Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), deceptively branded as the “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act,” represents one of the most aggressive assaults on animal ownership, agriculture, and private property rights ever proposed via state ballot initiative. Despite its emotionally charged title and messaging, IP28 is not about improving animal welfare. It seeks to criminalize lawful animal use, dismantle food production systems, and advance a radical animal liberation agenda through voter confusion rather than open legislative debate.

This initiative is neither hypothetical nor fringe. It is real, well-organized, heavily funded, and now poised to reach Oregon voters.

The Broader Agenda Is Not Hidden

Campaign leaders behind IP28 have openly stated that their goal is not incremental welfare improvements but the complete elimination of animal use—including for food, research, hunting, breeding, and companionship. Rooted in the ideology that humans have no legitimate right to use animals under any circumstances, this agenda directly conflicts with science-based agriculture, food security, wildlife management, and fundamental property rights.

What IP28 Does

Current Oregon law includes targeted exemptions in animal cruelty statutes for lawful, science-based activities such as livestock production, veterinary care, wildlife management, research, and working animals. IP28 would eliminate these exemptions, exposing farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, pet owners, 4-H and FFA members, trainers, hunters, and researchers to felony and misdemeanor charges for routine, humane practices.

Oregon already maintains strong laws against genuine animal abuse. IP28 does not meaningfully strengthen enforcement against real cruelty; instead, it reclassifies normal, necessary animal husbandry and management practices as criminal. If passed, it would criminalize:

• Harvesting livestock for food, fiber, pharmaceuticals, and other products

• Livestock breeding and reproduction

• Harvesting wildlife for food (hunting and fishing)

• Wildlife population control

• Common pest control methods

• Standard veterinary procedures, such as artificial insemination and castration (relabeled as “sexual assault”)

Not the First Attempt: A Pattern of Persistence in Oregon and Beyond

IP28 is the latest iteration in a repeated campaign by animal liberation activists in Oregon. Previous versions—IP13 (2022) and Petition 3/IP3 (2024)—failed to qualify for the ballot primarily due to insufficient signatures, not voter rejection. Organizers have regrouped each time with rebranding, increased funding, and refined messaging, with IP28 explicitly building on and expanding beyond IP3 by targeting all remaining exemptions for lawful animal husbandry, veterinary practices, hunting, fishing, and food production.

This pattern is not unique to Oregon. Similar ballot measures and initiatives have been pushed in other states, including California (e.g., Prop 12 and extreme confinement bans), Colorado, Arizona, and elsewhere. These efforts often start with seemingly modest welfare reforms but escalate toward broader restrictions or outright bans on animal agriculture and use, frequently leveraging intentionally deceptive direct democracy to bypass legislative scrutiny. Oregon risks becoming the next test case in this national strategy.

This Time Is Different: Signatures Secured for the November Ballot

Backed by significant outside funding from national animal rights organizations like PETA, Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), and the Karuna Foundation, IP28 benefits from paid signature gatherers. Supporters have now submitted over 126,000 raw signatures—exceeding the approximately 117,000 valid signatures required. While final verification by the Oregon Secretary of State is pending (with a July 2, 2026 deadline), IP28 is expected to qualify and appear on the November 2026 statewide ballot.

Serious questions about the petition process have also emerged. Guyer Brandon of The Guyer Show recently confronted paid signature gatherers at the Milwaukie Farmers Market, capturing on camera individuals who admitted they were not U.S. citizens—and therefore ineligible under Oregon law to circulate initiative petitions. This incident raises significant concerns about the integrity and legality of the signature-gathering effort.

Ballot Initiatives and the Danger of Voter Deception

Ballot initiatives bypass expert legislative review, committee hearings, and amendments. Voters encounter a brief, appealing summary that obscures the full legal consequences buried in the statutory text. Animal rights groups have acknowledged that this process is their most effective tool for advancing policies unlikely to survive traditional debate—particularly when urban voters decide on rural agricultural practices they may not fully understand.

Conclusion: Oregon Must Not Become the Test Case

If IP28 passes—even narrowly—it will serve as a national blueprint, emboldening similar campaigns state by state using the same tactics. Oregon voters, policymakers, and agricultural communities must recognize IP28 for what it is: a calculated effort to criminalize animal ownership, collapse animal agriculture, and undermine property rights through deception.

The time to act is now—before voters head to the polls in November. The stakes for agriculture, rural communities, food security, and private property rights could not be higher.