Hello FMLers, A few days ago there was a post suggesting that our legalization efforts for the ferret might want to consider other animals such as the hedgehog and sugar gliders. I received an e-mail just before that post which asked if Californians for Ferret Legalization had an interest in legalizing other "exotic" (his word, not mine) animals. Here's my reply: -------------------------------------------------- Hello Dan, Your question about whether I have an interest in legalizing "other exotic small animals" is one I'm often asked. First of all, let me explain very clearly that ferrets are not exotic in the same sense as hedgehogs and sugar gliders, UNLESS, you wish to broaden the term exotic (which simply means non-native) to include all animals, wild and domesticated, that are not native to the U.S. Would it surprise you to know that NO domesticated animals are native to this country? Dogs, cats, horses, goats, pigs, rabbits, etc., are domesticated animals, like the ferret, and all have thier origins, as does the ferret, in Europe and Asia. So, applying the term exotic to the ferret is not appropriate unless it is applied equally to all non-native animals whether they are wild, or domesticated. As far as the legalization of hedgehogs and sugar gliders, I believe that wild animals are best left in the wild, for their own good. Domesticated species, however, have been literally altered by man to need and depend upon him. The ferret, for example, is so dependent that it cannot even survive on its own outdoors for any length of time. It has lost its ability to hunt and avoid predators. There are no documented feral populations of domesticated ferrets anywhere in this country. Setting that argument aside for the moment, Californains for Ferret Legalization believes that the ferret, as a domesticated species is actually already a legal animal in the State of California. Its prohibition stems from the fact that it is mis-classified as wildlife, and finds itself as the sole domesticated species in a list of prohibited wildlife. (That's about as absurd as listing me, or you, in a list of deceased persons, and is why our arguments will eventually prevail.) In addition, historical legislative intent surveys show that the California Department of Fish and Game was never intended to regulate, let alone prohibit, domesticated species. That limit on their jurisdictional boundaries probably stems from the fact that domesticated species of animals are considered private property by our own state constitution, Article 1 , Civil Code Section 654, 655. Finally, to answer your question, neither I, nor my organization, have any interest or intention of including any wild animals in our quest for legalizing the domesticated ferret. The same legal arguments cannot be made, and, in my opinion neither can the same moral or ethical arguments since wild animals do not depend upon us for their well being. Sincerely.... ----------------------------------------------- I believe that far too many people demonstrate time and time again that they barely have the capacity to give good care to the animals we've made dependent upon us. A look at the numbers of unwanted domesticated pets still boggles the mind. And to me it is very clear that far fewer of them will give good care to creatures that are less friendly, perhaps less engaging, or interesting in the long run, than domesticated pets. This is simply my personal opinion, but I am sticking to it. In any case, as I said in my response, we cannot make the same legal arguments for hedgehogs that we can for ferrets. We cannot claim that they are misclassified as wildlife! While I've come to really like Spike, the little hedgehog that DFG had me pick up, my heart breaks to see him frightened most of the time. He deffinitely perks up when his scrambled egg arrives though and I can also see the other side of the problem. When someone has a hedgehog or other exotic pet legally in another state, is a very good caregiver, and has to move here, should we break that established bond? No, I don't think so. I think those animals should be grandfathered in. But what's even more important vis a vis our efforts here is the danger of muddying the waters. We cannot and do not have the same standing to take issue with DFG on a wild animal that they've deemed either detrimental or a welfare case (in the latter, wild animals are banned more because folks can't take good care of them than because they're considered a pest). I most certainly don't want to see our very clear claim on an overstepping of DFG's mandate muddied by that controversy. Jeanne Carley Californians for (Domesticated) Ferret Legalization [Posted in FML issue 1840]