[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]