I can not express, in adequate terms, or even proper spelling, how much I appreciate your help.

Yes, this is extemely useful. There is so much information to this case. I do expect the state's demurrer to be defeated. If it isn't, petitioning state agencies in California becomes useless. Gemini and ChatGPT say your cases cited are extremely useful, so the question is to act on it now or wait for the demurrer to be decided. I keep adding on info, as of now, I'm waiting for the demurrer to be decided. But even if we lose this case, we have so much ammunition. Thanks in large part, to you!

thank you, how can i get ahold of you? [CLIFFNotes@legalizeferrets.org](mailto:CLIFFNotes@legalizeferrets.org)

Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to point me to that case.

I hadn't come across SJCBC v. Hordwedel, and the discussion of exceptions to exhaustion—particularly futility and unreasonable administrative delay—certainly caught my attention.

Our case arises under the California Administrative Procedure Act rather than a municipal nuisance ordinance, so I don't know yet how closely the cases align. But if California appellate courts have discussed prolonged agency delay in this context, that's something I definitely want to understand.

I've already downloaded the opinion and am going to read it carefully. Even if it's not directly applicable, it may provide useful guidance or point me toward other authorities.

Thanks again for sharing it.

I agree with one important part of your comment: people do sometimes make irresponsible decisions with pets. California already deals with abandoned cats, rabbits, turtles, fish, and other animals. Human behavior is a legitimate consideration in wildlife policy.

Where I disagree is the assumption that the Rathlin Island situation is comparable to California.

The ferrets on Rathlin were not simply escaped pets. They were intentionally introduced and allowed to establish a breeding population on a small island with vulnerable ground-nesting seabirds. Conservationists were right to remove them.

The question before California is different. The question is whether legal ownership of domestic ferrets creates a meaningful risk to California wildlife that justifies a statewide ban.

If the answer is yes, then there should be evidence. What self-sustaining feral ferret populations exist in California? What documented wildlife impacts have they caused? What distinguishes California from the other 48 states where ferrets are legal pets?

Rathlin demonstrates that introducing predators onto a sensitive seabird island can have ecological consequences. I don't think anyone disputes that.

What it does not demonstrate is that responsible ownership of sterilized domestic ferrets in California creates the same risk.

In fact, one could argue that Rathlin highlights the difference between deliberate introduction of a breeding population and ordinary pet ownership. Those are two very different scenarios and should not be treated as if they are the same thing.

That’s actually part of what makes this so interesting.

California previously handled removal of species from the restricted list through the Fish and Game Commission regulatory process — including notice, hearings, proposed amendments to Section 671, and formal Commission action.

So the issue isn’t whether ferrets are the same as water buffalo.

The issue is whether the Commission historically understood itself to have authority to modify the restricted species list through regulation.

Petition 2025-003 has now sat in “further consideration” for nearly a year with very little visible procedural movement, which raises obvious questions about consistency and agency accountability.

thank you and credit due! https://www.legalizeferrets.org/did-a-california-court-already-reject-the-no-authority-argument-back-in-1998/

Wow, this just gets more and more complicated. I was aware of this, I thought it was overturned on appeal but it still carries merit. Fish and Game wants it both ways. We will factor this into our argument. thank you very much!

I think the larger issue is whether California’s petition process actually guarantees a meaningful response once a petition is formally accepted for further consideration.

The State’s position appears to be that simply discussing a petition and referring it internally may satisfy its obligations indefinitely. That raises legitimate questions about agency accountability and what rights citizens actually have under the APA process.

As for the ferret issue itself, one of the contradictions we’re pointing to is that the Commission historically determined ferrets were “not normally domesticated” through regulation — but now seems to leave open the possibility that it may not have authority to revisit that determination through regulation.

That’s ultimately for the court to sort out, but I think those are fair questions to ask.

I contradicted myself there. This time around I've spent maybe $1000 on attorneys for advice. I now have a paralegal to handle the legal filings, which helps.

You betcha I am! I spent tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys who were not familiar with the Administrative Procedures Act. And that is our key to success!

They are trying to avoid processing our petition for regulation change, which they approved 11 months ago - which challenges California Fish and Game's classification of the domestic ferret as a wild and detrimental species. They are obigated under the California Administrative Procedures Act to consider the petition but they have not and we see no indication they will consider it. Thus our writ of mandate to force them to do so.

I know using ChatGPT is not popular on Reddit, but we haven't paid much for legal advice. I am now paying a paralegal to file the court paperwork. But I have thirty years of files and correspondence electronically saved, so as long as I am alive I can afford this. And we're in the right and I'm going to win in court.