I asked Elizabeth to upload this for me while I am busy finishing the rough
draft of some chapeters of the diss'ed dissertation.
 
First, I want to say my post (regarding Jim Hitchcock's paper) posted a
couple of days ago was harsh, demeaning and absolutely unfair.  I know
because a member of the Jim Hitchcock fan club wrote me to say what a nasty
character I was.  I was even asked to give a public apology.  So all I have
to say is, BITE ME!  That paper was one of the worst pieces of crap that has
every passed before my eyes.  Its the equivilent of scientific pornography,
and not only will I NOT apologize, I have made a couple of dozen copies of
the (toliet) paper and have sent them to reputable scientists, you know,
those with IQs above subnormal, asking for a review.
 
If you think I was upset by the paper, you are wrong.  Upset is not strong
enough of a word to describe the profession revulsion I felt reading
something that might have been published by German social scientists during
World War Two, or by some pale people with tall pointed hats that I have met
from time to time in the south.  Yes, that is harsh, but this biocrat
obviously has an agenda set, and doesn't care what kind of lies, real or
inferred, he has to say to get his way, presumably to "protect" us from our
stupidity for loving our little vicious beasts.
 
To help you understand how the disonestly in Hitchcock's 1994 paper, at one
point he starts citing lots of data "proving" his contention the ferret is a
nasty beast, and even cites a source.  The source?  A professional ferret
hater who has made it her life's goal to exterminate the beast from our
homes, and the data has not even published, but a "personal communication."
That is a citation term that is supposed to be used for conformation your
research by some other scientist's non-published works in progress, or by a
recognized expert in the field.  In other words, you know the scientist
working on your problem, and you ask a question to see if it confirms your
findings.  It is never supposed to be used as a primary source of
information, because IT CAN NEVER BE CONFIRMED!!  You can pass to worst and
most vile crap you have ever seen, and no one can call you for it because
the conversation can never be available to anyone else for future reference.
The most "damaging" and vast bulk of Hotchcock's data is a series of cited
personal communications from a Sharon Hull.  Any of you ferret old timers
want to comment on that name?  I will soon, as soon as I finish comparing
his published personal cimmunications data with that published by the
Centers for Disease Control.  Look out you two: Bob is pissed and checking
your data.
 
Hitchcock ignores absolutely EVERY scientist who specializes in
domestication in his quest to prove ferrets are wild.  At one point, he
justifies his point by saying (pp 209) "...wild animals require the exercise
of art, force, or skill to keep in subjection...ferrets have been known to
return to a feral state upon escaping, and have done so in large numbers in
New Zealand.  Obviously, an animal which has a propensity to bite, which has
traditionally been kept for the purpose of hunting rabbits and rats, and
which will savagely attack small children without provocation is not an
animal capable of being completely domesticated." Now I am the first person
on Earth who would admit the nasty side of any pet, but when I read this, I
thought he was talking about a Terrier.  By Hitchcock's definition of
domestication, no animal can be domesticated, not even a chicken, because
they ALL fit that criteria, especially dogs and cats, perhaps more so than
ferrets.
 
As for the feral remarks.  no one denies ferrets are feral in New Zealand,
nor in areas where the polecat is naturally found (being portions of
Europe).  However, dispite centuries of ferrets living and escaping in North
American, not a single feral colony exists.  How does Hitchcock get around
this?  He discusses feral populations around the world, then talks about
Ferretville, Ohio, in the same paragraph, and how poultry farmers found wild
ferrets to be nasty things.  The intended implication is the local poutry
farmers were hurt but a large colony of feral ferrets, and feral ferrets
exist in the USA.  This is no different than my discussing pedophiles and
their propensities, and then talking about how someone like Hitchcock could
cause great damage to children if he did something.  No obviously, I didn't
say he did anything, it just could be bad if he did.  But because he is
associated with someone that does bad things, we think of him in the same
way.
 
While this type of writing is approprite for politicians like Joe McCarthy
and Rudolph Hess, it is inappropriate for reputible scientists.  My
definition of a good scientist is someone that tells the truth, seeks the
truth, and reports the same.  Hitchcock doesn't fit that desciption.
 
I issue a challenge for FML members.  Get a copy of this paper and take it
to a local biologist, English major, whatever, and have them review the
paper for its form and content, then copy the comments and send them to me.
In a few months, I will write a paper to be published in a REPUTIBLE journal
about how polititicans, oops, I mean biocrats, distort reality to further
their personal agendas.  By that time, I should be able to prove Hitchcock's
entire paper was horse manure disguised as fact, and present the true facts
to the Vertebrate Pest Conference myself.  The only way to beat a bully is
by punching it in the nose, and this is the scientific equivilent.  I hate
bullies, I hate dishonest scientists, and I hate government becoming a Big
Brother and using fasist tactics to get their way.  I didn't think Hitchcock
is stupid; I think he is a small man trying to make himself look big by
screaming the sky is falling.  His lies make him dangerous, and we should
stop him.
 
"Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong."
 
Bob C and the 17 Ranting Rascals (In memory of Gus and Buddy)
[Posted in FML issue 1900]