By Vanessa Mayer
with Naomi Inman
Hunting, fishing, farming, and ranching have always been a way of life in Oregon — from millennia of Native American stewardship to the more than 35,000 farms and ranches operating statewide today, according to the 2025 Oregon State Board of Agriculture. But one radical group of initiative petitioners is now gathering signatures to place IP28 on the November ballot and end that way of life — and all the economic activity it supports — solely in Oregon.
Hunting is permitted in all 50 states. Oregon would be the first to consider criminalizing the killing of animals for sport, food, or agriculture.
IP28’s three chief petitioners — David Michelson and Sean Rice of Portland, and Isaac Farias of Newberg — have branded their proposal the “PEACE Act.” Their measure would criminalize all commercial and recreational hunting, fishing, and ranching by redefining these long‑standing practices as “animal cruelty.” The cruelty imposed on 4 million Oregonians — their livelihoods, traditions, and economic stability — appears to be of no concern to this coalition.
What would such a law mean for Oregon’s way of life and economy?
According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon’s 34 million acres of public land open for hunting and fishing across all 36 counties would no longer generate revenue from these activities. In 2023, Oregon ranked 22nd per capita for hunting license holders and 11th in the nation for hunting and fishing license tax revenue, bringing in $55.4 million in 2024. In 2019, local and visiting recreationists spent roughly $1.9 billion on related activities, supporting more than 11,000 jobs and providing $385 million in wages. Passage of IP28 would wipe out this sector and trigger economic devastation with ripple effects across retail, hospitality, and tax revenue.
On the commercial side, Oregon is a highly valued international exporter of meat and fish, with commercial fishing profits of $130 million and livestock export revenue of $2.1 billion in 2022. Eliminating fishing and hunting would amount to a $4 billion annual loss in these sectors alone.
At its core, petitions like IP28 operate from a moral‑rights philosophy rooted in the belief that killing animals is inherently wrong. Its petitioners are “species egalitarians” who argue that species — animal or human — is morally irrelevant, and that human life is not inherently more valuable than animal life. This animal‑rights abolitionism is emerging elsewhere too, from Colorado’s attempted “slaughterhouse ban” to California’s coalition to end factory farming and the sale of pets.
In the real world, thankfully, farming, ranching, fishing, and animal husbandry are the foundations of civilizations, economies, and ecosystems. They are the liberties that sustain a free and flourishing society — and like all important freedoms, they must be fought for and defended.
Tell your friends the truth about IP28.
Vanessa Mayer is a development assistant and research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Naomi Inman is External Relations Manager at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. As a staff journalist and writer, Naomi helps Cascade make the case for free-market policies through media affairs and publications.
