The Fish and Game Commission voted very quickly to adopt staff’s recommendation and deny our petition to remove ferrets from the prohibited species list.
There were two reasons for the recommendation to Deny. As stated in their report.
Any change to the regulation would require coordination with CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture) and the proposed action would effectively eliminate the Commission’s authority to regulate ferrets, with the exception of escaped individuals to the extent those individuals could be shown to have reverted to a wild state.
Because ferrets are admittedly domestic animals.
Secondly, right from the environmental report we provided them:
Regarding potential impacts to wildlife populations, the report finds that while the establishment of feral colonies is improbable, there is a possibility that escaped ferrets might do significant damage to wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds or listed species, during a period up to a few weeks of survival.
We merely hoped the Commission would grant further consideration so the issue could be studied further and these legitimate concerns could be investigated. We offered to pay for additional study. I was very surprised they voted to kill the petition with out question or discussion.
Five people spoke in favor of our position and one person, Mark Hennelly, Vice President of Legislative Affairs and Public Policy for the California Waterfowl Association spoke of the danger of introducing or legalizing exotic species in California, that New Zealand has a severe problem with ferrets (which aren’t ferrets, but polecat or polecat-ferret hybrids) and feral populations of ferrets in England.
Where do we go from here?
My feeling is to still proceed with the Fish and Game Commission. Do they have the authority to regulate domestic animal?
We can easily refute what Mr. Hennelly told them. But we need to deal with the issue of ferrets and ground nesting birds. They haven’t been a problem anywhere else – let’s gather up the info and present more data.
We also have an election coming up and new legislators. We haven’t had any success with legislators for ten years. But we did make new friends up there who said they would help.
So Fish and Game Commission – we’ll be back!
We will have the video of our portion of the meeting up shortly.
I saw throughout the whole commission and I feel that there is too little evidence at stake to prove the reasons to legalize ferrets in California. I felt there was promise but no action. A presentation would have been essential for this commission. I believe I can safely remind the organization that we need more evidence to prove the conning people wrong. Thank you.
Descenting them is a proven successful way to keep them domestic and to prevent breeding. Breeding should be illegal not the animal itself. Hawaii and California are the only states that don’t follow this procedure. There are people with pet ferrets that are relocated to California and then have to get rid of their beloved pets. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
First, DF&G does NOT have any legal authority to regulate domestic ferrets. Their position is predicated upon a list of prohibited species drawn up in the 1930s, BEFORE the existence of a domesticated ferret species was know to the DF&G. The correct, and only legal, interpretation is that ‘ferret’ on the list meant the North American Black-footed ferret. CA Constitution is very specific – all laws, rules, regulations, etc can ONLY be interpreted according to the standards AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN … and, since the domestic ferret was not known at that time, the list cannot mean domestic ferrets are prohibited. Furthermore, the DF&G is BARRED from using this list as the basis for ANY later laws, rules, regulations, etc. Second, the DF&G has consistently, and illegally, held themselves out as THE authority when, in fact, the Commission IS NOT QUALIFIED as an authority. UC Davis Veterinary College IS an acceptable authority. Third, CA Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to own personal property free from any molestation by authorities of the State AND it defines personal property as including domestic animals. This designation removes the DF&G as any legal authority as their Constitutional mandate is the regulation of wild animals ONLY, not domestic animals.
I know it’s not exactly the same, but as a law-abiding gun owner I really feel for you guys. California legislators haven’t been concerned with actual facts for years, only controlling the population as much as possible. Why confuse the facts with anything that might give our residents some actual freedom? Best wishes in your continuing efforts to legalize these neat little guys!