>From:    [log in to unmask] (Marie Davis)
>I am posting an exerpt from the bill.  It's the amended portion, and it is
>a quote from the bill.  Although not the entire bill, it definately gets
>the point of interest to all of us across.
>
>This bill would delete that definition of ''wild animal'' and, instead,
>define the term ''restricted animal'' to mean any class, order, family,
>genus, species, subspecies, or any domesticated or other captive-bred
>variety, breed, or strain, or any hybrid as determined by the commission.
>The bill would authorize the commission, in cooperation with the Department
>of Food and Agriculture and the State Department of Health Services, to
>designate any animal as ''restricted'' in order to carry out the legislative
>intent of specified provisions pertaining to the protection and welfare of
>animals in the state.
 
I believe that this would also mean that F&G would be able to decide NOT to
declare a species "retricted" and regulate it, even if it was endangered.
 
So if you care about endangered species in California, you should care about
this bill.  It may actually lead F&G to *believe* they have power to flout
the Endangered Species Act.  Which (in the short term) is almost as bad as
them having the actual power.
 
Anyone care to call the Sierra Club?  I don't think it's even necessary to
mention ferrets to get them involved on this one.
 
-- Joyce
--- Joyce Miller, [log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 2355]