I originally wanted to discuss on the geeks list, but in the last week
I have had so many questions on subjects that are either not directly
addressed but implied, or no research has been published in the mainstream
literature, I thought I should mention it here.  For example, I received
FOUR emails on the validity of using research from non-ferret species to
determine if avidin in raw egg whites would actually harm a ferret or not.
I have also received several emails essentially asking if no research has
been published on ferrets for any subject, how could we use other species
to make our point?  This is very important in feral issues.  The answer is:
models.
 
Let's use the avidin/biotin question as an example.  I own 36 references
which specifically mentions avidin binding to biotin during the digestive
process and it's consequences.  Are they valid to apply to the ferret?
When you read the references, you realize that 1) biotin is a common and
essential vitamin found in ALL mammals, and 2) the binding of avidin to
biotin is a chemical reaction NOT mediated by an enzyme.  It occurs in a
digestive tract or a petri dish.  Avidin will bind to biotin REGARDLESS of
species.  It occurs in cats, dogs, rats, humans, mink, pigs, cattle, horses
and many others (there is even gray literature [or unpublished] accounts of
it occurring in ferrets, but since they are extremely hard to find, I have
not cited them).  Just looking at the obligate carnivores; binding occurs
in cats and mink.  Both species have a physiology very similar to the
ferret (the mink is nearly identical).  You now have strong models
suggesting ferrets would be no different.
 
The point is, when you have strong models in the absence of conflicting
data, it is proper to assume the models will hold for the species in
question.  In the avidin/biotin question, the preponderance of evidence is
so strong that no other conclusion is possible.  But this single instance
is clear and easy to define and a lot of research as been done that could
be used as effective models.  What about harder to define issues, like the
feral ferret question?
 
I have been writing a major paper for the geek's list (which is why I
haven't been posting geek stuff lately; I'm spending my geek time on the
paper).  This paper specifically attacks the Californian opposition to
ferrets based on feral issues.  SInce NO research has been done which
specifically addresses if ferrets can form feral populations and impact
wildlife in California, ALL my evidence is based on models.  Fortunately
for me, the same is true for the opposition.  I say fortunate because they
have BAD job of deciding which historic instances were effective models.;
they seem to have NO idea what a model is unless its some bimbo with their
clothes off.
 
For example, the CaCaLand Fishing Gestapo and Chowderhead Club specifically
uses a) the feral ferrets in New Zealand, b) the short-lived incidence of
ferrets on San Juan Island (WA), and c) the recent addition of ferrets to
the US species list as "proof" ferrets could go feral in CaCaLand.  With
their emphasis on the similarity of the different locations, the inference
is that they have a strong model "proving" the possibility.  But is it
really?  Let's look at the references.  The addition of the ferret to the
US species list was based on the San Juan Islands and several decades-old
reports.  In other words, it is based on an extinct population and a
handful of old and unconfirmed sightings (The people who wrote the list are
sympathetic to the anti-ferret faction).  The population on San Juan Island
was declared extinct by the Washington Fish and Game more than a decade
ago.  These two references are not models; they aren't even evidence.  They
have no merit proving ferrets can go feral because they do not show ferrets
ARE feral.
 
The New Zealand reference is their ace in the hole.  They point out ferrets
have been living in a feral state in NZ for a century.  But is it an
accurate model of what could happen in California?  It would be IF tens of
thousands of breeding capable ferrets were dumped in a few short years into
an area completely devoid of predators, full to the brim with prey, and
protected from hunting, trapping or other removal by law.  Now, to be a
strong model, similar conditions would have to exist in CaCaLand.  Do they?
Yes, it is a model, but only of the weakest kind.
 
The point here is that to make an accurate, predictive model, the
conditions MUST be similar.  In the avidin/biotin model, you had similar
conditions, physiology, biochemistry and dietary habits.  Strong model.  In
the NZ/CaCaLand model, you have different conditions, ecology, and niche
openings.  Very weak model.  In neither case do you have direct evidence,
yet it is easy to see that close reading of the references and careful
modeling of the data will give you the answer.  This is basic high school
science.  No wonder the Fishing Gestapo screwed it up.
 
Bob C and 16 MO' Super Models
[Posted in FML issue 3026]