LegAlert #97-5

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Megan Mullin: "LegAlert #97-6"
• Previous message: Megan Mullin: "LegAlert #97-4"

******************************************************
Why is the Sierra Club Taking a Position on Ferrets?
******************************************************

AB 363 - One of the highest profile, most political hot potatoes to
hit the Legislature this year is AB 363 (Goldsmith), which would
remove domestic ferrets from Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
jurisdiction and allow them to be privately owned. Ferret fanciers
have been trying to legalize these animals for years, first by
lobbying the Fish and Game Commission and then by backing
legislative initiatives. Though Sierra Club California does not
normally become involved pet ownership issues, we strongly
oppose this bill and urge you to contact your representatives and
ask them to block its passage.

Why is the Sierra Club taking a position on domestic pets?
California's sensitive and unique ecosystems need to be protected
from non-native and potentially invasive species, including ferrets.
We cannot take the risk that a feral population of an introduced
species could become established in this state. California has strong
public policy restricting the import of non-native species, and the
legalization of ferrets would set a dangerous precedent for
weakening that policy. Considering the amount of time we spend
trying to repair the damage done by non-native species in fragile
ecosystems, we must try to prevent any further such damage where
possible. Ferret fanciers are a strong lobbying group, and they
employ a number of different arguments on behalf of their cause.
Here are some of their arguments and our responses:

1) FF: In the 48 states where ferrets are legal, there are no known
feral communities.
SC: Very few studies have been conducted on ferrets in the
wild, so it is not surprising that there have been limited positive
results. A breeding population was found on San Juan Island in
Washington during a 1970s rabbit study. Even if there currently are
no feral communities, which is unlikely, we don't want to risk
starting one in a state with so many endangered species and fragile
ecosystems.

2) FF: If they escape, ferrets have no ability to survive on their
own.
SC: Ferrets are commonly found surviving in the wild, including
in southeast Alaska in the middle of winter. From 1985 to 1996, 58
stray ferrets were turned into a DFG facility in Rancho Cordova.
This represents a limited geographical area during a limited time
frame, and not all stray ferrets found in the Central California area
would necessarily be turned into that facility. Many ferrets are
trained by their owners as househunters or rabbit hunters, and are
therefore skilled at predating on other species.

3) FF: AB 363 calls for all ferrets to be spayed or neutered, so
under this law they could not breed in the wild.
SC: That regulation would be very difficult to enforce, and even
individual ferrets could have an impact on certain endangered
species.

4) FF: Ferrets pose less a risk to native species than cats and dogs.
SC: This may or may not be true, but cats and dogs are already
legal.

Since the Sierra Club took a positionon this issue, the Sacramento
office and the national office in San Francisco have been the targets
of a broad, often bitter, campaign by ferret enthusiasts. We have
been accused of being ignorant, prejudiced, and "bought off" by
DFG, among other things.

Status: AB 363 was on the Assembly floor's inactive file as of last
week, but the author gave notice of intent to remove it from the
inactive file yesterday, May 19. It will probably come up for vote
on the Assembly floor next week. Ferret fanciers have generated a
lot of support for the bill with their phone, letter, and email
campaign to legislators, and they have already won over a number
of Assembly Members who are usually on our side.

Action Needed: Contact your Assembly Members and urge them
to protect California's native species and habitats by voting no on
AB 363. Ask them not to relent to pressure from ferret advocates,
many of whom live out of state. Tell them that it is important to
you that California maintain its strong public policy prohibiting the
introduction of non-native species.

And on another issue...
SB 1123 - In areas where commercial fishing for white croaker is
currently prohibited, SB 1123 (Hayden) would require that
commercial passenger fishing boats (party boats) post warning
signs concerning the contaminated white croaker when they allow
their customers to fish in those areas. Also, it would require the
posting of multilingual health advisory signs at public piers and
docks where fish are caught for recreation or sustenance purposes.
The bill would ban the sale of white croaker landed in Los Angeles
and Orange County unless the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) determines that white croaker in
those areas do not pose a health risk.

Status: SB 1123 is currently on the third reading file in the Senate,
and it will go to a vote this week or next.

Action Needed: Contact your Senators and ask them to support
this important bill for California's public health.

• Next message: Megan Mullin: "LegAlert #97-6"
• Previous message: Megan Mullin: "LegAlert #97-4"

Back to Sierra Club California Alerts page

Back to Sierra Club home page.

Sierra Club, 85 Second St., Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441, USA. Telephone (415) 977-5500 (voice), (415) 977-5799 (FAX). Sierra Club® is a registered trademark of the Sierra Club.