A contentious initiative aiming to ban hunting, fishing and pest control across Oregon is gaining momentum, with organizers reporting they’ve collected over 105,000 signatures since July 2024. The proposal, spearheaded by the group People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE), would criminalize the killing of animals for any reason—including food, sport, or population control—with limited exceptions for veterinary practices and self-defense. The effort to get the measure on the November 2026 ballot is sparking debate across the state, pitting animal rights advocates against hunters, farmers, and restaurant owners who fear significant economic repercussions. The core of the debate centers around the question of animal rights and the role of humans in managing Oregon’s ecosystems.
The initiative, known as IP28, goes further than simply restricting hunting and fishing licenses. It would broadly criminalize practices like farming, ranching, trapping, and even research involving animals. According to David Michelson, chief petitioner of IP28, the current treatment of animals is unacceptable, and a shift towards plant-based agriculture is not only possible but desirable. “There are so many different alternatives,” Michelson told KATU. “Thirty percent of Oregon agricultural sales are animal related, 70% are crops. You can have 100% of those be crops if we wanted to.” He envisions a future where farms transition to plant agriculture or even animal sanctuaries, citing the Oregon Health & Science University Primate Research Lab’s ongoing discussions to convert its primate lab into a sanctuary as a potential model.
Economic Concerns Mount Among Oregon Businesses
While PEACE frames the initiative as a moral imperative, the potential economic fallout is raising alarms among Oregon businesses. Michelle Wachsmuth, a fourth-generation owner of Dan & Louis Oyster Bar in Portland’s Old Town, expressed deep concern about the impact on her livelihood and the broader restaurant industry. “It would be devastating for our business,” Wachsmuth said. “I would still be serving seafood, but we would have to import everything from another state. Oregon is already—downtown Portland is already in a recession. And Oregon is number five in unemployment. And it’s gonna send us right from a recession right into a depression. It’s like, how much more can this poor state capture?”
Wachsmuth emphasized that her business already prioritizes sustainable seafood sourcing, but a complete ban on locally sourced fish and shellfish would be crippling. She argued that the initiative fails to recognize the existing efforts to balance economic needs with responsible animal handling. The concerns extend beyond restaurants, impacting grocery stores, farmers, and the entire agricultural supply chain. Oregon’s economic profile, with agriculture playing a significant role, makes it particularly vulnerable to such a sweeping change.
Hunters Voice Fears Over Conservation Funding and Way of Life
The Oregon Hunters Association (OHA) has too voiced strong opposition to IP28, arguing that it threatens not only a cherished way of life but also the funding for vital conservation efforts. Todd Adkins, executive director for OHA, explained that fishing and hunting license fees and taxes contribute significantly to wildlife management programs. “It’s not only a way of life. It’s how a lot of folks feed their families,” Adkins said. “And at the end of the day, we’re not talking about tens of millions of dollars. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars each year that contribute to the economy.”
Adkins acknowledged Michelson’s suggestion that alternative funding sources could be found, but cautioned that the loss of hunting and fishing revenue would have a detrimental impact on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) ability to maintain healthy wildlife populations. He also highlighted the broader cultural significance of hunting and fishing for many Oregonians, framing it as an integral part of the state’s identity. The OHA is actively working to educate the public about the potential consequences of the initiative, emphasizing the importance of responsible wildlife management.
A Conversation About Animal Welfare
Despite the strong opposition, Michelson believes the campaign is already achieving its primary goal: sparking a much-needed conversation about how Oregon treats animals. “I think most of the people we talk to acknowledge that the way we currently treat animals is different than the way they would like animals to be treated,” he said. “And even if they are concerned or unsure about whether this step is, we’re not ready or too much or whatever the case may be, they at least want to have the conversation, and that’s all that our campaign can actually do.”
PEACE needs to gather 117,000 verified signatures to qualify the initiative for the November 2026 ballot. As of February 17, 2026, they are approximately 20,000 signatures short of that goal, according to reports. The initiative’s progress is being closely watched by animal rights groups and conservation organizations across the country, as it represents one of the most ambitious attempts to fundamentally alter the relationship between humans and animals in the United States. The next step for PEACE is to submit the collected signatures for verification by state election officials, a process expected to be completed in the coming weeks.
Have your say: What do you think about the proposed ban on hunting, fishing, and pest control in Oregon? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
