>As for breeding for profit - I personally don't think a responsible
>breeder who actually comes out a little ahead on a litter of whatever is
>wrong per se.  However if you breed with the intent to make a profit - you
>run the risk of what in my mind is an irresponsible breeder.  I.e. Whether
>cats z or dogs or ferrets you should only be breeding to improve the breed.
>A knowledge of genetics, breed standards, health screening for known
>problems in that breed, showing and breeding only those animals that have
>proven to be the best of the best in all aspects is in my opinion a
>responsible breeder.  A responsible breeder to my mind does it because
>they love the breed and breed because they think they can keep it sound and
>healthy.  Anything less is simply adding to the pet overpopulation problem.
 
While I tend to agree with your ideas here, I have SERIOUS problems with
the idea of "improving the breed" by breeding only animals that "conform
to the standard."
 
These are essentially arbitrary decisions made by a group of individuals
who decided what looked best.  They're the reason that Siamese cats have
become more and more elongated, to the point of having weak bones and other
health problems.  They're the reason Maine Coons are ending up with hip
dysplasia--someone decided that they should be really big.  These are not
decisions being made by "bad" breeders--it's the animals being turned out
by the "responsible" breeders that are developing these problems.  Purebred
cats have shorter lifespans on average--sometimes even a decade shorter--
than crossbreeds, and some breeds have definitely had intelligence
sacrificed in the search for the perfect appearance.  This all applies to
dogs, too, and I have a funny feeling we'll discover that it applies to
ferrets.
 
>... is there even a remote possibility that HIV/AIDS could be transmitted
>via the ferret's saliva from the saliva of the ferret's previous owner,
>whose lover died of AIDS just prior to giving up this ferret?  Seems a
>little scary to me.  Wasn't HIV/AIDS transmitted from the monkey to man
>originally?
>
>Do I have the responsibility to inform a would-be-adopter of such a ferret
>that it was originally owned by now deceased victims of AIDS?  If so, would
>that ferret ever be adopted into the non-homosexual ("straight") community?
 
You just love stepping on people's toes, don't you?  No, don't worry, no
danger--HIV can't be communicated between any species to our knowledge,
*including* man and ape.  We've theorized that it might be zoonotic, but
it hasn't tested out that way in the lab.  H stands for Human.  And it's
not communicated in saliva, either... ever, at least so far.  Someday, a
stronger strain might develop, especially if we keep creating stronger drug
treatments.  And my really important point: AIDS is NOT limited to the gay
community; it's a disease, and doesn't care who it kills.  Although it hit
the gay (male) community harder than the straight one, that fact is rapidly
changing.  Anyone can contract or die of AIDS.  I wouldn't think there's
any reason you have to tell anyone about the disease the former owner died
of--if it were cancer, would you make a point to mention it?
 
Just in case anyone doesn't understand all this, I have to mention it.
Have to.  I'm sure most of you understand why I do.  I've lost friends to
this disease, and know many others who have it and are living whole,
healthy lives despite being HIV+.  One of them even has ferrets, although
he might have to give them up if his T-cell count drops any more.
Immunodeficiency + pets = not good.
 
Jen and the Crazy Business.
[Posted in FML issue 2719]