the proposal seeks to significantly expand Oregon’s animal cruelty laws by removing exemptions that currently allow a variety of activities involving animals. Supporters argue the measure would strengthen legal protections for animals, while critics say it would criminalize long-standing practices that are central to agriculture, wildlife management, and outdoor recreation.
Campaign organizers say they have collected more than 120,000 signatures in support of the initiative, surpassing the approximately 117,000 signatures required to qualify for the ballot. However, election officials must still verify the signatures before determining whether the measure will move forward. Petitioners have until July 2 to submit all signatures, and a final decision on ballot qualification is not expected until later in the summer.
If approved by voters, the measure would make it illegal to intentionally kill or injure animals in many circumstances that are currently permitted under Oregon law. The proposal could ban hunting and fishing, prevent livestock slaughter, prohibit the use of animals in rodeos, and restrict scientific research involving animals. It would also affect common livestock management practices, including castration and neutering.
David Michelson, one of the initiative’s leaders, said the goal is to encourage people to rethink how society treats animals. Supporters argue that animals raised for food or used in recreational activities deserve legal protections similar to those provided to household pets.
The proposal does include exceptions for self-defense and veterinary care. Organizers have also suggested creating a transition fund designed to help workers and businesses affected by the changes. The fund would provide job retraining, income replacement, and food assistance for individuals impacted by the measure.
Opposition to IP 28 has been widespread among farming, ranching, and hunting organizations throughout the state. The Oregon Farm Bureau has argued that the measure would have severe economic consequences and could fundamentally alter Oregon’s food production system. According to the organization, residents could face higher food prices and become increasingly dependent on products imported from other states and countries.
Industry groups also warn that the proposal could create legal uncertainty for farmers, veterinarians, breeders, and livestock owners. Critics contend that practices necessary for animal health, breeding, and agricultural production could become criminal offenses under the revised law.
Republican State Senator Christine Drazan described the initiative as a direct attack on Oregon’s agricultural and rural communities. She argued that the measure threatens thousands of jobs connected to farming, ranching, food production, and outdoor recreation.
The Oregon Hunters Association has also voiced strong opposition, saying hunting plays an important role in wildlife conservation and population management. The organization has indicated it will launch a campaign against the proposal if it officially qualifies for the ballot.
The debate surrounding IP 28 highlights a growing national conversation about animal rights, food production, and the balance between ethical treatment of animals and traditional agricultural practices. Supporters view the measure as a major step forward for animal welfare, while opponents see it as an unrealistic proposal that could disrupt industries that support thousands of Oregon families.
For now, the initiative’s future remains uncertain. Election officials must verify signatures before voters can decide whether Oregon should adopt one of the most sweeping animal protection measures ever proposed in the United States.
