I am WAAAAY behind on my FMLS, so I am unaware of what has been said
recently about PETA and ferrets.  What I do know is I have had a couple of
dozen inquiries in my email box asking I say something on the issue.  While
I am addressing PETA and ferrets, I think my comments could be extrapolated
to other organizations and species.  These are *MY* opinions.
 
PETA is an organization with the ethical treatment of animals as a stated
goal.  As such, I find this extremely commendable.  I sincerely doubt if
you will find ANYONE on the FML who loves animals more than I, and I am
extremely concerned about animal treatment.  However, PETA has often used
terrorism (burning university facilities, terrorist threats, even violence
and murder) to further their goals.  They have openly stated one of their
goals is to "free" all animals from human enslavement and return them to
the wild.  Regardless of your feelings towards the ethics of terrorism, are
PETA's long term goals REALLY ethical towards ferrets?
 
Ferrets are domesticated.  That means ferrets have evolved in the last two
thousand years according to human wants.  Humans have reshaped the ferret's
body and changed the ferret's reproduction, behavior, and physiology.  Have
these changes made it impossible for the ferret to exist in a wild state?
Most ferrets would die.  Some ferrets can survive for a while, but only
those able to find food and shelter from predators would reproduce.  Out of
thousands, a handful might survive; the rest would end up crushed in the
jaws of predators or slowly starve or die from disease.  A ferret can no
more control being born a ferret than I could control being born American.
Is it ethical to condem millions of ferrets to horrific and painful deaths
simply because of their heritage?
 
Imagine what would happen if every ferret in the USA was released into
the wild tomorrow.  The sudden influx of millions of ferrets into the
wild would have horrific effects; ferrets would die by the millions of
starvation and disease,small predators would starve, and untold millions
of prey animals woulddie.  It would destroy the ecological balance of many
communities.  Have you ever seen a starving animal?  Do you know what they
feel as they slowly consume their own muscles to maintain energy?
Ultimately, if not killed and eaten, their immune system fails and they can
no longer hold off disease.  As each one becomes ill, the entire population
of animals can become threatened by a pandemic.  That is exactly how
zoonotics (animal epidemics) start.  There are thousands of examples of
this happening and it is a great concern to wildlife conservationists
today.  The cycle nearly always start with starvation, then disease.
Have you ever watched a starving ferret die of enteritis?  Distemper?
Encephelitis?  It is ethical to subject these animals to extreme pain and
agony to further a political--not biological--agenda?
 
PETA feels the domestication of ferrets is a form of slavery.  In the case
of companion animals, that means ferret owners are enslaving ferrets for
the personal pleasure of their companionship.  Exploitation implies one
side profits while the exploited side loses.  In domestication, both
parties profit.  This is hard for the castrated bull to realize as he is
being ground into hamburger, but you have to ignore individuals when
speaking of species.  As a species, cattle profit even though many
castrated bulls get the MacDonald's treatment.  Why?  Because domestication
is simply nothing more than coevolved controlled predation.
 
This sounds as if domesticated animals get nothing out of the deal.  Wrong.
They get what ALL species want; food, protection and successful
reproduction.  The real difference is, instead of uncontrolled predation of
all members, the domesticate faces controlled predation of some of their
members (usually excess males).  This is a symbiotic relationship because
both parties gain something from the other.  It is not exploitation, but an
exchange of one thing for another; a symbiosis.
 
In ferrets, this symbiotic relationship exchanges freedom and companionship
for food, protection and reproduction.  PETA would argue that the ferrets
have no choice and they are correct.  Ferrets have little say in housing,
movement, owners, food selection, sexual partners, etc.  My solution is to
give my ferrets as much freedom as possible; they can select the foods they
prefer from a wide selection, I allow them freedom of movement (within a
secure environment), and I treat them with dignity and respect.  True, I
have mandatory neutering at skeletal maturity, so obviously my solution
isn't perfect, but it is the best I can do under the circumstances.  I try
to make our relationship as symbiotic as possible.  Since ferrets are a
domesticated species, would it be ethical to distroy a symbiotic
relationship they DEPEND upon?
 
There is a term, "Felicific Calculus," which is the determination of the
"rightness" of an action by balancing it's positive and negative impacts.
In a very real sense, the use of felicific calculus is the basis of all
ethics.  In other words, actions have both "good" and "bad" effects; only
when the "good" outweighs the "bad" is something normally considered
ethical.  Now, there is a degree of difficulty in determining the balance
point (the grist of philosophical mills).  Any ferret owner who has been
forced to euthanize a beloved pet can explain the difficulty.
 
So, using felicific calculus, does PETA have a vaild position?  Ask
yourself if PETA's plan of releasing domesticated ferrets (and other
animals--consider for a moment the consequences of releasing 80 milion cats
and dogs into the countryside) would cause less suffering than currently
found as pets.  Then, factor in the cost to other species, the pain of
starvation and disease, the possibility of zoonotic disease, the loss of
wildlife.  Add it all up and decide for yourself if PETA is ACTUALLY
proposing a plan which would increase the ethical treatment of animals or
if they are just advancing a political position.
 
Bob C and 16 Mo' Felicific Ferrets (Missing Trillian)
[Posted in FML issue 2917]