>All in all I don't see the letter as being that awful. They don't seem
>to be anti-ferret...just truthful.
[snip]
Michelle, I do agree with your view that not everyone should own a
ferret. I myself have talked some people out of it, as they would not
have provided a good home for ferrets. However, the HSUS is not simply
saying that ferrets aren't pets for everyone. [No flaming here, except
of the HSUS.] When you look at their position paper on ferrets and the
statements of Rachel Lamb, it looks different. I faxed Mr. Irwin my
views of their statements.
Rachel Lamb stated that they have "...tried to stop and prohibit the
ownership of ferrets in other states." This to me means that they do
not see the residents of CA, MA, and HI as being "special" enough to
own ferrets. Paul Irwin stated in the letter that they only seek to
keep ferrets from being exploited, yet their efforts lead to more
cruelty, neglect, and deaths: ferrets in FFZs are seized and killed;
owners in FFZs fear to take their ferrets to the vet and have trouble
finding care information; misled owners, after seeing the CBS report,
give up their ferrets to shelters (where they might be immediately
euthanized, if it is the HSUS) or release them into the wild; people
who are nipped by ferrets and are led to believe that they carry
rabies demand the death of the offending ferret. HSUS is not solely
responsible for these occurrences, but they do aid their continuance
by their anti-legalization efforts, the incorrect information in their
position paper on ferrets, and their improper emphasis on the dangers
of ferrets over dogs and cats.
The only negative pet reports I have seen from HSUS have been about
ferrets. The recent HSUS/USPS teaming against dog bites says that 2
million dog bites per year are bad, so dog owners should be careful.
Yet they promote ferrets, with about 65 bites per year (making dogs
over 200 times more likely to bite), as attackers of children. The far
more dangerous dog is not euthanized upon admission to their shelters,
and the public is not warned about the dangers of owning a dog. They
do say that dogs and cats require good owners, but not "special" ones,
obviously. I do not think that just anyone should be a dog owner or
cat owner, and I mean beyond not being abusive - these pets also need
your time.
It seems to me that their negative focus on ferrets, with rarely a word
(or even the seeming excusal) of the greater danger of dogs and even
cats, is quite unfair. This goes beyond the 'takes a special person to
own a ferret' excuse. I am certain that if dogs or cats were banned
anywhere in the US, they would not speak against their legalization -
they would probably even campaign actively for it. Yet this is their
response to the CA situation - opposition. I'm sorry, but I can't give
them the benefit of the doubt here. They do noble work in regards to
dogs and cats, but put ferrets in great danger by their statements and
efforts.
- Denise, former FFZ resident who knows what it's like to live in fear
--
/\\ ____ ,^-o, Denise Voskuil - [log in to unmask]
``-,' `-';~~ Brain: "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
.',-'~`../' Pinky: "I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have
`^^ `^^ ears we'd look like weasels." ("Animaniacs")
"Ferrets are kittens with leather jackets and no fear!" -John Reed
[Posted in FML issue 1234]
|
