Court Upholds California Voters' Ban on Inhumane Traps

The National Trappers Association, for once, just wouldn't let it die. For years, the group—a loose association of commercial fur trappers—has pursued a series of baseless legal challenges to Proposition 4, the anti-trapping law enacted by California voters in 1998.  Finally, last week in a resounding defeat, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a decision that, once and for all, throws out the trappers' legal claims.

The court's decision brings the curtain down on the long-running legal drama over Proposition 4, a measure that seeks to protect pets and wildlife by restricting most uses of leghold traps as well as uses of certain wildlife poisons (including sodium cyanide and Compound 1080).

"After seven years of hard work, our efforts to apply and enforce the will of the people of California has finally paid off," said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of animal protection litigation for The HSUS and lead counsel for the sponsors of Proposition 4 in the case. "It is now time to put aside the trappers' senseless objections, and get on about the business of protecting pets and wildlife in California."

Trading in Cruelty

The HSUS has been actively working to expose the cruelties of the fur industry for decades, whether through the courts, state legislation, grassroots activism, or our new Fur-Free Campaign, which works with consumers and the fashion industry to expose the suffering involved when using fur and fur trim as a fabric. Our multi-pronged approach seeks to counter a massive industry that kills more than 40 million animals annually, using inhumane methods such as neck-breaking or anal electrocution.

Trapping, as the majority of voters in California could tell you, is particularly gruesome. While the numbers have declined in the past decade, an estimated four million wild animals are still killed in the United States each year by 160,000 part-time trappers who supply pelts to the fashion industry. Urban sprawl and the public's revulsion to trapping and wearing fur are credited for the decline. Still, four million animals annually places the United States among the top three producers (along with Canada and Russia) of wild-caught animal pelts.

This is not an accomplishment to boast about. As noted in our brochure, Trapping: The Inside Story, "The steel-jaw leghold trap is a cruel, antiquated device designed to capture and hold an animal by a limb so as not to damage the pelt. Also called a foothold or restraining trap by its proponents, this trap is used to capture foxes, coyotes, raccoons, and other fur-bearing animals. The trap's two spring-powered, metal jaws slam shut when an animal steps on its trigger. Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association have declared the steel-jaw leghold trap to be inhumane, yet it continues to be the most commonly used trap in the United States.

"Animals caught by the heavy steel jaws of the leghold trap suffer excruciating pain on impact," the Trapping brochure continues, "the trap can tear the flesh, cut tendons and ligaments, and break bones. When the animals struggle to free themselves, they aggravate their injuries. A trapped animal often chews or twists off the limb caught in the trap in an effort to escape—29% of the raccoons observed in one study did this. Some traps have 'teeth' on the jaws, which add to the physical trauma. Trapped animals may struggle in pain for days. Dehydration, blood loss, hypothermia, and predation by other animals may claim their lives before the trapper returns."

The commercial trapping methods restricted by Proposition 4 not only cause enormous pain and suffering to the intended animal "targets," but they also frequently injure or kill animals by accident, including family pets and protected wildlife. Certain traps, including leghold traps, have also been known to severely injure children and adults.

"No Byzantine legal claims can conceal one simple fact: Trapping is undeniably inhumane," said Kristin Leppert, director of the Fur-Free Campaign. "We're grateful that the courts could see through the legal machinations of the National Trappers Association. California can now continue to hold its proud place among the eight states that ban some form of trapping."

An Abrupt End to a Long Battle

The entire sage was triggered when the National Audubon Society filed suit against the measure shortly after it was enacted, claiming that it would somehow prevent trapping to protect threatened and endangered species. The trappers—sensing an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon—filed a similar suit, aligning themselves with Audubon in opposition to the measure.  The Audubon case was resolved by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, when the court ruled that the measure does not prevent such conservation actions—which, ironically, was exactly what the sponsors of the measure told Audubon over and over again before, during, and after the election. The court's recent decision throwing out the trappers case is the last chapter of an entirely pointless legal saga that has spanned two presidential administrations and wasted countless taxpayer dollars.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion was short and not very sweet for the commercial trapping industry. The National Trappers Association had claimed that Proposition 4 was preempted by the Animal Damage Control Act, a federal law that authorizes government trappers to capture and kill animals to protect ranching and livestock interests. A district court had earlier called this argument a "meritless claim."

The court of appeals did not even reach that question, ruling instead that the trappers had not even demonstrated the bare minimum "injury" necessary to pursue their claims in court. Since the trappers could not prove they were financially harmed by Proposition 4, they instead argued that they were harmed by having to change their conduct, no longer using "preferred" devices such as steel-jawed leghold traps or M-44 explosives. The court of appeals rejected that argument in a brief opinion, noting that the trappers' "mere disagreement with a law of general application" could not be used as a basis to challenge Proposition 4.

"The enactment and defense of Proposition 4 may have taken nearly a decade to complete, but the changes effectuated by the law will have far-reaching consequences for animals for generations to come," The HSUS's Lovvorn said. "The court's decision is a tough blow for The National Trappers Association and all those seeking to exploit animals for their fur. And it represents a huge step forward for humane advocates working to ensure that cruel and inhumane traps are nothing more than rusting relics of a bygone era."

See the Video

Fur Shame

Related Links

Fur and Trapping

Fur Free Action Guide

Questions and Answers about Fur