4,485,030 / 57.5% Yes votes ...... 3,324,133 / 42.5% No votes

See Also: Measures

• 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.

• 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.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote of this measure means:

Commercial and recreational trappers could no longer use body-gripping traps to trap any fur-bearing or nongame mammal. Additionally, all leghold traps would be prohibited, except that government employees could use padded steel-jawed leghold traps when those traps are the only means of protecting human health or safety. The use of two specific poisons for killing animals would be banned.

A NO vote of this measure means:

Persons trapping mammals, including commercial and recreational trappers, could continue to use a range of body-gripping traps, subject to current restrictions. The use of two specific poisons for killing animals would continue to be permitted, subject to existing restrictions.

• Offical WWW Site
• Full Text
• Impartial Analysis from the Legislative Analyst

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 4:

Protect pets and wildlife! Ban the barbaric steel-jawed leghold trap and other cruel and indiscriminate traps for the fur trade. Ban two dangerous poisons that harm animals and the environment. Proposition 4 allows for the protection of public health and safety, endangered species, and property. Vote yes on 4!

Full Text of Argument In Favor, Rebuttal

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 4:

Proposition 4 is a wolf in sheep's clothing! While claiming to ban inhumane animal traps, this confusing, badly written, extreme initiative actually threatens human health and safety. It also endangers wildlife and livestock, adds bureaucrats and costs taxpayers millions. Tell the radical animal rights activists no. No on 4!

Full Text of Argument Against, Rebuttal

Contact FOR Proposition 4:

Protect Pets And
Wildlife/Yes On 4
1388 Westwood Blvd. #201
Los Angeles, CA 90024
(310) 441-4499
Fax: (310) 441-4599
propaw@ix.netcom.com
http://www.volunteerinfo.org/propaw

Contact AGAINST Proposition 4:

Californians for People,
Pets and Wildlife
(916) 444-8080
http://www.calvoterguide.com/No4

Secretary of State

• All propositions - a state map showing county results is available

Senate Office of Research

• Analysis of Prop 4

League of Women Voters

• Easy Reading Voter Guide
• Pros & Cons of Proposition 4
• In Depth on Proposition 4
• Criteria for Evaluating Ballot Propositions - (also en espanol)

• Analysis of Proposition 4

• Analysis, Yes/No groups, links

Cal. Voter Foundation

• Protect Pets and Wildlife - California (Support)
• Californians for People, Pets & Wildlife (Oppose)

• Top Contributors By Proposition

• Top 10 Contributors For and Against

Los Angeles Times

• Animal Cruelty Measures Play to Emotional Issues

• See related articles at bottom

• Detailed analysis
• Proposition 4 Divides Environmental Groups 10/23/98

• Fur is flying over trapping measure 10/20/98

Support

• Protect Pets and Wildlife

• No on 4/Californians for People, Pets and Wildlife