Oregon’s No Hunting Bill, formally Initiative Petition 28 and titled the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act, would rewrite the state’s animal abuse laws to strip out nearly every exemption that currently keeps hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock farming, slaughter, and animal breeding legal. If it qualifies for the November 2026 ballot and voters approve it, activities from deer hunting to commercial slaughter could be prosecuted as criminal animal abuse. As of late May 2026, the campaign reported submitting more than 120,000 raw signatures to the Secretary of State, potentially enough to reach the ballot for the first time after two earlier failed versions.
What IP28 Would Actually Change
Oregon’s animal abuse statutes sit in ORS 167.315 through 167.333. A separate section, ORS 167.335, lists the activities exempt from those crimes. IP28 does not create new offenses. It deletes the exemptions.
Under current law, the following are protected from prosecution as animal abuse:
- Lawful hunting, fishing, and trapping
- Good animal husbandry practices
- Livestock slaughter under approved methods
- Wildlife management conducted under government authority
- Agricultural and scientific research involving animals
- Rodeos and similar exhibitions
- Commercially grown poultry
- Pest and vermin control
- Livestock transportation
- Reasonable handling and training
IP28 removes all of them. Two exemptions would remain: acting in self-defense against an immediate threat of harm, and veterinary care performed according to ORS 686.030 standards.1Oregon Secretary of State. Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) Full Text Everything else that currently sits outside the criminal statute would fall back inside it.
What It Would Mean for Hunters, Anglers, and Trappers
The current exemption in ORS 167.335 covers “lawful fishing, hunting and trapping activities.”2Oregon State Legislature. Oregon Code 167.315 – Animal Abuse in the Second Degree IP28 deletes that language. With it gone, intentionally killing or injuring any vertebrate animal would meet the revised definition of animal abuse, whether the animal is an elk taken in rifle season or a trout pulled from the Deschutes.1Oregon Secretary of State. Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) Full Text
The ban would apply on public and private land, in and out of season, regardless of license status. An Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife tag would not create a defense, because the petition removes the legal line between regulated harvest and unlawful killing. Commercial fur trapping and nuisance-animal trapping lose their protection the same way.
The exemption for wildlife management conducted “under color of law” also disappears. State biologists who cull overpopulated species or remove problem predators currently rely on it. Without it, government-directed wildlife work could face legal challenge.
What It Would Mean for Farmers and Ranchers
Oregon’s livestock and animal product industry generates roughly $2.3 billion in annual sales. IP28 puts much of that in legal jeopardy. The petition removes the exemption for good animal husbandry practices and the exemption for livestock slaughter under approved methods.1Oregon Secretary of State. Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) Full Text
Slaughtering cattle, hogs, or poultry for food would fall under the revised first-degree abuse definition, which covers intentionally causing the death of an animal. Routine on-farm procedures like branding, dehorning, castration, and tail docking would count as intentionally causing physical injury. Veterinary organizations recognize these as standard livestock management, but IP28 does not carve out an exception for them. The surviving veterinary-care exemption would not cover farmer-performed procedures done without a veterinarian present.
The separate exemption for commercially grown poultry is also eliminated, so egg production and poultry operations face the same exposure as cattle and hog producers.
Criminal Penalties a Violator Could Face
The penalties are already in Oregon’s code. IP28 simply removes the doors that keep them from swinging open on hunters, ranchers, and farmers.
- Animal abuse in the second degree, ORS 167.315: recklessly or intentionally causing physical injury to an animal. A Class B misdemeanor, up to six months in jail.2Oregon State Legislature. Oregon Code 167.315 – Animal Abuse in the Second Degree
- Animal abuse in the first degree, ORS 167.320: under IP28’s revised language, intentionally or knowingly causing serious physical injury or death to an animal. A Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $6,250. It escalates to a Class C felony when committed in the presence of a minor child or when it involves multiple animals.3Oregon State Legislature. Oregon Code 161 – General Provisions
- Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree, ORS 167.322: maliciously killing an animal or intentionally torturing one. A Class C felony, up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000.4Oregon Public Law. Oregon Code 161.605 – Maximum Terms of Imprisonment for Felonies5Oregon Public Law. Oregon Code 161.625 – Fines for Felonies
The practical consequence: a hunter who kills an elk could face a Class A misdemeanor under the revised ORS 167.320, because the petition redefines first-degree abuse to include intentionally causing the death of an animal.1Oregon Secretary of State. Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) Full Text If a prosecutor argued the killing was malicious, a term Oregon law defines as acting with reckless and wanton disregard of life, the charge could rise to aggravated animal abuse, a felony.6Oregon Public Law. Oregon Code 167.322 – Aggravated Animal Abuse in the First Degree Whether ordinary hunting would routinely trigger that standard is unresolved. The point is that the statute would no longer contain language stopping prosecutors from trying.
Federal Law and Tribal Rights That IP28 Cannot Override
A state initiative does not reach everything it appears to reach. Two areas of federal law would blunt IP28’s effect even if voters approved it.
Federally Inspected Slaughter
The Federal Meat Inspection Act regulates slaughterhouse operations where meat is prepared for human consumption. Under 21 U.S.C. § 678, states cannot impose requirements on federally inspected slaughterhouses that are “in addition to, or different than” what federal law requires.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 21 USC 678 – Federal Preemption The U.S. Supreme Court read that preemption clause broadly in National Meat Association v. Harris.8Legal Information Institute. National Meat Association v. Harris An Oregon law criminalizing slaughter at USDA-inspected facilities would almost certainly draw a preemption challenge.
Tribal Treaty Rights
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Yakama Nation hold federally recognized treaty rights to hunt and fish in their traditional territories.9Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. The CRITFC Member Tribes Treaty Rights Federal courts have held that states may not deny those rights and may regulate off-reservation treaty fishing only when necessary for species conservation, not through a blanket ban. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has stated that state fish and game laws generally do not apply to on-reservation activities by tribal members.10Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Authority and Responsibilities Enforcing IP28 against tribal members exercising treaty rights would draw a Supremacy Clause challenge.
What Happens to Wildlife Funding
Oregon’s wildlife system runs largely on money from the people the petition would prosecute. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife collects roughly $63 million per year from hunting and fishing license sales, out of a biennial budget of about $126.6 million, and receives an average of $25 million annually from the federal Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Fund.11Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. ODFW Budget – Revenue A large share of that federal money flows through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, which sent Oregon roughly $21.8 million in fiscal year 2025.12U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FY25 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Final Apportionment
Half of the Pittman-Robertson formula depends on the number of paid hunting license holders in a state.13U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. CI-Administered Program Funding If Oregon stopped issuing hunting licenses, the license-driven portion of its apportionment would drop to zero. The state would still qualify for the program’s 0.5% minimum, but the drop compared to current levels would be steep. Between the lost license revenue and the reduced federal match, ODFW would lose the majority of its operating budget, and the petition identifies no replacement source.
Where IP28 Stands and What to Watch
IP28 is closer to the ballot than any earlier version of the same proposal, which was previously filed as Initiative Petition 3 and then IP13 before failing to gather enough signatures. The current campaign reported submitting more than 120,000 signatures to the Secretary of State by late May 2026. Oregon requires valid signatures equal to six percent of the total votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election to qualify a statutory initiative.14Ballotpedia. Signature Requirements for Ballot Measures in Oregon The deadline for the November 2026 ballot is July 2.
Raw counts do not guarantee qualification. The Secretary of State’s elections division must verify that each signer is a registered Oregon voter and screen out duplicates and invalid signatures, a process that typically knocks out a portion of any batch. Whether IP28 survives verification will determine if it goes to voters this November. If it does not qualify in 2026, its sponsors can refile for a later cycle. Oregon’s existing animal abuse statutes, hunting and fishing regulations, and agricultural exemptions stay in force unless and until voters approve the measure.