I promised a couple of people I would attempt to clarify the problem of
ferrets and species names.  I'm not sure it could be done in a major paper,
much less than in the limited forum presented here.  But I'll try, and if
you have more questions, I can answer them later.
 
The problem has several sides; the most obvious are the political side, and
the biological side.  Biologically, virtually every zoologist I have read
indicates the ferret is a domesticated form of polecat, most likely that of
the European polecat, Mustela putorius.  While there is no direct physical
evidence of the association; the circumstantial evidence continues to grow.
While the ancestry of the ferret is not exactly know, these are the best
three possiblities: 1) The ferret was domesticated from the European
Polecat, 2) The ferret was domesticated from a now-extinct relative of the
European Polecat, and 3) the ferret was domesticated from the steppe
polecat.  Because of genetic research, only the first two possibilities are
concidered plausable.
 
So zoologists generally agree that the ferret is a domesticated polecat.
Their problem is in the nomenclature of the animal--how do we name our
domesticated species?  This is complicated in the ferret because we have no
real proof of the of the true ancestor.  The issue is still to be resolved,
and as scientific studies of domestication increase, it only gets more
passionate.  The worst flames I've ever recieved were from scientists
arguing their cause.  (Darwin was lucky he had Huxley.)
 
This greatly confuses the issue.  As does the difference between word usage
of "normal" people compared to biologists.  To many people, domestic and
domesticated mean the same, but not to a biologist.  Domestic can have
several meanings, such as association with a particular region, association
with people, and domesticated.  It is far more accurate to say "I have a
domesticated ferret" than it is to say "I have a domestic ferret." For
example, the black bear is domestic to the USA, the feral cat tends to live
in domestic environments, and we all love domestic ferrets.  If I lived in
Europe, and said that I saw a domestic ferret, what would I mean?  Could be
interpreted as all three.
 
Which brings us to the political side of the question.  Ferrets are the
pawns of political chess, and nothing else.  Concider their history in
California.  They started out being used for two basic reasons; to hunt
rabbits, and for pest control.  While I am not an expert of ferreting, it
does seem that it has historically been the domain of the lower classes,
especially in the last century.  One of the main reasons ferrets were made
illegal was to regulate ferretting.  Supposedly, it caused a decline in
rabbits for hunting.  However, the practice is centuries old in Britain and
Europe, with no major problems.  This is probably a situation where rich
hunters with guns and political savvy disliked poorer ferreters on their
"property." Also, ferrets had been used for ratting, but the introduction of
various rat baits in the late 1920s and early 1930s caused their popularity
to decline.  The shift in emphasis from natural controls to chemical
controls may have been, in part, economically motiviated.
 
In other words, ferrets had never been associated with the politically
correct nor economically powerful.  That was then.  What about now?  The
question of ferrets is not about science nor biology.  It is about political
power.  The CA F&G justifies it's existence through the work it is supposed
to be doing.  If it loses some of that job, it loses part of it's
justification for existance, which means, jobs might be lost.  Another
reason (and I have been TOLD this) is because there are no feral CA ferrets,
the law must be working!  If the law was repealed, then there would be feral
ferrets.  Besides ignoring the history and the number of pet ferrets in the
state, a beginning high school science student should be able to pick up the
tautological nature of this argument, where the statement becomes the
evidence.  A third reason is because the F&G can claim "success" in one area
while ignoring failures in others.  They have saved CA from the ferret, but
black bears are poached for gall bladders, etc.  The history of the F&G in
CA (and many other areas) is one of mismanagement of species, based not on
scientific reasoning, but on political motivation.
 
This is why terminology is so important, and why the question of Mustela
putorius vs Mustela furo becomes so critical.  Ernst Mayer considers the
subspecies classification to be a taxonomic reference only (except in very
rare cases), which means Mustela putorius furo = Mustela putorius putorius,
or commonly, ferret = polecat.  We, and virtually every zoologist and
zooarchaeologist as well, know this isn't true.  But on paper it is, and it
gives a tool for the F&G to use against truth, justice, and the American
way.  That is why I advocate using "fitch" for feral ferrets and hybrids,
"domesticated ferret or Mustela furo" for our little buddies, and "European
polecat or Mustela putorius" for polecats.
 
While I would love to laugh at the CA F&G, who have a collective
intelligence lower than the IQ of a dead man, it doesn't change the problems
in terminology.  (Maybe they are negatively-charged intelligences, and if
they come into contact with anyone with a positively-charged intelligence,
and explosion would occur...Naw, they have vaccuums up there.  We are in no
danger.) But understanding the problem gives us some ammunition to fight
back with.  I think someone needs to review the CA F&G's success in
protecting native species through time, and compare it with present efforts,
and see how much money is being wasted in against ferrets.  Then go after
Wilson, who wants to be president someday, and get him to cut those wasted
funds from the budget.  Go after their pocketbooks, and make them look
stupid, CA.  The press would LOVE IT!  (IMHO, of course!)
 
The Nondomesticated Bob and the Completely Domesticated Thirteen
[Posted in FML issue 1435]