Are Ferret Opponents Preparing Their Talking Points?
On April 23, 2025 — just weeks after our formal Petition 2025-003 to reclassify domestic ferrets — the Environmental Literacy Council published a lengthy article titled “Why Did California Ban Ferrets?” It walks through a familiar list of ecological arguments: disease transmission, native species predation, the supposed threat of feral colonies, and the ever-reliable claim that California is different.
Sound familiar?
It should. These are the same assertions the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has used for decades to justify an unexamined ban — one that has never undergone a full Environmental Impact Report or an evidentiary hearing. And now they appear repackaged by a third-party organization that markets itself as a neutral educational nonprofit.
Is this just an environmental education piece? Or is the CDFW preparing its talking points to counter our petition — using surrogate voices?
What the Article Gets Wrong (Again)
Let’s be clear:
The Environmental Literacy Council didn’t break new ground. They simply restated outdated claims, without acknowledging:
No Feral Populations Exist: Not in California. Not anywhere in the U.S.
Zero Evidence of Ecological Harm: In 70 years of legal ferret ownership across 48 other states, not a single environmental collapse has occurred due to domestic ferrets.
No Risk Assessment Conducted in CA: Despite being required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no formal environmental impact study was ever conducted when ferrets were banned in 1931 — and still hasn’t been.
Ferrets are Domestic Animals: Like cats and dogs. Recognized as such by every major veterinary, zoological, and legal body in the U.S. — except, curiously, in California.
Why Now?
It’s worth noting the timing of this article. Our petition for regulation change is currently before the Fish and Game Commission, demanding that they reconsider outdated assumptions with science, law, and evidence.
Rather than engaging with the facts we’ve presented in Petition 2025-003, we are seeing recycled narratives appear online — not as official state rebuttals, but through allied or independent outlets that present these positions as neutral truth.
The question must be asked:
Is this a coordinated soft-launch of the state’s eventual response?
Our Response: Demand Transparency, Not Talking Points
We welcome dialogue, but we demand that it be grounded in law and evidence — not fear-based hypotheticals. If the state, or its allies, are preparing a public relations campaign rather than a scientific or legal rebuttal, they should say so.
And more importantly, the Fish and Game Commission should do what they’ve failed to do for nearly a century:
Hold a fair hearing.
Consider the facts.
And follow the law.