LegalizeFerrets at Fish and Game Commission Meetings
This collection brings together our YouTube videos from the pivotal years of 2010 and 2011, when ferret advocates regularly appeared before the California Fish & Game Commission. These recordings capture exactly what it was like to present evidence, request fairness, and ask for clarity from a system that often gave none.
Here you’ll see the full range of our interactions with the Commission — the public comments, the questions, the contradictions, the shifting explanations, and the moments when facts met bureaucracy. Some responses were helpful, others dismissive, and some completely at odds with what we were told before or after.
These videos preserve the historical record, showing how long and how patiently ferret advocates have pushed for transparency, science, and simple fairness. They remain as relevant today as they were then.
Dec 16, 2010 – San Diego
Pat Wright presents clear evidence that California’s ferret ban is outdated, inconsistent, and unsupported by modern science. He highlights the Commission’s own Sacramento State study showing ferrets cannot survive in the wild, have never formed feral populations, and are legal in 48 states.
He also exposes contradictions in the state’s record — from exaggerated old health claims to staff admissions that they have no data of ferrets harming wildlife, livestock, or people. Pat asks the Commission to simply apply the same environmental review process they’ve used for other species.
Commission Reaction:
Instead of addressing the evidence, a commissioner expressed irritation that pet stores sell ferret supplies and suggested stricter punishment for owners — underscoring the gap between the facts presented and the Commission’s response.
March 3, 2011 – Los Angeles
In this video, Pat Wright challenges the Commission’s claim that the ferret issue has been “handled many times.” A Public Records Act request shows that ferrets have not appeared on the public agenda for over a decade, even though the Commission insists otherwise. Pat explains that advocates followed the Commission’s instructions years earlier—funding and submitting an environmental report—yet never received a response.
Commission Reaction:
Commissioners deny the history on record, insist the issue has been discussed “at least 12 times” (mostly in closed sessions), and tell Pat their silence means they simply don’t agree. When Pat notes the environmental report was delivered twice, the Commission claims they’ve never seen it. The exchange shows a consistent pattern of dismissiveness, conflicting statements, and refusal to engage with evidence.
April 7, 2011 – Sacramento
In this video, Corey Zimmerman asks the Commission two simple questions: Has the ferret impact report been reviewed, and what happens next? The Department confirms they received the report but haven’t looked at it, offer no timeline, and tell him to “check back later.”
Dr. Richard Smith, a UC Davis–trained veterinarian, explains that all pet ferrets are neutered, cannot breed, cannot survive outdoors, and pose no threat to wildlife — which is why no feral populations exist anywhere in the U.S. He stresses that legalization would improve vaccination rates and bring California in line with the other 48 states.
Commission Reaction:
The Commission offers no response to the scientific testimony and no clear path forward, reinforcing the pattern of delay and non-engagement seen in earlier videos.
May 5, 2011 – Sacramento
The speaker cites a nationwide survey conducted by Fish & Game showing that 25 states classify ferrets as domestic animals and that no state has documented feral ferret populations—directly contradicting claims made in past California court cases. He explains that all ferrets in California are spayed or neutered, cannot reproduce, and have a USDA-approved rabies vaccine. New Zealand’s 1880s ferret problem, he notes, involved wild ferrets released intentionally—nothing like the domestic pets in California today. He closes by reminding the Commission of its own policy: decisions must reflect both biology and public needs.
Commission Reaction:
None. The Commission thanks the speaker and moves on without discussion.
Aug 3, 2011 – Sacramento
In this video, two Sacramento residents, Jeremy Trim and Christine Newman, ask the Commission a straightforward question: how can the ferret environmental report—submitted months earlier at the Commission’s request—be reviewed when staff says they won’t look at it until it is noticed, but it cannot be noticed until staff reviews it? Jeremy asks repeatedly for guidance on how to move forward.
Christine echoes the same concern and even offers solutions—raising funds, supporting staffing needs, or contributing resources—to help the Commission complete the review. Both speakers point out the awkward “catch-22” created by the current process, especially given that veterinarians are already treating ferrets that technically cannot be legally owned.
Commission Reaction:
None. Despite multiple direct questions and offers of assistance, the Commission does not respond, provide direction, or acknowledge the process problem. They simply move on to the next speaker.
Sept 15, 2011 – Sacramento
In this video, Michelle from Ferrets Anonymous presents simple, clear facts: ferrets are legal in 48 states, California sells over a quarter of all ferret supplies in the country, and the ban costs the state significant tax revenue. She also notes that Pat Wright already submitted the environmental report, and that ferret advocates have offered to pay for staff time and even licensing fees to cover any costs. She asks a straightforward question: What else can we do to help move this to notice?
Commission Reaction:
The Commission responds that they lack the staff, funding, and “bandwidth” to deal with ferret legalization and state flatly that they do not intend to move forward. They claim they can’t manage existing native wildlife issues, much less revisit the ferret ban, and offer no path forward — essentially telling the public there is nothing they can do. The commissioner concludes by saying it’s “unfortunate” but final.
Dec 3, 2011 – Public Forum
In this video, Pat Wright returns to the Commission after receiving no response to his previous formal request to begin the process of removing domestic ferrets from the prohibited species list. He explains that advocates spent $16,000 on a year-long Sacramento State study and completed every step the Commission itself required back in 2000. Pat asks a simple procedural question: Is he making the request correctly, and is there a process for acknowledging it?
He presents core facts again: ferrets are legal everywhere else, cannot survive in the wild, have never formed feral populations, and are far less dangerous than other domestic animals the state does not regulate.
Commission Reaction:
The exchange quickly becomes confrontational. Commissioners repeatedly interrupt, insist the issue has already been “investigated” years ago, and refuse to answer Pat’s procedural questions. They point to past legislative failures as justification for inaction and state openly that they “don’t feel” Pat is right — without referencing any evidence. One commissioner says they will no longer “waste time” on the issue and tells Pat to sit down. No scientific points are addressed, no process is clarified, and no path forward is offered.
The clip captures one of the clearest examples of the Commission dismissing both the evidence and the public it serves.
Dec 15, 2011 – Sacramento
In this deeply personal testimony, Rebecca Shepard explains how California’s ferret ban directly harmed her. Three weeks earlier, Fish and Game officers came to her home and ordered her to send her ferrets out of state or have them destroyed. She describes losing her pets — animals she considers her children — and the emotional devastation that followed.
Rebecca reminds the Commission that an environmental report was submitted over a year earlier, paid for by ferret advocates, yet no one at Fish and Game will admit to reviewing it. She points out that domestic ferrets cannot go feral, that none of the 48 legal states have ever documented a single feral colony, and that ferrets are loving, intelligent animals with no public-health risk.
She urges the Commission to stop offering excuses, acknowledge how many people are affected by the ban, and finally take action on the studies and evidence already provided.
Commission Reaction:
None. The Commission thanks her formally but does not respond to her questions, her evidence, or her personal loss.
In this presentation, Pat Wright challenges the California Fish and Game Commission’s longstanding position on ferrets. He opens by questioning the commissioners on whether any of them are pet owners—highlighting the disconnect between regulators and the people affected by their policies.
Pat emphasizes three core issues:
1. Ferrets Are Neither Fish nor Game
He asks why the Commission is regulating ferrets when they clearly do not fall within the scope of “fish” or “game.” He points out that the Commission’s statutory mission relates to wildlife management—not household pets.
2. Lack of Legal Authority Over Domestic Animals
Pat repeatedly asks whether the Commission has the authority to regulate domestic animals.
He notes that even the Commission’s own documents refer to “domestic ferrets,” not wild ferrets, which directly contradicts their classification as restricted “wild animals.”
3. Out of Step With the Rest of the Nation
He reminds the Commission that ferrets are legal in 48 states, underscoring that California’s ban is not based on science or actual environmental risk but on inertia and outdated assumptions.
Meeting Format & Commission Reaction
The meeting was held during the Commission’s public forum section, a period explicitly allowing public comment and questions.
However, commissioners avoided answering the questions—even when Pat asked directly whether they regulate domestic animals. Their silence becomes a focal point of the presentation, reinforcing Pat’s point that the Commission cannot justify its own position.
August 25, 2016 – Not sure where
This video covers the California Fish & Game Commission meeting on August 25, 2016, where Petition 2016-008—Domestic Ferret Possession—was heard.
Pat Wright presents on behalf of ferret proponents, showing broad public support (including 250,000 petition signatures) and explaining that the group had already completed and submitted an environmental report and a required “checklist”—materials that cost over $18,000. Pat notes that these documents were submitted multiple times over several years but were never acknowledged or accepted by staff.
Supporters testify that ferrets are legal in 48 states, pose no public-health or wildlife threat, and are already widely owned in California. Veterinarians, industry representatives, and individual owners describe the negative effects of the ban, including people avoiding veterinary care and California losing substantial economic activity.
During the meeting, staff admit that the environmental materials were not reviewed, and the “checklist” had never been seen until that very morning. The Commission ultimately votes to continue the petition to the next meeting so staff can finally review the documents.
Pat closes by noting that, for the first time, staff apologized for losing the environmental submissions—giving supporters a rare sense of progress.
Once again, despite years of effort and submissions, advocates had not received a response until the issue was raised publicly at a Commission meeting.
February 9th, 2023 – Public Comments via Zoom
In this video, Pat Wright presents clear scientific, legal, and historical evidence showing that ferrets are a domestic species, not wild animals. He highlights California’s own Civil Code, modern scientific literature, and the lack of any feral ferret populations in the U.S., and questions why the state continues to ignore this evidence.
Pat urges the Commission to correct the misclassification and respect property rights.
The Commissioners offered no response.
April 20, 2023 – Erik Sklar comments following ferret supporters testify at public comments :
In this clip, Commissioner Erik Sklar responds directly to ferret advocates—even after our members stated they are prepared to fund the required environmental study. Sklar repeats the long-standing Commission position: that nothing can be done until a CEQA environmental review is completed, and that the Commission should not be asked “over and over” until that happens.
But our PRA records show this has been the Commission’s answer for nearly 30 years, even though:
Only the Commission can legally act as the CEQA lead agency
The public cannot file or initiate CEQA on its own
The Commission itself started—but never completed—an EIR in 1995
Meanwhile, other videos on this page show the real harm caused by continuing the ban without ever completing the required review.Even when supporters step up and say they’re ready to pay, the Commission continues to use CEQA as a reason not to act.
After math of April 20, 2023 Meeting
In this video, Commissioner Erik Sklar repeats the Commission’s long-standing position that ferret legalization cannot move forward without a full CEQA/“SQEQA” environmental study paid for by ferret advocates. He asks supporters to stop bringing the issue back until they fund it.
Pat Wright then speaks and asks two direct questions:
Will the Commission act as the required CEQA lead agency?
If supporters pay for the study, will the Commission actually process it rather than ignore it, as has happened before?
The Department responds that it has no current plan to serve as the lead agency and lacks resources to prepare any CEQA document. They state advocates must hire consultants to create the entire CEQA package themselves and then present it to the Commission.
Pat explains that supporters have already completed extensive environmental work—including the 2010 Graening report—and that most CEQA checklist items simply do not apply. He notes that previous efforts cost nearly $20,000 and were dismissed without action, making fundraising difficult.
He concludes by emphasizing that ferrets are domestic animals, the process has been unfair, and supporters need clear answers and fair treatment.
The Commissioners offered no commitment to act, even if all requirements are met.
August 22, 2023 – Public Comments via Zoom:
This video documents LegalizeFerrets.org’s repeated attempts to comply with the California Fish and Game Commission’s demand for a CEQA/EIR study—and the Commission’s consistent failure to respond.
Pat Wright explains that Commission President Eric Sklar publicly criticized ferret advocates for not funding an environmental study, even though LegalizeFerrets.org has offered for years to pay for one. Pat describes sending the required materials multiple times, including certified mail confirmed received on July 18th—yet no one at the Commission ever responded.
The video also includes recordings from earlier Commission meetings where staff admitted that ferret reports had not been reviewed for years, with no timeline or progress. One clip from 2011 shows the Commission saying they would review the report “as soon as we get staff with the expertise”—a review that still has not happened more than a decade later.
Pat concludes that LegalizeFerrets.org is ready right now to begin the EIR process, but the Commission provides no guidance, no commitment, and no response, making it impossible for the public to meet requirements the agency refuses to act upon.
Grand Summary: 13 Years of Testimony — CEQA at the Center
Across more than a decade of public testimony—from 2010 through 2023—the California Fish & Game Commission has given the same answer about domestic ferrets: “We can’t act until a CEQA environmental review is completed.”
Yet every video shows a contradictory pattern:
Advocates submitted environmental studies, CEQA checklists, and certified documents—often multiple times.
Staff admitted the materials were never reviewed, misplaced, or not noticed.
The Commission insisted supporters must “pay for CEQA” while refusing to act as the legally required CEQA lead agency.
Even when supporters offered funding, the Commission provided no path forward, no guidance, and no response.
For over 30 years, CEQA has been used not as an environmental safeguard, but as a procedural barrier—a circular requirement the public cannot legally satisfy without Commission participation.
The result is a complete administrative dead-end: the public is blamed for not completing a process the agency refuses to initiate.
Legal Summary for Submission to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
Below is a concise summary of the regulatory and legal issues raised by the video record.
I. CEQA Requires the Commission to Be the Lead Agency
Under CEQA (Public Resources Code §21067; 14 CCR §15050), only the agency proposing or administering the regulation can be the CEQA Lead Agency.
The public cannot:
File CEQA documents
Initiate CEQA
Designate a lead agency
Despite this, the Commission repeatedly told petitioners they must “fund and prepare the CEQA EIR,” shifting a mandatory agency duty to the public—contrary to CEQA.
II. The Commission Failed to Review Submitted Environmental Evidence
Video testimony shows that environmental studies and CEQA checklists were:
Submitted in 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2016
Delivered by certified mail
Repeatedly acknowledged as received
Yet staff repeatedly stated:
The submissions had not been reviewed
They had no timeline
Some documents were lost or “never seen before”
CEQA requires agencies to review evidence (14 CCR §15021) and respond to it (14 CCR §15088).
The Commission did neither.
III. The Commission Created an Unlawful “CEQA Catch-22”
The Commission’s stance produces a closed loop:
“You must complete CEQA.”
“We won’t act as CEQA Lead Agency.”
Without a Lead Agency, CEQA cannot legally begin.
Therefore, CEQA can never be completed.
This violates:
Gov. Code §11340.5(a) (prohibits underground regulations)
CEQA Guidelines §15050 (lead agency must be the agency with authority)
CEQA Guidelines §15004(b) (agencies may not use procedural obstacles to avoid decisions)
This circular barrier is exactly the type of administrative practice OAL is empowered to invalidate.
IV. The Commission Refused to Perform Its Basic Statutory Duties
Over more than a decade:
Petitions were not processed
Evidence was not reviewed
Staff offered no guidance
Commissioners gave contradictory statements
No public agenda item occurred for more than ten years (verified by PRA)
The Commission’s refusal to engage constitutes administrative nonfeasance.
V. Evidence of Harm and Arbitrary Action
Testimony shows:
Domestic ferrets cannot survive or breed in the wild
No feral ferret populations exist anywhere in the U.S.
Legalization would improve public health (vaccination access)
The ban causes emotional harm, property loss, and unequal treatment
48 other states successfully classify ferrets as domestic animals
Under CEQA and the APA, agencies must consider substantial evidence and public impact.
The Commission ignored both.
VI. Conclusion
The video record demonstrates a 30-year pattern:
Misusing CEQA as a barrier
Refusing to act as CEQA lead agency
Refusing to review environmental submissions
Giving contradictory statements
Offering no path forward
Avoiding regulatory responsibilities
This constitutes unlawful administrative avoidance and misuse of CEQA, warranting OAL intervention.