An Oregon ballot initiative that would have made criminal acts of hunting, fishing, ranching, trapping, and farming failed to reach the November ballot after state officials determined that tens of thousands of submitted signatures were invalid.
Why It Matters
Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) drew opposition from an unusually broad coalition spanning both political parties, agricultural interests, and wildlife groups. Had it qualified and passed, it would have represented one of the most sweeping restrictions on traditional land and food-production practices ever enacted by a U.S. state. Its failure signals the limits of petition-driven campaigns on issues with wide bipartisan opposition.
What Happened
Supporters of IP28 submitted more than 142,000 signatures — well above Oregon’s threshold of 117,173. However, the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office conducted two rounds of verification and determined that only 104,262 of those signatures were valid, leaving the campaign roughly 13,000 signatures short of the requirement.
The measure would have criminalized not only hunting and fishing, but also ranching, trapping, standard farming practices, pest control, and animal husbandry. The scope of the proposal generated pushback from across the political spectrum long before the signature count was finalized.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, came out against the measure, saying it would have done little to help everyday Oregonians. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley also opposed it, as did all 37 Democrats serving in the Oregon House — a notable instance of unified Democratic opposition to an animal-rights-focused initiative. Republican lawmakers were similarly opposed, as were the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Veterinary Medical Association, and the Oregon Hunters Association.
Kotek said in public remarks that her conversations with residents across the state made clear the measure would have failed to deliver meaningful benefit. “I know from conversations with Oregonians across the state that this measure would have done nothing to help them,” she said.
By the Numbers
- 142,000+ signatures submitted by IP28 backers
- 117,173 signatures required to reach the ballot
- 104,262 signatures deemed valid after verification
- ~13,000 signatures short of qualification
- 37 — the number of Oregon House Democrats who opposed the measure
Zoom Out
The IP28 campaign’s collapse comes as other states are moving in the opposite direction, enshrining hunting and fishing as constitutional rights. Florida voters approved Amendment 2 in 2024 with 67.4 percent support, making Florida the 24th state to adopt constitutional protections for hunting and fishing.
Travis Thompson, a conservation advocate who helped lead the Florida effort, has argued that hunting and fishing licenses generate revenue used well beyond sportsmen themselves. “It’s used to acquire lands. It’s used for boat-ramp maintenance. It’s used for youth programs. It’s used for all sorts of things that everyone benefits from,” Thompson said in public remarks about the initiative.
The organization he works with is currently collaborating with lawmakers in Ohio, Colorado, Delaware, and New Hampshire on similar constitutional protection efforts — a countervailing national trend to ballot campaigns like IP28.
Oregon has faced several high-profile ballot and legislative battles in recent years over policy issues with broad public resonance. The state recently tightened bail rules and considered sentencing enhancements following organized burglaries targeting Asian American businesses, reflecting ongoing debates over criminal justice policy.
What’s Next
With IP28 disqualified, its backers have no immediate path to the November ballot. The campaign could attempt a future petition drive, though the breadth of opposition — from the governor’s office through both legislative caucuses and major industry groups — would pose a significant obstacle to any renewed effort.
Meanwhile, the constitutional hunting-and-fishing protection movement continues to expand at the state level. Advocates in Ohio, Colorado, Delaware, and New Hampshire are working with legislators on measures that would lock in those rights, a legislative approach that sidesteps the petition process altogether. Oregon Gov. Kotek has been active on several other policy fronts, including measures related to immigration enforcement and public meetings law.