Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Massachusetts Question 1, Prohibition on Certain Forms of Hunting and Trapping Initiative (1996)
| Massachusetts Question 1 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Hunting regulations |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Massachusetts Question 1 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Massachusetts on November 5, 1996. It was approved.
A “yes” vote supported prohibiting certain forms of animal hunting and trapping and revise requirements for serving on the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board. |
A “no” vote opposed prohibiting certain forms of animal hunting and trapping and revise requirements for serving on the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board. |
Election results
|
Massachusetts Question 1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
1,422,106 | 64.27% | ||
| No | 790,435 | 35.73% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Question 1 was as follows:
| “ | Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 1996? | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
This proposed law would prohibit the use of certain traps for fur-bearing mammals, prohibit certain methods of hunting bear or bobcat, and eliminates some restrictions on who may serve on the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board. The proposed law would prohibit the use, setting, manufacture, or possession of any trap to capture fur-bearing mammals, except common mouse and rat traps, nets, and box or cage traps that confine a whole animal without grasping any part of it. Traps designed to grip an animal's body or body part, crush as steel jaw leghold traps, padded leghold traps, and snares, would be prohibited. Federal and state health officials could use such traps in case of a threat to human health or safety. Where a property owner had reasonably tried but failed to correct an animal problem on the property using a legal trap, the owner could apply for and the state Director of Fisheries and Wildlife could issue a permit to use a prohibited type of trap, except a leghold trap, for up to 30 days to correct the problem. A person violating any of these requirements could be punished by a fine of between $300 and $1000, or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both, for each prohibited trap and each day of violation. A person convicted for a second violation would be required to surrender, and could never again obtain, any trapping license or problem animal control permit. The proposed law would also prohibit the pursuit or hunting of bear or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs. Hunting bear using any type of bait, lure, or attraction, or knowingly hunting bear in a baited area, would also be prohibited. The Director could allow the use of dogs or bait in legitimate scientific research projects and in order to control particular animals that posed a threat to human safety or that destroyed livestock, property, or crops. Violators could be punished by a fine of between $300 and $1000, or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both, for each violation. A person convicted for a second violation would be required to surrender, and could never again obtain, any hunting and dog training licenses and permits. The proposed law would eliminate the requirement that five members of the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board have held sporting licenses in the state for five consecutive years and that four members represent fishing, hunting, and trapping interests. The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were declared invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.
While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.
In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Massachusetts also has a distribution requirement that requires no more than 25% of the certified signatures on any petition can come from a single county.
The state Legislature has until the first Wednesday of May in the election year to pass the statute. If the legislature does not pass the proposed statute, proponents must collect a second round of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The Legislature also has the power to place an alternative measure alongside the proposed statute via a simple majority vote of the state legislature.
A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. However, the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 30% of the votes cast in the election.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
