IP 28: OVMA is Opposed

Oregon has among the most progressive animal protection laws in the country—and the Oregon Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) is proud of this.

In fact, Oregon was among the first states to establish a Class C Felony for aggravated animal abuse, and the OVMA played a significant role in navigating this through the legislative process.

The OVMA carefully considers legislation and ballot proposals that could affect, positively or negatively, the welfare of animals in Oregon. This has included successfully advocating for stronger laws to combat cockfighting across Oregon and helping to strengthen the state’s animal cruelty statutes, among many other endeavors.

The OVMA opposes Initiative Petition 28, formally titled People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) – A Wrong Direction for Oregon

IP28 is a ballot initiative filed with the Secretary of State for the November 2026 general election. It is anticipated that the petitioners, on their third attempt, will obtain the required number of signatures (117,173) to qualify for the ballot.

Supporters of the PEACE Act state that the petition protects all animals from exploitation, harm, and the use of animals as commodities. To accomplish this goal, the proposed law would criminalize many farming practices by making it a misdemeanor to seriously injure, kill, or impregnate an animal unless it is in self-defense.

IP 28 also criminalizes current exemptions such as fishing, hunting, pests control, the slaughtering of livestock, and wildlife management in Oregon’s animal cruelty laws

OVMA Opposes IP 28

IP 28 is poorly worded, appears to misunderstand or outwardly rejects accepted animal husbandry, and creates uncertainty regarding Oregon’s current laws on animal neglect, animal abuse, and animal sexual abuse. The petition could impede safe, effective animal care by criminalizing acceptable husbandry practices that occur regularly across Oregon, especially in our rural communities.

Our specific concerns include:

1. IP 28 would criminalize virtually all current lawful activities related to animals in Oregon by removing long-standing exemptions from several criminal statutes for animal neglect, animal abuse, and animal sexual abuse.

Each of these exemptions has been approved by the legislature with recognition and understanding to:

• Preserve husbandry allowances for farming and ranching.
• Allow for the transport and slaughter of food-producing animals.
• Support scientific and educational research or teaching that involves the use of animals.
• Permit lawful fishing, hunting, and trapping activities.
• Allow pest control and wildlife management.

These are examples of some of the carve outs codified in existing law that would be criminalized under IP 28.

IP 28 would criminalize animal management by targeting exemptions from the animal crime statutes that help ensure these laws are not applied more broadly than intended.

It is important to note that the existing exemptions in Oregon law are not “blanket exemptions” for neglecting or abusing animals if gross negligence can be shown to have contributed to the serious injury or death of an animal.

2. Passage of IP 28 could have a significant negative impact on animal and public health by eliminating protections for pest and vermin control.

Under IP 28, it would become a crime to exterminate rats, mice or other vermin and pests. They could be removed, but the proposal does not clearly address where or how relocation would occur, or how disease and infestation risk would be controlled. This does not include invertebrates.

Removal of this exemption from current Oregon law could lead to increased infestation and disease transmission among pets and livestock, while also posing an unnecessary public health risk to Oregonians.

3. IP 28 removes the exemption for the “lawful scientific or agricultural research or teaching that involves the use of animals.”

Oregon State University in Corvallis is a Land Grant University, with a strong animal science program, an internationally recognized oceanography program, and a well-established veterinary college. Under IP 28, if an animal or mammal were injured or dies during lawful scientific research, animal agriculture education, or the education and training of future veterinarians and scientists, the pathway could exist for allegations of neglect to be brought against these institutions. Even if such charges were unlikely, the legal uncertainty created by the petition is a serious concern.

4. IP 28 would fundamentally dismantle science-based fish and wildlife management by eliminating existing exemptions for hunting, fishing, and lethal population control.

• Removing these exemptions would make scientific wildlife research, population monitoring, and predator control management ineffective and possibly illegal.
• The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife relies on fishing and hunting licenses and tags for approximately 37% of its budget. Removing this funding could significantly impair the state’s ability to manage habitats, manage wildlife population, monitor concerns about diseases such as Avian Influenza, Chronic Wasting Disease, Epizootic Hemorrhage Disease  and Leptospirosis, and protect endangered species.
• This could contribute to unmanaged population changes, increased disease-management concerns, and risks to public health. Overpopulation of wildlife such as deer could result in starvation and increased suffering of these animals.

5. IP 28 criminalizes the safe and common practice of artificial insemination of companion animals, horses, sheep, and other livestock by treating it as sexual assault of an animal.

This would completely reverse long-standing accepted animal husbandry practices including artificial insemination, and create legal uncertainty around pregnancy checking, semen collection, fertility evaluation, and even planned breeding of animals.

Artificial insemination is a common practice used in veterinary medicine for genetic improvement, safety, herd health/improvement, and disease control.

While the petitioners say the practice of veterinary medicine is exempt from the measures under IP 28, artificial insemination is not specifically noted in the Veterinary Practice Act. This creates significant ambiguity for veterinarians and animal owners who have relied on these safe, accepted practices for decades.

6. Under IP 28, euthanizing a pet would be allowed, but the humane euthanasia of a recumbent cow, horse, sheep or other livestock would not be permitted.

Current definitions under Oregon law state that animal owners must provide “minimum care” to preserve the health and well-being of an animal. Except for emergencies or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the owner, this includes, among many requirements, “veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent person to relieve distress from injury, neglect or disease.”

However, for livestock that cannot stand or walk without assistance, IP 28 removes from existing law the humane euthanasia of the animal or the provision of immediate and ongoing care to restore the animal to an ambulatory state. This is another example of the ambiguity in the wording of the petition.

7. IP 28 is an extreme measure that would upend the longstanding traditions and livelihoods of Oregon’s farming, ranching and fishing communities. It would also be harmful to both the economy and our cost of living.

• Animal agriculture in Oregon contributes approximately $4.4 billion in output and creates more than 30,000 jobs. Passage of IP 28 would prohibit the slaughter of animals for food production and devastate the state’s rural economies, with a ripple effect that would extend to our urban communities that rely on these food products.
• Oregon’s coastal communities that rely on recreational and commercial fishing for their livelihoods and economies would be equally harmed by IP 28.
• Oregon-raised and Oregon-produced food such as beef, dairy and fish would be prohibited under IP 28. Grocery and restaurant prices would rise significantly because of these products being brought in from other states.
• IP 28 would also significantly impact the more than 130 veterinary practices across all regions of Oregon that provide essential large animal services to ensure a safe, quality product and protect against public health risks from zoonotic diseases. There would be anticipated layoffs and possible closure of some veterinary clinics.
• Unemployment would rise in these economically depressed regions of the state, and animal owners would encounter more financial constraints to provide veterinary care and treatment of their animals, both pets and livestock.

Whether pet, equine, other livestock or wildlife, the welfare of animals in Oregon is a broadly important issue that OVMA believes should be addressed by productive discussion and debate—not through a ballot measure.

OVMA supports more deliberative engagement through the legislature on issues related to animals and veterinary medicine. This approach is not perfect and can be frustrating but it most often allows for more carefully considered discussion, practical refinement, and incremental change that better serves animals and Oregonians.