Hello FMLers,
Some of this information is not new to some of you, but it's important to
bring new subscribers up to date, and for everyone to be able to put the
latest crazy events in an historical context.
Almost a year ago, on August 3, 1995, Floyd Carley (my dedicated dad) made a
terrific presentation to the Fish and Game Commission after which the
Commission directed the Department of Fish and Game to reply to the charges
made-- that not only was the ferret domesticated and therefore not in DFG's
jurisdiction, but that the department's misguided prohibition of the ferret
in California resulted in wasted good will and taxpayer dollars in the
regulation of a domesticated pet that is clearly safer to the environment
than most other domesticated species, and statisfically safer to people (by
a factor of 200 times) than the domesticated dog.
The department was ordered to reply at the November 1995 hearing (the fact
that it took 3 months will become clear to you as part a disturbing
pattern). That hearing, as many of you know, took place in San Diego, and
presentations were given by Assemblymember Jan Goldsmith, our resolution's
author, Dr. Dick Schumacher, Executive Director of the California Veterinary
Medical Association (CVMA), and by my father, who literally dismembered the
position taken by the Health Department against ferrets as a threat to
public safety.
After 2&1/2 hours of debate and nail-biting, the Commission voted 3-2 to go
to notice and publish their intent to remove the domesticated ferret from
the list of prohibited wildlife.
However, the Department of Fish and Game raised the necessity of applying
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) to our request, as a
prerequisite to going to notice. It was suggested that the "ferret folks"
help out with the study but the Commission's president at the time, Frank
Boren, said that he wasn't sure it was a good idea for us to be involved.
The department said that they could not spend the staff time on an
additional study at the moment, because of the need to write new mammal
regualations. DFG said that they would be able to start the study after May
1st and that it should take 2-3 months. This timetable was also confirmed
by the agency's counsel, Randy Christianson, at a hearing I attended the
following February in Long Beach.
To understand how CEQA is being used by the Department of Fish and Game to
prevent a final hearing on our issue, it's important to know something about
CEQA. By way of footnote, this information comes almost verbatim from the
California Policy Seminar (CPS) Report entitled, "Fixing CEQA".
CEQA has four purposes: 1) to inform the public about the potential,
significant (remember this word) environmental effects of proposed
acitivites, 2) to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or
signficantly reduced, 3) to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the
environent by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives
or mitigation measures, and 4) to ensure that a governmental agency
discloses to the public the reasons why it approved a project if significant
environmental effects are involved.
There is a three step screening process to CEQA. First, it has to be
determined if the project is subject to CEQA. There are classes of projects
which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
envionment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. There are also
categorical exemptions, and to guard against the possiblity that the list of
these exemptions is incomplete, there are general, common-sense exemptions
as well. Common-sense exemptions are those where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possiblity that the activity in question may have
a significant (that word again) effect on the environment.
If it is determined that CEQA does apply, additional study of the
envoronmental effects is required. Either a negative declaration or an EIR
(Environmental Impact Report) is then submitted. An EIR is expensive and
time consuming, and I've heard anything from $50,000-$150,000 as a possible
price tag.
Straight from the CPS Report comes the following statistics which clearly
reveal how the department is stretching this regulatory act to fit their
intentions. In 1990, 16,373 projects were determined to be CEQA projects.
Guess how many received negative declarations? How about 15,439! That
means 94.3% of all projects received a negative declaration. And these are
construction projects, grading land, diverting water etc.
And now for the clincher. This month, we were told that the department is
not doing any study on the ferret issue, that even though they were told to
do it they're not going to, and that instead of the negative declaration
that this issue deserves, a full-blown EIR is what the department is
expecting. Yes, in their minds, we're one of the less than 6% of CEQA
projects that has to go through such a hoop, because legalizing that bundle
of fur that spends its whole life comfortably in your home or apartment has
been determined by this agency to demonstrate the potential of significant
impact on the environment.
In other words, we've been lied to again by this agency and have lost eight
months of time waiting for them to put their new mammal regualtions on the
books before they began the study they told us they had to do, and were
going to do, before the Commission could even consider removing ferrets from
the prohibited species list.
I believe our issue is exempt from CEQA. There never has, nor will there
ever be, any significant impact on the environment from legalizing ferrets.
In fact, if any of you have ever lost a ferret, you know from your terror
that the environment has a much more severe impact on the ferret than the
other way around. Besides, applying CEQA to the removal of a domesticated
species from a list of prohibited wildlife doesn't make sense. CEQA or no
CEQA, that animal doesn't belong there and how can anyone justify applying
CEQA to an error? The moral equivalent of invoking CEQA in the ferret issue
would be requiring Rosa Parks to submit a financial impact report to the
Alabama municipal bus system before she could legally take that front row
seat.
In any case, the new story from DFG is that the agency now maintains that an
EIR is necessary even though CEQA clearly states that an EIR is required
only if it can be fairly argued on the basis of SUBSTANTIAL evidence that
the proposed project may have a SIGNIFICANT effect on the environment. As
most of you already know, substantial evidence points to the opposite--
because ferrets do not survive outdoors and establish feral colonies,
legalizing them will have no effect on the environment. DFG can't point to
a single example of ferrets impacting the environment anywhere in California
or this country. Requiring citizens to provide this kind of expensive and
time-consuming report before doing what is clearly the right thing is an
example of what has alienated so many good people from their government.
And get this. DFG's justification for their ability to regulate a single
domesticated species is, according to them, because it appears in the list.
A fantastic case of circular reasoning. I wonder if I could stop paying
taxes if I were mistakenly listed as deceased with the California Health
Department Services. Since these agencies believe themselves to be
infallible, I would probably cease to exist!
My father found out the bad news when he called Bob Treanor, Executive
Secretary of the Fish and Game Commission to find out when they might finish
their study and go to notice. He was informed that we are now expected to
do the study, that it is not, in their opinion a negaitve declaration, and
that an EIR is necessary because "of the controversy." Well, controversy is
not on of the 26 effects listed in CEQA as a reason for necessitating an
EIR. In fact, the crazy thing is that were it not for the outright lies and
misinformation from DFG on the ferret issue, there would be no controversy.
So, in effect, DFG tells us that because of their mishandling of what should
be a straight-forward correction to this list of wildlife, we are to spend
tens of thousands of dollars proving to them that legalizing ferrets won't
be a problem, when, in fact, all we should have to prove is that the animal
doesn't belong in this list by definition.
So, what to do? Everyone, please sit down and write your State Senator and
State Assemblymember. Chances are your Assemblymember supported our
resolution, HR 37, and it's a good time to take the opportunity to thank
them if you haven't already. Tell both of your representatives about DFG's
behavior on the CEQA issue. Use the statistics in this UPDATE, and tell
them it's unfair, and simply an effort to put off our chance to be heard.
Our resolution, HR 37, called on the Fish and Game Commission to do the
right thing by legalizing ferrets and the department has thrown up this
regulatory roadblock to such a final determination. Let your State Senator
know about the overwhelming 60-7 vote for HR 37 in the State Assembly, and
tell him or her about the CEQA stalemate. It's very important that you
write your State Senator. We need to pass in the Senate if we are to
accomplish this legislatively. Don't let DFG's latest outrage go by without
a fight. Get yourself, family members, friends, and even business
aquaintances involved in writing those letters.
Jeanne Carley
Legislative Director
[Posted in FML issue 1642]
|
