[WARNING: This is a long article!]
 
[Moderator's note:  I'm letting this through since it's a light day and
there seems to be useful info here... but it's another "fine line" situation
in my opinion.  BIG]
 
PREPARING FOR THE 1995 LEGALIZATION BATTLE
Jeanne Carley, CDFA Assistant Director
 
   What has been going on, you ask? Where should we start?
Jan Goldsmith recently called with the news that Senator Kopp would begin the
bill in the Senate this year due to the current (as of this writing)
speakership stalemate in the Assembly. Since no business can be conducted
until a Speaker is chosen, we hope that by the time the bill passes the
Senate and goes to the Assembly, we will have a new Speaker.
   I have also recently met with Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, Pet Industry
Join Advisory Council (PIJAC) counsel Marshall Meyers, the Fish & Game
Commission, PAW PAC (a political action committee for animals), and other
animal rights groups, as well as pet store representatives, Bob Vella and
Dick Freeman of A.S.U.
   My meeting with Assemblywoman Speier was very positive and she promised to
help us get the bill through the Assembly this year. Support for this bill is
particularly strong in her district and we expect her to be an advocate for
our cause. I also had the opportunity to meet the terrific candidate for
State Controller, Tom McClintock. He promised to look into the outrageous
spending by the Department of Fish & Game of any money on an issue outside
their mandate. Unfortunately, Mr. McClintock was narrowly defeated by
Kathleen Connell.
   CDFA lobbyist Bob Naylor, PIJAC lobbyist Kevin Pedrotti, and I spoke
briefly regarding possible language for our bill. We have some issues to iron
out and will hold out for the best bill for the ferret.
   I wrote some articles for Household Pet Digest on the situation in
California and I was a guest speaker on Pet Talk, a radio pet show hosted by
Bob Vella in Bakersfield. All of this has made it a very busy time for me and
a very important time for our legislation. I am generally very encouraged by
what has taken place.
   CDFA is in the unusual position of shouldering the financial burden of
supporting legislation which will bring this organization no monetary
rewards. Those who stand to gain financially are those involved in the pet
industry. Though PIJAC supported our bill last year, their support did not
appear very intense or especially effective. We have been advised that PIJAC
will fight any bill which precludes the sale of these animals in pet stores.
   On the other side of the aisle are some animal rights groups which have
told us that they will fight any bill which allows the sale of these animals
period. Animal rights people from diverse groups represented at a recent PAW
PAC meeting in Sacramento did not seem to mind that their opposition could
condemn these animals to continue to languish in the hands of a state agency
more interested in killing wildlife than in protecting domestic pets. By
opposing our bill, some of these people will make it clear that they prefer
to keep this animal underground, its legal status in limbo, and its owners in
the dark about proper veterinary care, than see this pet sold into homes in
California.
   Never mind that not one of the 47 states where these animals are permitted
is there an overpopulation problem. And 46 of these states have no
restrictions on sales of this pet. Never mind that our bill will have a
state-wide mandated spay/neuter requirement, and a clause that ensures that
pet stores only sell spayed or neutered animals.
   These goals have been unattainable so far by the very same people who
demand them of our bill. Some of these people have advised us that they will
support legislation which will permit ownership, but not sale, effectively
holding our bill hostage to legislation they have never been able to pass.
   Effectively in the middle of these two groups is the only organization
which puts these animals above itself, money, or ego-the CDFA. We have
nothing to gain if these animals are sold in pet stores. In fact, we are
concerned about the first couple of years after legalization. Our concern
stems from the fact that, because of the Department of Fish & Game's (DFG)
historical bias against these animals, not only is there a great lack of
information about this animal, but what information that is foisted on the
public is patently false, no thanks to DFG.
   We believe that PIJAC opposition will kill our bill, and since the
situation in California is unbearable for this domestic pet and its owners,
our bill will not preclude pet stores sales. But we will be looking for ways
to hold the pet industry responsible for informing potential buyers about the
pros and cons of owning these pets.
Our idea is to mandate that anyone selling these animals must supply or sell
information prior to sales. This would be effective for a period of two years
after legalization.
   We believe this will help California get up to speed on what these
domestic animals are all about and will help keep this pet from becoming
unwanted.
   We want to do everything possible to make sure we write a good, passable
bill, but we will not fight a battle against the pet industry that other
animal rights activists have not been able to win. We feel our mandatory
spay/neuter clause merits their support, and that this bill deserves the
backing of everyone who truly cares about animals.
 
 
RE-PRINTED FROM "FERRET FOCUS," January 1995
 
(c) Copyright 1995 the California Domestic Ferret Association and Image
Design Studios. Persons wishing to re-print this article must contact the
Public Relations Director at (510) 538-6642.
 
For CDFA membership information, call (510) 886-4210.
[Posted in FML issue 1078]