Criminal Law. Prohibition on of Horses and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption. Initiative Statute.
	Rebuttal to Argument against Proposition 6

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 ed 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 trade.

RESPONSE TO OPPONENTS:

• The secret of our recreational animals is NOT A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN A BUTCHER AND HIS SUPPLIER.
• This felony itself does NOT trigger the "three strikes" law.
• World market meat demands should NOT be supplied with California's pet and recreational animals.
• Proposition 6 is NOT dangerous. It protects horses. NOR is it unnecessary. 2,500,000 horses have been ed since 1986.

Horses need protection because exporting them for human consumption means they have to be ed 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 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