This is a nasty paper; one that can be used in any techical writing class on
"How to write really bad and get away with it." Roll up the window and hold
your nose, here it comes:
 
Hitchcock, Jim C. 1994 "The European ferret, _Mustela_putorius_, (Family
Mustelidae): its public health, wildlife and agricultural significance."
_Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference_ 16:207-212.
 
If you even wanted to see an argument fabricated out of thin air and
hyperbole, get a copy of this one.  There is a lot of really bad stuff in
this paper, but I will only concentrate on a few passages that particularly
irk me.  But before I go on, I have to say that if this is the type of paper
accepted by the Vertebrate Pest Conference, then I am ashamed to be called a
published scientist.  I won't put it on the bottom of a sick parrot's cage.
I actually thought of using the paper as, well, you know, then overnight UPS
it to him.  But I'm afraid it would be a waste of good sh*t.  Actually, I'm
more afraid the "remark" would be cited.
 
In most situations.  a paper is submitted for approval, the editor ships it
to reviewers, who comment on the paper, and return it to the writer for
revisions.  Papers which don't meet the expectations of the readership are
usually returned in a manner remarkably similar to a prisoners head being
"returned" during the French Revolution.  This paper obviously was not
reviewed, unless the peers were grapefruit.
 
Concider: "The European ferret, conspecific with the European polecat,
Mustela puitoris, is not a domesticated animal even though it has been
captive bred by man since at least the Roman times." Hitchcock has
apparently invented this "European ferret" moniker; almost every scientific
reference I own calls the ferret a "ferret" or a "domestic/domesticated
ferret." He is using "European" to make them sound like illegal aliens.  Why
not THE "European Hurone?" This specific passage does not have a reference,
probably because all non-CaCa sources are in agreement that ferrets are
indeed domesticated.  This is an opinion disguised as fact, which is
unethical and unscientific.  Nothing is offered into evidence; not a
reference, report, experiment, nothing.  Oh yeah, the jerk hasn't even
looked up the most basic definition of domestication; his own words prove
they are domesticated.  Someone stick a quarter in his butt and see if his
brain turns on.
 
Concider "European ferrets are the only wild animals that require two
delicate surgical operations to become 'pets' (i.e., neutering for increased
docility and the removal of scent glands to reduce but not eliminate their
undesirable odor).  I guess all those breeders have the opposite of pets:
Antipets.  The experiences and knowledge of millions of ferret breeders and
owners are insignificant to his man's intellect.  References?  Doesn't need
them.  Not!  The man should put a sign around his neck, saying "Will work
for brain or IQ."
 
One of many fatal errors in the paper is at one point, Hitchcock states
"Apparent docility towards the 'handler' was also selected for those
utilized in ferreting." He then goes on to say later "the centuries of
captive breeding did not breed out: the predilection for vicious,
unprovoked, and often frenzied attacks on infants, which are apparently
percieved as prey..." Humm, could it have been the one bad apple that bit
the kids, and not the entire breed?  The hyperbole is used like the smoke
used by a magician to distract from the true nature of what is happenning.
How do we know ANY of his statements are correct?  He doesn't cite
references, he doesn't make comparisons, he never uses a graph, he just SAYS
it is so.  In fact, the vague statements are just as factual if you
substituted "Dog" or "Cat" for "Ferret;" they are that general.  He lacks
non-CaCa references, he has internal contradictions, and he uses hyperbole
to disguise the fact that his paper lacks substance.  Hell, I'm surprised
you can't see through the paper.  Maybe they used stink for ink...
 
I have virually EVERY reference on ferreting, including some from the 1700s,
and some in German, Romanian, and Russian, and one thing I've noticed is
they all describe how, every once in a while, ferrets are crossed with
polecats to make them more aggressive and better hunters.  So perhaps the
breeding for docility worked after all.  Also, the ferreter didn't want the
ferrets to be killers, so breeding, sewing the lips together, breaking off
the canines, and a variety of muzzels were used to prevent the ferret from
killing the rabbit.  The goal in ferreting was for the ferret to scare the
rabbit out of the warren, not hurt ot kill it.  Crossing with polecats was
to increase the instincts that had been bred out.  Hitchcock doesn't
understand the basic nature of domestication, he has a poor grasp of the
history of the ferret, and he can't even write a third-grade level paper.
No wonder he is an expert in Ca Ca Land.
 
Hitchcock is either a very poorly informed individual, unintelligent, or
just hates ferrets and uses his position to force his will on taxpayers.
Can't find any references?  Print something, even an internal report, then
cite yourself.  Hell, even a house of cards needs cards.
 
Hitchcock's address, as published with his paper, is "Jim C. Hitchcock,
California Department of Health Services, Vector-Borne Disease Section,
Ontario, California 91764." I'm sure the phone number is in the book, as is
that of his boss, and his bosses boss.  Get a copy of this paper, and ask a
local biologist to review it, then send it to the jerk, his boss, his bosses
boss, and Ca Ca newspapers.  Like my dad said, you can call what you like,
but if it stinks and comes from an ass [domesticated burro], then it's
manure.
 
Bob C and the 17 Missouri Mustelids
[Posted in FML issue 1897]