>Okay here it comes.  I've never said anything negative about Marshall
>Farms.  And I'm not going to now.  SO, please nobody here, twist my
>words and meaning into something negative or bashing about MF, cause I'm
>NOT.  And I'm also arguing with Sukie, I'm just taking this opportunity
>to post something that's been on my mind.
[Subsquent e-mail indicated she meant to say "... I'm also NOT arguing
with Sukie..." BIG]
 
Hey, I get to be a Wolfy "lead in"...  Neat!  ;-)  No Bulldinkies,
Dunderheads in this discussion...  (That is joke she and I have, kind
of like the Elf joke of two others...)
 
I think a lot of that is based on what petstores and distributors ask
for.  When we went to a local store recently a few MFs had small amounts
of spotting but most had more standard markings, though the kits who came
home with us have red eye reflections so they have some pigment
reduction.
 
Since the petstores near you are sure they can't sell non-fancies they
probably request fancies.
 
To clarify what i was told, it's not that MF doesn't have fancies be
born, but for the breeders themselves they told me they had begun again
using only ones with standard markings.  That makes sense since it
reduces the overt chance of a ferret carrying multiple neural crest
disorders and such.  I can't recall how many years ago that was.
 
There really is a problem with folks tending to want some"thing" fancy
when that "thing" is actually a living creature who can be harmed by
being purposely bred for coloration of other features rather than for
health, longevity, and personality.
 
Yes, there are other pigment reduction conditions that can reduce hearing
or cause deafness, ditto poor eyesight or blindness.  I think you'll find
some info from vet, Dr. Bruce Williams, on this in the Ferret Health List
Archives at http://fhl.sonic-weasel.org/ .
 
I think that there had been such a public clamor at first when folks saw
fancies at ferret shows and in a few of the ferret books that it for a
while created a situation in which not only the specific private breeders
who first emphasized these, but also farms got on the band-wagon for a
while and that created a situation in which the fancies were artificially
selected for which artificially increased the reproductive success of the
fancies and spread their genetics around too much.  Like I said, we had
our two most deformed adoptees from a non-MF farm that was doing
appearance breeding projects though I don't know if that place does that
anymore, and suspect they may not after having been burned too often.
Now precautions such as selecting only non-fancies for their breeding
pools and hoping they don't have too much hidden in them is coming more
to the fore, at least at MF and I hope elsewhere.  Since farms like MF do
reimbursements or partial reimbursements for early health problems they
have to balance that against the demand from specific petstores or
distributors for fancies.
 
My hope is that Danee's observations at
http://www.smartgroups.com/message/readmessage.cfm?gid=1423922&messageid=3268
are correct.
 
>But it shows me, that ferrets with strong W and KIT genes are being used
>in breeding there.
 
This could instead be easily due to ones with a hidden copy.  Remember
that these alleles can have variable expression and some may be
recessive, too -- so a standard individual can have a hidden copy of
the genetic variant, but those with multiple copies are less likely to
have it hidden.  I think that in many locations now the name of the game
is trying to reduce the individuals who have multiple copies of such
alleles.  It may be that I was told something false, but the person at MF
who said it to me has a good truth track record with me -- exceedingly
reliable -- so I suspect that there are ones with hidden copies being
used.  Since there are multiple routes (different mutations and even
different locations on the genes) for such mutations as KITT and WS it
is too easy to get multiple copies but at least the chance of multiple
copies is reduced with standard looking ones being used as the breeders
(as opposed to those who overtly have the alleles).  It is not an easy
process because once you get to the point of not seeing the expression
of any allele it's proportion becomes very stable in a population unless
there are routes to as selective breeding as was used to make it more
common in the first place.  In other words, because they can be hidden
it is easier to create the mess of making an allele too common than it is
to reduce the proportion back and we likely will not get back to these
mutations being as rare as they used to be.  Distributing mutations too
widely too quickly is the sort of major mistake that is awfully hard to
get past.  It is ESSENTIAL to have important data FIRST, like that on
handicaps, health or longevity reductions, behavioral changes, etc.
BEFORE spreading around a mutation just because it seems neat because
it is different.  Population genetic problems are much easier to create
than to fix.
 
Like Bob said, though, it has mostly been private breeders who led
the way, first into having ones with bad mutations be too common, so
hopefully now more of those individuals are also leading the way out
of that morass.  After all, private breeders DO have the opportunity to
keep very good health, personality, and longevity records of all or most
of the members of their lines.  It is easier to do the directed breeding
involved in the worst cases when a small group is being used, which is
why that non-MF farm that we had those badly deformed ones from was doing
that as small internal projects.
 
The topic of effects of petstore/distributor/customer demands in relation
to ferret health is one that Wolfy and I have often discussed privately,
esp. to vent about ones who demand a lot of fancies.
[Posted in FML issue 4064]