BILL ANALYSIS
AB 647
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Lois Wolk, Chair
AB 647 (Koretz) - As Amended: April 20, 2005
SUBJECT : Ferrets
SUMMARY : Allows domestic ferrets to be owned as pets in
California without a permit if the owner can document the ferret
has been spayed or neutered if over six months old, and has been
vaccinated for rabies, and removes the ferret from the list of
prohibited wild animals, if the Secretary of the Resources
Agency, following preparation of an environmental assessment,
certifies that there is insufficient evidence that a significant
risk to California wildlife would be created. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires the Secretary of the Resources Agency to prepare or
arrange for the preparation of an environmental assessment to
determine the effects on the environment of the state of
removing the domestic ferret from the list of wild animals
that are unlawful to import, transport, or possess. Requires
that the environmental assessment be completed by September
30, 2006.
2)Authorizes the Secretary to enter into an agreement to utilize
existing resources of the Office of Planning and Research, the
California Research Bureau, the University of California, the
California State University, or any similar institution to
assist in obtaining scientific data for the environmental
assessment.
3)Specifies certain information that shall be taken into account
in conducting the assessment.
4)Requires the Secretary, upon completion of the environmental
assessment, to provide a copy to the Legislature and to the
Fish and Game Commission, and to make the assessment available
to the public on the Secretary's website.
5)Requires the Secretary, within 60 days after completing the
assessment to hold a hearing on whether a significant risk to
California wildlife would be created if the ferret were
legalized.
AB 647
Page 2
6)Requires the Secretary, within 30 days following the hearing
to determine, and certify such determination to the
Legislature, whether a significant risk to California wildlife
would be created if the ferret were legalized.
7)Provides that if the Secretary certifies that there is
insufficient evidence that a significant risk to California
wildlife would be created, then Sections 2 and 3 of the bill,
allowing ferrets to be owned as pets if neutered or spayed
after six months and vaccinated for rabies, and removing the
ferret from the list of prohibited wild animals if the owner
can document the animal has been neutered or spayed and
vaccinated, shall take effect.
EXISTING LAW prohibits the importation, transportation,
possession, or release into this state, except under a revocable
and non-transferable permit, any wild animal, including any
member of the family Mustelidae, which includes domestic
ferrets. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requires preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR)
prior to the adoption of a project by a state regulatory agency,
such as the Fish and Game Commission. Removal of a species from
the list of prohibited species is considered a project for
purposes of CEQA.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown, but potentially significant costs to
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and local governments for
enforcement of neutering and vaccination documentation
requirements. Unknown costs to the Resources Agency to conduct
an environmental assessment, and to other state institutions the
Resources Agency may contract with to assist in obtaining
scientific data for the assessment.
PRIOR LEGISLATION : From 1994 through 2004 a bill has been
introduced each Legislative session to legalize ferrets. The
first bill to get through both houses of the Legislature was
last year's SB 89 by Senator Alpert. SB 89 would have granted
amnesty to existing ferret owners, and then required the DFG to
have an environmental impact report (EIR) completed to determine
whether the ferret should be removed from the list of wild
animals which are currently unlawful to possess as pets in
California. SB 89 was vetoed by the Governor. In his veto
message, the Governor indicated that he was vetoing the bill
because it was too bureaucratic and because an EIR had not been
AB 647
Page 3
completed. The Governor stated that an EIR should be completed
and evaluated as part of the decision making process before
changing the legal status of ferret ownership and possession.
This year's bill, as introduced, did not require an EIR and
simply proposed to amend the statute to legalize the possession
of ferrets as long as they have been vaccinated against rabies
and spayed or neutered. As amended, this bill would require
completion of an environmental assessment and a determination
and certification by the Secretary of the Resources Agency that
there is insufficient evidence of a significant risk to
California wildlife before the proposed legalization of the
ferret would become effective.
COMMENTS :
1)What are ferrets ? The domestic ferret is a member of the
weasel family and a subspecies of the European Polecat, with
which it can interbreed. The scientific name of the domestic
ferret is Mustela putorius furo. Domesticated for at least
2,500 years, the ferret was originally used to hunt burrowing
animals and rabbits.
The sponsors of AB 647, Californians for Ferret Legalization,
indicate that the Pet Industry Advisory Council estimates the
United States ferret population at a total of 5 million
animals. The sponsors also estimate that several hundred
thousand ferrets are already living in California. However,
the American Veterinary Medicine Association estimates there
were only 791,000 ferrets living in the entire United States
in 1996. Data on sales of ferret food in pet stores indicate
that 20% of the ferrets in the United States are in
California, which would put the California population at
approximately 160,000.
2)Are ferrets a potential threat to native birds and other
native wildlife ? Proponents claim that domestic ferrets
cannot live for more than a few days in the wild because they
lack the instinct to hunt, seek shelter or avoid predators.
They also point to the absence of evidence of substantial
problems in other states that allow ferrets as proof that
legalization of ferrets in California would not be detrimental
to native wildlife. However, a recent review of the literature
by a UC Davis researcher found that it may be possible for
ferrets to establish feral populations in California. As
noted above, ferrets were originally bred as hunters to
AB 647
Page 4
control rats, rabbits, and other rodents. Feral cats have
caused considerable damage to native birds. The experience of
the state of Hawaii with the mongoose, which was introduced to
control rats, illustrates the tragic consequences that can
occur with the introduction of non-native species into a new
habitat. The mongoose, which was unchecked by natural
predators, had a devastating impact on Hawaii's native bird
population, many of which have since gone extinct.
DFG and the Fish and Game Commission have expressed concern that
escaped ferrets could cause damage to other wildlife,
especially birds. They point to the fact that ferrets have
become a problem in New Zealand, where they were introduced
100 years ago to control rabbits. Ferrets have been found
preying on the nests of wild birds, including the Kiwi, New
Zealand's national bird. Ownership of ferrets as pets has now
been prohibited in New Zealand, which has a climate and
landscape similar to California's. Feral populations of
ferrets are also said to exist in Great Britain and the Island
of San Juan in the State of Washington, although the latter is
disputed.
In 1996-97, the DFG completed a survey of other states.
Although no states reported any documented evidence of ferrets
breeding in the wild, three states reported suspected breeding
in the past, and five states reported having documented
evidence of free-living ferrets having survived more than a
few days in the wild. Two states (New Mexico and Georgia)
reported that sightings of stray ferrets in urban areas were
common and frequent. However, the survey is of limited
value since 86% of the states reported that they had taken no
efforts to assess the status of ferrets in the wild.
A review conducted by the California Research Bureau in 1997
concluded that "it appears improbable that domestic ferrets
could establish feral colonies in California, given the risks
of ferrets themselves becoming prey. While individual ferrets
might survive up to a few weeks in the wild, they are very
unlikely to survive longer than that. Despite the lack of
documented examples, the possibility cannot be excluded that
escaped ferrets might do significant damage to wildlife, such
as ground-nesting birds, and possibly including endangered
species, during a period up to a few weeks of survival, even
without establishing continuing colonies. Ongoing releases or
escapes of domestic ferrets might replenish the population in
AB 647
Page 5
the wild, even if the animals were not reproducing, and this
could contribute to a continuing hazard to wildlife." The
report further pointed out that ferrets would be less likely
to pose a hazard if ferrets were required to be spayed or
neutered and registered to encourage compliance.
3)Do ferrets pose a threat to public safety ? Although there
have been known cases of ferrets attacking humans, proponents
contend that statistics show dogs are far more likely to bite.
However, due to the covert nature of ferret ownership in the
state currently, statistics on attacks by ferrets are
difficult to obtain.
4)Support . Californians for Ferret Legalization, the sponsor of
the bill, claim that the Fish and Game Commission has been
arbitrary and unreasonable in prohibiting ownership of ferrets
in California. They point out that all other states except
California and Hawaii permit ferrets to be possessed as pets,
and that Californians are unfairly criminalized for doing
something that citizens in the rest of the country can do
legally. The California Veterinary Medical Association
supports this bill because it believes the prohibition on
ferret ownership is a deterrent to good veterinary care. On
this point, it should be noted that in 2002, legislation
sponsored by this committee was enacted that removed the
penalty in law for veterinarians who treat unlawfully owned
ferrets.
5)Opposition . The DFG and the Fish and Game Commission fear
escaped ferrets could cause damage to wildlife, especially
native birds. As noted above, ferrets have posed problems in
New Zealand, and although the bill would require that the
ferrets be spayed or neutered, this would be difficult to
enforce. The Planning and Conservation League, Defenders of
Wildlife, and the California Waterfowl Association oppose the
bill unless amended to first require that an EIR be completed
and evaluated prior to legalization of ferret ownership.
6)Should an EIR be completed before determination is made on
legalization? Proponents of AB 647 object to the notion that
an EIR should be completed before ferret ownership is
legalized. They argue that an EIR should not be necessary to
remove domesticated ferrets from the list of wild animals
since they did not belong on the list in the first place.
They further argue that there has been no evidence in other
AB 647
Page 6
states of environmental problems with ferrets, and so an EIR
should not be required. Others, including the DFG and the
Fish and Game Commission have raised concerns that ferrets
which escape could cause harm to native wildlife. Opponents
of the bill have urged that an EIR be completed and evaluated
prior to the legalization of ferret ownership. The Fish and
Game Commission voted five years ago to require full CEQA
review of the environmental risks of legalizing ferrets before
they rendered a final decision on their legalization as pets.
This committee's analysis of last year's bill noted that this
science based approach would ensure that any potential
environmental impacts associated with the legalization of
ferrets are identified first, allowing for a more informed and
knowledgeable decision to be made on legalization.
The sponsors of this bill have raised concerns with the costs
and time requirements of a full EIR, and have also raised
concerns that the EIR process could be used unfairly as an
obstacle to block legalization. Notwithstanding these
concerns, the author has agreed to amend the bill to require
the Secretary of Resources to prepare or arrange for
preparation of an environmental assessment prior to
determining whether ferrets should be legalized.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Veterinary Medical Association
Californians for Ferret Legalization (sponsor)
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Next Level Animal Chiropractic
Capitol City Ferret Club
Numerous individual citizens
Opposition
California Waterfowl Association
Defenders of Wildlife (unless amended)
Friends of Animal Services
Planning and Conservation League
Several individual citizens
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096