A sweeping Oregon initiative that could upend hunting, fishing, ranching and food production across the state has failed its first major test on the road to the November ballot.

Initiative Petition 28, promoted by supporters as the “PEACE Act,” did not qualify based on the first random sample of voter signatures reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office.

Connor Radnovich, a spokesperson for the agency, confirmed Thursday night that the petition fell short during the initial review. Elections workers have now begun examining a second and substantially larger sample.

That means the proposal is not officially dead. It does, however, mean organizers were unable to demonstrate through the first sample that they had collected enough valid signatures to place one of Oregon’s most consequential animal-rights measures before voters.

For thousands of Oregonians who fish coastal rivers, hunt deer and elk, raise cattle, operate family farms or work in commercial seafood, that first-round failure will likely come as welcome news.

Petition Needed An Unusually High Validation Rate

Organizers submitted 142,784 signatures on July 2. They need at least 117,173 valid signatures to qualify for the November 2026 ballot.

That required roughly 82 percent of everything submitted to survive the state’s verification process. According to the Secretary of State’s Office, the first sample did not produce a high enough validity rate to clear that threshold.

Oregon begins the process by checking a random sample of 1,000 signatures. When the statistical results are not strong enough to qualify a petition immediately, the state reviews a larger second sample. The two samples combined must represent at least 5 percent of the signatures accepted for verification.

Signatures can be rejected for several reasons. A signer may not be registered to vote, information may be incomplete, a signature may not match the voter-registration record or a petition sheet may fail to comply with state requirements.

The larger review will now determine whether IP 28 ultimately qualifies. Should the combined sample still fall short, the measure will not appear on the ballot. Because the July 2 filing deadline has already passed, organizers would not have another opportunity to gather replacement signatures for this election cycle.

This Was Never A Modest Animal-Welfare Proposal

Supporters have framed IP 28 as an effort to extend protections currently associated with dogs and cats to other animals.

That description leaves out the enormous practical consequences written into the proposal.

The initiative defines an animal as any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. Its own campaign says the measure would prohibit the intentional injury, killing and forced breeding of those animals. Organizers also openly described their proposal as banning animal slaughter, hunting and experimentation in Oregon.

This is not merely a proposal to increase penalties for someone who intentionally abuses a pet. Oregon already has laws against animal abuse, neglect and abandonment.

IP 28 would instead remove important legal distinctions that allow Oregonians to raise livestock, harvest food, manage wildlife and participate in hunting and fishing.

The official petition language deletes existing protections for practices recognized as good animal husbandry. It also rewrites Oregon law so that intentionally, knowingly or recklessly injuring an animal could constitute a crime unless the action was necessary to prevent an immediate threat to a person or another animal.

Under the proposal, intentionally or knowingly causing an animal’s death could be treated as first-degree animal abuse. The language does not preserve a broad exception for lawful hunting, fishing or routine livestock production.

Calling that a simple expansion of animal protection is misleading. It would represent a fundamental rewriting of Oregon’s relationship with food, wildlife and agriculture.

Oregon’s Outdoor Traditions Would Be Put At Risk

Hunting and fishing are not fringe activities in Oregon.

They are part of life from the high desert to the Coast Range. Families plan fall weekends around elk season. Parents take children fishing for trout on mountain lakes and salmon along coastal rivers. Rural businesses depend on hunters purchasing fuel, groceries, lodging, gear and meals during seasons that help carry small communities through the year.

Commercial fishing supports working families in places such as Astoria, Newport, Charleston and Brookings. Ranching and agriculture remain deeply rooted in Eastern and Southern Oregon, where livestock production is not an abstract political issue. It is how families pay mortgages, employ workers and keep multigenerational operations alive.

IP 28 could make criminals out of people engaged in activities that have been lawful, regulated and culturally significant for generations.

Its reach would extend beyond a person carrying a fishing rod or hunting rifle. The proposal could affect ranchers, dairies, poultry farms, seafood processors, butchers, veterinarians, breeders, restaurants, researchers and countless businesses connected to Oregon’s food supply.

The campaign acknowledges that people employed in animal-related industries could be displaced. The initiative would create a “Humane Transition Fund” intended to help ranchers, breeders and others move into work that does not involve harming animals.

That provision reveals just how extensive the intended disruption would be. You do not establish a transition fund unless you expect existing Oregon livelihoods to disappear.

Animal Cruelty And Food Production Are Not The Same Thing

Most Oregonians can agree that deliberate animal cruelty should be punished.

That does not require treating a rancher producing beef, a tribal fisherman exercising treaty rights, a family catching trout or a hunter harvesting an elk as the legal equivalent of someone abusing a household pet.

Those acts are not morally, culturally or practically interchangeable.

Oregon’s current laws recognize those distinctions for a reason. Regulated hunting contributes to wildlife management. Fishing provides food and recreation. Farmers and ranchers operate under extensive state and federal rules governing animal care, food safety and environmental practices.

There is always room to debate specific regulations or improve enforcement against genuine abuse. IP 28 takes a far more extreme route by attempting to erase broad categories of lawful conduct rather than targeting actual cruelty.

The measure’s appealing name cannot hide what its text would do. The “PEACE Act” would not simply ask Oregonians to be kinder to animals. It would use criminal law to impose an ideological vision on an entire state, including communities whose food, jobs and traditions depend on responsible animal use.

The Fight Is Not Over Yet

For now, the first signature sample has prevented IP 28 from immediately qualifying for the ballot.

Elections officials must still complete the larger review before a final decision is announced. The organizers said the Secretary of State has until August 2 to finish verifying the signatures.

Until then, hunters, anglers, ranchers and other opponents should not assume the proposal has been defeated.

Still, the first-round result is significant. Organizers turned in more than 25,000 signatures beyond the minimum requirement, yet the initial sample did not show the validation rate necessary to qualify.

That leaves IP 28 facing a much tougher second examination and leaves many Oregonians hoping the measure never reaches the ballot at all.

Oregon can protect animals without criminalizing the people who feed the state, manage its wildlife and pass outdoor traditions from one generation to the next. IP 28 does not strike that balance. It abandons it.