A proposed Oregon ballot measure aimed at removing animal cruelty exemptions is drawing sharp criticism from gun rights and legal commentators, who warn that it could reach far beyond what many voters may expect.
In a video from the Armed Attorneys YouTube channel, hosts Richard Hayes and Leslie Cross discussed Oregon’s Initiative Petition 28, also known as the PEACE Act, and argued that the measure could effectively criminalize hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, livestock slaughter, trapping, wildlife management, and some animal-related research.
Hayes said the proposal is “very likely” headed for Oregon’s November 3, 2026 ballot, though the state still has to verify signatures before it officially qualifies.
Cross said the measure is the kind of proposal voters need to read carefully before supporting, because the language may sound simple and compassionate on the surface but carry much larger consequences once applied.
“This is insane,” Cross said. “If this passes, it’ll be crazy.”
What The Proposal Targets
Hayes said the proposal centers on Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 167, where Oregon’s animal cruelty laws are found.
Most states, he explained, have animal cruelty laws, but they also include exemptions for activities that are otherwise lawful and heavily regulated, such as hunting, fishing, ranching, farming, and similar practices.
According to Hayes, IP28 would remove many of those exemptions.
That is why critics are alarmed. If the exemptions are removed, activities that have long been protected under separate hunting, fishing, agriculture, or wildlife-management rules could be treated differently under animal cruelty law.
Hayes described the proposal as one that could “effectively criminalize” many traditional outdoor and agricultural activities.
Cross agreed, saying she loves animals but does not believe that lawful hunting, lawful fishing, or raising animals for food should be treated as cruelty.
“I am a huge animal lover,” Cross said, while adding that harvesting a deer and eating the meat is not the kind of conduct she believes should be banned.
This is where the debate becomes more serious than a slogan. Almost everyone opposes animal cruelty in the ordinary sense, but the question is whether a law written to remove “exemptions” sweeps in ordinary activities that many people see as lawful, useful, and even necessary.
Hunting, Fishing And Farming In The Crosshairs
Hayes and Cross said the measure could affect a large number of Oregonians who hunt, fish, farm, or work in agriculture.
Hayes said the state has more than 300,000 hunters, more than half a million anglers, and around 80,000 farm workers who could be affected if normal practices become legally risky.
Cross said one of her biggest concerns is that the proposal could interfere with farming and livestock work.
“Can’t collect chicken eggs,” Hayes said while discussing possible consequences. “Can’t raise animals for harvest.”
The hosts’ concern is that the measure may not openly say “ban hunting” or “ban fishing” in the simple wording supporters might use, but could still make those activities legally dangerous by removing the statutory protections that currently keep them outside animal cruelty prosecutions.
That distinction matters for voters. A measure does not have to use the word “ban” to make a practice nearly impossible; sometimes changing liability rules is enough to make people stop doing it out of fear of prosecution.
If ranchers, farmers, hunters, or anglers have to wonder whether normal activity could be charged as cruelty, the practical effect may be much bigger than the campaign language suggests.
Supporters Say It Does Not Ban Everything
Hayes also discussed how supporters of the PEACE Act have described what the measure does not do.
He said supporters argue that the proposal would not ban spaying, neutering, or humane euthanasia by veterinarians. They also say it would not ban pet ownership or remove conservation funding.
Hayes and Cross acknowledged those points, but argued that they do not answer the bigger concerns.
For example, Cross said supporters claim the proposal does not ban wildlife management, but the way the language works could still create problems if management involves intentional injury to an animal.
She said that in many wildlife-management situations, injury or killing may unfortunately be part of the job.
Hayes made a similar point about conservation funding. Even if the measure does not directly eliminate a conservation budget, he argued that animal-management practices tied to that conservation could still be affected if they are considered cruel under the revised law.
That is a common problem in policy fights. Supporters may highlight what a proposal technically does not ban, while critics focus on what the legal language may do once prosecutors, agencies, courts, and activists start applying it.
Mosquitoes, Pets And The Limits Of The Law
The hosts also mocked some of the assurances from supporters, especially claims that the measure would not ban the killing of insects or other invertebrates.
“Oh, thank goodness,” Hayes said sarcastically. “You can still slap the mosquito on your arm.”
Cross responded by joking that it would be absurd if killing a mosquito could become animal cruelty.
The point was humorous, but it served a purpose in their argument. Hayes and Cross suggested that if supporters have to clarify that the measure does not reach mosquitoes, voters should ask how broad the proposal was in the first place.
They also noted that supporters say the proposal does not prevent people from owning companion animals.
Hayes said that reassurance misses the real objection, because critics are not mainly worried that people will lose their dogs or cats. They are worried about hunting, fishing, agriculture, ranching, trapping, and wildlife management.
The hosts did acknowledge that the measure appears to allow people to defend themselves from a wild animal attack. But Hayes said that is not much comfort, since people could already do that.
To him, the overall direction of the proposal shows how far animal-law activism can go when it begins treating ordinary food production and outdoor traditions as cruelty.
Conservation Argument Cuts Both Ways
Hayes made a broader argument that hunters and anglers are often among the strongest conservationists.
He said many conserved lands, healthy wildlife populations, and future outdoor opportunities exist because hunters and anglers put time, money, and effort into maintaining those resources.
“Folks who hunt and fish, they’re the biggest conservationists out there,” Hayes said.
That is a key point in this debate because hunting and fishing are not only personal hobbies. In many states, they are tied to license fees, habitat programs, wildlife population management, and rural economies.
Critics of the PEACE Act argue that disrupting those activities could affect more than individual sportsmen. It could change how the state manages wildlife, funds conservation, and supports industries connected to food and land use.
Supporters of the measure may see it as a moral stand against animal cruelty. But opponents, including Hayes and Cross, see it as a proposal that could punish people who are already following detailed rules for hunting, fishing, farming, and animal husbandry.
There is room to strengthen cruelty laws while still protecting lawful food production and conservation activity. The danger comes when a measure is written so broadly that voters may not fully understand what daily life and legal activity could look like after it passes.
A Warning For Other States
Hayes said Oregon voters should completely reject this kind of proposal, and he warned viewers in other states to watch for similar efforts.
He compared the issue to debates over gun control and self-defense, where supporters may present a measure in narrow, appealing terms while critics warn about broader effects after the law is passed.
Cross said most states already have rules governing lawful hunting and fishing, meaning there are already guidelines about what people can and cannot do.
To her, taking those activities away entirely or putting them at risk through animal cruelty law is extreme.
The hosts ended by asking viewers what they thought about the proposal and whether they would vote for or against it if given the chance.
The PEACE Act debate is likely to grow if the measure reaches Oregon’s ballot. The campaign language may focus on animal cruelty exemptions, but Hayes and Cross argue the real question is much larger: whether Oregon voters want to risk turning long-standing activities like hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, and wildlife management into potential crimes.
For critics, the proposal is not just about animals. It is about food, land, conservation, rural work, and whether voters understand the legal machinery they may be asked to approve.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
