Does your state lean blue or lean red? Check out our new report, highlighting partisan control of state government from 1992-2013.
California Proposition 4, Prohibition on Trapping Fur-Bearing Mammals (1998)
From Ballotpedia
| Voting on the Treatment of Animals |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
Contents |
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 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 4,486,989 | 57.44% | ||
| No | 3,325,129 | 42.56% | ||
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:
Summary
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
| |||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
