I asked:
>>Susie, WHY would they have been euthanized?  That REALLY confuses me.
 
You replied:
>Why does California not allow ferret ownership? It is the same...
 
Please, listen to what I am asking because that does not answer the
question.  KNOWING the source and the reason given allow changes to
be made.
 
That is why the answers to my asking:
>Why?, Who is the source?, Could there have been a miscommunication?,
>What compromises...
amounted to ESSENTIAL questions.  If there are legal reasons then those
NEED to be known and changed.  If there are policy reasons then those
NEED to be known and changed (and these are easier to change than legal
reasons, though local legal things can be easier to tackle than state
legal ones).  If there is simply one person who is confused then that is
the single most easy thing to improve in ferrets' favor.  Such work is
essential to protect ferrets but without answers it can't be pursued.
There are people here who have info which could very possibly help if
the answers are forthcoming and certainly there are ones here who live
in Florida and may even have useful contacts in Florida if they know
what the answers are to those questions.  That would HELP.
 
There is no reason to assume the worst of people who ask what is
important for improvements.
 
You wrote:
>The couple is not repeating the abuses. The case has to do with what
>has already happened.
 
That is good to hear.  The news story sounded like the neighbors have NEW
videos.  If there is any chance there are new videos could you check into
that and let everyone know.  please?
 
>How about the phone call that was the impetuous and just started
>*everyone* overreacting?
 
I understand that it was a consideration because the person was in your
words acting very strangely, but I don't see why that makes seeking
answers to questions less vital to future improvements.
 
I wrote:
>>Okay, but the reality is that once removed there all too often no
>>longer is any legal option.
 
You replied
>So, you are saying that the wrong decision was made.
 
No, what I said is exactly what I said: that once animals are removed
there all too often no longer is any legal option.  That is just fact.
 
Hopefully, those neighbors have enough information to stop the couple
from repeating.
 
Next time -- not you specifically but in ANY rescue anywhere -- it
can save far more ferrets long term for shelters to get a cooperative
arrangement in place beforehand with humane groups, like was done in
Maryland and elsewhere, because THAT has the best chance of getting
the best of all worlds: the ferrets live AND the abusers get prosecuted
which tends to put prohibitions in place which reduce the risk of the
people repeating animal abuses.
 
You wrote:
>That the decision to get the ferrets out and not allow them to be
>euthanized was wrong.
 
That makes no sense in relation to what was said and what essential
questions for future improvements were asked.  Sorry, but it just does
not follow.  It does nothing toward making improvements for the future.
Answers to the questions asked could save the most ferrets long term due
to people understanding what needs to be tackled, where, with whom, and
how.  So, there is nothing wrong with asking and finding constructive
solutions to the answers.
 
You misunderstood (badly) and said:
>You say that we should have waited until the legal battle could have
>been won?  Please.
 
NO, I did not say that.  What I said was that there is a good history
of cooperative ventures between humane societies has allowed for BOTH
rescuing the ferrets AND prosecuting the abusers (which do not need to
take a long time and certainly do NOT happen AFTER cases are won).
 
You wrote:
>Yes, that is unfortunate. However, I don't think that I've ever
>heard the term, "Legal Enforcer" included with (Fill in the blank)
>Ferret/Dog/Cat Rescue.
 
Sure, there have been cases which have gone to court -- see past FMLs --
and ones for which loads of evidence are now being collected to have the
best outcome for future ferrets or other animals, and the MORE the ferret
community knows how to use the laws which exist and the needs of the
courts to HELP ferrets the better the outcomes will be for ferrets.  If
you look at the past you will see that typically the problems have
included people not fulfilling those considerations.  Meet the needs in
terms of types of evidence (for instance presenting negatives along with
photos to show that tampering was not possible) or types of testimony
(for instance if a veterinarian, police officer, or humane officer is
present the testimony is more effective), etc..  It is absolutely
essential that we (the ferret community) work SMART to get the best
results possible.  All too often we have NOT worked smart and then the
same people do it over and over and over.  Think of the animals who
could have been saved if those abusers had been stopped early on or
even had the numbers of animals and repetitions legally lowered.
 
You wrote:
>The court documents indicated that their had been a dispute between the
>Sypiens and their neighbors.  Jennifer was pressing charges against her
>neighbor.  That is all.  Don't read more into it...
 
I was being hopeful.
 
You note:
>Unless you have been involved *personally*, you have NO idea of how much
>work is involved.  The number of details to attend to is ridiculous.
 
Very true, but so is changing law or changing policy and in this case due
to the death sentence statements knowing answers to those questions is
the first step toward making such progress.
 
You wrote:
>Next, regardless of whether or not you agree with how the situation
>proceeded or have been resolved, you owe Michelle and everyone else
>involved in that rescue the respect they deserve.
 
There NEVER was any lack of respect expressed in my notes.  There was
(and remains) a desire to understand better what happened and make sure
that next time is better for stopping abusers while also saving ferrets.
That IS also being for the ferrets; it's just noticing a different
perspective on ways to do it.
[Posted in FML issue 4299]