I am cross posting this to Cliff Notes and the FML because while
the issue is a California one, it also because it has tremendous
implications to all ferret owners who might have to deal with the
issue.

I haven't been reading much email or mailing lists lately because I am
working on scientific designs for the upcoming Ferret Project I'll be
undertaking in New Zealand, Australia, and Europe this year. Because
of my work on the feral ferret issue, one of my California friends who
read the discussion in Cliff Notes asked my opinion and further asked
if I would send it in for comment. I try to do what I can for my
California brethren and elected to comment and cross-post to please
my friend. Please forgive me if anyone is offended by my "outsider"
remarks or the cross-posting. I also apologize in advance for stepping
into anything I have no actual desire to step into. It is not my intent
to defend or attack any particular viewpoint; I am only stating an
opinion.

I love to say the CDF is intractable in their level of incompetence and
understanding of basic science, but that is not entirely true (hell,
I say far worse and you should see how red faced I get energetically
discussing them!). My honest opinion is that the issue is more ego
than education and more stubbornness than science. The self-suggested
infallibility of the CDF&G approaches that of Pope Urban VIII, who
disagreed with Galileo's observations that the Earth was not the center
of the universe and the sun revolved around the planet, and so had him
imprisoned for life. The equation: "Prejudice + Closed Mindedness +
Ego = Stupid Science" is just as common today as it was then.

This is an important point because it implies that -- like Pope Urban
VIII desire to "exclude" Galileo -- evidence doesn't matter to the
California Department of Fish and Game; only their opinion. Governor
Arnold doesn't matter either, because even if the cash were on the
table right now, it would take time to find someone to do it, time to
get the proposal approved and running, time to do the study, time to
review the results, and then it would take time for publication and
peer review. It probably would take more time than he has left in
office. In the end, even if the study showed ferrets will not go feral
in California, the CDF&G would STILL scream about feral ferrets found
in the world, say it is still a possibility, and fight to exclude them.
I think of the CDF&G as "Scientific Re-creationists."

Personally, I think you need a three-pronged approach if you want to
satisfy the CDF&G objections (assuming you could, which I honestly
doubt). First, you need to have a good investigation of the feral
ferret issue and find out exactly how many of the "instances" are real.
For example, it has been reported that feral ferrets might be in New
Mexico -- based on possible visual sightings and no physical evidence.
Another problem is the citation of a source, which cites a source,
which cites a source, which cites a source, which said ferrets were
feral, but offered no empirical evidence or documentation. As a part
of my Ferret Project, I am doing such a review, even to the point of
traveling to Queensland, Australia, to physically try and locate the
supposed ferrets reported feral there by the CDF&G. Likewise, my work
in New Zealand is in part to show that the ferrets did very poorly,
and many died off. If you can demonstrate 20 citations are really only
a couple, then it reduces the power of their argument AND shows their
lack of scholarship.

The second aspect is to answer the question of what happened in New
Zealand and why it will not occur in California. Based on documents
produced by the CDF&G, the NZ feral ferrets are the bullet in the CDF&G
gun; without it, their argument is essentially disarmed, especially if
it can be shown that the remaining evidence is weak or unscientific.
Again, my New Zealand work if geared towards answering that question.
A good review of this problem, with empirical evidence to back
oppositional arguments, can destroy the CDF&G's ability to use New
Zealand as an effective argument.

Finally, a study has to be done by an impartial and independent
3rd-party in which the scientific design is unquestioned and the
researcher is monitored by an excepted expert. Perhaps the best way to
to this is to give a grant to a graduate student at a major university.
The problem here is, there is no "ferret" control over what may happen,
and results may do much more to harm ferret causes than they will ever
do to help them. That is why the first two aspects need to be done
first!!! If empirical evidence shows the numbers of feral ferrets are
overly exaggerated and it can be shown the New Zealand experience is
unique and unlikely to be repeated anywhere else, then the risk of a
bad outcome for the study is greatly diminished. But, what if the first
two parts show ferrets are a danger? In that case, a study might show
that ferrets COULD become feral, and not only is there little chance
of ferrets becoming legal in California afterward, but also there is a
risk all other ferret owner's could be negatively impacted as well. In
fact, the damage could be catastrophic to the ferret community. I, for
one, would not want to tick off the Australians, who are constantly in
danger of losing their rights to own ferrets because of this issue.
They will sic a dingo on you, baby.

As much as Californians (and I) want their ferrets freed, and as much
as I think the feral ferret issue is completely overblown by the CDF&G,
I also think it is a cautious person that falls into fewer holes. I
recommend all effort be done to complete the first two aspects of the
question, holding off the study until those first parts are well
documented.

Fortunately for all involved, I have already done a lot of the work
that would answer the first two parts. Once I finish the Ferret
Project, the only thing I have left to do is tract down all North
American examples of ferret introductions and reports, visit a few
remaining collections, and do some freedom of information requests
to get some documents. Oh, and write the stuff up. Some of the work
requires DNA study, which is out of my hands (I'm getting the DNA and
will be a contributing author, but not one of the people actually doing
the DNA work). I think a realistic time-line would be a couple of years
before all this hits publication.

One of the reasons I drive to all the talks I give and why I require
clubs to pay for gas (or a plane ticket, which ever is cheaper) is so
I can sneak into museums and natural history collections along the way.
For example, I went to Portland for the symposium, and on the way home
(after recovering from food poisoning) I stopped and measured two small
collections of black-footed ferrets and visited a library to photocopy
some references unavailable through interlibrary loan. This allows
me to spend more of my own money to visit those areas where I am not
asked to talk. It also allows me to pay for interlibrary loan costs,
photocopying, and the cost of subscribing to Medline and a couple other
online scientific search engines. By carefully preserving my funds,
piggybacking when I can, I can double or even triple my research buck.
This makes it really really hard when someone says, "but your gas
money could be used to help ferrets."  Yes, it could, but so could my
research. Thankfully, I am almost finished with years of work, needing
only to visit New York, Maine, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Colorado,
Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota, and a couple of spots on
the west coast to finish the task. When I can scrape together the
funding after I return from New Zealand and Europe, I'll do the last
research in North America and have the last pieces of the puzzle. I
think it can be done in two months or less, but all is dependent on
funding (or the willingness of clubs to ask me to give talks). I
suspect I will spend another $4000 to finish, but then it is done!
All done! Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Sorry, but it has been a long time
since I've traveled and actually been a tourist.

So, I guess the bottom line is that I am suggesting Californians be a
bit patient, wait for my return from the Ferret Project trip, and allow
me to try and get all the remaining stuff in North America before they
fund a project that could potentially cause harm to ferret owners
throughout the USA and the world. Seriously, if the researcher had a
faulty research design and their test showed ferrets could go feral,
how would you would know? You need the first two answers to evaluate
the third!

I suggest the money be placed in a high interest account to build it a
little. While I am finishing my research, you could be carefully asking
around and planning for the study, and lining up the paperwork. In a
couple of years, as the publications start to make their way through
the scientific community, a study would be appropriate AND timely. And
you would have more support from the zoological community when you can
show the CDF&G are scientifically incompetent and biased in their
conclusions.

These are opinions only, they are mine and should not be considered
evidential or empirical. They are nothing more than what I think, and
they are therefore no better than the opinions of any other ferret
owner.

Bob C
[log in to unmask]

[Posted in FML 5858]