Thought you all might find this article from the February 8 New York Times
interesting...  I'm not sure how legal it is to transmit this, so scroll on
past if you have doubts.
Anyway, it is an ok article (even if what it is reporting is not do good) but
it does contain some inaccuracies.  Perhaps some of the more knowledgable
ferret lovers here could draft a letter to the editor correcting some of
these.
 
Ferrets don't have same rights as Fido
By James C. McKinley Jr....
 
[Moderator's note: Following this was a pretty much verbatim copy of the New
York Times' article.  While I appreciate all the effort that went into
transcribing it for the FML, I feel I really can't let it be posted due to
copyright worries.  I will, however, summarize it for the FML...
 
The article, "Ferrets Do Not Have Fido's Rights" said that a federal judge,
Allen G. Schwartz, upheld the city's ban on ferrets as well as the Health Dept's
policy of destroying ferrets that have bitten people.
 
The article goes on to say that the Health Department considers ferrets to be
inappropriate pets for the usual reasons, e.g. rabies, ferocious temperment.
(To its credit, the article didn't mention the recent wave of cow killing ferret
attacks.)
 
There were indeed many inaccuracies.  McKinley said it is legal to own ferrets
in NY state but a license is required *to breed them* [emphasis mine]. He also
said ferrets are outlawed in MI, RI, SC and DC.  Oh well, so he got DC right.
The article also hints that this legal action was against the city, when in
fact it was brought in federal court.
 
Katie Fritz forwarded another article to me which in my opinion gives many more
useful details.  On one hand, the judge's written ruling was HORRIBLE - it
brought in everything from rabies to baby killing and stated that the city
submitted "significant materials in support of its ban."  But on the other
hand, it pointed out that this case was challenging the constitutionality of
the ban - which is a fairly specific matter.  The judge said that the recourse
for ferret owners lies with the agencies in charge of protecting the public -
in other words, if I am interpreting this correctly, this isn't a matter of
constitutionality but rather a local issue.
 
But yes, I'm rather bummed out about it.  All the judge had to say was that
it's not a federal matter - instead his ruling was filled with anti-ferret
garbage.  Of course, it's possible that I am misinterpreting all of this and
it's really much better or worse than I'm making it out to be, but I trust that
others will voice their opinions on the matter if they differ from my own.
 
Hmmm... this is the most I've actually written to the FML for a while.  I
sometimes think I should write more often, but seeing what a good job everyone
else is doing here, I don't have much reason to feel guilty... BIG]
[Posted in FML issue 1100]