Below my comments is the letter I got on the 31st from Teri of AVAR.  I
have starred some sections of particular interest.
 
I agree that conditions need to be improved for pets, some of which very
likely will have to happen through legal or legislative channels, that it
makes complete sense for most pets to be sterilized considering the serious
over-population problems being seen in cats and dogs which ferret folks
have also long tried to avoid through shelter adoptions, and that it makes
sense that there be quality-care controls over anyone breeding domestic
animals (as well -- hopefully -- as breeders keeping line records to reduce
medical problems).
 
There are some incredible problems, however, with people throwing up their
hands, bemoaning that they can't reach perfection overnight, and giving up
by engaging in the extreme hubris of completely destroying the a genetic
group, whether through euthanasia or sterilization.
 
Perhaps how truly extreme and egotistical the very act of thinking that it
would be right to impose such a "solution" is would come through better
if placed into human terms.  Blacks have met with centuries of oppression
at the hands of Whites.  Things are improving, but certainly not rapidly
enough.  What if one group of Whites then turned around and said, "Gee
Whilikers, John and Susie, we can't change things as fast as we'd
personally like, and look at this terrible history.  Why, the only solution
must be to sterilize them all and then the problem will be gone within
decades of our own deaths."  Hmm, come to think of it, wasn't that one of
the "solutions" the Nazis considered for the Jews -- though not while
claiming such benevolent reasoning.  The end result is still is the same:
genocide.
 
Teri says that AVAR claims to want to give animals the freedom seen by
humans but death is freedom only for members of suicidal sects, and no
creature with such a love of life as ferrets have could possibly be a
member of a suicidal sect.
 
I'd like to know how fully this group has gone to this extreme.
 
There appears to be an incredible degree of ignorance demonstrated in
relation to animals which have been domesticated to the point where they
can not survive in the wild, in relation to genetic groups which are no
longer represented in the wild, in the difficulties of re-introductions
to the wild even of animals which are not domesticated, the damage which
introductions to the wild can do to wild populations, and the damage which
the introductions of diseases not currently in the wild can do to wild
populations -- if what is being said is that domestics should be turned
loose, or an inter-species-genocidal bent if the destruction of entire
genetic groups is advanced as being in the best interest of the creatures
who can not defend their own right to continued and constantly bettered
lives.
 
What is needed is improvements on a steady scale -- not decimation.
Who the %&#* are these people to say:
 
>Although many people love ferrets, in the long-run, the species
>would be better off if it weren't perpetuated as a companion animal.
 
I simply can't believe that someone would say that total destruction is
"not an anti-ferret stand" or "for the betterment of all animal species".
This isn't a matter of going from facts and finding logical solutions
which take into account the survival of the groups; it's cult-speak.
 
>Sukie: AVAR is not an affiliate of PETA or any other organization. We have
>approximately 1,500 veterinary members and more than 7,500 contributors. I
>believe *****PETA's stand isn't that ferrets should be rounded up and
>killed but, rather, to not be perpetuated as a human companion species.
>***** I understand their philosophy because it is similar to ours: The
>domestication of animals as 'pets' and 'food' or other human uses has
>contributed to a great deal of suffering and death for millions of these
>animals, including cattle, pigs, chickens, fish, horses, cats, and dogs (to
>name a few). If humans had left these species to their own accord to live
>as they would naturally, they would have been better off. We recognize that
>domesticated ferrets number in the millions and that these animals require
>good homes. However, is it in their best interest to continue breeding them
>from ferret mills and selling them as chattel or property where many will
>inevitably end up unwanted in shelters? Ferrets, like cats and dogs, are
>property under current law. Many of us would like to see all nonhuman
>beings liberated from human ownership. Additionally, many ferrets live in
>cages or confinement instead of more natural conditions. *****Although many
>people love ferrets, in the long-run, the species would be better off if it
>weren't perpetuated as a companion animal.***** This is not an anti-ferret
>stand.  We believe, as other animal rights persons, that nonhuman animals
>should live according to their own nature and in natural conditions, free
>from use and abuse by people.  As long as ferrets and other companion
>animals are 'used' by people for their own enjoyment, these animals will
>inevitably suffer the consequences.  This is not a philosophy, by the way,
>which could be adopted over-night but, rather, a goal for the betterment of
>all animal species.  I hope you understand where we're coming from.  Teri
[Posted in FML issue 2916]