> ferrets.  We are not advising you one way or another concerning its use, as
 
For most states such a statement would amount to: We want you to vaccinate
for rabies, but we will probably ignore such a prior vaccination in a bite
incident.  HOWEVER, Dr.  Sorhage of New Jersey epidemiolgy did tell me that
vaccination records several years in a row in combination with reasonable
surety of indoor pet plus bitee agreeable MIGHT save the ferret in a bite
incident in NJ.  Maybe.
 
> pertaining to the possession of ferrets.  FERRETS MUST BE KEPT IN SUCH A WAY
> AS TO PREVENT ESCAPE OR INJURY TO THE PUBLIC.  Failure to adhere to the
> regulations, which were designed to protect the animal, the environment and
 
I think I may call them and ask the following questions.
 
1. Regarding protection of the environment: You are trying to protect
the environment then, from escaped ferrets.  Do you have ANY feral
populations of ferrets in New Jersey?  No?  Then what is the problem?
Yes?  Please send me written documentation regarding where they are
along with YOUR signature.  [every state has already agreed in writing
that there are NO feral ferrets in their state!]
 
> the regulations could also result in pressure to ban the possession of
> ferrets, brought about by groups concerned with the public's welfare.
 
2. Regarding protection of the public: When you compare with cat and
dog bites, are ferret bites per animal more or less favorable?  Oh?
You don't know the number of ferrets, so you can't come up with a
ratio?  [that's the usual move] How then, can you say that ferret
stats are worse than cat and dog stats?  If they aren't worse, then
WHY AREN'T YOU CALLING TO BAN CATS AND DOGS??
 
If you have armchair ideas that the ratio of ferret bites per animal IS
worse than cat and dog bites per animal, then we'll go with that.  Since
we know the number of dogs, number of dog bites reported, and number of
ferret bites reported, we can come up with the maximum number of ferrets
there must be for your ratio to be correct.  Again, will you be willing to
agree in writing that there are no more than x ferrets?
 
For example, say you think that ferrets are TWICE as bad as dogs for bite
incidents (not taking into account dogs are bigger and more likely to
cause serious injury).  Then,
 
2 * num dogs/num dog bites reported = num ferrets/num ferret bites reported
 
calling the unknown number of ferrets x, and using year of 1988 stats,
we get:
 
2 * 50,000,000/44,000 = x/12
 
Solve for x and you get
 
x = 27272.7 (number of ferrets)
 
as the maximum number of ferrets.  So, if you think ferrets are twice as
bad as dogs for bites, you'll agree that the maximum number of ferrets is
27272 nationwide in 1988.  Ridiculous.  Everyone knows there were and are
more ferrets than that.
 
[the usual move is to say people don't report ferret bites fully, because
they fear persecution.  In that case the actual number of ferret bites
which "should have been" reported is 2640 (assuming there were 3,000,000
ferrets), so people must actually report only 1 out of every 220 serious
ferret bite cases.  I think that people report at least more accurately
than that, but even if they don't then ferrets would be only as bad as
dogs, so why persecute them over dogs??]
 
This steams me.
 
Todd Cromwell
Dors (mi novia) and Seldon (el cazador de suen~o)
[Posted in FML issue 1197]