COULD OREGON’S IP28 BILL CHANGE THE OUTLOOK FOR HUNTING & FISHING IN CANADA?
What is BILL IP28 and how will it affect Canada?
Hunt Source | Howl for Wildlife | Oregon Hunters Association
Bill IP28, formally called the “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act,” is a proposed Oregon ballot initiative for 2026 that would radically rewrite that state’s animal‑cruelty laws. On the surface, it sounds like a measure to prevent abuse. In reality, it aims to remove key legal exemptions that currently recognize normal, humane animal husbandry, veterinary care, and responsible pet ownership.
Under IP28, many routine, science‑based practices could be redefined as “abuse,” “neglect,” or even “sexual assault” of animals. That includes standard breeding procedures (such as artificial insemination and assisted reproduction), common training and handling methods, and normal veterinary care that sometimes requires restraint, confinement, or temporary discomfort for the animal’s long‑term benefit. Farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, and pet owners would be exposed to criminal charges and lengthy bans on animal ownership for practices that are currently lawful and necessary for animal welfare and food production.
This initiative is the latest in a series of similar proposals from the same activist network. Earlier versions—Oregon’s Initiative Petition 13 (IP13) and Petition 3 (P3)—tried to:
- Criminalize basic livestock management, hunting, and fishing by erasing exemptions in Oregon’s cruelty laws.
- Redefine standard breeding practices as “sexual assault” of animals.
- Expand “abuse” so broadly that normal tying, tethering, and handling of animals could trigger felony charges and 15‑year bans on animal ownership.
- Link routine animal care to “child abuse” if a minor simply witnessed what activists chose to label as “neglect,” even when the conduct is accepted husbandry.
Those earlier efforts failed to gather enough signatures, but IP28 now has an approved ballot title and, reportedly, better financial backing for professional signature‑gathering. If supporters collect roughly 112,000 valid signatures, IP28 will appear on Oregon’s November 2026 statewide ballot—and elected officials will have no power to block it at that point.
Why this is bad for Canadians
From a Canadian perspective, IP28 matters for three main reasons:
1. It targets normal, humane animal use, not just genuine cruelty.
If passed, IP28 would make it effectively impossible to carry on animal agriculture or many forms of pet ownership in Oregon without serious legal risk. Routine practices Canadians depend on for safe, affordable food—breeding, calving assistance, artificial insemination, routine restraint for vet care, and standard livestock handling—are the same methods being targeted in Oregon. If these are rebranded as “abuse” in one jurisdiction, activists can present that change as a new “gold standard” and pressure Canadian lawmakers and the public to follow suit.
2. It would become a template for copy‑and‑paste campaigns.
Activist groups already move these ideas from one region to another. Colorado’s Initiative 16, for example, attempted something similar before being struck down on a technicality. If Oregon adopts IP28, it will be used as a precedent and model for ballot initiatives and legislative proposals elsewhere—very likely including Canadian provinces. Campaigners can say: “Oregon has already recognized these practices as cruel; why doesn’t your province care as much?”
3. It undermines science‑based animal‑welfare policy across North America.
Canada’s existing laws and industry codes distinguish between:
- True, intentional cruelty, which is rightly illegal, and
- Necessary, regulated practices that protect animal health, human safety, and food security.
IP28 deliberately blurs this line. By redefining responsible animal use as “abuse,” it erodes public understanding and trust in legitimate agriculture, veterinary medicine, and rural family life. If that narrative takes hold in Oregon and is exported north, Canadian producers and pet owners could face mounting legal restrictions and social pressure grounded in ideology rather than animal‑welfare science.
For Canadians in agriculture, veterinary practice, equine sectors, companion‑animal circles, and rural communities, IP28 is not a local Oregon curiosity. It is a strategic attempt by animal‑rights extremists to criminalize normal animal use in one state and then leverage that victory to push similar measures across North America. Keeping initiatives like IP28 from becoming law is therefore important not only for Oregonians, but for protecting practical, evidence‑based animal‑welfare standards in Canada and beyond.
Help support outdoors man and women. OREGON HUNTERS ASSOCIATION
https://oregonhunters.org/initiative-petition-28/