OK, what I read is (the pertinent bits):
 
>AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-5-5 AND CHAPTER 6-1, B.R.C. 1981,
>REGULATING KEEPING OF WILD AND EXOTIC ANIMALS,
>
>6-1-4 Limitation on Possession of Exotic Animals.
>
>(a) No person shall own or keep any animal for which a state license is
>required 1 unless such person possesses the appropriate license from the
>Colorado Division of Wildlife.
 
>(b) No person shall place on public display, own, or keep, or feed any
>wild or exotic animal including, without limitation:
>
>(3) Skunks Mustalids (e.g. skunks, weasels, otters or badgers);
>
>(4) Poisonous Venomous reptiles;
>
>(g) For the purposes of this section, wild animals means animals which
>are free or feral, i.e., not subjected to human possession.  Exotic
>animals means animals which are not native to Colorado and which are
>normally wild in those areas of the world where wild populations exist,
>whether captured or bred in captivity, and also means those wild animals
>which are native to Colorado but which have been captured.  Excluded
>from the category of exotic animals are the following:
>
>insects, fish, birds, rodents, hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, and small
>non-venomous reptiles less than one foot in length, domestic house cats,
>dogs of any species or subspecies including wolves or wolf hybrids,
>beasts of burden which have been domesticated, (e.g. horses, donkeys,
>burros, mules, or llamas) cattle, sheep, and goats.  Notwithstanding the
>fact that they are domesticated in some parts of the world, elephants
>are exotic animals within the prohibitions of this section.
 
Now section 6-1-4, subsection b, list 3 (as corrected) lists "Mustalids
(e.g. skunks, weasels, otters or badgers);".  Now, since "e.g." stands
for "exempli gratis" meaning "for example", the Mustelidae listed are, by
legal definition, merely a sampling of the family of animals represented-
all Mustelidae, which would include 'domestic' ferrets.  Also, since
subsection g states " Excluded from the category of exotic animals are the
following: insects, fish, birds, rodents, hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, and
small non-venomous reptiles less than one foot in length, domestic house
cats, dogs of any species or subspecies including wolves or wolf hybrids,
beasts of burden which have been domesticated, (e.g. horses, donkeys,
burros, mules, or llamas) cattle, sheep, and goats.  Notwithstanding the
fact that they are domesticated in some parts of the world, elephants are
exotic animals within the prohibitions of this section." and since nowhere
in this group of listed exclusions do ferrets appear, one can only conclude
that the ordinance would disallow ferrets.  If someone from city hall has
stated otherwise verbally, then ferrets must be added to the list of the
excluded animals or they will be technically (and legally) disallowed,
despite the claimed intentions of the ordinance.  You never now, they may
be trying to be clever and to slip this one past ferret owners until it
is passed into law.
 
If you can see a specific place that ferrets are excluded from the
potential restricted exotics in this ordinance, please point it out to me
along with an explanation of your argument, as it seems to have slipped
past me....omission from the example lists means nothing, but clear listing
in the excluded list means everything as far as I can determine in this
particular document.  If you doubt me, run it past an impartial contract
lawyer and see what they say.
 
I am also looking at this from the point of view of a
herpetologist/herpetoculturalist, and by omissions combined with one
herpetofauna-specific exclusion ( "small non-venomous reptiles less
than one foot in length "), the ordinance also disallows most reptiles,
including virtually all snakes....a real potential disaster for reptile
hobbyists in the area.
 
G. A. Christian Bilou
[Posted in FML issue 3422]