A sweeping Oregon initiative that could have upended hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, and animal agriculture across the state has officially failed to qualify for the November 2026 ballot.

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Elections Division completed its signature review on Friday, July 24, and determined that Initiative Petition 28 had not collected enough valid signatures to move forward.

Known as the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act, or PEACE Act, the proposal was presented by supporters as an expansion of animal cruelty protections. But the actual reach of the measure went far beyond what most Oregonians would consider a traditional animal welfare law.

Had it qualified and eventually passed, the proposal could have criminalized the killing and breeding of animals in a wide range of circumstances, including activities connected to hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, food production, scientific research, pest control, and animal ownership.

For a state where agriculture, commercial fishing, wildlife management, and outdoor recreation are woven deeply into both the economy and the culture, the implications were difficult to overstate.

According to the final verification results, election officials determined that 104,262 of the 142,347 submitted signatures were valid. That gave the petition a validity rate of 73.25 percent.

The campaign needed 117,173 valid signatures to earn a place on Oregon’s November ballot. It ultimately fell 12,911 signatures short.

That failure means Oregon voters will not be asked this fall to decide one of the most sweeping and potentially destructive animal-rights proposals the state has seen in years.

Who Is David Michelson?

Behind IP 28 is David Michelson, the Portland-area activist and chief petitioner who has spent years attempting to advance versions of this same basic proposal.

Before IP 28, related efforts appeared under the names IP 13 and IP 3. The numbers changed, but the central objective remained largely the same: remove exemptions from Oregon’s animal cruelty statutes so that activities such as slaughtering livestock, hunting wildlife, catching fish, breeding animals, and conducting certain forms of animal research could potentially be prosecuted under criminal animal abuse laws.

Michelson is not merely a volunteer who happened to sign onto the campaign. He has become its most visible public advocate, spokesperson, and ideological driving force. Oregon campaign records identify him in connection with the petition committee behind the initiative.

To be blunt, we do not like what Michelson has tried to do to Oregon.

That opinion is not based on his appearance, personality, private life, or any other irrelevant personal characteristic. It is based entirely on the agenda he has publicly promoted and the staggering consequences it could have carried for people across this state.

We find it deeply troubling that one activist’s ideological vision could have placed generations of lawful Oregon traditions, family livelihoods, food production, and wildlife management before voters under the comforting label of the PEACE Act.

There was nothing peaceful about the disruption this measure could have caused.

Michelson has openly described IP 28 as an attempt to move Oregon away from slaughtering animals, hunting, fishing, and animal experimentation. During an interview with KLCC, he explained that the measure would extend protections given to companion animals to animals on farms, in laboratories, and in the wild. He acknowledged that this would mean moving away from slaughter, hunting, fishing, and animal testing.

In another interview, Michelson argued that existing animal cruelty laws treat animals differently depending on whether they are pets, livestock, research animals, or wildlife. He specifically identified slaughtering, hunting, and experimentation as intentional injuries that the proposal was designed to bring under animal abuse statutes.

Those statements matter because they strip away the softer political branding.

IP 28 was not accidentally broad. The threat to hunting, fishing, animal agriculture, and research was not some unforeseen technical problem discovered by opponents. Those consequences were tied directly to the campaign’s stated philosophy.

Michelson and his supporters believe animals should possess protections that would prevent humans from intentionally injuring or killing them in nearly all of the circumstances currently permitted under Oregon law. That may sound compassionate when reduced to a campaign slogan, but applying that philosophy to the real world could have dismantled systems that feed families, support rural communities, manage wildlife, protect crops, control invasive species, and fund conservation.

Our strongest objection to Michelson is the apparent willingness to use Oregon as a testing ground for that ideology, even while recognizing that most voters were unlikely to support it.

Michelson previously acknowledged that the proposal was so radical it was unlikely to pass in 2026. He nevertheless said getting it onto the ballot could make passage more likely in a future election, help build the campaign organization, and allow supporters to continue returning with the proposal. “Our goal is to be persistent,” he said in remarks reported from a 2025 interview.

That may be the most revealing part of the entire story.

This was never only about November 2026.

By Michelson’s own description, IP 28 was part of a longer effort to shift public attitudes and gradually move society toward his vision for the relationship between humans and animals.

Supporters may consider that determination.

We consider it arrogant and dangerous.

It suggests that Oregon’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, anglers, coastal fishing families, livestock producers, researchers, and rural communities were not being treated as people whose experience and livelihoods deserved serious consideration. Instead, they appeared to be obstacles standing in the way of a larger ideological project.

Michelson is entitled to advocate for veganism, animal rights, or any other lawful political belief. He is entitled to gather signatures and use Oregon’s initiative process.

We are equally entitled to say that his proposal was reckless, badly suited to Oregon, and profoundly disconnected from the realities of the people who live and work here.

This Went Far Beyond Hunting and Fishing

Although IP 28 was frequently described as a measure targeting hunting and fishing, its possible effects extended much further.

The proposal sought to remove exemptions within Oregon’s animal cruelty laws that currently allow common and legal practices involving livestock, wildlife, food production, animal breeding, research, and animal management.

Depending on how the law was interpreted and enforced, it could have affected ranchers, farmers, commercial fishermen, meat processors, hunters, anglers, breeders, veterinarians, researchers, pest-control professionals, and others whose livelihoods or responsibilities involve animals.

That is what made the proposal so alarming.

This was not simply a debate over deer tags or fishing seasons. It carried the potential to reach into family farms, cattle operations, commercial fishing boats, rural businesses, grocery supply chains, scientific institutions, and the basic ability of Oregonians to raise or harvest food.

In many parts of the state, hunting and fishing are not luxury hobbies.

They are part of how families fill their freezers, spend time together, teach children about the outdoors, and maintain traditions that have been passed down for generations.

Agriculture is equally foundational.

From cattle ranches in Eastern Oregon to dairies and poultry farms in the Willamette Valley and fishing communities along the coast, animal-based industries support jobs, families, small towns, and local economies.

A law broad enough to threaten those activities deserved far more scrutiny than its carefully chosen title suggested.

The word “peace” may have appeared in the name, but the measure itself risked creating enormous uncertainty and conflict throughout Oregon.

A Threat to Oregon’s Food System

Most Oregonians do not raise cattle or hunt elk, but nearly everyone depends on agriculture.

The hamburger at a local diner, the eggs at a farmers market, the milk in a child’s refrigerator, and the salmon served at an Oregon Coast restaurant all come from systems built around raising, catching, processing, and distributing food.

IP 28 challenged the legal foundation beneath many of those systems.

Critics warned that removing established exemptions from animal cruelty laws could make ordinary livestock production and slaughter legally impossible. The campaign itself described the proposal as one that would ban slaughter, hunting, experimentation, and what it called forced breeding.

That raises an obvious question.

Why would Oregon deliberately make it harder to produce food locally?

At a time when families continue to worry about grocery prices, supply interruptions, and the survival of small farms, this proposal would have introduced more uncertainty into the industries that keep food on Oregon tables.

The Oregon we know values self-reliance.

It is the ranch family raising cattle outside Burns.

It is the commercial fisherman returning to port with a catch.

It is the hunter filling a freezer with elk meat.

It is the small farm selling eggs, lamb, pork, or dairy products to its neighbors.

It is a family teaching children where food comes from rather than pretending every meal simply appears beneath grocery-store lights.

Michelson’s campaign threatened that relationship between Oregonians, animals, land, and food.

We find it hard to respect a political effort that appears willing to sacrifice those communities in pursuit of an absolutist philosophy that does not fit the practical realities of life in this state.

Wildlife Conservation Was Also at Risk

The proposal raised serious questions about wildlife conservation.

Oregon’s wildlife management system depends heavily on revenue generated by hunting and fishing licenses, tags, and related federal funding. Those dollars support habitat restoration, species monitoring, enforcement, research, public access, and long-term conservation programs.

Removing hunting and fishing without a credible replacement for that funding would not have automatically created a safer future for wildlife.

It could have weakened the very systems responsible for managing animal populations and protecting habitat.

Ducks Unlimited warned that IP 28 could have far-reaching consequences for wildlife conservation, scientific research, hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, food production, and tribal practices. The organization also argued that eliminating licenses would jeopardize an important source of statewide conservation funding.

The National Wild Turkey Federation also formally opposed the initiative, warning that it threatened hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, and the ability of Oregonians to choose how they obtain food.

That broad resistance is important.

Opposition did not come from a handful of angry hunters who did not want anyone interfering with deer season.

It came from organizations representing hunters, anglers, farmers, ranchers, wildlife advocates, conservationists, and outdoor recreation interests.

These groups do not agree on every issue. Seeing so many of them stand together against the same proposal should have told Oregon voters just how serious the danger was.

The Signature Campaign Falls Apart

For a time, IP 28 appeared to be approaching the ballot.

Campaign organizers submitted more raw signatures than the minimum required, leading to widespread reports that the proposal had cleared a major hurdle.

But submitting names is only the beginning of Oregon’s initiative process.

Each signature must satisfy state requirements and belong to a valid registered voter before it counts toward qualification.

The petition failed its first round of signature vetting earlier in July. Election officials then moved to a second, larger review to determine whether the campaign could still reach the required total.

Friday’s final calculation ended that possibility.

More than 38,000 of the submitted signatures did not count toward the final total, leaving the petition 12,911 valid signatures short.

For Oregon hunters, anglers, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities that had been watching the campaign closely, the announcement brings genuine relief.

The proposal will not appear on the November 3, 2026, ballot, and Oregon’s existing laws governing hunting, fishing, ranching, agriculture, and animal production will remain unchanged through this initiative cycle.

Oregon Must Remain Vigilant

The defeat of IP 28 does not necessarily mean the campaign is over.

Michelson’s history and public statements suggest supporters may return with another petition, another number, or revised language in a future election cycle.

That is why Oregonians should remember his name and understand what he is trying to accomplish.

The campaign has already moved through multiple versions. First IP 13, then IP 3, and now IP 28. The repeated failures do not appear to have ended the broader effort.

That persistence is exactly why this issue should not be dismissed simply because the 2026 petition failed.

Michelson and his supporters have every legal right to continue their campaign.

But Oregon’s farmers, hunters, anglers, ranchers, conservationists, food producers, and rural residents also have every right to meet that campaign with organized, informed, and unwavering opposition.

Ballot initiatives are often introduced with appealing names and simple summaries. Their practical consequences can be far more complicated.

In the case of IP 28, a proposal framed around preventing cruelty carried the potential to disrupt some of Oregon’s most important industries, traditions, food systems, and conservation programs.

We believe Michelson’s campaign displayed a troubling level of indifference toward those consequences.

He knew the proposal was radical. He knew it was unlikely to pass. Yet he viewed getting it onto the ballot as one step in a longer effort to wear down opposition and gradually reshape public opinion.

That is not a minor political disagreement.

It is an attempt to fundamentally redefine Oregon’s relationship with wildlife, agriculture, food, science, and rural life.

The state’s initiative process allowed Michelson and his campaign to gather signatures and attempt to bring that vision before voters. It also required those signatures to be verified before such a consequential proposal could advance.

This time, the petition did not meet that standard.

After months of concern and uncertainty, the outcome is now official. Oregon’s proposed ban affecting hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, animal breeding, and other longstanding practices will not appear on the November ballot.

That is good news for Oregon.

But given Michelson’s stated commitment to persistence, it would be a mistake to assume this is the last time Oregonians will be asked to defend their livelihoods, traditions, food systems, and wildlife-management programs from this deeply misguided agenda.