Ms. Mullin,
 
I am writing this letter to you as you represent the Sierra Club in the
following issue to which you have addressed on your website.  I have been an
advocator of the Sierra Club for over a decade, and am presently about to
finish my bachelor's degree in Wildlife Management at Humboldt State
University in California.  I strongly disagree with your statements below
and would like you to take my comments into consideration:
 
>Why is the Sierra Club taking a position on domestic pets?  California's
>sensitive and unique ecosystems need to be protected from non-native and
>potentially invasive species, including ferrets.  We cannot take the risk
>that a feral population of an introduced species could become established
>in this state.
 
1.  Ferrets HAVE NEVER BECOME FERAL IN ANY STATE and cannot exist in the
wild for any length of time in order to survive and breed.  Most ferrets are
spayed/neutered at the pet stores as well.
 
>California has strong public policy restricting the import of non-native
>species, and the legalization of ferrets would set a dangerous precedent
>for weakening that policy.
 
2. Are domestic cats and dogs native?  If so, then please take into account
that they are a major cause (at least feral cats are) of native and
threatened and endangered bird losses each year.  I have heard accounts on
islands of one, single, individual cat causing the exstinction of a bird
species.
 
>SC: Very few studies have been conducted on ferrets in the wild, so it is
>not surprising that there have been limited positive results.  A breeding
>population was found on San Juan Island in Washington during a 1970s rabbit
>study.
 
3.  Citation please!  Also, perhaps no studies are done on feral, ferret
pops.  because researchers can't find any...
 
>Even if there currently are no feral communities, which is unlikely, we
>don't want to risk starting one in a state with so many endangered species
>and fragile ecosystems.
 
4.  Fine, make it a law that they must be spayed/neutered in order to
own...simple enough, and this is a policy with most breeders anyway.
 
>SC: Ferrets are commonly found surviving in the wild, including in
>southeast Alaska in the middle of winter.  From 1985 to 1996, 58 stray
>ferrets were turned into a DFG facility in Rancho Cordova.
 
5.  Again, where is this data?  I/we need the facts and not just hearsay...
58 animals seems very low as well.  How many feral cats and dogs do you
estimate?  And what are the damages?  I can go round up a dozen feral cats
for a study within a square mile of my urban home in ten minutes for you if
you want...
 
>3) FF: AB 363 calls for all ferrets to be spayed or neutered, so under this
>law they could not breed in the wild.
>SC: That regulation would be very difficult to enforce, and even individual
>ferrets could have an impact on certain endangered species.
 
6.  Why would it be difficult for DFG officers to spend their time
investigating pet stores and breeders instead of stalking owners?
California residents are going to own ferrets whether you or the DFG like it
or not (with good reason) and we might as well make some control measures
for proper ownership (liscensing, spay/neuter papers/ etc.)
 
>4) FF: Ferrets pose less a risk to native species than cats and dogs.
>SC: This may or may not be true, but cats and dogs are already legal.
 
7. That sounds like "traditional value" thinking to me.  How are we going
to change our problems if we don't risk change?  Use the DFG money to
investigate this matter.  Do a comparison study on the damage caused by
feral dogs, cats, and ferrets.  The results should prove you wrong.  To my
thinking, cats are better at climbing (i.e. getting to arboreal bird nests,
etc.) and dogs are just plain hardy and fit to survive and reproduce with
indigenous coyotes (sorry not any wolves... we killed all those off...).
What is your research on feral dogs tainting the coyote and wolf gene pools?
Or do we turn a blind eye to "Man's best friend?" I want a discrete and
detailed account of how many humans (infants as well as full-grown adults)
are killed by pit bulls, etc.  every year...
 
>Since the Sierra Club took a positionon this issue, the Sacramento office
>and the national office in San Francisco have been the targets of a broad,
>often bitter, campaign by ferret enthusiasts.  We have been accused of being
>ignorant, prejudiced, and "bought off" by DFG, among other things.
 
8.  I don't believe that you have been bought off, but perhaps you need
their alliance for your goals.  Your ignorance to scientific fact is
startling though.  Why are the heads of our wildlife management so affected
by emotion and tradition?  I suppose you could initiate predator control
again to keep our native species safe and sound... Let's see what else we
can kill off in our attempts to secure the "warm and fuzzy" wildlife!
 
>Status: AB 363 was on the Assembly floor's inactive file as of last week,
>but the author gave notice of intent to remove it from the inactive file
>yesterday, May 19.  It will probably come up for vote on the Assembly floor
>next week.  Ferret fanciers have generated a lot of support for the bill
>with their phone, letter, and email campaign to legislators, and they have
>already won over a number of Assembly Members who are usually on our side.
 
9. The ferret-fanciers are winning because they are right in this issue.
Justice is blind, remember?
 
>Action Needed: Contact your Assembly Members and urge them to protect
>California's native species and habitats
 
10. If you truly want to accomplish this goal of "protecting California's
native species and habitats, I suggest that you ban logging in this state,
reduce the human populations (not 2 lb. ferrets), clean up our environmental
laws, and enforce 1-child-per-family birth rates on the country to cut down
on human impact.
 
>by voting no on AB 363. Ask them not to relent to pressure from ferret
>advocates, many of whom live out of state.
 
11. No, most of us live IN CALIFORNIA, we just don't want to go to jail or
have our ferrets killed before our eyes on our doorsteps (the truth is
bloody).
 
>Tell them that it is important to you that California maintain its strong
>public policy prohibiting the introduction of non-native species.
 
12. As for native species... How can you even attempt to restore California
or ANY REGION on the earth to it's original state, and how exactly do you
know what it's origins were?  Again, is this based on the public support for
warm, fuzzy, non-threatening animals...?  Are you going to reintroduce the
California Grizzly?  Let's see you get a bill passed for that one!  It
wouldn't even be the true race anyway, those genes were exterminated back in
the 1930's, remember?  Try as we might to re-inroduce the California Condor
into the wild, our human populations prohibit it... why don't you try fixing
the real problem... TOO MANY HUMANS!!!!!!!!!!
 
>Action Needed: Contact your Senators and ask them to support this important
>bill for California's public health.
 
13. Public health?  Please define this catch-all phrase that doesn't even
apply to wildlife in any way whatsoever.
 
Thank you for listening.  Please change your views, or give me some concrete
evidence (DATA) that suggests that your claims are not founded entirely in
emotional or traditional heresay.
 
    David Doyle
    Wildlife Biologist
    Humboldt State University,
    California
    [log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 1959]