- 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.
- A YES vote of this measure means:
- Commercial and
recreational trappers could no
longer use body-gripping traps
to trap any fur-bearing or
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
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
- 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,
- 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,
- Contact FOR Proposition 4:
- Protect Pets And
Wildlife/Yes On 4
1388 Westwood Blvd. #201
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Fax: (310) 441-4599
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 4:
- Californians for People,
Pets and Wildlife
Live Election Returns|
Secretary of State
Senate Office of Research
League of Women Voters
California Voter Foundation
Cal. Voter Foundation
California Voter Foundation
News and Analysis
Los Angeles Times
San Francisco Chronicle
San Jose Mercury News
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.