Legalize Ferrets

Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms: Ferrets Are Not a Threat

Pat Wright — Sun, 02 Feb 2025 21:59:39 +0000

For decades, the California Department of Fish and Game has claimed that domesticated ferrets (Mustela putorius furo) pose a risk to wildlife, agriculture, and public safety—justifying their continued ban. Yet, their own peer-reviewed study contradicts this position, demonstrating that ferrets do not pose a significant threat.

This study, which Fish and Game commissioned back in 2010 but ignored for a decade, was finally put through peer review and published. The results? It validates what ferret advocates have been saying all along.

What the Study Found

The report, Impacts of Domesticated Ferrets Upon Wildlife, Agriculture, and Human Health in the USA, examined the most common objections to ferret legalization and found no scientific basis for the ban.

1. No Feral Ferret Populations in the U.S.

One of the strongest arguments against ferret legalization is the fear that escaped ferrets could establish wild breeding populations and threaten native species.

However, after decades of review, the study found no evidence of a self-sustaining feral ferret population anywhere in the U.S..

Cases from New Zealand and Europe involved wild polecat hybrids, which are not the same as the domesticated ferrets in the U.S. The study concludes that American pet ferrets lack the genetic traits and survival instincts needed to become an invasive species.

2. Minimal Risk to Wildlife

Ferrets are small carnivores, but their impact is negligible compared to other predators like feral cats, which kill billions of birds and small mammals each year.

The study found no confirmed cases of escaped ferrets causing ecological harm in the U.S. and determined that concerns about their impact on ground-nesting birds are highly speculative.

3. No Threat to Agriculture

Opponents have claimed that ferrets could harm poultry and livestock. However, the study found:

No documented instances of ferrets causing damage to U.S. farms.
Modern commercial farming practices make it highly unlikely that a stray ferret could pose a risk.

4. Public Health Concerns Are Overstated

Ferrets have been labeled as dangerous due to biting incidents, yet:

Serious injuries from ferret bites are rare—significantly lower than dog or cat attacks.
Ferrets can be vaccinated against rabies, just like any other pet.
The study found ferret-related injuries occur at a rate of only one per million residents per year in California—hardly a public safety crisis.

The Conclusion: No Justification for the Ban

The most astonishing aspect of this study is that Fish and Game ignored it for ten years before finally submitting it for peer review. Now, the science is clear:

The study does not justify California’s continued prohibition of ferret ownership.

This research was not conducted by ferret advocates—it was commissioned by Fish and Game themselves. Yet, they continue to ignore their own findings.

So why does California still refuse to legalize ferrets? That remains the real question.

The post Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms: Ferrets Are Not a Threat appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

Fish and Game Ignored Administrative Procedures Act

Pat Wright — Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:46:35 +0000

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a cornerstone of administrative law, designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in government decision-making. Under the APA, government agencies are required to follow specific procedures when making rules, addressing petitions, or taking administrative actions. These protections are meant to guarantee that individuals and organizations have their rights respected and their concerns fairly addressed.

As part of our ongoing efforts to challenge the California Fish and Game Commission’s classification of ferrets as wild animals and a detrimental species, we first sent a Request for Regulatory Change to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). They responded by stating that such petitions belong to the state agency involved, not the OAL. Consequently, we sent our petition to the Fish and Game Commission.

Fish and Game responded by insisting that we needed to fill out Form FGC 1 – their petition for regulation change. We have complied with this request multiple times. However, there are two key problems: first, this form does not align with the nature of our request, and second, it places Fish and Game in complete control over the decision-making process.

The typical response we receive from Fish and Game is that permits for wild animals will not be issued. There is no acknowledgment of hearings, public testimony, or scientific studies to determine whether domestic ferrets are indeed wild animals or a detrimental species. Perhaps we should have reframed our request as a “Petition for Public Input and Scientific Integrity” rather than a “Petition for Regulatory Change.”

Ari Cornman, a wildlife expert at Fish and Game, initially responded to our inquiry by stating that we needed to start with Form FGC 1. This form, required since October 1, 2015, is intended for use by individuals or agencies recommending regulation changes. However, our request is not about a regulation change—it is about ensuring that our rights under the APA are respected.

The lack of acknowledgment of our specific APA-related concerns raises significant issues. Despite repeated efforts to address these concerns, Mr. Cornman has not responded to our inquiries about respecting our APA rights and continues to insist on using Form FGC 1.

Reaching Out for Help

We have attempted to escalate this issue by appealing to various ombudsmen. The OAL ombudsman was courteous and genuine in a phone conversation, but her written response was less than helpful:

“This is in response to your request to document that the Office of Administrative Law is not another level of appeal for FGC decisions. Have a great day!” — OAL Reference Attorney

Requests to Governor Newsom’s Ombudsman have yet to be acknowledged, and emails sent to my newly elected Assemblywoman, Dr. La Shae Sharp Collins, and State Senator Akilah Weber, remain unanswered.

A Final Attempt to Engage

I sent the following email to Mr. Cornman, which has also gone unanswered:

Subject: Follow-Up: APA Petition and Procedural Clarifications

Dear Mr. Cornman,

I am writing to follow up on my previous inquiries regarding the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and my petition to the California Fish and Game Commission. As of now, I have not received a response to my questions, and I am seeking clarification on the next steps for addressing the procedural aspects of my petition.

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) recently suggested that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) might be an appropriate forum to resolve these concerns. However, I would prefer to resolve this matter directly with your office to avoid unnecessary escalation.

To help me understand the Commission’s position and next steps, could you please provide clarity on the following:

Could you clarify the Commission’s obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding petitions such as mine? Specifically, what steps are required to ensure compliance with APA procedural rules?
What is the expected timeline for the Commission to provide a formal response to my petition, as mandated by the APA?
Does the APA require a public hearing or specific review process for my petition? If so, has the Commission initiated this process?
Are there specific APA provisions that the Commission believes my petition does not satisfy? If so, could you provide details to help me address these concerns?
If the Commission does not act on this petition, would an administrative hearing through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) be an appropriate forum to address potential APA compliance issues?

I kindly request a response within 10 business days to help me determine the appropriate path forward. I remain hopeful that we can work together to address this matter constructively and in a timely manner.

Thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Pat Wright
(619) 757-7426

Next Steps

I find it difficult to believe that when we are advocating for our rights under the Administrative Procedures Act, our request is simply ignored. It’s one thing to deny a request, but to ignore it entirely is outrageous.

Let’s see what happens between now and New Year’s. I’m prepared to make more noise and, if necessary, return to court to ensure that our rights are respected.

The post Fish and Game Ignored Administrative Procedures Act appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

California’s Ferret Legalization Battle: What You Need to Know

Pat Wright — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 19:36:50 +0000

Legalizing Ferrets in California: A Battle Against Misconceptions, Legal Hurdles, and Administrative Law Challenges

Introduction

The effort to legalize ferrets as pets in California has been a long and arduous battle, characterized by numerous legal, social, and environmental challenges. Despite ferrets being domesticated for thousands of years, California remains one of the few states in the United States that still prohibits their ownership. This article delves into the key obstacles faced in the push for ferret legalization, including the questionable administrative processes that have kept ferrets classified as wild and detrimental, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

Historical and Legal Background

Ferrets have a long history of domestication, dating back over 2,000 years. They were used by ancient civilizations for hunting and controlling pests. Over time, they have become popular pets due to their playful nature and manageable size. Despite this, California classifies ferrets under laws that restrict the possession of exotic animals, alongside species that are non-native and potentially harmful to local ecosystems
(Exhibit B – Proof of Domestic Status)

One of the significant legal barriers is California Fish and Game Code Section 2116.5, which outlines the regulations regarding the possession of non-native wildlife. Ferrets, despite being domesticated, fall under the category of exotic animals and are thus prohibited without special permits. This law, designed to protect native wildlife from potential threats posed by non-native species, does not account for the unique status of ferrets as domesticated animals (Exhibit A – Fish and Game Code)

Did the Fish and Game Commission Follow Proper Procedure?

The classification of ferrets as wild and detrimental by the California Fish and Game Commission raises significant questions about whether proper administrative law procedures were followed in making this determination. Administrative law governs the activities of governmental agencies and ensures that decisions are made in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner. In the case of ferrets, there are valid concerns that the Fish and Game Commission may not have adhered to the necessary procedural requirements, particularly regarding public input, evidence-based decision-making, and transparency.

Lack of Public Hearings and Evidence

One of the core principles of administrative law is that agencies must follow due process, which includes providing opportunities for public input and basing decisions on sound evidence. In the case of ferrets, there is no record of a public hearing or a formal process where stakeholders, including ferret owners, veterinarians, and animal behavior experts, were invited to present their views or challenge the classification. This absence of public testimony and expert input suggests that the decision to classify ferrets as wild and detrimental may not have been made in a fully informed or democratic manner.

Additionally, administrative law typically requires that agency decisions be supported by substantial evidence. In the case of ferrets, it appears that the classification as a wild and detrimental species was not backed by rigorous scientific evidence or studies. For instance, there is no documented evidence of ferrets forming feral populations in California or elsewhere in the United States, nor is there substantial data showing that they pose a significant threat to native wildlife or ecosystems. (Exhibit G – Lack of feral populations)

Questionable Interpretation of Existing Statutes

The Fish and Game Commission’s classification of ferrets also raises questions about the interpretation of existing statutes. According to California Fish and Game Code Section 2116.5, the state defines “wild animals” in a broad manner, including non-native species that could pose a threat to native ecosystems. However, ferrets, which have been domesticated for over 2,000 years and have a well-documented history of living in close association with humans, arguably do not fit this definition. The interpretation that ferrets are wild animals appears to be inconsistent with their established status as domestic animals in nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States (Exhibit A Fish and Game Code)

Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Transparency

Transparency is another critical element of the administrative law process. Decisions affecting the public, especially those that have significant implications like the prohibition of a domesticated pet, should be made with full transparency. However, the process by which ferrets were classified as wild and detrimental appears to lack this transparency. There is little to no documentation available to the public that explains the reasoning behind the decision, the evidence considered, or the potential impacts of this classification.

Furthermore, administrative law requires that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge decisions that they believe to be unlawful or improperly made. The lack of clear, accessible avenues for ferret owners and advocates to appeal or contest the classification decision further indicates a failure in adhering to proper administrative procedures.

Environmental Concerns and Misconceptions

Opponents of ferret legalization often cite environmental concerns, arguing that ferrets could establish feral populations if released into the wild, potentially disrupting local ecosystems. However, studies and surveys indicate that ferrets are unlikely to survive in the wild in significant numbers, particularly in California’s climate and environment. Moreover, there is no evidence of established feral ferret populations anywhere in the United States (Exhibit G – Lack of feral populations)

The environmental report submitted as Exhibit E further highlights that the potential environmental impact of ferrets is minimal, especially when compared to other domesticated animals like cats and dogs. The report emphasizes that ferrets are entirely dependent on human care and are not suited to surviving in the wild without it (Exhibit E Original Environmental Report).

Lack of Comprehensive Data on Ferret-Related Incidents

Another challenge in the legalization effort is the lack of comprehensive data on ferret-related incidents, such as bites or attacks. Unlike dogs and cats, there is no systematic recording of ferret bites at a national level, making it difficult to assess the actual risk they pose. The absence of such data contributes to the fear and misunderstanding surrounding ferrets, reinforcing the narrative that they are dangerous and unpredictable pets (Exhibit D Ferret Bite Statistics).

The Legal Status of Ferrets in Other States

Ferrets are legal in 48 states across the U.S., including highly urbanized areas like New York (excluding New York City). This widespread acceptance of ferrets as pets in other states highlights the disparity in California’s stance. The legality of ferret ownership in these states is often accompanied by minor regulations, such as vaccination requirements, which are easily manageable by responsible pet owners (Exhibit F – Legal Status of Ferrets in Other States).

The Path Forward

The fight for ferret legalization in California is ongoing, with advocates pushing for a reevaluation of the current laws. The argument is not just about pet ownership but also about rectifying misconceptions and baseless fears that have persisted for decades. By presenting solid evidence of ferrets’ domestic status, their minimal environmental impact, and the lack of serious incidents, advocates aim to change the narrative and secure legal status for these beloved pets.

Moreover, the administrative process by which ferrets were classified as wild and detrimental must be scrutinized. A thorough public review, opportunities for expert testimony, and a transparent decision-making process that takes into account the best available scientific evidence are necessary steps to ensure that the classification is based on facts rather than fear.

Conclusion

Legalizing ferrets in California requires overcoming a complex web of legal, environmental, and administrative challenges. However, with continued advocacy, education, and a push for updated regulations that reflect the true nature of ferrets as domesticated animals, there is hope that California will join the rest of the country in allowing these charming creatures to be kept as pets.

This article serves as a call to action for those who believe in the cause, urging them to support the effort to legalize ferrets in California and correct the misconceptions and administrative oversights that have kept them in the shadows for so long.

The post California’s Ferret Legalization Battle: What You Need to Know appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

Ferret Lawsuit Update

Pat Wright — Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:37:03 +0000

The Hurdles We Face

(and yes, the graphic is AI, and AI has troubles adding text to images. Ferrets Aret Demestir!)

As many of you know, we have been tirelessly working to challenge the California Fish and Game Commission’s long-standing classification of domestic ferrets as wild and detrimental species. This fight has been ongoing for over 30 years, and we are committed to seeing it through to a successful conclusion.

Where We Stand Now

Recently, the Attorney General’s office submitted a case management statement outlining their position on the case. While this is a routine part of the legal process, it has raised some concerns that we need to address to ensure our case is heard fully and fairly.

The Issue with Trial Length

The Attorney General’s office has suggested that our trial should last only 1-2 hours. Given the complexity and history of this issue, we strongly believe this is insufficient. There is so much at stake, and a brief hearing simply won’t allow for the thorough examination of evidence and witness testimony that this case requires. We are advocating for a longer trial where we can present live testimony from experts and fully explore the flaws in the Commission’s decision-making process.

Clarifying Our Petition

One of the points raised by the Attorney General’s office is a lack of clarity about which specific actions of the California Fish and Game Commission we are challenging. Let me be clear: we are challenging the Commission’s arbitrary and unsupported classification of domestic ferrets as wild and detrimental species. This classification was made without any specific scientific study or proper legal basis, and we believe it was an overreach of their authority.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about our right to own ferrets; it’s about ensuring that government agencies cannot make such impactful decisions without following proper procedures and basing their actions on sound science. The classification of ferrets as wild and detrimental has no historical evidence to support it, and it infringes on our rights as responsible pet owners.

Our Strategy Moving Forward

We are preparing to counter the arguments presented by the Attorney General’s office and to push for a full hearing that does justice to the complexity of this case. We will be requesting all relevant documents and evidence used by the Commission in their decision-making process to ensure that nothing is overlooked.

Why We Need Your Support

This legal battle is about more than just ferrets—it’s about standing up against arbitrary government actions that can affect anyone’s rights. We will continue to fight for a fair trial and to ensure that our voices are heard.

Thank you for your ongoing support. We will keep you updated as we continue to prepare our case and work toward a resolution that recognizes domestic ferrets as the safe and beloved pets they are.

Stay tuned for more updates, and please continue to support our cause in any way you can. Together, we can make a difference!

The post Ferret Lawsuit Update appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

Previous Lawsuit Against F&G Successful

Pat Wright — Sat, 08 Jun 2024 19:49:07 +0000

Marshall Farms USA Inc. vs. California Fish and Game Commission: The Reversal on Appeal

The legal battle between Marshall Farms USA Inc. and the California Fish and Game Commission over the classification of ferrets has been a notable case for animal enthusiasts and legal experts alike. Initially, a San Diego Superior Court ruling favored Marshall Farms, mandating the commission to reconsider whether ferrets should be classified as domestic animals. However, this decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.

The Initial Ruling

In January 1998, Judge Judith McConnell of the San Diego Superior Court ruled that the California Fish and Game Commission had a mandatory duty to determine if ferrets were “normally domesticated.” This ruling challenged the commission’s long-held classification of ferrets as wild animals, which made them illegal as pets in California. The ruling was seen as a victory for Marshall Farms and ferret advocates, potentially paving the way for the legalization of ferrets as pets in the state.

The Appeal and Reversal

Following the initial ruling, the California Fish and Game Commission, supported by the Attorney General’s office, appealed the decision. On appeal, the higher court found that the Fish and Game Commission did not have an obligation to reclassify ferrets. The appellate court upheld the commission’s authority to maintain the ferret’s status as a wild animal, reversing Judge McConnell’s decision.

Legal and Social Implications

The reversal on appeal reaffirmed the state’s position that ferrets are wild animals, and thus, illegal to own as pets in California. This decision was a setback for ferret enthusiasts and Marshall Farms, who argued that ferrets are domesticated animals and should be legally recognized as such.

The appellate court’s decision underscored the complexities of wildlife classification and regulatory authority. It highlighted the challenges faced by advocacy groups in changing established wildlife policies. For the state, the decision reinforced its regulatory framework aimed at controlling and managing non-native species.

Reactions to the Reversal

The reversal was met with disappointment from ferret advocates and those who had supported the initial ruling. Mary Ellen Hogan, the attorney representing Marshall Farms, expressed frustration over the resources and time spent on the legal battle, emphasizing that the issue deserved a more streamlined resolution.

Conversely, the California Fish and Game Commission and other state officials viewed the appellate decision as a validation of their regulatory policies. They maintained that the classification of ferrets as wild animals was necessary to protect the state’s ecological balance and prevent potential issues arising from non-native species.

Conclusion

The case of Marshall Farms USA Inc. vs. California Fish and Game Commission highlights the ongoing debate over animal classification and pet ownership regulations. While the initial ruling provided hope for ferret legalization advocates, the reversal on appeal reaffirmed the challenges of altering established wildlife policies.

For those interested in the developments of this case and similar legal battles, it is important to stay informed through legal and wildlife conservation news. The case remains a significant example of the complexities involved in regulatory decision-making and the legal avenues available for challenging such decisions.

The post Previous Lawsuit Against F&G Successful appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

Domestic ferrets called domestic in F&G’s response to our lawsuit

Pat Wright — Fri, 31 May 2024 20:46:37 +0000

Snarky Commentary: The Wild Irony of California’s Ferret Classification

Note, we have received the expected demurrer from the Fish and Game Commission. Read it here.

Ah, the majestic California ferret saga—a tale where logic takes a backseat, and irony drives the car. Buckle up, folks, because the Attorney General’s office just dropped some paperwork that’s as contradictory as it gets.

The Wild Domestics
First, let’s talk terminology. According to the California Fish and Game Code, a “wild animal” includes any species “not normally domesticated in this state.” And yet, in their very own defense, the AG’s office repeatedly refers to our furry friends as “domestic ferrets.” Yes, you read that right—*domestic* ferrets.

So, which is it? Are they wild or domestic? It seems our esteemed officials are having an identity crisis on behalf of the ferrets. It’s like calling a house cat a feral predator while it’s lounging on your couch.

Undesirable and Menacing
Section 2118(b) of the Fish and Game Code claims that domestic ferrets are restricted because they are “undesirable and a menace to native wildlife, the agricultural interests of the state, or to the public health and safety.” Really? These are the same creatures that sleep 18 hours a day and can’t survive without human care. Menacing? Only if you’re a sock left unattended.

But wait, there’s more! Petitioner Pat Wright argues that the classification of ferrets as wild was made without “proper hearings, studies, or research.” The response from the AG’s office? A demurrer that dances around the issue without addressing the core contradiction.

Procedural Hoopla
According to the AG’s office, the petition is flawed because it doesn’t specify which decision or regulation it challenges. How about we start with the nonsensical classification that contradicts itself? Maybe if the paperwork stopped tripping over its own definitions, it could find its way to a coherent argument.

They also raise the issue of statute limitations and proper naming conventions. Here’s a thought: instead of nitpicking procedural details, why not address the fact that labeling domesticated pets as wild animals is as sensible as calling a pet goldfish a shark?

The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about ferrets; it’s about the absurdity of bureaucratic red tape that defies common sense. It’s about a system that would rather cling to outdated regulations than acknowledge that domestic animals, well, aren’t wild. It’s a Kafkaesque nightmare where ferrets are both domesticated and wild, depending on which page of the legal script you’re reading.

Conclusion
So here we are, caught in a legal limbo where “domestic” and “wild” are interchangeable at the convenience of the law. If you ever doubted that the California Fish and Game Commission could outdo itself in the realm of bureaucratic absurdity, doubt no more. As we wait for the next chapter of this ferret fiasco, remember: in the wild world of California regulations, logic is optional, but irony is mandatory.

The post Domestic ferrets called domestic in F&G’s response to our lawsuit appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

Three Things I Want to Know Before We Go to Court

Pat Wright — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:09:59 +0000

#1 The Alaska Court case that legalized ferrets. It’s as if all records have been erased. Once again, I asked ChatGPT:

Can you give me the basics on the Alaska court case that legalized ferrets in that state?

Certainly! The legal battle to legalize ferrets in Alaska was a result of the state’s classification of ferrets as “wild animals,” which meant they were illegal to possess as pets. This classification was primarily due to concerns about the potential impact of escaped ferrets on the state’s ecosystem.

The case, known as “Mead v. Holdmann,” began when a woman named Florence Mead challenged the legality of the ban on ferrets. Mead argued that ferrets were domestic animals and should not be regulated in the same way as wild animals.

In 1995, the Alaska Superior Court ruled in favor of Mead, declaring that ferrets should be classified as domestic animals. The court’s decision effectively legalized ferrets as pets in Alaska.

This case set a precedent for other states with similar restrictions on ferret ownership, and it highlighted the importance of understanding the distinction between domestic and wild animals in legal contexts.

I can’t find any further info. The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game will only say ferrets were added to the “clean category” (they haven’t seen many ferret litter boxes )

#2 How the Asian Water Buffalo became legal in California

Again, ChatGPT: The Asian water buffalo, also known as the domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), became legal to own in California in 1994. Prior to that, it was prohibited to possess them in the state due to concerns about their potential impact on agriculture and the environment. However, in 1994, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reclassified the Asian water buffalo as a domestic rather than a wild or exotic animal, allowing for their ownership under certain regulations.

This is important because the Fish and Game Commission didn’t follow their own procedures to remove these animals from the prohibited species list. When asked, they replied that unlike ferrets, the water buffalo situation is not political.

I sent an email to Fish and Game asking. They haven’t answered any of my emails for a long time. I can always file a Public Records Request Act.

#3 New Zealand Ferrets. Dedicated ferret owners know that ferret polecat hybrids are a real problem in New Zealand, and a few islands around Britain. New Zealand introduced a lot of ferrets, weasels and polecats to control introduced rodent populations. And there are today, ferret-polecat hybrids that the New Zealanders unfortunately refer to as “ferrets” that are a problem. They are mostly of polecat origin, but how do we handle it? It is going to be our biggest obstacle.

More Information

If you can help, especially with these three questions, please let me know. I put a post out on the Ferret Mailing List, there are people older than me on that list – so maybe someone knows.

The post Three Things I Want to Know Before We Go to Court appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

Unmasking Ferretgate: The California Conspiracy

Pat Wright — Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:35:29 +0000

Arnold Schwarzenegger knew ferrets. Why did he veto a ferret amnesty bill? The conspiracy thickens.

In the bustling corridors of California’s political landscape, a controversy of diminutive proportions simmered quietly, yet fiercely. It wasn’t about traditional power struggles or grand political schemes; rather, it revolved around a ban that struck at the very heart of the state’s animal lovers: the Ferret Ban.

A ban that, to this day, continues to divide opinion and spark debate, with passionate ferret owners championing their cause with fervor. But what lies beneath the surface of this seemingly innocuous law?

Some argue it’s a matter of public safety, citing concerns over the potential threat posed by ferrets. Yet, dissenting voices counter that these furry creatures are no more dangerous than your average household pet.

Dig deeper, and you’ll find whispers of conspiracy, shadowy figures orchestrating the ban behind closed doors. Who are they, and what motivations drive their actions? Is there a hidden agenda lurking beneath the veneer of legislative discourse?

To unravel the enigma of Ferretgate is to embark on a journey fraught with twists and turns, a narrative woven with intrigue and suspicion. It’s a tale that stretches back through the annals of California’s history, intertwined with the fabric of its politics and society.

But amidst the chaos and confusion, one truth remains: the ferret ban is more than just a legal decree. It’s a symbol of defiance, a rallying cry for those who refuse to be silenced in the face of injustice.

As the spotlight shines on California’s ferret enthusiasts and detractors alike, one question looms large: who dunnit? And perhaps more importantly, why?

Join us as we delve into the depths of Ferretgate, uncovering the secrets that lie beneath the surface and shedding light on a conspiracy that’s been hiding in plain sight.

In the words of Oliver Stone, renowned director and provocateur, “The truth is out there, waiting to be revealed.” And with ‘Ferretgate: The California Conspiracy,’ we intend to do just that. Stay tuned for an exposé that promises to challenge perceptions and ignite a furor unlike any other.

The post Unmasking Ferretgate: The California Conspiracy appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

An Appeal to the California Civil Rights Commission

Joe Ferret — Fri, 22 Sep 2023 17:37:54 +0000

I have been looking for legal assistance for a pro se lawsuit regarding the mis classification of domestic ferrets as wild animals. I have to say, the Legal Aid Society is worthless, but I found this state agency. It is worth a shot:

I am writing to bring attention to the current legal status of domestic ferrets in California, which are classified as wild and thus deemed illegal animals. As I delve deeper into my research, my limited legal knowledge becomes increasingly apparent, underscoring the need for expert guidance.

There are two primary concerns I’d like to address:

First: Challenging the Classification of Domestic Ferrets

I am initiating formal action to contest the classification of domestic ferrets as wild and illegal creatures in California. Grounds for this challenge include arbitrary classification, a lack of scientific basis, and potential violations of due process rights.

Second: CEQA/EIR Funding

We, the proponents of ferret legalization, have been informed by various Fish and Game Commission presidents that funding a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) / Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a prerequisite for consideration. We have willingly agreed to this condition, having invested $16,000 in a commissioned study by Sacramento State University. Regrettably, our efforts were dismissed, and we were recently criticized by F&G President Eric Sklar for not confirming our willingness to finance the report. I reminded him of our readiness, yet our attempts continue to be overlooked.

Charge: Failure to Adhere to Promised CEQA/EIR Funding Procedure

The California Fish and Game Commission expressly outlined that proponents of ferret legalization must bear the cost of the CEQA/EIR process. In strict adherence to this directive, the plaintiff diligently followed the Commission’s instructions in 2010.

Regrettably, subsequent interactions with Eric Sklar and the Commission have revealed a disconcerting pattern of inconsistency and neglect. Despite genuine interest in initiating the necessary procedures, the plaintiff has been met with repeated non-responsiveness from the Commission.

This deviation from the established procedure not only signifies a failure to uphold the Commission’s directives but also poses a significant obstacle to the plaintiff’s pursuit of ferret legalization. Such behavior indicates a lack of transparency and equitable treatment, impinging on the plaintiff’s right to due process and equal protection under the law.

The plaintiff maintains that this breach of trust and deviation from the agreed-upon protocol necessitates legal intervention to rectify the situation and ensure a fair and just process moving forward. This charge exemplifies the plaintiff’s unwavering dedication to the cause of ferret legalization and their resolve to hold those entrusted with overseeing this matter accountable.

Despite my efforts, securing legal assistance has proven challenging. I’ve been advised that challenging a state agency is a formidable task, and while we are not indigent, our resources are not limitless.

Any support or guidance you can provide would be immensely appreciated.

Thank you for your consideration.

The post An Appeal to the California Civil Rights Commission appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.

There Ought Not be a Law

Joe Ferret — Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:49:50 +0000

I always get a kick out of it when a Legislator comes up with “There ought to be a law” contest. Don’t they know there are already too many laws?

But my own assemblymember just sent such an email:

DO YOU HAVE A BILL IDEA?

Beginning September 15, 2023, I am launching our annual There Ought to Be a Law program for residents of the 79th Assembly District. We value constituent input and invite our community members and organizations to submit ideas for new laws. We want to hear from you!

Here is what I sent in:

Dear Assemblywoman Weber,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this question.

I wish there were “There Ought Not be a Law” as well, It is hard to get rid of a bad law once it is enacted.

Secondly, since I have only 1 wish here, my second wish is to get rid of corporate and PAC money in elections. Normal citizens can’t compete with special interests and elected officials such as yourself must cater to those with the funds to get what they want, i.e., special interests over grassroots.

But I have only one wish. I WISH THERE WAS A LAW TO LEGALIZE FERRETS.

Domestic ferrets are legal in 48 states. Have you ever heard of any downside to this? Occasionally someone gets bitten, but anything with teeth can bite. And ferret bites are unusual. Domestic ferrets were first widely bred for laboratory use, the pet industry is a secondary market. Marshall Farms, who controls 70% of the breeding in this country, has been breeding for a gentle temperament.

The ferret ban is wrong for a few reasons:

The classification of domestic ferrets as wild and illegal animals in California is arbitrary, unsupported by scientific evidence, and discriminatory, and it violates Due Process rights under the California State Constitution

California State Constitution, Article I, Section 7:

“Sec. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.”

Domestic ferrets are domestic animals and our right to own domestic animals is recognized by the California Civil Code:

The California Constitution guarantees its citizens certain inalienable rights, one of which is the right to acquire, possess and protect property.[FN3] Property in California encompasses a broad class of “things” and is defined in terms of ownership. [FN4] Accordingly, California’s Civil Code includes “all domestic animals” as property subject to ownership.[FN5]

CIVIL CODE – CIV
DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 – 1422]
( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 1. PROPERTY IN GENERAL [654 – 749]
( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1. NATURE OF PROPERTY [654 – 663]
( Title 1 enacted 1872. )
655.
There may be ownership of all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor or skill as the composition of an author, the good will of a business, trade marks and signs, and of rights created or granted by statute.
(Enacted 1872.)

Introducing a ferret legalization bill would be a risky venture for any legislator. The special interest, namely radicalized environmentalists would oppose it. I have seen that they aren’t pleasant people to begin with and they don’t let facts get in the way of what they want to say or believe in.

They quietly say that pet ownership is animal slavery. (PETA)

The Sierra Club is concerned about global warming and warns about the carbon footprint of providing food to meat-eating pets. The carbon footprint of domestic ferrets is a laughable concept, and that is why they tell the public about the possibility of domestic ferrets going feral and harming native wildlife. This has never happened, but it is believable that talking about pet slavery, or the carbon footprint of meat-eating ferrets would not be well received by the public.

I would be remiss not to point out the one downside to ferret legalization that we ferret lovers are most concerned about. The impulse buying of ferrets. Ferrets, more than most pets, are a serious commitment. We don’t want people to buy them on impulse and find out they are not up to ferret-keeping. Therefore, we think that a one-time license fee might be appropriate to boost the cost of buying a ferret. That money could also be used to help fund local animal control.

It would take courage to introduce a ferret legalization bill. But it would be healthy if all we got was an honest discussion of the subject. The authorities and I’m thinking of the California Fish and Game Commission, go out of their way to avoid any discussion of domestic ferrets, domestic vs. wild, and our right to own domestic ferrets as is practiced from Alaska to Patagonia except for California and NYC.

I imagine the special interest that you don’t wish to offend will keep you from even mentioning this bill, much less consider introducing it. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had more courage and pluck in this world? A world where the truly voiceless and powerless actually, occasionally, got a seat at the table. But this is California. And this is one reason so many of us are leaving it.

The post There Ought Not be a Law appeared first on Legalize Ferrets.