>From:    Edward Lipinski <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: ECE apparent transmission from asymptomatic kit to ferret Scarlet.
>Please, somebody, explain that logic to me.  I just don't understand. Come
>on now; you reading this.  Can you explain?
 
If I do an action and a bad thing happens, I don't do that action anymore.
Its called learning.  Its an important trait in humans And other animals.
If Sable bit a baby (which is indeed a child) I would definitely be very
hesitant to put my other ferrets in a state where the identical thing could
happen.  Even if I knew that there were differences in the personalities of
Sable and the other ferrets.
 
>Surely some of you must have some thoughts on this very, very important
>behavior aspect of the supposedly "domesticated" ferret, an animal that
>is considered to be still a "primitive" creature along with all the other
>members of the family Mustelidae.
 
Still refusing to accept definitions I see.  A ferret is domesticated.
There is absolutely no doubt as its a defining trait of the ferret.  If its
not domesticated - its not a ferret.  Just as if it has feathers, its not a
ferret.  Opposable thumbs are an advanced trait on the evolutionary scale.
If an animal has opposable thumbs, its not a ferret.  Being cold blooded
is a primitive trait compared to being warm blooded.  If an animal is cold
blooded its not a ferret.
 
Primitive is NOT an antonym for domesticated.  In evolutionary terms a
mustelid is fairly primitive - for a mammal.  A gorilla is not.  A ferret
is domesticated while a gorilla is not.
 
>From:    Edward Lipinski Ferrets NorthWest FNW <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: The domestic ferret: a primitive? a baby biter?  really
>         domesticated?
>
>(sic)
 
That symbol is used when quoting to show an error was the fault of the
quoted and not the quoter.  I didn't follow your usage of sic the two
times you used it.  I didn't see the error you felt obligated to point
out.  BUT anyway...
 
>Thus, if the ferret's language is primitive, is the ferret itself
>primitive?
 
Yes and no.  Regarding vocalization, yes ferrets are primitive.  But its
not safe to generalize as broadly as you suggest.
 
>Does a primitive animal characteristically attack the young of other
>species?
 
No.  Some animals both primitive and advanced attack the young of other
species.  Its not a defining characteristic though of "primitive" or
"advanced".
 
>Could this include human young, such as infants?
 
Well your throught train was derailed at the last station but okay.  Some
animals that attack the young of other species might well attack human
infants.  Some wouldn't.  In general I put ferrets in the "wouldn't" pile.
A baby gerbil wouln't last too long around a lot of ferrets.  But I've not
seen any of our ferrets that would attack a baby elephant.  Kind of
ridiculous to contemplate.  Or funny.  Some might make flying leaps for a
waving trunk I guess.  But well.  Not much a ferret could do to even a baby
elephants legs which is about all they could reach.
 
>If the ferret is primitive and attacks the young of other species, is it
>at this time of its development, really domesticated?
 
YES!!!  You can not arbitraily choose to redifine words.  A ferret is by
definition domesticated (or is that really domestic?  Bob C did point out
the difference once upon a time.)
 
>Yet?
 
The state of domestication is binary.  Yes or no.  Its not a big ole scale
with with different levels based on arbitrary traits such as "will not
attack human infants".  Some wild animals notably your average Eastern
Cottontail rabbit will not attack human infants but they are not domestic.
 
>I espouse a theory that the "bite" of a ferret on a human infant is not
>necessarily a bad thing, but is in reality an act of beneficance by the
>ferret directed at a creature that it is trying to protect or even covet.
 
Beneficance?  Uh...
 
Some ferrets might well bite human infants out of a desire to "mother"
that huge baby.  Or out of thinking its a toy.  I wouldn't call that a
good thing.  The baby still got bit.  AND quite importantly these events
are extraordinarily infrequent.  So infrequent that it will be very hard
to use them to generalize about all ferrets.  As the facts are typically
presented (which might be biased) the ferrets are neglected and perhaps
abused that have been known to "attack" human infants so at best you could
make some comments only about such neglected ferrets.  Yet its still a
small minority of neglected ferrets that attack human infants.
 
>Think about it.
 
I did.  I'm done.  I don't dwell on the tooth fairy either.
 
-bill
[Posted in FML issue 2743]