Horse burgers? Not if Prop. 6 passes.

File this one under "not for the squeamish." Along with this November''s state ballot measures on school funding and electric deregulation, California voters will also have the dubious pleasure of deciding on something they''d rather not personally experience: horse burgers.

While not too popular here at home, horse meat can sell for up to $17 a pound in countries like France or Italy, where the occasional equine entree is considered a delicacy. By some estimates, as many as 10,000 California horses are exported every year to meet the demands of these foreign markets.

If passed by voters, Proposition 6 would make it a felony in California to export horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. The measure is aimed to end what activists call a "secret industry" that is abhorrent to Californians and promotes cruelty to horses.

"The whole industry is absolutely inhumane," says Cathleen Doyle, who leads the Save the Horses Campaign.

Horses sold to slaughter begin with a cross-country trip to plants in Texas in trucks that are actually designed to carry cattle. The trucks are often overloaded, said Doyle, and many animals wind up with open sores from chaffing against the top of the car.

"You have to remember that horses are not cattle. They have a very acute fight or flight mechanism," says Doyle. That instinct, she says, produces terror in the horses, sometimes exhibited by violent shaking.

At the plants, the animals are rendered unconscious from the blow of a four inch spike to the head and then suspended by their hind legs and slowly bled to death before being processed and shipped out of the country.

"There is nothing quick, clean or efficient about it," says Doyle.

Equally disturbing, said Doyle, many horse owners sell their animals into slaughter without knowing it, either through the newspaper or at auctions where buyers are not required to disclose their intentions.

"Nothing breaks my heart more than to see a family who wants their horse to go to a good home, not knowing that it was really bought by one of these killer buyers," says Doyle.

But opponents say the measure is unenforceable and an abuse of the ballot process. "People have a right to eat horses if they want to," says Ted Brown, former chairman of the Libertarian Party and the head of the No on 6 campaign.

"This is a case where you have a couple of wealthy individuals who are personally offended by something, so they are trying to buy themselves a law. I don''t think that''s what people had in mind when they adopted the initiative process," says Brown.

Brown pointed to a recent opinion by the California Legislative Council that parts of the measure could be thrown out by the courts for violating the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

"Obviously, people should be up front about how they are doing business," says Brown, adding that he prefers stricter disclosure laws to banning the business altogether. "Wherever there is a demand there should be an available supply, as long as it doesn''t hurt anybody."

But Doyle calls the free-trade argument, "pretty irresponsible."

"Would they feel the same way about plutonium, or anthrax or child pornography? It''s absolutely contrary to our values. We just do not slaughter our pets and companion animals," says Doyle.

The proposition has enjoyed some very high profile support. Robert Redford lent his name to the ballot argument, and the campaign is being bankrolled in large part by Sidne Long, the wealthy heiress of the Longs Drug fortune. Doyle also said polling done by the Save the Horses campaign has indicated about 70 percent support for the proposition.

In fact, one of the most striking things about Prop 6. is the lopsidedness of the fight. So far, initiative backers have spent about $700,000 on the campaign. The opposition, on the other hand, has officially spent nothing and consists so far of only the Libertarians and a few individual ranchers scattered around the state.

The overwhelming support for the measure has much to do with the emotional appeal the issue has for California voters. But it may also be true that those who would oppose the measure are simply afraid to be associated with something as unappetizing as the trade in horse meat.

That stigma has made neutralizing the opposition a simple matter. If necessary, said Doyle, the Save the Horses organization is prepared to air commercials that show very graphic images of horses being slaughtered. And if anyone comes out and opposes [the initiative], they will have their names put up there.

That threat has so far been effective. No major agricultural interest or breeding association has dared to publicly oppose the measure.

For example, the California Cattlemen''s Association would not give an interview but did provide a statement that claims to give a balanced view of the initiative. "Many people believe the passage of the initiative will result in more neglect and an increase in the abandonment of animals, because it takes away an economically viable option that is now available," the statement reads in part.

More neglect, say opponents, because horses are expensive to maintain and expensive to euthanize. An owner who has to destroy one horse has a choice. He can pay the vet for a lethal injection, as well as the fees to have the animal rendered or deposited in a landfill. Or he can recoup some of his losses by selling the animal to slaughter for $400 or $500.

When economies of scale come into play, larger breeding operations can save tens of thousands of dollars on the disposal of animals that will not turn a profit.

Robert Fox, a lobbyist for the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, did agree to an interview, but said he could speak only for himself as a horse owner and would not speak on behalf of the CTBA.

"Would I personally eat horse meat? Hell no! But at the same time, I don''t think that others should dictate to those who do think it''s okay to eat horses. Especially to someone in a foreign country," says Fox. He himself has raised horses for 27 years. "For me, they have always been companion animals. But when an organization has 500 animals, how can you characterize those animals as companions?"

Fox noted that not only breeders, but any large horse operation such as horse rental businesses or rodeos could be affected by the pending measure.

"There is a great deal of concern out there because horse owners will lose one method of putting down horses that is now legally available to them," says Fox.

But Prop. 6 backers say that humanely disposing of their animals is just part of the responsibility, and expense, of horse ownership.

"The point is, the horse slaughter industry is an atrocity," said Bonnie Stoehn, who works with the Horsepower Projects shelter in Santa Cruz. "The only reason it has gone on at all is because it has gone on in secret."

Only time will tell if the breeders and other interests will mount any serious opposition to the measure before Nov. 3.

For now, only Ted Brown and his Libertarians are vocally urging voters to "just say neigh" to Prop 6.

Ironically, the Libertarians may profit from being the only official opposition to the measure. After all, it provides a brief moment in the spotlight for a party that often finds itself drowned out in the big money media wars of ballot politics.

"It should definitely be good fodder for the talk shows. Hopefully we can win the war of the words," says Brown. cw