As humane affairs coordinator for LIFE I have sent the following letter to
Dr. Suzanne Jenkins, head of the NASPHV (National Association of State and
Public Health Veterinarians, Inc.) Rabies Compendium committee.  I have no
illusions that Dr. Jenkins' hysterical opposition to ferrets can be changed.
What I hoped to do, however, by sending copies of the letter to Dr. Kathleen
Smith, the new president of NASPHV, Dr. Charles Rupprecht, CDC Consultant to
the Committee, and Dr. Mary Beth Leininger, president of the AVMA, was to
focus their attention on the fact that Jenkins & her crowd are being
subjective, biased, and unscientific.  In other words, they are betraying
their responsibility as public health officials by using their authority to
promote a private anti-ferret agenda, misleading the public, and ignoring
the scientific evidence.
 
If anyone is interested, I will be glad to post the mailing addresses for
Rupprecht, Smith and Leininger, whom I believe are the key people in the
rabies bite issue who might be able to influence or rein in Jenkins.
 
The letter also focuses on the fact that although Jenkins openly appeals to
the ferret community for funds to support the ongoing shedding studies, she
has NEVER promised WHEN or IF such studies will ever provide "sufficient
data" to end the current slaughter of almost every ferret involved in a bite
case.  It seems to me that if this avowed enemy of ferrets actually planned
in good faith to bring the studies to closure, she would publicly make some
commitment to do so.
 
<begin text>
August 28, 1996
 
Suzanne R. Jenkins, V.M.D., M.P.H.
Chairman, NASPHV Compendium Committee
P.O. Box 2448
Richmond, VA 23218
 
Dr. Jenkins:
 
Your July 10 letter to me expressing your views on policy for managing
ferret bite cases raises disturbing questions.
 
1. The 1994 "Statement on Ferrets" which you signed on behalf of NASPHV,
Inc. is a grossly misleading rehash of hysterical anti-ferret propaganda
penned by "anonymous" and/or discredited sources.  You disgrace your
profession and the public health policy community by trying to pass off
such a transparently biased document as "science." What purpose does it
serve but to encourage the public to view ferrets as vicious and thus
accept their euthanization?
 
2. Why, if you wanted to be objective, did you ignore, in your 1994
Statement, the scientific data already published in 1988 in the Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) documenting that
ferrets are much less prone to bite than dogs?  Those statistics
demonstrated that from 1978 to 1988 yearly bite incidence was "between
one an three million dog bites, compared with 65 ferret bites," while
serious bite injuries were "44,000/year for dogs and 12/year for
ferrets." (Source: JAVMA Vol.  193 No 9 Nov.  19 1988 p 1031)
 
3.You say no change in the bite policy is warranted "until sufficient
data are available" on rabies in ferrets.  Yet a vast amount of data
(Forster, Blancou, et al.) IS already available: what it consistently
shows is that ferrets (a) are highly resistant to rabies; (b) die within
7 days of onset of symptoms; (c) do not shed rabies virus; and (d) do not
transmit rabies to human beings.  You know that no ferret has ever
transmitted rabies to a human.  You know they pose much less risk of
rabies even than cows or horses, which are almost never euthanized in
bite cases.
 
Why do you ignore this data?  And why will you not say how many more
studies are needed?  Is your real purpose in demanding more and more
studies merely to justify endless further delay in abolishing the
inhumane practice of euthanizing ferrrets in virtually all bite cases?
Do you or NASPHV have a financial interest in companies that stand to
benefit from research on ferrets?  Will their lives be easier if there
are fewer ferret owners to protest such research?
 
4. On their face, the Compendium recommendations urge a case-by-case
decision on euthanization in ferret bite cases.  But isn t it true that
WHENEVER you are asked by state or local authorities for guidance in
applying the Compendium to specific cases, YOU ALWAYS URGE EUTHANIZATION
NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES?
 
5. As an admitted opponent of ferrets as companion animals, on what
possible good-faith basis can you appeal to members of the ferret- owning
community - as you did in your Cover Memorandum to the 1996 Compendium -
to donate their hard-earned money to a "research" project that serves
only to justify endless further delay in abolishing the current inhumane
practice of euthanization in almost all bite cases?
 
If you were sincere in your assertion that "we do not like having to
condemn people's pets" - even ferrets - then you would rescind the
disgraceful 1994 NASPHV "Statement on Ferrets" NOW and recommend that the
policy on ferrets be amended immediately to exempt healthy, vaccinated,
confined ferrets from euthanization in bite cases unless there are
specific evidentiary grounds for suspecting rabies.
 
I urge you to do so at or before the October 1996 Compendium Committee
meeting.
 
Howard Davis
League of Independent Ferret Enthusiasts
[Posted in FML issue 1676]