Two Unneeded Propositions

Propositions 4 and 6 on the Nov. 3 ballot are animal rights issues. Proposition 4 would outlaw the use of any body-gripping device to trap fur-bearing or non-game mammals, and make the sale of fur obtained by prohibited methods a crime. Landowners and some government officials are now allowed to kill or capture animals that damage crops or threaten livestock or public safety. Backers of this measure say that the traps now used are barbaric and could be replaced by more humane methods. Opponents say that if this measure passes, some endangered species will suffer, some livestock will be imperiled and flood and irrigation systems could be damaged.

Proposition 6 would make it a felony to possess, receive or transfer any horse destined to be slaughtered for human consumption. It would also make it a crime to sell horse meat in California for human consumption. California has no horse-slaughtering facilities. The Department of Food and Agriculture says that about 3,000 horses a year are sent to other states for slaughtering. Sale of horse meat is now legal, though it is unclear what the demand for the product is.

We oppose both Propositions 4 and 6. Along with a number of other initiatives on the November ballot, they address matters that ought to be dealt with, if at all, by legislative or regulatory means. Both measures have strong emotional appeal. But laypersons are simply not in a position to weigh the potential consequences to livestock and other property if certain trapping methods are prohibited.

As for Proposition 6, since California has no horse slaughtering facilities, we fail to see how this even qualifies as a state issue. We also believe that, with some obvious exceptions, the government has no business criminalizing the consumption of certain foods. We recommend a no vote on both Propositions 4 and 6.