We filed our response to the State’s demurrer.

The Opposition argues that Petition 2025-003 entered a formal administrative review process after the California Fish and Game Commission voted to refer it to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and recommendation.

Our position is not that the court should order California to legalize ferrets immediately. Our position is that once the Commission accepted the petition into the Administrative Procedure Act process, the agency could not simply leave the matter in administrative limbo indefinitely.

The filing also addresses the State’s argument that the Commission may lack authority to reconsider ferret classification administratively. We believe that argument conflicts with decades of Commission conduct and with prior court history involving ferret classification.

We believe the public should be able to read the documents for themselves. These are the main filings and exhibits submitted in response to the State’s demurrer.

Multiple independent AI legal analysis systems reviewing the filings reached a similar conclusion: the State’s demurrer is not frivolous, but it may face significant challenges because the record now reflects a formal administrative process that appears to have stalled after Petition 2025-003 was accepted and referred for review.

One of the strongest factual developments was the discovery of the June 12, 2025 Commission transcript showing:

That transcript significantly weakens any suggestion that Petition 2025-003 was merely ignored informally or never entered an administrative review process.

The Opposition also shifted away from arguing only that Government Code section 11340.7 imposes a strict 60-day deadline. Instead, the filings now focus more heavily on unreasonable administrative delay, failure to complete an initiated process, and the Commission’s continuing obligations after formally accepting and referring the petition.

The filings also rely on historical evidence, including the 1998 Marshall Farms decision, which appears inconsistent with the State’s current suggestion that the Commission may lack authority to reconsider ferret classification administratively.

While no outcome is guaranteed, the case increasingly resembles a recognizable administrative-law dispute concerning agency procedure, delay, and statutory duties rather than a simple policy disagreement about ferrets.

The State filed demurrers asking the court to dismiss the case at the pleading stage. These filings are important because they show the State’s position on agency discretion, Government Code section 11340.7, CDFW’s role, and the Commission’s claimed authority regarding domestic ferret classification.

For decades, California has treated domestic ferrets as prohibited animals based on the regulatory claim that they are “not normally domesticated in this state.”

But if the Commission has authority to classify ferrets in that way, the obvious question is whether it also has authority to reconsider that classification when presented with a petition, evidence, public comment, and modern regulatory arguments.

That is one of the central issues now emerging from the case. The filings frame the dispute as a question of administrative procedure, agency accountability, unreasonable delay, and regulatory authority.

The State will have an opportunity to reply. The court will then consider whether the case should be dismissed at the demurrer stage or whether the petition states enough of a claim to proceed.

We believe the strongest point is simple: the Commission formally acted on Petition 2025-003, referred it for review, and then failed to bring the process to a final written conclusion.

Whether the final answer is yes, no, or something in between, Californians deserve a transparent process supported by records, reasoning, and accountability.

Legal work, research, public records requests, filing fees, outreach, and public education all take time and money. If you believe California’s ferret ban deserves a real review, please stay involved.