In issue 406 Jeb Weisman mentioned a few things about the mess with
legalization efforts in NYC.  I understand the issue to be a little
different and beg for clarification.  OK, here, as you all expect, are
some of my comments:
 
>Here in New York City there is an administrative ruling that you
>may not keep ferrets, though they are welcome in the rest of the
>state.  It is claimed that they are dangerous and disease carrying.
 
NYC calls them wild animals, and it is not legal to keep wild animals in NYC.
The state's attitude is marginally better - they still require a special
license.
 
>In the past representatives of the Health Dept. have shown up at
>people's doors, threatened them with jail if they failed to
>immediately surrender their ferret, and then destroyed the
>ferret within 24 hours.
 
I've *never* heard of something like that.  True, people have had their
ferrets taken away, but not without due process.  "Tickets", or summonses
are sometimes given out - just another revenue maker for the city - but
I'm not aware of ferrets being taken away unless neighbors complain, or
the ferret bites someone, etc.
 
>Keep in mind this is not a law, just a bureaucratic nightmare.
 
NYC Health Code Section 161.01.  Isn't that a law?  (Who knows, a "law"
might have a more specific meaning).
 
>It doesn't seem right to many of us.  So we're fighting it in court!
 
I am aware of one challenge that has been dragging on for about a year now.
It all started when a ferret bit someone, the someone went to hospital for
a tetanus vaccine the hospital reported the animal bite incident to the Dept.
nonsense.  Is this who the "we're fighting it in court" refers to?
 
One lawyer, William Bryk, who has been mentioned here before, took the case
pretty far (some of us contributed toward his fees, which he kept ridiculously
low).  Bryk was hoping to overturn the regulation using something called an
"Article 78 proceeding".
 
Turns out I met Mr. Bryk pretty much by accident a few weeks ago and I
unofficially discussed the case with him.  He said that the article 78
proceeding is on hold, because the city wants to criminally prosecute this
guy who owns the biting ferret (who *still* owns the ferret, by the way!)
and Bryk said something about not being able to bring the art 78 procedure
at the same time that this is going on.
 
Since Bryk is not a criminal lawyer, he is stepping aside until the time
is right to file the article 78 stuff - which might be very soon...
 
>This past Thursday, January 22nd, the judge in the case gave the
>defendant an ultimatum...
 
Actually, I believe this is the GOOD news!  For two reasons.  First, Bryk
told me that something like this has to happen before the city will bother
looking at an article 78 proceeding.  In other words, you have to show that
someone is being directly harmed as a result of this stupid law to have it
overturned.
 
Secondly, as I understand it, the judge did NOT say that the ferret must be
turned in because there is a law saying you can't have ferrets.  The judge
said (I think - I didn't see the judge's ruling, so can't swear by it) that
the ferret must be turned over because it bit someone and any animal that bites
someone must be turned over.
 
In fact, by Jeb's words, ("...either give up the ferret or the judge will rule
in favor of the City."), it seems like the judge does not want to rule in favor
of the city, but is just trying to make a point.
 
>...fine you, and threaten you with jail!  It also means that the
>City will have a precedent allowing them to do this to anyone, anytime.
 
Ehhh.. didn't you claim above that they do this already?
 
(Jeb then goes on to say that you should send a letter to the judge)...
 
This letter writing campain stuff may be a good idea - letters ARE very
important.  BUT... first off, if the court case right now has nothing to do
with the legality of ferrets in NYC, it is the WRONG time and case.  It is
the article 78 proceeding where the letters are necessary.  Further, is the
defendant's LAWYER calling for the letters?  If not, why not?  Does the
lawyer feel they would NOT be in the best interests of the client right now?
I'd usually feel much better sending letters to the lawyer and having the
lawyer and client select the proper letters to show.
 
I certainly am pleased that there is some movement.  My understanding of
the case may be incorrect - I will try to get some more info for the FML.
Even better - Jeb - can you explain some of what you said?  I'd like to
help - most people reading this would probably like to help -  but since
I don't see it the way you do Jeb, I'd like some assurances that this is
the proper way to proceed and not, in fact, hurting.
 
Bill
 
[Posted in FML issue 0407]