Proposition 6 | Argument Against | Proposition 6 | Next Proposition (7) |
Criminal Law. Prohibition on Slaughter
of Horses and Sale of Horsemeat for
Human Consumption. Initiative Statute.
Rebuttal to Argument against Proposition 6
Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE FORMAL OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE.

The oppositions argument against this initiative makes it abundantly clear that they are out of step with the principles and beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. They apparently fail to recognize that we do not want our recreational animals, be it our dogs, cats, or horses slaughtered for human consumption.

We agree people have the right to choose what they eat. Californians CHOOSE NOT to eat their horses and Californians have the right to protect their horses against the cruelty of the foreign slaughter trade.

RESPONSE TO OPPONENTS:

Horses need protection because exporting them for human consumption means they have to be slaughtered cruelly instead of humanely euthanized and rendered.

Horses are an important part of California's heritage and its culture. Let's leave an honorable and compassionate legacy and protect California's horses against the cruelty of slaughter for human consumption.

BROAD-BASED, BI-PARTISAN,
MAINSTREAM SUPPORT
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 6

ROBERT REDFORD
Actor, The Horse Whisperer

JOHN VAN DE KAMP
President, Thoroughbred Owners of California

JILL HENNEBERG
U.S. Equestrian Olympic Silver Medalist

Proposition 6 | Argument Against | Proposition 6 | Next Proposition (7) |