Re: Weasels & "a pattern of idiocy"

Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:35:44 -0800

>From: "jmarch" <>
>Subject: Re: Weasels & "a pattern of idiocy"
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:00:38 -0800
>*My* point in discussing ferrets on a gun list is to show that politicos
>into personal freedom will manifest such in more than one way. In the case
>of ferrets and guns, the correlation is as close to 100% as you can
>the case of gay rights, probably less so, etcetera...but the overall picture
>of a "pro personal freedom candidate" does emerge when you compare multiple
>issues...weasels are the one I know best, along with RKBA.
>(John's whole post is below, I don't mean to quote him out of context but
>I'll answer this bit directly.)
>>> From: John Drennan <>
>>This _is_ really good news. But is Lungren on record as being
>>anti-weasal? Isn't this an issue for the Department of Fish and Game? I
>>really don't know. My point being only that if some sort of vague
>>alliance is to be formed it will depend on how they view each individual
>Believe it or not, Lundgren is *very* closely involved in the ferret
>legalization issue, squarely on the other side in several ways. I'll go
>into detail for those interested in an unusual aspect of "Sacto Shuffle".
>The players:
> Fish&Game "Commission" = a bunch of Wilson's buddies who are at least in
>part "outdoorsmen". At least we can all hope so. It's a legislative group
>of Governor appointees granted a charter by the legislature to create regs
>relating to, among other things, "wild and feral mammals" - specifically
>*not* domestic animals. Legislative branch, in effect.
> Fish&Game "Department" = one half is the armed police wing, the Wardens.
>The other consists of Biologists who advise the Commission on policy...and
>it's one of a growing number of cases where a rule-making body (Commission)
>has it's own armed police force to carry out the rules - plus this armed
>executive-branch body also *advises* the rulemakers.
> Lundgren: guess who gets to defend the above jokers when they're sued?
> Glossary: an animal is "domesticated" when it's been altered over a long
>period of time by human breeding programs for a specific human purpose.
>That's zoology...F&G Commission's definition of a wild animal is, and I
>quote, "any animal the Commission finds is not normally domesticated in
>California" - in other words, once they realized they fucked up and banned
>an animal that their charter says they can't touch, they altered the English
>language to get around the problem.
>For starters, a presentation was made to the Fish & Game *Commission*
>showing zero potential impact from domesticated ferrets, in late '96. The
>fact that it's illegal for the Commission to have banned a subspecies termed
>"domesticated" by every zoological expert on the planet wasn't even being
>discussed...what was being discussed was the fact that if a female ferret
>gets in heat and doesn't get preggers, she's got a 90% chance per year of
>dying of estrogen overload or related infections from a too-long-opened
>vaginal tract. And since males get altered for odor-control reasons, and
>spay/neuter surgery takes place generally at age 3 weeks and they get
>shipped to pet shops at about 8 weeks, the spay/neuter rate among pet
>ferrets is way up past 99%, the odds of feral colonies being established
>such as is happening with cats is just about zip.
>This was followed by letters from out-of-state animal shelters attesting to
>the total lack of litters of unwanted baby weasels and the absolute rarity
>of ever having to euthanize one.
>Ooops. They're "greener" than cats *or* dogs.
>So pressed for a decision and confronted with evidence from a law firm
>specializing in environmental law, they looked for a way to "weasel out".
>Enter Randy Christenson, a hot young shark in Lundgren's tank. He comes up
>with a brief to the Commission to the effect of "well, since the legislature
>gave the Commission the ability to ban critters but never specifically to
>UNban them, you'll have to go talk to the legislature...sorry!".
>Moron. The weasel people filed suit challenging this dim-witted notion,
>backed by a large breeder in NY called Marshall Farms (about 60% of the
>petshop baby weasel trade & hungry for the CA market...). And kicked
>Christenson's ass in court, meaning the Commission now *must* make a formal
>decision, which they're resisting because for some unknown reason Wilson is
>anti-ferret but there's absolutely no good reason to ban them.
>Randy could not have done something like this without Lundgren's approval.
>As usual, Lundgren cares more about pleasing his buddy Wilson than the law;
>this is a pattern with him, as seen in the Byrd debacle when Lundgren cut
>off Byrd from background checks (and hence permits) at the behest of his
>buddy Craig the Corrupt.
>Lundgren cares more about helping the circles of corruption than the law.
>Jim March
>For a wild true story of crooked cops, stolen guns, perjury, fraud
>and false criminal charges, see
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <>
>To: jmarch <>
>Cc: <>;
> <>
>Date: Monday, January 26, 1998 3:33 PM
>Subject: Re: the weasel vote...
>>jmarch wrote:
>>> From: John Drennan <>
>>> To: jmarch <>
>>> Cc: <>
>>> Date: Sunday, January 25, 1998 12:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Lungren, meet Nemesis
>>> -snippage re: pot people I already replied to...-
>>> >Another possible scenario:
>>> >
>>> >(Gunner enters the office of Weasel, Lemur and Meerkat Owners United.)
>>> >
>>> >Gunner: Hi, I'm opposed to Dan Lungren because of his position on gun
>>> >control. I want to help defeat him in the race for governor.
>>> >
>>> >WLMOU Activist: Yeah, he's a real right winger. I registered to vote
>>> >last year when I joined WLMOU, I'm definitely voting against him.
>>> >the election?
>>> >
>>> >Gunner goes home wondering why the hell he thought this was such a good
>>> >idea.
>>> Sigh. Very funny. Look, believe it or not the "weasel people" in CA
>>> their own lobbyists, law firms,protest marches, mailing lists, websites
>>> registered voter rolls, just like us gunnies.
>>I'm glad to hear this. And I apologize for underestimating the political
>>savvy of the organized weasal vote.
>>> They also have their list of
>>> "bad politicos" and "good"...and I've seen both lists for both groups.
>>> THEY'RE IDENTICAL. Show me a guy who's pro-gun, I'll show you a guy
>>> pro-weasel - Jan Goldsmith, Rico Oller, all the way down the page.
>>> Now do you see why I keep talking about a "pro freedom" voting block that
>>> could radically kick ass?
>>> >Those weasels do make real cute pets, though. When will someone take a
>>> >stand and stop the damn state government from hassling those people?
>>> >
>>> JD, people in Sacto *are* - they're the exact same people making stands
>>> your guns.
>>> Jim March
>>This _is_ really good news. But is Lungren on record as being
>>anti-weasal? Isn't this an issue for the Department of Fish and Game? I
>>really don't know. My point being only that if some sort of vague
>>alliance is to be formed it will depend on how they view each individual
>>In fact, it is really the job of the savvy pro-freedom candidate to
>>assemble this coalition. These disparate groups will naturally be drawn
>>to the "right" candidate if that candidate represents the views of the
>>group members _and_ if he is skilled enough to develop a winning strategy
>> of coalition building.
>>My main point here is that I, personally, am at best a foot soldier in
>>the pro-gun movement. It is my job to help organize one little piece of
>>the pro-gun vote so that it can be delivered to the chosen candidates. It
>>is the leadership's job to decide wher those votes get delivered.
>>IMO, we are all free to strategize, plan and work independently to direct
>>pro-gun votes in the races that NRA and GOC don't know or care about. We
>>must do this in fact. But _I_ don't have a bloc of votes in my pocket to
>>deliver to a candidate. The best I can do is work with a whole lot of
>>other people to contact a few hundred pro-gunners and try to _influence_
>>their votes. Maybe you have a group of voters who respect your opinion
>>on these matters and will vote on your recommendation. That should be a
>>goal of every active pro-gunner. But if you have spent the time to build
>>such a group you are better off doing your evaluation of the candidates
>>and delivering your support directly to them. [As an entirely
>>hypothetical example] You may find a chinchilla rancher in Modesto
>>running for the state senate who opposes weasel legalization on some kind
>>of concern for the stability of state's chinchilla industry but he may
>>also be a solid pro-gunner and a strong candidate. The coalition must be
>>built based each idividual case.
>>It is very easy to get bored with details of gun legislation. I know I
>>am. But people in the grassroots shouldn't get the misimpression that
>>all pro-gunners know what is happening politically and will vote in a
>>consistent pro-gun pattern without the work of grassroots volunteers. If
>>you had ever called a list of voters who, for good reason, were believed
>>to pro-gun then you would understand how much useful work remains to be
>>done just within the "pro-gun community". When _you_ have a list of
>>5,000 pro-gun voters in your city then you will have the choice to use
>>that list to support a pro-gun/pro-weasel candidate. That list will have
>>cost you and your friends hundreds of hours to create. I guarantee that
>>having done that work you won't give a damn what the candidate thinks
>>about weasels, jet skis, or gay rights as long as he is good on your
>>issues. And if you don't do the work to build that list you really don't
>>have anything to bring to a partnership with the pro-weasal interests.
(NOTE: Robotlike replies to the above address will fail;
*noncommercial* communications are welcome; kindly
substitute a hyphen for the asterisk in the above address.
Sorry for any inconvenience.)