SAN FRANCISCO – This week, the federal court in northern California issued a ruling representing the final chapter in the long-running litigation over Proposition 4, which was adopted by California voters in 1998 to protect pets and wildlife from cruel traps and poisons. The National Trappers Association had challenged the legality of Proposition 4 and had claimed that the state measure is preempted by federal laws. The court has dismissed those claims, noting that the trappers do not have standing to sue, and that Proposition 4 should stand.
“With election day just around the corner, we are delighted that the court saw through the delaying tactics and flimsy legal arguments of the trappers and finally confirmed the legality of a ballot measure approved by California voters six years ago,” said Michael Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals. “Californians said no to animal cruelty, and said yes to protecting pets and wildlife.”
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. In a 16-page opinion, Judge Thelton E. Henderson wrote, “The court is not aware of any authority, however, that holds that the mere fact that a party conforms his behavior to comply with a change in the law is sufficient to confer standing,” and that a “conclusory assertion of a ‘preference’…is too abstract.” He concluded, “The fact that Proposition 4 requires trappers to use alternatives to certain traps does not, in and of itself demonstrate a concrete injury in fact.”
“This ruling reaffirms the will of California citizens who overwhelmingly voted to ban cruel traps and poisons and sends a clear message to the National Trappers Association that they cannot undue the will of the people,” said Michelle Thew, chief executive of the Sacramento, California-based Animal Protection Institute.
Additionally, the trappers claimed that the Endangered Species Act preempts Proposition 4 in its entirety, a contention that the court called “wholly without merit.” The trappers also argued that Proposition 4 is preempted by the Animal Damage Control Act, which the court called a “meritless claim,” noting that the trappers relied only on “unsubstantiated opinion.” Judge Henderson noted, “Congress’ expressed intent is that, under the ADCA, Wildlife Services shall continue its longstanding practice of administering its program in a manner consistent with state trapping laws.”
“We are pleased that the court recognized the important role that state and local governments play in protecting our wildlife,” said Nancy Perry, director of Government Affairs for The Humane Society of the United States. “The HSUS is grateful that such a large coalition of animal protection groups worked together on this critical effort to preserve the citizen initiative.”
The sponsors of Proposition 4 included The Fund for Animals, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Animal Protection Institute (API), International Fund for Animal Welfare, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Doris Day Animal League, and HSUS Hollywood Office. They were represented by Jonathan Lovvorn and Eric Glitzenstein of the public interest firm Meyer & Glitzenstein.
