For some reason, many senators have an unreasonable atitude towards the
owners of pets.  Domestic, exotic or tamed wild animals.  They seem to have
this odd idea that since a few seedy zoos, poorly run petting zoos or
breeders have abused or neglected animals in the past, either from ignorance
or laziness, that all people who keep animals are evil.  Their solution is to
burn down the orchard to kill a few bad apples.
 
  For this reason, people who keep any animal, exotic or otherwise, should
work on educating people on how to properly keep pets, livestock, zoological
exibits, lab animals or others.
 
  Our ansestors domesticated many species of animal, thus it is natural for
us to want to keep animals.  I'm not saying that this is good or bad of the
human race.  What I am saying is that once a person has an animal in their
care, they should do all they can to be a responsible caretaker of that
animal or animals.
 
  Many people would try to say 'set them free' or 'wild animals should remain
in the wild', but this isn't always to best for the animal, as many species
are domesticated and cannot survive in the wild, many of the wild species that
have been raised for several generations in zoos or breeding programs are often
not able to survive in the wild either and sometimes even the animals left in
the wild are in danger due to habitat destruction or a small gene pool in the
case of some of the CITES species.
 
  Many senators see ferrets as a wild animal, though we know they are
domestic.  But even if they were wild, quality of life in the wild is often
not good for the animal.  So claiming that ferrets are wild animals and that
wild animals are not good as pets or should be left in/returned to the 'wild'
is not a valid argument.
 
   Claiming that keeping ferrets illegal as pets is protecting the public is
also not a valid argument, otherwise cars would have to be outlawed, as
well as any factor in society that might pose a danger.  We cannot all live
in safely padded rooms, breathing filtered air and isolated from the outside
world, but we are slowly headed that way with every law passed that is
suposedly for our own good.  Seat beat laws, helmet laws, leash laws, smoking
laws, etc. etc.  How many laws will be passed to protect the ignorant or
stupid people from themselves?  Why can't they educate people and leave it up
to them weither they wish to use what they learn?  People don't need government
to be their parents...Many of the people in government can't even raise their
own kids, so what makes them think they can do the right thing with the rest
of the country?
 
  What is it that the more pigheaded senetors are realy afraid of?  That if
they let the 'child' have its way, that it may become spoiled?  They
certainly can't be all that worried about ground nesting birds or children
getting biten.  The birds are already at the mercy of native preditors and
children will always get biten, even if it by other children.  Are they
worried that people will abuse their new 'pets' if they allow them to have
them?  They certainly never worried about this when people were buying pot
bellied pigs or chinchillas..So why are they worried about ferrets?
 
  Is it just hatred of weasels?  The fear born of myths about blood sucking,
vicious predators?  Pigs are omnivores and chinchillas are herbivores, but they
are completely legal as pets, yet the ferret, who in reality is an omnivore, but
in veiwed historicly and mythicaly as a carnivore, is prohibited.
 
  What we need is to dispel the myths with facts.  The senetors need to step
down from their high horses, admit their ignorance and LEARN about the animal
whos life as a pet in California is in their hands.  Only when they are
educated, can they understand what their vote means.  That they cannot simply
deny the people their rights to keep pets of any species, just by passing
laws without consulting the people.  The people of California are not little
children to be told 'NO!' at every turn.  They have the right to tell the
government that they are grown up enough to make up their own minds, thus
they don't need laws passed without their consent or even their vote, like a
parent denying a child of a toy because they only 'might' hurt themselves
with it.
 
  Laws made without the vote of the people violate our rights.  Laws passed
in an attempt to protect people from 'dangers' that only effect a tiny number
of people or laws passed to protect people from their own stupidity are often
just a way for lawyers to make more money and often do not protect people at
all, for there will always be those who resent the law and break it anyway.
If laws must be passed, pass laws that further education, garentee medical
care, or help provide homes for people.  We don't need laws to protect us
from animals, just laws to punish irresponsible owners of them.  The animals
are not at fault and the responible owners or breeders should not be punished
for their actions.
[Posted in FML issue 1223]