Dick,
 
Thanks for the info.  It turns out I do have a copy of several years
of Compendiums by virtue of Troy Lynn's information packet (it's been
a while since I read the packet).  The line you quoted from it:
 
> "Management of animals other than dogs and cats depends on the species,
> the circumstances of the bite, and the epidemiology of rabies in the area."
 
seems the key line (currently), and apparently leaves policy fairly
open to judgement by the State Vet or State Epidemiologist (and
whoever else).
 
I had a long talk with John Poppy, CO state Epidemiologist (one of, or
the one), and he confirmed that line's importance.  He says the
difference in CO state policy (which is fairly liberal) and MD state
policy stems at least in part from the difference between the state
epidemiologies, that is, CO has little rabies to begin *and* has only
one major host, bats.  He says there is a great focus in MD, however,
on terrestrial mammal hosts which carry rabies (such as raccoons and
skunks).
 
If I interpret correctly (and I'm not sure I follow this part yet),
the reasoning goes: with MD's population of terrestrial mammal hosts,
there is more danger of rabies spreading for at least two reasons: 1)
terrestrial mammals with rabies more likely to contact uninfected
mammals than bats (bats, John says, keep to themselves more (though I
thought at least some bats feed on blood); he mused about an infected
bat falling and being ingested, apparently as more likely than the bat
biting (?)), and 2) carnivores ("bitey" animals to begin with) such as
racoons, skunks, and coyotes more likely to transmit rabies than
non-carnivores (and I don't know the truth there).  The Compendium
does make a distinction between bats and terrestrial mammals, and it
does mention that herbivore transmission (at least to other
herbivores) is rare (section III, 5).  John was well aware of the
stats on ferrets (regarding number of cases, lack of transmission to
humans, etc).
 
I got a verbal description (and will receive a printed version) of the
CO state policy of management of ferrets that bite humans, as follows:
 
If vaccinated, quarantine for 30 days.
If not vaccinated, consider circumstances of the bite (history of
pet, whether pet owned, whether reasonably certain indoor pet,
where purchased, bitee's comfort with no kill & test), and then kill &
test if factors warrant.
 
Given the open nature of the line in the Compendium (III, 6), I would
think that the best approach for us enthusiasts would be to get the
European studies admitted in the US (if that's possible, and it sounds
hard), and/or work on making sure people know of and go through the
right process in evaluating the species, circumstances of bite, and
epidemiology as per III, 6.
 
Thanks for the CDC quote -- I might want to look that up and send it
to Suzanne Albert of Jack Grigor's office in MD.  Now that I know what
the Compendium says, I think Suzanne misrepresented the Compendium to
me (it's possible, though unlikely, that she was referring to an
earlier, more ferret-hostile Compendium, such as 1992).  I also still
think her talk of escape is unreasonable.
 
I would like to ask Suzanne if she is following the 1994 Compendium,
and if so, ask about her considerations of: the species, circumstances
of the bite, and epidemiology of the area.
 
It seems to me she's at least partially ignoring the first, and
*fully* ignoring the second, hence contradicting her stated policy of
following the Compendium.
 
Todd Cromwell
Dors and Seldon
[Posted in FML issue 1082]