I must admit, I don't know why Anon chose to post as Anon... I can
only see two reasons offhand - one they don't want any "retaliation"
to their posts (i.e. personal email responses or the like), or they're
illegally keeping ferrets in a Ferret Free Zone such as California.
Personally, I know multiple people who have posted openly from FFZs,
and even more who have posted their opinions without fear of people
sending them private emails about the topic they're discussing. If you
believe in what you're saying, why not post openly? I expect people to
potentially be upset about posts I may write, but have refused to post
anon for any such post. Note: I also now live in a FFZ - not that it
matters at the moment for the sake of this conversation. Anon posted:

>Ridiculous! I don't know what's going on in New Zealand, but I'm quite
>sure that banning snakes won't lead to banning dogs, cats, and ferrets
>in the U.S. Based on what you are saying, maybe we shouldn't ban
>lions, tigers, or other wild cats either.

Actually, I believe that banning ANY animal leads to the potential of
abuse of the legal system in order to ban other selective animals. If
people have the right conditions, training and abilities to care for a
lion, tiger or other wild cat, why shouldn't they? Yes, they would need
to be aware of, and cater for, the risk such a "pet" entails... but why
ban them totally?

Anon also posted:

>But forget about humans' feelings and desire for pets; look at it from
>the animal's point of view. Ferrets are domesticated and they interact
>with people. It's easy to find ways to enrich their lives and make
>sure they have a good time on this earth. We can take them places,
>play lots of games with them, teach them things, and let them explore

>I love snakes. I think they are beautiful and do find them "cute".
>Some have great faces, BUT what kind of life do they have stuck in an
>aquarium every day 24/7? They don't really play with their humans, you
>can't take them places, and you can't really enrich their lives in any
>significant way. All they have is their ability to slither around free
>and hunt for their own live prey. I'm not sure what kind of laws there
>should be, but for the sake of the snake, I really don't think people
>should have them as pets."

I'm not sure about others here, but the number of people I've known
whose ferrets lived in cages - if not all day, then a majority of the
day is astonishing. Ferrets REQUIRE a lot more exercise than snakes do.
If you keep a pet lion, you have to invent all sorts of new enrichment
activities on a regular basis for that lion. The same goes, on a
lesser scale, for a ferret. Snakes do not require the same level of
"enrichment" as ferrets, and you yourself even comment that they
receive enrichment from live prey. Ferrets have been born and bred to
live with humans for multiple generations. So have snakes. Many snake
owners have a real relationship with their pets. That includes taking
them out on a regular basis, letting them explore an area set aside for
them in the home. I've met several snake owners who do NOT have their
snakes in little aquariums, but in enormous areas where they can choose
between multiple "zones" as to what environment they want to be in at
any point in time. That's a darned sight better than many situations
I've seen pet ferrets in! Just how many people take their pet ferrets
out of the house? How many give them more than one room (or cage) to
play in? How many people have an outdoor area for their ferrets to dig
and play in, supplying more than just woollen toys, plastic tubing and
hammocks for them, making sure they also got scent-related enrichment
and various digging and "tunnel" havens for them to get more natural
exercise and "play" from?

I doubt that anyone will be seriously looking at banning cats, even in
New Zealand, for several years - going into decades - but if you're
looking for the signs, you can see that the beginning stages of the
campaign are not only there, they've been doing it for over two decades
already. Just because a campaign may take longer than our lifetime
doesn't mean it still isn't a risk.

Think of it this way - ferrets are illegal in NYC. They weren't 15
years ago. Even with complaints, they're still illegal now due to
"health reasons". Is this not an issue? Are people not concerned that
rather than LESS places having ferrets illegal, there are MORE places
where it's now illegal to own ferrets in the US?

Who is it that would decide which animals should be able to be kept as
pets? If there is an arbitrary line as to what sorts of animals can be
kept as pets (ability to live with humans, for an example) who is it
that will set that rule? What happens if the pets you like aren't liked
by the person or people who set the rules, and thus the laws? What if
the rules set mean that the pets must be pack animals for example to be
able to be kept in a "pack environment" (such as with humans). Again,
once you start banning on any rule, it leaves the door open for other
rules to be made, and really... once arbitrary rules are laid, ferrets
will be one of the first pets who will face being banned. Arbitrary
rules are called that for a reason... they're arbitrary. Some person
decided that THIS was a good reason to keep animals and THAT was a
good reason other animals shouldn't be pets.

From what I can see, your beliefs - at least about snakes - seems to
align scarily closely to those of PETA... and PETA believes that NO
animals should be kept as pets - even if it means the death of those
animals.

[Posted in FML 6389]