Policy vs Reality: Why IP 28 Doesn't Work

The "PEACE Act" (also known as initiative petition 28) reflects a frustrating and familiar pattern in Oregon and across the country: 

a pendulum swing driven by a well-intended goal, but without a full understanding of how things actually work on the ground.

Today, our food system favors large-scale agribusinesses with national and often global footprints. In a culture that prioritizes bigger, faster, and more efficient, smaller operations are being pushed out. Not because of a lack of demand, but because of structural barriers that make it difficult to operate locally.

Animal cruelty is real. That is not a point of disagreement. Farmers and ranchers live with the responsibility of animal welfare every single day. Our livelihoods depend on it.

But policy proposals like IP28 often have their sights set on the wrong targets.

As a fourth-generation farmer in rural Oregon, I see a side of this issue that is often missing from the conversation: the lack of rural representation and agricultural perspective in policymaking.

American farmers have long been stewards of the land. Agriculture is where conservation and land stewardship began. We care for animals not just because it is expected—but because it is fundamental to our work, our values, and our future.

At the same time, the system we operate within is increasingly working against small and mid-sized producers.

That shift has consequences. It affects not only individual choice and small businesses, but also the long-term resilience of our food system.

Here in Klamath Falls, for example, if I want to sell meat by the pound to our customers

(whether that’s a few pounds of ground beef or a few steaks) our livestock must be processed at a federally inspected facility. The nearest option is several hours away in Eugene, and even then, getting on the schedule can be difficult.

This isn’t a small inconvenience. It shapes the entire structure of how farms like mine can operate.

Because of this, many small producers rely on selling whole or partial animal shares through local butchers operating under a different inspection framework. The meat is safe. The butchers are skilled. And in many cases, animals experience less stress because they are not transported long distances.

But this system comes with real limitations.

Not every family can afford (or has the freezer space) to purchase hundreds of pounds of meat at once. Even when people want to support local agriculture, the system makes it difficult to do so.

And for farmers like us, navigating these constraints often leads to a difficult choice. We can absorb the inefficiencies to sell meat by the pound or conform to nonsensical rules that allow us to sell a whole beef but not a steak.

Despite strong demand for locally raised food, the current regulatory structure unintentionally advantages large-scale operations that have the infrastructure to navigate centralized processing.

IP28 will simply add to these challenges rather than address them.

If we are serious about improving animal welfare and strengthening our food system, we need to focus on solutions that reflect how these systems actually function.

This means:

• Removing rules that block good local butchers from processing local meat for sale by the pound while keeping safety standards high
• Processing animals closer to where they are raised, reducing stress on both the animals and our environment
• Ending the painful, slow squeeze on small farmers and ending policies that favor big, out-of-state operations
  

It also means bringing farmers and ranchers into the conversation. Not after the fact, but from the beginning.

I would welcome the opportunity for the authors of IP28 and our elected leaders to spend more time with farmers and ranchers across Oregon. To see firsthand the realities we navigate, and to work collaboratively toward solutions that are both humane and practical.

There is common ground here. We all have a responsibility to care for our animals with integrity, steward the land with intention, and protect the kind of environment we want future generations to thrive in.

But good intentions alone are not enough.

If IP28 makes it to the ballot, I would encourage Oregonians to take the time to understand what it does—and who it impacts.

Based on what I see every day, I would urge a “no” vote on IP28 and a renewed commitment from leadership to build solutions that bring people together instead of pushing them out.