Oregon Initiative Petition 28, known by supporters as the PEACE Act, will not appear on the November 3, 2026 general-election ballot. Oregon election officials completed signature verification and found that the petition did not have the minimum number of valid signatures required to qualify.
That changes the immediate story. IP 28 is not a hunting-and-fishing ban that Oregon voters will decide this November, and it is not current Oregon law. The proposal still matters as a case study because its text raised serious questions about hunting, fishing, farming, animal research, and wildlife management.
What Happened to IP 28?
The Oregon Secretary of State’s official election page states that the Elections Division completed signature verification and determined that IP 28 did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the 2026 General Election ballot. Planned public hearings connected with the measure were cancelled.
That official finding is more important than earlier raw-signature totals. Submitted signatures are not the same as verified valid signatures, and ballot qualification depends on the latter.
What IP 28 Proposed
IP 28 proposed changes to Oregon animal-cruelty statutes and exemptions. State materials described it as a statutory amendment related to criminalizing certain breeding practices and injuring or killing animals, including for food, hunting, and fishing.
Supporters framed the proposal as an effort to remove animal-cruelty exemptions. Opponents argued that the changes would reach lawful hunting, fishing, agriculture, and other established animal uses. Those are different value judgments, but the underlying legal reach is why the petition drew attention far beyond animal-welfare groups.
Why Hunters and Anglers Paid Attention
Legal hunting and fishing operate under seasons, licenses, bag limits, methods, access rules, and species-specific regulations. A proposal that changes the legal treatment of killing or injuring animals can therefore affect much more than conventional animal-cruelty cases.
Oregon also has a deep outdoor culture built around public land, rivers, coastal fisheries, and hunting seasons. Our Fort Stevens State Park guide is one small example of how fishing, camping, public access, and coastal recreation overlap in the state.
Hunting and Wildlife Management
Wildlife management sometimes requires difficult decisions. Agencies may reduce tags, close seasons, remove invasive animals, respond to disease, or control populations where habitat and human conflict become serious.
That is why broad changes to animal law deserve careful reading. Our guide to the hunter’s role in wildlife conservation looks at the larger system of licenses, habitat, regulation, harvest, and stewardship rather than treating hunting as a stand-alone activity.
Fishing Is Part of the Same Debate
Fishing was also part of the concern around IP 28. Recreational fisheries are managed through seasons, size limits, harvest limits, gear rules, hatcheries, habitat work, invasive-species programs, and access management.
Responsible anglers still have obligations. Handle released fish carefully, follow current regulations, keep harvested fish properly, pack out line and trash, and do not move live bait or invasive organisms between waters.
Conservation Funding Matters
Hunters and anglers contribute directly to conservation through licenses, tags, and federal excise-tax systems tied to firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing tackle, and motorboat fuel. Those dollars support state wildlife and sport-fish programs across the country.
That does not mean hunters and anglers fund every conservation need or that every management decision is beyond criticism. It does mean policymakers have to account for how wildlife work will be funded when proposing major changes to regulated hunting and fishing.
Wildlife Conflict Does Not Disappear
Wild animals and people share working landscapes. Deer browse crops and gardens, predators interact with livestock, invasive species displace native wildlife, and overabundant animals can create habitat or vehicle problems.
This related guide to managing deer pressure around gardens shows the issue from a landowner perspective: wildlife conservation and human-wildlife conflict often exist in the same place at the same time.
Ethical Hunting Still Has Standards
Defending lawful hunting does not mean defending poaching, waste, unsafe shots, trespass, or needless suffering. Hunters strengthen their own case when they follow the law, practice enough to make clean shots, recover game carefully, use harvested meat, respect property, and leave public land cleaner than they found it.
Those responsibilities also cost money and planning. Our hunting-trip cost guide includes licenses, tags, travel, meat care, safety equipment, and other expenses that are part of doing a hunt properly.
What Oregon Outdoorsmen Should Take From This
As of September 2026, IP 28 did not qualify for the ballot. Hunters and anglers do not need to treat it as an active November ballot measure.
The broader debate is unlikely to disappear. Future petitions or legislation can revisit animal-welfare law, hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, or wildlife management. When that happens, read the actual proposal, check its official status, and separate verified legal language from campaign slogans on either side.
The Current Bottom Line
IP 28 generated a real policy debate, but it failed the signature-verification step required for Oregon’s 2026 general-election ballot. The most useful thing we can do now is keep the record accurate.
For outdoorsmen, that means staying involved in wildlife policy, supporting sound habitat and fisheries work, practicing ethical harvest, and checking official election and wildlife-agency sources before repeating claims about what is or is not becoming law.