Legalize
Ferrets

After all, they’re called Domestic Ferrets!

Editorial illustration showing Petition 2025-003 being forwarded from the California Fish and Game Commission to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and disappearing into a “bureaucratic black hole,” with a ferret and the California Capitol.
Absurdity Doctrine

When Bureacracy Breaks the Law: The Absurdity Doctrine and Petition 2025-003

Every once in a while, a government agency offers an interpretation of the law so thin, so hollow, and so self‑defeating that it stops you in your tracks. That’s exactly what happened with Petition 2025‑003, where the State now claims the Fish and Game Commission satisfied all of its legal obligations simply by forwarding the petition to the Department. No hearing, no vote, no decision — just a handoff.

It’s the kind of argument that triggers a very real rule in administrative law: the absurdity doctrine. When an interpretation makes a statute stop functioning, courts reject it. And the State’s “forward and forget” theory doesn’t just bend the APA — it breaks it.

Read More »
California right to petition graphic asking “Does government have to answer?” with Petition 2025-003 and the California State Capitol
Administrative Law

Does California’s Constitutional Right to Petition the Government Include a Right to Eventually Get an Answer?

A California ferret petition has raised a much bigger question: if citizens have a constitutional right to petition their government, does the government eventually have to give them an answer? Our writ of mandate asks the Sacramento Superior Court to address what happens when a regulatory petition is accepted for further consideration but remains unresolved.

Read More »
Our comments on National Ferret Day
Administrative Law

Domestic Ferret California Ban – NIH, USDA Recognition and Petition 2025‑003

California continues to ban the domestic ferret (Mustela putorius furo), even though the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and California’s own Civil Code all recognize domestic animals as lawful property. NIH researchers emphasize that ferrets diverged from the polecat over 2,500 years ago and are now indispensable in biomedical research tied to more than $12 billion in federal funding. Petition 2025‑003 challenges California’s outdated classification, asking the state to align its policy with modern science and federal recognition.

Read More »
Illustration promoting a LegalizeFerrets.org article titled "Can the State Have It Both Ways?" featuring California's Capitol, scales of justice, Petition 2025-003 stamped "Accepted for Further Consideration," and books labeled Administrative Procedure Act and Government Code section 11340.7.
Administrative Law

Reading the State’s Demurrer: Arguments That Don’t Easily Fit Together

California accepted Petition 2025-003 for further consideration, yet more than a year later it remains unresolved. In its demurrer, the State advances several legal arguments that appear difficult to reconcile. This article examines those arguments and asks a much larger question: Can a California agency accept a citizen petition, refer it internally, and never issue a final decision?

Read More »
Illustration of a ferret trapped in a bureaucratic Catch-22. The ferret stands inside a bear trap surrounded by legal documents, a locked filing cabinet labeled “Accepted – Petition 2025-003,” a staircase leading to a “Dead End” sign, conflicting “Proceed” and “Do Not Enter” signs, a judge’s gavel, and a clock with no hands symbolizing a stalled government process.
Department of Justice

Petition 2025-003: How Acceptance Became a Catch-22

We thought we had won. In June 2025, the California Fish and Game Commission unanimously accepted Petition 2025-003 for further consideration. More than a year later, there is still no decision, no explanation, and no end in sight. What looked like progress may have become the ultimate bureaucratic Catch-22.

Read More »
Screenshot of the California Fish and Game Commission webpage describing the California Administrative Procedure Act and stating that the public may petition state agencies to change regulations.
Administrative Law

The APA Says Citizens Have a Voice. Our Experience Raises Questions

The California Fish and Game Commission’s website states that the public has the right to participate in the regulatory process and petition state agencies for change. That’s exactly what we did when supporters submitted a petition to remove domestic ferrets from California’s restricted species list.

What followed has raised important questions about transparency, accountability, and public participation. Public Records Act requests have revealed internal discussions, agency meetings, litigation-hold notices, and records that were initially denied but later acknowledged to exist. As the record continues to grow, so do the questions about what happened to the petition after it was referred to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife—and whether the process is working as the APA promises.

Read More »