California Proposition 4 (1998)
From Ballotpedia
| Voting on Animals |
|---|
|
| 2010 |
| 2009 |
| 2008 |
| 2002 |
| Oklahoma |
| 2000 |
| Massachusetts |
| 1998 |
| California |
Contents |
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
| California Proposition 4 (1998) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | Percentage | |||
YES 
| 4,486,989 | 57.44% | ||
| No | 3,325,129 | 42.56% | ||
| Total votes | 7,812,118 | 100% | ||
Ballot language
The summary of the ballot measure prepared by the California Attorney General read:
- 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.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 4. That estimate was:
- To the extent this measure results in a decreased level of commercial or recreational trapping, there would be a negligible loss in revenue to the DFG due to decreased issuance of trapping and fur-dealer licenses. The DFG also would incur additional annual enforcement costs. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but could range from negligible to several hundred thousand dollars annually, depending primarily on the amount of workload related to investigating violations of the measure's provisions.
- Also, there would be unknown additional state and local costs for animal control purposes to capture and kill mammals that threaten property, endangered species, or public health. These costs could be from several hundred thousand dollars up to in the range of a couple of million dollars annually. Actual costs would depend on the cost-effectiveness of animal control methods not banned by the measure.
- There could also be an unknown annual loss of personal income to landowners to the extent that allowable alternatives to the prohibited animal control methods are found to be less effective. The resulting loss in personal income tax revenue would probably be negligible 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
- Official California Voter Guide to Proposition 4
- Full text of measure
- November 3 California proposition election results
- Smart Voter on Proposition 4
- Top Ten contributors
