>From:    outlawdook <[log in to unmask]>
>Mel, 99%-100% in a cage is one thing (and even that is hard to believe),
>since you didn't give a %- tage out of the cage, I'm going to assume,
>like the rest of fert owned humans, 60%-80% litter pan hit is about as
>accurate as you can get.
 
Why is 100% in-cage so hard to believe?  I purchased my first four ferrets
as kits and trained them from Day One to put their poops in the litter
pan.  I worked hard at being consistent.  You've heard all the suggestions
before -- put them in the box when they wake up, don't let them out of
their cage before they use the pan, etc.
 
And do not assume that my ferrets are 60%-80% out of the cage.  Of my
current ferrets the two I raised from kits are 100% out of the cage.  In
two years they have collectively missed the box once.  The third ferret,
purchased at eight months of age, is usually 100% in the cage although he
will occasionally lapse into going under the ramp for a few days.  A little
positive reinforcement and cage rearranging fixes the problem.  He also
still has problems remembering to use the box by the front door.
 
Even Brickbat the Rotund is close to 100% outside of the cage.  In the
mornings she will occasionally miss the box by the front door.
 
>There is no way, I believe that there is not a fossil fert turd anywhere
>in your home
 
We've moved twice in the last couple of years -- there were no fossils
until Bricky showed up.  I firmly believe that normal, healthy ferrets
trained from kithood should be 99%-100% accurate, especially in the cage.
 
>Must be a very boring life to stay caged to achieve an almost perfect hit
>rate for a task master or a litter box attached to it's ass either.
 
Excuse me?  A "task master"?  Now you are saying I keep my ferrets caged
all the time?  I probably shouldn't have bothered responding to someone
who is so obviously defensive about their own ferrets' litter training.
 
>If anyone is that clean, either doesn't have any pets (or many visitors
>for that matter)
 
My pets may have the occasional accident but I certainly don't tolerate
guests who crap on my floor.
 
>From:    "Jennifer D. Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
>Um, that means all rodents and birds are not the kind of animals people
>should have as pets...
 
Notice that I do not own any rodents or birds.
 
>We also want them to poop somewhere near the litterboxes, in them if
>possible.  Hard for a critter who's lived his whole life in a fishtank on
>its side with newspaper on the bottom of it.  Which, by your definition,
>means that particular ferret wouldn't make a good pet, right?
 
I didn't feel the need to clarify my statement with the words "normal and
healthy" but I suppose I should have known someone would point this out.
 
>Not every ferret can be litterbox trained perfectly.
 
I'll admit right now, if Brickbat had been my first ferret I never would
have gotten another.
 
>From:    Urban Fredriksson <[log in to unmask]>
>I wouldn't even be satisfied with a 99% litter trainedness.
 
Thank you!
 
>From:    Helen Chuang <[log in to unmask]>
>So to whoever wrote that they have a "low tolerance for animals crapping
>in (their) living quarters" and describes ferrets with a lower than 99-100%
>hit rate as "an animal that craps all over your house with no hope of being
>trained otherwise" : I'm not throwing flames, but why so extreme?
 
My exact words were, "If my first ferret had been 60%, as you say yours
are, I never would have adopted a second.  An animal that craps all over
your house with no hope of being trained otherwise isn't the kind of animal
one should have as a pet." Thus I was NOT describing an animal with less
than a 99%-100% hit rate.
 
>Would you feel the same about a child that occasionally wet the bed?
 
Yes, I'd train her to use the litter pan.  Seriously though, ferrets are
not children.  And if I had a child who urinated and defecated in her bed
every night, yes, I'd probably take her to a doctor.
 
-mel
~ Question the definition of Progress ~
        ~ www.Adbusters.org ~
[Posted in FML issue 2751]