Name

English 100

Causal Analysis

Date

You Can't Own a Ferret in California

        Why? You might ask.  Because the California Department of Fish & Game classified the domestic ferret as a wild animal more than 60 years ago.  Despite grassroots efforts by many Californians and huge amounts of data that proves that the ferret is a domestic animal, the agency has refused to correct its mistake.  The California Department of Fish & Game is the only DFG that maintains the domestic ferret on the prohibited wildlife list.  Let's remember that the DFG is an agency whose reason for being is the control of wildlife not domesticated animals.  California is the only states in the United States that bans the domestic ferret as a companion animal. Compounding this problem and supporting the CDFG position are some very powerful organizations.  The Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and the Los Angeles Zoo.  The Sierra & the Audubon Society have argued that lifting the ban on ferrets will allow for the creation of feral ferret colonies as a result of lost or abandoned pet ferrets. They further fear that these feral colonies will be harmful to California's fowl life.  The Los Angeles Zoo as well as the CDFG have put forth that ferrets are dangerous animals and quite capable of harming children.

        In June 1998 my girlfriend and I had the occasion to visit the Los Angeles Zoo. We decided to start our visit by attending one of the zoo's regularly scheduled children's animal shows.  To the delight of the children and quite a few of the adults, one of the animals they brought out was a small sable female (jill) ferret.  She was coiled in the hands of her handler like a slinky with large, blinking inquisitive eyes darting back and forth across the audience.  After showing her around up close to many of the children in the audience, the handler when into a half-hearted explanation that ferrets where not domestic animals, they are dangerous to people, if let loose in the wild they are a danger to birds and they are illegal in California.  This irked me, as her explanation seemed too similar to the CDFG's position to be a coincidence.  I waited until after the show and then I approached the animal handler.  I told her that I had owned ferrets in Texas for many years as pets and so had many of my friends and not one of us had ever thought of them as dangerous creatures or had even heard they were detrimental to the fowl life.  I further told her that I didn't feel that the zoo had been fair in its representation of the domestic ferret.  She stood there a few seconds, then almost as if to see if anybody might be within earshot she looked left and right and whispered "I know".  She went on to explain that she also didn't feel that ferrets were dangerous creatures and that she unfortunately had to say so because the official position of the zoo is such.  That intrigued me so I asked her if it had anything to do with the fact that they have to get permits from the CDFG for their animals; she said "could be" and told us she had to go and prepare for the next show. 

        What all of this means is that in the whole U.S. only Californians are being denied the right to choose the ferret as their companion animal due to a mistaken and overbearing state agency and the misguided and paranoid fears of a few powerful special interest organizations.

        While the misclassification of the domestic ferret as a "wild animal" by the CDFG may be attributed to a simple bureaucratic blunder, there are many causes for the agency's continued resistance to legalizing ferrets.  The main cause is a report by the California Department of Health Services entitled "Pet European Ferrets: A Hazard to Public Health, Small Livestock and Wildlife".  This document reported on a study done by CDHS at the request of the CDFG in 1988. The findings and conclusions of this report have been used as the basis and justification of the CDFG's opposition to lifting the ban on ferrets.  The report makes the assertions that ferrets could establish feral colonies, that ferrets have a proclivity to bite thereby making them serious threats to children, that ferrets could be carriers of disease, that they could harm California's wildlife and finally that ferrets could be a problem to the state's poultry industry. 

        Indeed, the very language used by this report is indicative of their bias as in this quote from the same, "Ferrets were developed by man from polecats, which have a reputation for being extremely bloodthirsty, killing far more than they can devour and indiscriminately attacking any and all animals within range.  The savage characteristics of polecats were highly regarded and emphasized in man's selective breeding and development of ferrets Man's development of ferrets to be a more ferocious and effective predator than its polecat progenitor cannot be construed to be a form  of domestication like that of animals designed to be pets, beast of burden, or food animals (15 & 18)."  This is but one of many unflattering descriptions of our companion, the domestic ferret.  The fact that the CDHS is a large and respected state agency lends substantial weight to the report.  Unfortunately, the report is "so full of exaggerations, mischaracterizations, and sloppy methodology, that even an expert source on which it relied wrote a six page letter refuting its thesis and characterizing some of its conclusions as nonsense," according to Public Policy Fellow Michael Lynch in his brief "Ferreting out the Facts on the California Department of Fish & Game's War on the Domestic Ferret"  (2).

        The findings of the report, the language of the report and the CDFG's all out efforts to block the lifting of the ban on ferrets in California has apparently impressed the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and the Los Angeles Zoo.  The National Audubon Society has many times supported the CDFG's position by stating its fear for the supposed danger that ferrets could pose to fowl life. The Sierra Club is equally concerned with the possible danger to California's endangered species, like the Kangaroo Rat.  The Los Angeles Zoo is busy "educating" the public about the dangers of ferrets to people, even though their own animal handlers may not agree. It is also possible that the all three organizations, especially the Los Angeles Zoo need to stay on good terms with the CDFG. After all the CDFG issues the permits that allow them to keep, help and maintain their animals.

        Another factor to consider in examining the cause of the CDFG's ferret legalization opposition might also be bureaucratic turf hoarding.  Accepting that the ferret is not a "wild animal" would essentially mean that CDFG would lose control over it.  The purpose for the creation of the Department of Fish & Game was not to have jurisdiction over domestic animals, as a consultation with the Legislative Intent Service will confirm (Lynch 1).  Just imagine CDFG officials trying to regulate cats, which often prey on all sorts wildlife, birds and rodents included.

        Another cause is the unfavorable coverage given to the ferret by sensationalist media.  In Los Angeles Times dated 12/18/97 on the 4th page of the Orange County" section the following story could be read: "Twin Infants Injured by Ferret."  This story was later covered on one of the local television new channels. Happily the article goes on to report that the babies were doing well and in stable condition.  The question that goes unanswered is how many kids go to the hospital as a result of a dog attack, which never get reported on.  This leaves the public with a very bad image of the ferret. 

        Ferret enthusiasts, themselves, may also have contributed to entrenching the anti-ferret-as-pet mentality in the CDFG.  All the efforts to legalize the ferret in California with the exception of one have been grass- root campaigns. The current ban on ferrets in California is enforced vigorously by the CDFG. At the moment the penalty for having a pet ferret in California is a fine and possible death of the pet.  This coupled with the CDFG's arrogant unwillingness to own up their mistake and their opposition to legalization bills has resulted in quite a few temper flare-ups in the pro-ferret camp.  Some of these flare-ups have involved hate mail, hate email, harassing telephone calls and verbal confrontations with state legislators who voted against legalization and CDFG officials.  While this behavior may seem extreme we must remember that many of the people involved in legalizing ferrets have a lot stake, namely the lives of their pet ferrets.  There have been three different bills since 1996 to 1998 proposing the legalization of ferrets in California according to Californians for Ferret Legalization.  Unfortunately the CDFG and its allies have been able to stall the bills causing their death even when passed overwhelmingly through the House and Senate.

        Upping the ante even more so is a lawsuit filed against the CDFG Commission by the country's largest ferret breeder; Marshall Farms, USA, Inc.  This lawsuit was filed in December 9, 1996 in Superior Court in San Diego County.  The lawsuit seeks to reclassify the ferret as a domesticated animal (Marshall Farms).

        Finally, it is possible that CDFG feels that its reputation and creditability is intertwined with the issue of ferret legalization.  In view of all the resources that they have spent, their lobbying of other organizations to their cause and the pressure from ferret enthusiasts, the CDFG may feel that if it loses control of the ferret it may also lose face.

Works Cited

Constantine, Danny G and Kizer, Kenneth W. "Pet European ferrets: A Hazard to Public Health, Small Livestock and Wildlife." California Department of Health Services. December 1988.

Lynch, Michael.  "Ferreting out the Facts on the California Department of Fish & Game's War on the Domestic Ferret."  Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. May 1996.

"Twin Infants Injured by Ferret."  Orange County Section. Los Angeles Times. 18 December 1997.

Marshall Farms Vs. California Fish & Game Commission.<http://www.marshallpet.com/news/pr01.htm>.  (11 November 1998)

Carley, Jeanne.  "CA Updates."  April 1995-March 1998. <http://www.cdfa.com/archives/archive_cfl/cfs_cu_961223.htm>  (23 November 1998)