This gave me a chuckle - was browsing "ferrets" and illegal - which
I do occasionally here in Ca, and found this amusing query from a
non-ferret owning member of the public (BTW Imperial Valley is on the
border with California so people from Imperial shop in Ca stores):

 From the Imperial Valley Press Online:

"Why sell ferret supplies if ferrets are illegal to own?

July 11, 2013
Just curious ­ we were in Petco near the mall last week and, while
California bans ferrets as pets, there's an entire aisle dedicated to
ferret food and supplies. What's up with that? Is there that much of
a demand for ferret gear? They are kinda cute ­ my daughter would get
one if she could. ­ Mom, Imperial "

Answer
Anywho, this is not the first time the state Department of Fish and
Wildlife has been asked this question about pet stores, and DFW
spokesman Andrew Hughan had to search his heart for the politically
acceptable answer. (poor guy - hard to find a good logical one at all
probably, let alone politically correct, MAF)

"The Department of Fish and Wildlife has no regulatory authority over
what is sold in pets stores," he said. "And although ferrets are
illegal to possess in California, we understand that there are ferret
owners and we appreciate them at least taking care of them in the
proper way."

(Guess he got himself out of that one pretty well).

The rest of the article says that "According to a fact sheet put ou
by Fish and Game (which changed its name to Fish and Wildlife on Jan
1), there are three main reasons why the state has not considered
legalizing ferrets:
1. they may bite and are prone to bite or scratch children and infants,
(hah - dogs/cats tend to do that as well occasionally - and do a lot
more damage)
2. there is no proven vaccine against rabies in ferrets (huh?) and
ferrets may threaten native wildlife (hhmm what about cats Mr Hughan?).

The article continues:
There are many groups that will dispute those findings (any
Californians who have met or own ferrets), and they may have good,
sound arguments (yes we do). However, the main cause for concern with
Fish and Wildlife, Hughan said, is ferrets are a nonnative species
(Hello - what about cats and dogs Mr Hughan?), and the highest priority
of the department is to not allow nonnative species into California
because of the potential damage they can do to the state's ecosystem".
And what damage is that I wonder - no-one seems to say what the
potential damage might be - particularly since any escapees either get
killed by cars, dogs, coyotes, great horned owls,or raccoons.

I get really irritated at the poor reasons and the sheer stupidity of
the out of date part of the DFG code. When all the other
exotics/domestics that are allowed here : Iguanas? and what about Zebra
fish? and what about domestic rabbits? Who wants to ban those? Somehow
there isn't much logic involved. Poor guy. You have to feel some
sympathy for having to defend an indefensible position.

However the only good outcome is we have fewer abandoned ferrets here -
there's always someone looking for a ferret and there are always a few
older animals that find homes because of people like me. We like/feel
sorry for the older animals that need a home (along with the occasional
young one who whose owner has personal problems and needs to rehome
it).

Guess Mr Hughan did the best he could.

For the original article without my snarky comments see
http://articles.ivpressonline.com/2013-07-11/pet-stores_40498452

Meryl

[Posted in FML 7849]