Cross Posted with permission from Jeanne Carley:
 
Before I completely sign off from AOL (which will happen tomorrow), I
wanted to send out this one last message, in case I lose some of you.
I wanted to make sure you all have solid information about something
you might have heard about or seen over the Internet concerning a
possible ferret ballot initiative.  Below are the arguments against
such an initiative, which are not just my opinion but are views shared
by our lobbyist, Bob Naylor and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
lobbyist, Kevin Pedrotti.  Both see a failed initiative as deadly to
our issue.
 
I urge you to continue to support AB 647 by writing to the Governor and
to your State Senator, and I also urge you to not do anything to hurt
future efforts to change the law in California should AB 647 fail.  If
this bill fails, we lose nothing but time.  If the ferret initiative
fails (the only reason I don't lose a lot of sleep on this issue is
that the chances of making it to the ballot are pretty much nil) we do
serious harm to anyone trying to change the law through the legislature--
a method that has worked in other states or even the judicial avenue.
A loss would kill any efforts to change the law banning ferrets in
California for the forseeable future.
 
If you take the time to read the information below, I think you'll see
very clearly why the initiative is such a bad idea for our issue.  I
urge the statewide Ferrets Anonymous organization to take a strong
position against supporting such a dangerous move by folks wanting to
help but unaware of the consequences.
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
The Hidden Dangers of the Initiative Process
 
Some folks are talking up the idea of starting a ballot initiative for
ferret legalization, since the past bills have failed.  I believe we
should see our current bill through for several important reasons, not
the least of which is that an initiative is a losing proposition for
ferret legalization that could actually result in some severe and
unintended consequences.
 
Successful initiatives are those that touch a majority of households and
therefore a majority of voters.  These kinds of issues also have lots
of money at stake and therefore some well healed backers in the form of
Political Action Committees or professional associations.  Taxes and
insurance are good examples the kinds of issues that ballot initiatives
often address.  The ferret issue isn't the kind of issue that is
appropriate for the initiative process because it does not affect the
majority of voters in California and there is no large money machine
behind the issue.  Just gathering the necessary signatures is a huge
undertaking, employing paid signature collectors and costing somewhere
around a million dollars.  There simply aren't enough volunteer ferret
supporters to be able to accomplish such a feat.  But if the issue did
manage to qualify, then the real nightmare would begin.
 
What some of our supporters may not know, is that even our friends in
the legislature feel that the study in AB 647 is necessary to ensure
that California's Environmental Quality Act is not threatened.  Senator
Sheila Khuel, chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and
consistent co-author of many, if not every ferret bill, did not want to
see CEQA circumvented in any way.  Neither of course did the Governor as
was evident in his veto message for SB 89, the first bill to reach the
governor's desk in 2004.  If the ferret initiative managed to qualify
for the ballot, I have no doubt that when interviewed by the media, both
the Governor and Senator Khuel would express concern that we are trying
to go around CEQA with an initiative.  Do I agree with this position?
No.  This issue needs no more study.  But what has to concern us, is
what will average Californian might think?  Would they support an
initiative that puts the California Environmental Quality Act in
jeopardy?  The answer is no.
 
In fact, one of my biggest objections to the ferret initiative is that no
one has taken the time or spent the money to do done what any attorney
with an ounce of intelligence always does-- they know the answer to a
question BEFORE they ask it!  There should have been a statewide poll
taken, one with a positive question and one with a negative question  --
that way you have some inkling of what you might expect from any negative
advertising.  You don't just start a ballot initiative unless you know in
advance what your chances of winning are, especially if the downside is
so great as it is with our initiative.  If we lose (which, if we qualify,
we will) the door will shut tight on our efforts for a very long time.
 
Our fight has always suffered from lack of funds while the opposition
has hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal.  Remember who
our opposition is: CA Waterfowl, Planning and Conservation League and
the Department of Fish and Game.  What if this coalition decided to
spend some advertising dollars fighting a ferret initiative?  Can you
imagine a 30 second spot featuring a little girl's whose face has been
disfigured by the family's pet?  No doubt the "infomercial" wouldn't let
viewers know that the little girl now lives with her grandmother, her
mother was absent at the time of the attack, and is apparently is absent
now.  The father was asleep on the couch with signs of alcohol present,
according to animal control officers at the scene who stated that is
was his opinion that ferrets do not pose a significant risk to children
unless these is a gross parental neglect.  None of this would be
mentioned of course.  Nor would the fact that 16-18 people each year
are unable to address the potential danger dogs pose because they have
been killed by them.
 
Or maybe the Department of Fish and Game would use one of the ferrets
they keep as "research" (and feed live animals to) in order to show the
ferret's "natural" ability to kill live prey.  Never mind the fact that
these ferrets have been trained to kill and eat live prey, something no
cat needs to be taught.  Never mind that they prey is "delivered" to the
ferret, it didn't catch it in the wild, and never mind that same ferret
would be consumed by the first hungry hawk, owl, coyote or other wild
animal it encounters while it's outside looking for it's dinner.  So,
instead of just misleading the legislature and media about ferrets,
anti-ferret groups would now spread their misinformation to the public
arena.
 
These ads would not be countered by a 30 second spot in support of ferret
legalization because we don't have the money to buy the time let alone
hire an ad agency to film it.  As our lobbyist in Sacramento put it, "we
have no business supporting an initiative if we don't have a budget for
advertising."  In addition, should the initiative qualify but not pass,
opponents would claim that California voters don't support legalization.
Ferret legalization efforts would stop dead in their tracks and no judge,
or legislator would touch it because the people would have spoken.  I've
asked both our lobbyist, an attorney who works for a firm that handles
initiatives and the PIJAC lobbyist, and both strongly agree-- a failed
initiative would kill ferret legalization efforts for decades.
 
So, like doctors who take an oath to "do no harm," I believe we should
all take a similar oath to the legalization efforts here in California.
Let's work hard to keep all our viable avenues open and especially let's
do no harm by slamming doors on the current or a future legislative
effort here in California.  Its best to recognize the political
realities, much as we might not like them, rather than deal with a
fantasy that in time will only reveal itself to be our worst nightmare.
 
Jeannie Carley
Californians for Ferret  Legalization
www.ferretnews.org
[Posted in FML issue 5188]