In 48 other states, ferrets are not a burden on shelters, since no-kill ferrets shelters exist within driving distance of almost every municipality in the United States. AB 363 calls for all ferrets to be spayed or neutered, so under this law they could not breed in the wild. That regulation would be very difficult to enforce, and even individual ferrets could have an impact on certain endangered species. Actually, it is quite easy to enforce, since ferrets, under the current bill, will not be sold in California. Pet stores sell only altered animals, generally from Marshall Farms.
Ferrets pose less a risk to native species than cats and dogs.
This may or may not be true, but cats and dogs are already legal. Consider their broad-ranging, and generally poorly researched, information, I would think they'd have equally uncompelling data here, but instead they want to outlaws ferrets regardless of whether or not they are or are not more hazardous to the environment than cats or dogs. Seems to me that, given their uncertainty, that a better effort would be spend outlawing cats than banning ferrets, given the pros and cons of each issue. The attitude in their simple answer expresses volumes of elitism, and I am personally insulted that they shrug-off this important issue. Since the Sierra Club took a position on this issue, the Sacramento office and the national office in San Francisco have been the targets of a broad, often bitter, campaign by ferret enthusiasts.