Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




California Proposition 4, Prohibition on Trapping Fur-Bearing Mammals (1998)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on the
Treatment of Animals
Wolf.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
California Proposition 4 appeared on the November 3, 1998 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved.

Proposition 4 placed new restrictions on the use of traps and poisons to capture and kill specified mammals for various purposes.

Election results

Proposition 4
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 4,486,989 57.44%
No3,325,12942.56%

Of voters who cast a vote in this election, 809,003 or 9.38% did not cast a vote on Proposition 4.

Text of measure

Title

The ballot title was:

Trapping Practices. Bans Use of Specified Traps and Animal Poisons. Initiative Statute.

Summary

Proposition 4.PNG

The official ballot summary said:

  • Prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur-bearing or nongame with specified traps for recreation or commerce in fur.
  • Prohibits commerce in raw fur of such mammals trapped with specified traps in California.
  • Prohibits use of steel-jawed leghold traps on wildlife mammals and dogs and cats except for padded steel-jawed traps used by government officials where it is the only way to protect human health and safety.
  • Prohibits all use of sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) or sodium cyanide to poison any animal.
  • Provides misdemeanor penalties.

Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 4. That estimate was:

  • Negligible annual revenue losses to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
  • Unknown enforcement costs to DFG, ranging from negligible to several hundred thousand dollars annually.
  • Unknown state and local costs to implement alternative animal control methods of several hundred thousand dollars to in the range of a couple of million dollars annually, depending on relative cost-effectiveness of alternative methods.
  • Negligible annual loss in personal income tax revenue in the context of total state General Fund revenues.

Campaign spending

Supporters

Supporters of Proposition 4 spent $1,323,450. The top contributors to pass the measure were:

  • International Fund for Animal Welfare: $241,844
  • Humane Society of the United States: $221,652
  • The Ark Trust: $99,195
  • American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA): $72,337
  • Doris Day Animal League: $61,851
  • Animal Protection Institute: $58,447
  • The Fund for Animals: $24,952
  • Barbara Clapp: $15,087
  • Karen Bunting: $15,000
  • Dena Jones: $10,000

Opponents

Opponents of Proposition 4 spent $508,658. The top contributors against the measure were:

  • California Farm Bureau Federation: $83,630
  • The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America: $39,124
  • California Outdoor Enthusiast Coalition: $29,000
  • National Trappers Assn., Inc.: $19,090
  • California Cattleman's Association: $10,825
  • Kern County Wool Growers: $10,000
  • California Business Political Action Commmittee (CALBUSPAC): $10,000
  • California Correctional Peace Officers Association PAC: $10,000
  • Ballot Issues Coalition: $9,000
  • California Trappers Association: $8,500

See also

External links