They also criticize snare traps, which use a noose that tightens around an animal during its struggle to get free, as inhumane. Further, they add, trappers who find animals in their traps may kill them in a cruel fashion. Supporters assert that random trapping for fur does not help control disease, and is likely to adversely affect the sex and age ratios of species in the wild by removing young and inexperienced members. There also is a risk of endangered species being unintentionally trapped, they say. They contend the poisons that would be banned by the initiative pose a harmful presence in the environment and threaten nontargeted animals and pets.
Proponents say other means, such as firearms, remain available to control predators.
Proponents argue that a reliance on lethal methods of trapping and killing predators discourages the use and innovation of successful, cost-effective ways of either killing predators in more humane ways or of preventing depredation from occurring in the first place. Arguments in Opposition Opponents argue that leg-hold traps are selective and rarely fatal, and allow the release of nontarget animals if they are trapped unintentionally. They contend that fur harvesting provides significant data that is useful for wildlife management and research, and brings economic benefits to the trappers. They further contend the initiative would prohibit the use of traps for many other beneficial purposes, including leg-hold traps to protect some of California's endangered species from nonnative predators. Prohibition of the traps could lead to further diminishment of some species, they assert.