LWVCEF LWVC HOME - ELECTION '98 - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV
ON BALLOT MEASURES: ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - SMART VOTER
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan In Depth Analysis of

Proposition 4

TRAPPING PRACTICES. BANS USE OF
SPECIFIED TRAPS AND ANIMAL POISONS.

Initiative Statute

THE QUESTION

Should state law prohibit commercial and recreational animal trappers from using body-gripping and leghold traps? Should the use of two specific poisons for killing animals be banned?

PROVISIONS

Proposition 4 would:

  • ban the use of body-gripping and leghold traps in California for commercial and recreational trapping of mammals classified as nongame or fur-bearing

  • prohibit anyone from participating in the sale or trade of raw fur from any nongame or fur-bearing mammal trapped in California by the use of body-gripping or leghold traps

  • prohibit any use of steel-jawed leghold traps on wildlife mammals, cats and dogs, except that government officials may use padded steel-jawed traps where this is the only method available to protect human health and safety

  • ban the use of sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) and sodium cyanide to poison animals

  • not affect the current universal use of cage or box traps, and common rat and mouse traps, nor the use of conibear traps or snares in governmental wildlife management

  • provide misdemeanor penalties and fines for violations.

BACKGROUND

California law currently permits the use of body-gripping and leghold traps in the capture and killing of certain fur-bearing and nongame mammals for commercial and recreational purposes. The state Department of Fish and Game oversees the issuance of trapping licenses, and it estimates that 24,000 fur-bearing animals were killed last year in California using body-gripping traps.

In addition, landowners, as well as federal, state and local government employees, are allowed to capture or kill certain mammals that cause damage or pose a threat to crops, livestock, wildlife or public health and safety. Permissible methods for the capture or killing of these mammals include shooting, trapping, and poisoning. Proposition 4 would place new restrictions on the use of traps and poisons for these purposes, but does not further outlaw the general trapping or killing of any animals.

"Fur-bearing" mammals refers to those whose fur has commercial value, such as mink or beaver. "Nongame" mammals would include coyotes, muskrats, and all other naturally occurring mammals that are not hunted for sport or food. Both of these types of animals are considered the "targets" of trapping methods that Proposition 4 intends to restrict. However, the measure would also indirectly protect those "nontarget" animals that frequently are caught by accident in body-gripping and leghold traps. This includes birds, rabbits, squirrels, cats, dogs, and some protected species, such as eagles and kit foxes.

In a recent report of the Department of Fish and Game, studies were cited that enumerate targeted versus untargeted captures by body-gripping traps. It was found, for example, that in Colusa County, where 26 target muskrats were caught, 19 nontargeted animals were also caught by body-gripping traps; in San Diego County, 42 target bobcats were caught, while 91 nontarget animals were caught by the same method.

Animal protection groups point to this high number of nontargeted captures as too indiscriminate and inhumane, since many of the smaller nontargeted animals have to be destroyed because of serious, disabling injuries. The reasons for prohibiting the two animal poisons, sodium fluoroacetate and sodium cyanide, are similar—nontargeted animals become unwitting victims when they feed on the poisoned carcasses of unrecovered targets, and death is prolonged.

Many wildlife biologists, however, say that body-gripping and leghold trapping is the most efficient and safe method to study and manage animals in the wild. They claim that alternate traps, such as snares, which would still be available to governmental animal control agents, are not effective in many habitats. Furthermore, snares often kill animals, typically by choking them. Similarly, the use of these two poisons, only by authorized governmental officials, is an important tool for killing mammals that cause damage to property or pose a public health hazard.

If Proposition 4 is enacted by the voters, California will become the fourth state to restrict the trapping and poisoning of animals by initiative. Recent similar initiatives passed in Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Legislative Analyst has determined that Proposition 4 would result in "negligible annual losses" in the Department of Fish and Game's licensing activities, as well as the General Fund revenues from personal income taxes. However, additional enforcement costs for the Department of Fish and Game "could range from negligible to several hundred thousand dollars annually, depending on the amount of workload" required to investigate violations.

There would also be "unknown additional state and local costs for animal control" where the capturing and killing methods have to be altered. Depending on the cost-effectiveness of alternate methods, "these costs could be from several thousand dollars up to in the range of a couple of million dollars annually."

A YES vote would ban the use of body-gripping and leghold traps in the commercial and recreational trapping of fur-bearing or nongame mammals. It would also ban the use of two specific animal poisons, and restrict federal, state and local employees from using the above methods, except for the padded steel-jawed leghold traps under certain circumstances.

A NO vote would allow the continued use of all body-gripping and leghold traps, as well as the two animal poisons, for their currently-specified purposes.

SUPPORTERS SAY

  • The steel-jawed leghold trap and other body-gripping traps are cruel and injurious tools for the capture and killing of animals.

  • Other methods are available to avoid accidental and indiscriminate harm to pets and nontargeted wildlife.

  • The use of Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide to poison animals also poisons the environment and is a threat to humans and their pets.

  • The current trapping and killing practices for California's wildlife for the fur trade must be changed.

OPPONENTS SAY

  • Today's wildlife management tools are as humane as possible, and this measure would ban tools needed to conserve threatened and endangered species.

  • Alternate methods of capture are not as effective and can be just as harmful and deadly as those methods that would be banned by this measure.

  • Nearly 80 percent of animals trapped in California are rodents.

  • Proposition 4 is an example of extremists placing their own agenda ahead of proven wildlife management methods.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

Official ballot arguments in support of Proposition 4 are signed by Doris Day, President, Doris Day Animal League; Honorable William A. Newsom, Justice (Ret.), California Court of Appeal; and Elden Hughes, Vice President for Communications, Sierra Club, 1996-1997.

Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Ben Norman, Ph.D., Department of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, Retired; Dona Mast, Past Chair, California Farm Bureau Federation, Rural Health & Safety; and Stephanie Larson, President-Elect, Sonoma Humane Society.

For more information:
Supporters: www.volunteerinfo.org/propaw, (310) 441-4499
Opponents: www.calvoterguide.com/No4, (916) 444-8080


On Propositions: About our Analysis - List of Props - Smart Voter
LWVC Home - Election '98 - Voting Q&As - State Props - About Us

Last updated: September 13, 1998
Send comments and suggestions concerning this page to nvmk16b@prodigy.com

Copyright 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. All rights reserved.