California Proposition 4, Prohibition on Trapping Fur-Bearing Mammals Initiative (1998)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 4
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 3, 1998
Topic
Hunting and fishing and Treatment of animals
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute
Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 4 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 3, 1998. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting the recreational and commercial trapping of mammals classified as fur-bearing or nongame and also prohibiting certain types of traps and poisons.

A "no" vote opposed prohibiting the recreational and commercial trapping of mammals classified as fur-bearing or nongame and also prohibiting certain types of traps and poisons.


Election results

California Proposition 4

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

4,486,989 57.44%
No 3,325,129 42.56%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 4 was as follows:

Trapping Practices. Bans Use of Specified Traps and Animal Poisons. Initiative Statute.

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

  • 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.

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided the following estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 4:[1]

  • 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.[2]

Support

Supporters

  • Doris Day, president of Doris Day Animal League[1]
  • Honorable William Newsom[1]
  • Elden Hughes, Sierra Club[1]

Official arguments

The official arguments in support of Proposition 4 can be found here.

Opposition

Opponents

  • Dr. Ben Norman, veterinary[1]
  • Dona Mast, California Farm Bureau Federation[1]
  • Stephanie Larson, Humane Society[1]

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 4 can be found here.

Path to the ballot

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1998, at least 433,269 valid signatures were required.[1]

See also


External links


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed May 7, 2021
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.