Oregon progressives are once again pushing one of the most extreme ballot measures the state has seen in years, and this time it is closer to reality than many people realize. What began as a fringe sounding proposal is now reportedly within roughly 20,000 signatures of qualifying for the November ballot.
According to recent reporting from FOX 12 Oregon, organizers behind Initiative Petition 28 must submit 117,173 valid signatures by July 2 in order to qualify. Signature counts are already hovering in the high 90,000s, with some reports placing the total above 100,000. That means supporters are within striking distance. One strong push could put this measure in front of every Oregon voter.
The proposal is being marketed under the name PEACE Act, short for People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions. On its surface, the language sounds compassionate. Who could oppose eliminating cruelty? But once you look at what the measure actually does, the scope becomes clear. It would remove many of the longstanding exemptions in Oregon’s animal cruelty laws that currently allow farming, ranching, hunting, fishing, animal breeding, wildlife management, and research to legally exist.
Under Initiative Petition 28, intentionally injuring or killing an animal would become a criminal offense unless it falls within very narrow exceptions such as self defense or veterinary care. The current legal structure that carves out exemptions for agriculture, hunting, fishing, trapping, and research would be dramatically stripped back.
In plain terms, that means slaughtering livestock for food could be treated as a crime. Ranchers would not be able to kill animals as part of normal agricultural practice. Artificial breeding methods commonly used in livestock production could be criminalized. Animal research would effectively end in the state. Dog breeding operations could face legal jeopardy. The ripple effects would extend far beyond a single industry.
Do you love Oregon?
Sign up for monthly emails full of local travel inspiration and fun trip ideas. In each newsletter we'll share upcoming events, new things to do, hot dining spots and great travel ideas.
Hunting, fishing, and trapping would also be fundamentally impacted. While some interpretations suggest a person might still be able to pursue or capture an animal, killing it would become criminal unless it fell within a narrow statutory exception. That strikes at the heart of conservation programs, wildlife population management, and the North American model of conservation that has long relied on regulated hunting and fishing as both a management tool and a funding source.
Opponents, including groups like the Oregon Hunters Association, argue the measure would devastate rural economies, agriculture, restaurants, fisheries, research institutions, and even grocery supply chains. They warn it would effectively force meat production out of state or drive Oregon toward a de facto vegan mandate.
Supporters frame the initiative very differently. They argue that current cruelty exemptions allow unnecessary suffering and that animals deserve broader legal protection. To many voters, the phrase “eliminate cruelty exemptions” sounds like closing loopholes for abuse. That is powerful messaging, especially when delivered in a short pitch while collecting signatures outside a grocery store.
But critics argue the language is so broad that it does not simply target abuse. It rewrites what the state considers criminal harm to animals and expands that definition across virtually every area where humans use animals for food, work, research, or recreation.
The measure even sets aside funding to help retrain workers displaced by its passage. That detail alone signals how sweeping the impact could be. You do not allocate retraining funds unless entire sectors are expected to disappear.
There are also concerns about how the measure could intersect with Indigenous hunting practices. Some critics claim it could restrict hunting privileges off tribal lands, raising questions about sovereignty and long established rights. That angle has not been fully fleshed out in official summaries, but if the measure qualifies for the ballot, it will undoubtedly become part of the public debate.
For now, the key fact is simple. This is not a theoretical proposal anymore. With roughly 20,000 signatures left to collect, Initiative Petition 28 is closer to Oregon voters than many expected.
Some will say it will never pass. Perhaps they are right. But in a state where ballot initiatives often gain traction once they reach voters, dismissing it outright would be a mistake. Once a proposal qualifies, it becomes a messaging battle, and emotionally framed measures can travel far.
At its core, this is not merely a debate about animal welfare. It is a debate about whether Oregon is prepared to criminalize practices that have been legal, regulated, and embedded in rural life for generations. It is about whether voters understand the full scope of what “eliminating cruelty exemptions” means in practical terms.
If supporters succeed in gathering the remaining signatures, this fight will move from signature sheets to the ballot box. And if that happens, it will not just be a vote about animals. It will be a vote about Oregon’s agricultural backbone, its outdoor heritage, and the legal definition of cruelty itself.
