The Sacramento Bee
By Steve Wiegand -
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Published
12:00 am PST Monday, December 10, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A3
Frustrated ferret fans are in a bit of a funk.
They love their sleek little pets, which are cousins of the weasel.
But while it's legal to own ferrets in 48 other states, they're petus-non-gratis
in California, because Fish and Game officials contend they could
escape into the wild and threaten native species.
The state's ferret enthusiasts, who own an estimated 100,000 of the
critters, despite their illegal status, tried in vain every year from
1994 to 2006 to make 'em legal.
And last March, a Field Poll showed only 38 percent of Californians
supported ferret legalization, which killed plans by advocates for
an initiative.
Down but not out, a group called Ferrets Anonymous is once again seeking
a legislator to sponsor a legalization bill. Group leader Pat Wright
says every lawmaker has been solicited, but the only one to respond
so far was Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka. She said she'd think
about it.
Of course legislators may be recalling the cruel fate that met former
Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith, who sponsored a legalization effort during
the 1990s. Goldsmith, a Republican from Poway who is now a San Diego
county judge, wore a toupee that apparently did not cost him a great
deal of cash.
After his ferret bill was rejected, then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown
cackled: "That bill is deader than that thing on your head."
What referendums?
Combatants in the wars over Props. 94 through 97 – the Feb.
5 election referendums on deals that would let four Southern California
Indian tribes greatly expand their casinos – have already spent
more than $25 million, and they're just getting started.
Now the question is whether the voting will settle the matter. Last
week the U.S. Interior Department acknowledged it had approved the
deals but decided to postpone publishing its approval, presumably until
after the election.
That's ordinarily the last step before such agreements between states
and tribes take effect.
But if voters reject any or all of the compacts, it's unclear whether
the tribes will contend the deals are done anyway, or how the feds
will react.
One of the tribes' chairmen, Mark Macarro, issued a statement that
the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians "will begin moving forward" with
the deal, although it wasn't clear whether the tribe would begin casino
expansion before the Feb. 5 vote.
In any event, you can bet both sides are saving money for postelection
lawyers.
Misery loves company
California isn't the only state looking at a budget diet in the coming
year. A report to be made public today by the National Governors Association
said the nationwide housing market slump has more than 20 states looking
at spending cuts.
Of course California is still the 400-pound gorilla when it comes
to spending: the Golden State's budget is bigger than the budgets of
Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Minnesota combined.
Maybe that's why those states can afford ferrets.
|