Oregon Initiative Petition 28
Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) is a ballot initiative deceptively branded as the “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act." It represents one of the most aggressive assaults on animal ownership, agriculture, and private property rights ever proposed through a state ballot initiative. Despite its carefully crafted title and emotionally charged messaging, IP28 is not about improving animal welfare. It aims to criminalize lawful animal use, dismantle food production, and promote a long-standing animal liberation agenda through voter confusion rather than legislative debate.
This initiative is not hypothetical. It is not fringe. It is real, organized, funded, and dangerous.
The Broader Agenda Is Not Hidden
Perhaps most revealing is the rhetoric of IP28’s own advocates. Campaign leaders have openly stated that the goal is not to improve animal care but to eliminate animal use entirely, including food, research, hunting, and breeding. This initiative is based on a radical ideological belief that humans have no legitimate right to use animals under any circumstances. That belief conflicts with modern agriculture, food security, wildlife management, and private property rights.
What IP28 Does
Under current Oregon law, animal cruelty statutes include specific exemptions for lawful activities involving animals, recognizing that livestock production, veterinary medicine, wildlife management, research, and working animals are governed by science-based animal husbandry standards rather than criminal law. IP28 removes those exemptions.
The removal of those exemptions would make farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, pet owners, trainers, hunters, and researchers face felony and misdemeanor charges for activities that are currently legal, humane, and necessary. The initiative does not significantly improve enforcement against true abuse. Oregon already has strong animal cruelty laws. IP28 instead redefines normal animal care as criminal behavior. If passed, IP28 would criminalize:
- Harvesting livestock for food, fiber, pharmaceuticals, and other everyday products
- Livestock breeding and reproduction
- Harvesting wildlife for food, like hunting and fishing
- Wildlife population control
- Common pest control methods
- Standard veterinary procedures such as artificial insemination and castration, which the initiative relabels as “sexual assault”
A Repeated, Escalating Campaign Against Animal Ownership
IP28 is the third version of the same radical idea promoted by animal liberation activists in Oregon over multiple election cycles. Earlier versions, IP13 (2022) and Petition 3/IP3 (2024), did not qualify for the ballot, but not because voters rejected them. They failed because organizers couldn't gather enough signatures. Each time, supporters regrouped, rebranded, and returned with more funding and sharper messaging.
Supporters explicitly recognize IP28 as a revised version of IP3, designed to go further and eliminate all remaining statutory exemptions that presently allow lawful animal husbandry, veterinary care, hunting, fishing, and food production.
This Time Is Different: Over 80,000 Signatures and Counting
Unlike the previous attempts of IP3 and IP13, IP28 is now backed by significant outside funding and an organized paid signature-gathering operation. Petition circulators are being paid up to $25 per hour, and are funded by national animal rights organizations, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), and the Karuna Foundation.
As of late 2025, IP28 supporters have publicly reported gathering over 80,000 signatures, bringing the initiative close to the roughly 117,000 signatures needed to qualify for the November 2026 ballot. This is no longer speculation. IP28 is a genuine and imminent threat.
Ballot Initiatives and the Danger of Voter Deception
IP28’s greatest strength and greatest danger lie in the ballot initiative process itself. Ballot initiatives skip the legislative process entirely. They do not go through committee hearings, lack expert testimony, and offer no chance for amendments. Instead, voters see a brief, emotionally appealing summary that often hides the true legal consequences found in the statutory language.
Animal rights groups have openly admitted that ballot initiatives are their most effective tool for promoting policies that can't pass legislative review. IP28 fits directly into that approach. Once such a measure reaches the ballot, defeating it becomes much harder, especially when urban voters are asked to weigh in via their votes on agricultural practices they don't understand but are told by activist groups are “cruel.”
Conclusion: Oregon Must Not Become the Test Case
If IP28 passes, even narrowly, it will not stop in Oregon. It will become a national blueprint, replicated state by state, using the same misleading language and emotional tactics. Oregon voters, policymakers, and agricultural communities must recognize IP28 for what it is: a calculated attempt to criminalize animal ownership, collapse animal agriculture, and rewrite property law through voter confusion.
The time to act is before this measure reaches the ballot. Once it does, the cost to agriculture, to rural communities, and to property rights will be far higher.
Links
AGPROfessional's article, "Ballot Initiatives Have Become Tools for Activist Groups" HERE
AGPROfessional's article, Oregon IP 3 HERE
Ballot Initiative Process by BallotPedia (including interactive map) HERE
No on Oregon IP 28 website HERE
Full Text of Oregon IP 28 as filed HERE