Fur Is Flying in Sacramento Over Stalled Ferret Legislation

Lest you think that the speakership fight is just Capitol follies with no impact on real Californians or their pets, just consider the possible legalization of Mustela putorius furo.

It is doubtful that anyone under that golden dome in Sacramento is thinking in these terms, but the fate of the domestic ferret may hinge on whether Willie Brown (D-San Francisco, anti-ferret) or Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga, pro-ferret) emerges as the leader of the Assembly.

Brown, the longtime Speaker, is not merely against legalizing the weasel cousins as pets; last spring, he used a smidgen of his vaunted legislative legerdemain to delay a free-the-ferrets bill at a critical time.

One reason may have been that the sponsor, Jan Goldsmith (R-Poway), had fallen into the Speaker’s bad graces with his assertive ways and his opposition to providing free education to Mexican children who cross the border to attend schools in Goldsmith’s district.

When the ferret bill did arrive on the Assembly floor, it got the votes of most members present, but not the coveted 41 needed to pass. With Brown in adamant opposition, a bunch of Democrats found it convenient to be elsewhere when the vote occurred, a tactic politicians call “taking a walk.”

Now, Brulte is on the verge of sharing power with Brown, with the Assembly split 40-39 between Republicans and Democrats. Ferret owners, who have kept their pets despite the threat of confiscation and a $1,000 fine per animal, are joyous with pent-up anticipation.

“This is going to be the year that the ferret community has been waiting for,” said Bill Philips, Sonoma County lawyer, executive director of the California Domestic Ferret Assn., and beloved owner of Mickey the ferret.

“This is supposed to be a free country,” said Pat Wright of San Diego, leader of the politically active Ferrets Anonymous and owner of ferrets named Daisy, Gonzo and Pooka. “But if you can’t have a ferret, then it’s not really a free country.”

Despite the ban, Californians own somewhere between 100,000 and 500,000 of the small (two to six pounds), hyperactive critters with the cat-like teeth, bristle hair and tiny claws. Most are born outside California and are smuggled into the state.

As the legislative season opens, Goldsmith and Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco) have again submitted bills to lift the ferret ban, which dates to 1933. The agricultural lobby will again assert that unrestricted ferrets could ravage crops and bedevil livestock.

But that argument appears to be losing clout, as California now is one of only three states to still classify ferrets as wild animals, and thus not suitable as pets. Michigan joined the legalize-the-ferret fold in December.

The California Department of Food & Agriculture, which in the past has been foursquare against the creatures, has shifted to a position of neutrality on legalization, despite grave misgivings by some pest control specialists. Gov. Pete Wilson, meanwhile, has not declared himself vis-a-vis ferrets.

“Ferrets in their natural habitat, or as pets, may be fine, but once you let them loose, you lose control,” said Nate Dechoretz, a supervisor with the department’s integrated pest control branch. “Ferrets are exotic animals with no known predators, and to let them loose in an agricultural state like California is to risk problems.”

Despite assurances by ferret lovers that their pets are not a threat, Dechoretz remembers the havoc caused by the African clawed frog when it hopped away from pet stores and home terrariums and got loose in the state’s waterways and, more recently, the trouble in the Sacramento delta caused by the Chinese mitten crab.

But Philips said the agriculture department is clinging to ferret myths despite the lack of proof from states where ferrets are as legal as dogs and cats.

“There are three sure things in this life,” Philips said. “The first two are death and taxes. The third is that a bureaucracy will never admit a mistake.”

In the political season just passed, the 4,000-member ferret association did all the classic interest-group things: polled legislative candidates, alerted its members about who supports their wishes and who opposes them, and then suggested that the members vote appropriately.

“Why do we like them so much?” replied Philips when asked to explain the attraction to ferrets. “Because they like us. No pet likes humans as much as a ferret.”

The ferret constituency has come a long way in a short time. For several years, Wright and Philips and other activists amassed a collection of rejection letters and rude responses as they searched for a champion.

Then Goldsmith, a freshman, ventured forth with a bill last session and the years of politicking paid off.

A vote in March in the Assembly was 38 to 26 in favor, only three votes shy of passage. Although the bill was strongest among Republicans, there were some Democrats in support.

A few weeks later, Goldsmith asked that the bill be voted on again with the full Assembly present. The Speaker turned down Goldsmith’s request--which is often granted as a courtesy--and a motion to bring up the bill failed to get 41 votes, with a passel of Democrats missing in action.

So the Ferrets Anonymous newsletter this month alerted its members to the political significance of the speakership tussle: “Willie Brown opposed legalization in the past and made some jokes at our expense on the subject,” said the lead article.

A Brown joke about ferrets being rodents particularly annoyed the ferret community. Although legalization is the main goal of the ferret owners, a dollop of respect for their beloved pets is also important.

Said Wright, who once ran for the Assembly as a Libertarian on a ‘fair play-for-ferrets’ platform: “Ferret owners are tired of waiting.”