[Moderator's note: 2 posts combined here.  BIG]
Q: "I love your posts, but I have to disagree with you about ferrets in
California.  I think California has a disturbed ecosystem which invites
invasion species such as the ferret."
 
A: The only things seriously disturbed in CaCa Land is Wee Weasel Wilson,
the Flushing Gestapo and Charles Manson.
 
I would have guessed you were attending UC Davis without looking at your
email address.  That's the line I have heard for the last couple of years
coming out of the Gestapo classes there.  I even have a copy of the
annonated bibliography prepared by a PhD out of that institution, and I
have to say it is professionally embarrasing to read the kind of
pseudo-scientific prejudical crappola disguised as an impartial scientific
bibliography to be used by people to research the ferret issue.  Notably
absent from the bibliography were ANY major paper on the ecology of
introduced species, including the book that compares CaCa land to other
areas of similar climate and biodiversity.  However it did include the
following reference, and carefully noted it said ferrets are a serious risk
to the CaCa wildlife based on it:
 
Smallwood, K. S., and T. P. Salmon. 1992 A RATING SYSTEM FOR POTENTIAL
EXOTIC BIRD AND MAMMAL PESTS. "Biological Conservation" 62(3):149-159.
 
This is the reference ferret lovers will be batting their head against for
the next decade.  To me, it is the ecological equivilent of the Constanine
and Kaizer report, so horribly done.  Mind you, this paper is done MUCH
better, and it is quite difficult to recognize the inherit problems built
into the system they use to quantify risk.
 
The major problem is the paper is a self-fulfilling model of prediction.
They selected characteristics of invasion species to build the criteria,
THEN tested it by comparing it to other invasion species.  I am so impressed
(sarcasic remark).  Maybe I can come up with a list of characteristics of
stupid politicans, and define politicans by them.  This is a tautology, a
circular argument in which set A defines set B which essentially supports
the definition of set A.  You have seen this is poorly-worded dictionaries
in which a word is defined by a similar word, and no real definition is
given, such as "Comparing: To compare, and Compare: The act of camparing."
It is really bad science.
 
With reference to the ferret, the paper is fatally flawed in three areas.
First, it rates the ferret according to its ability to be introduced into
New Zealand.  Using their vast experience to rank the ferrets potiential
destructiveness, they came up with high numbers.  The fatal flaw?  Yes those
numbers are high in New Zealand; the island was horribly distrupted by
numerous species prior to the introduction of the ferret, and there were no
natural competitors to resist the introduction.  UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THE
CONDITIONS IN NEW ZEALAND ARE HOMOLOGOUS TO THOSE IN CALIFORNIA, THE
COMPARISONS ARE NOT PROOF.  WITHOUT LINKAGE, THE COMPARISONS ARE NOT EVEN
ANALOGOUS.  The assumption which fatally flaws this portion of the paper is
that ferrets have the same ability to go feral in CaCa Land as they did in
New Zealand.  The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that an
hypothesis is an idea while a theory is an idea that has not been disproved
by rigorous testing.  Neither are facts; a bone is a fact, but ecology is a
theoretic idea.  Smallwood has lept to theory BEFORE his hypothesis has been
proven by testing facts.  BAAAAAAAD Science!!!
 
The second fatal flaw is that Smallwood reports his ranking system is based
on his own experience.  He never defines the process nor even allows us to
test his ranks.  He has become the GOD OF DATA, and his exclusion of the
reader from that rather important part of the rating process is
condescending, arrogant and perhaps even deceitfull.  We are to blindly
accept his rating system without proof, without outside tests, without ANY
checks or balances.  Knowing the biology of ferrets, I also came up with a
rating number for ferrets.  I think they rate at 3.  So who is right?  Me?
Him?  Without either of us telling you exactly how we did it, you can never
know.  It is exactly like my totalling up your groceries without you ever
knowing the per item cost.  Come on, you can trust me, just use the Visa
card.  BAAAAAAAD Science!!!
 
There is a third flaw; Smallwood assumes each species is exactly the same,
bird or mammal, and thus can be quantified similarly.  So, according to
Smallwood (who specifically mentions *pet* ferrets), a neutered pet ferret,
olfactory imprinted on kibbled food and lacking learned predatory and
predator-advoidance behaviors, has a index value of 25, when in reality, it
is closer to zero as the black-footed ferret program has so aptly proven.
So, assuming Smallwood's criteria are plasible, and assuming domestic
ferrets are similar to wild cousins of the same genus (a common assumption,
repeated ovwer and over by the Flushing Gestapo), black-footed ferrets are
also a risk of invading and destroying CaCa wildlife.  Smallwood has been
able to rate ferrets, who exist within the state as pets but are not feral,
higher than species that are already feral or native to CaCa Land!  Ferrets
rated higher than horses (feral, 18), rabbits (feral, 21) burros (feral,
23), gray squirrel (feral, 24), or fox squirrel (feral, 21).  IF Smallwood's
system worked, it would mean both ferrets (or black-footed ferrets) were
more than capable of invading CaCa Land, provided they live there, are being
breed there, and are in sizable quantities.  See what I'm saying?  Those
conditions have existed in CaCa Land for quite some time, but no feral
ferrets exist anywhere in the country, much less than in CaCa Land.  Since
his rating system is not self-correcting, and Smallwood *never* acknowledges
its potiential failings, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED IT IS ACCURATE FOR ANY
SPECIES.  That's three strikes.  You didn't even reach first base.  Yer out!
 
I'll be blunt.  This rating system is a piece of ECE-laced ferret scat, and
it is typical of the offal crap coming out of CaCa Land.
 
As already stated, the 1997 annotated bibliography for ferret research is
horribly biased.  In fact, it shows no real research skills at all, ignoring
a vast ecological literature contrary to the Flushing Gestapo point of view.
There is an almost manic quality to the exclusion of modern ecological
studies on introduced species.  It was like the compiler had no idea how to
run a word search on the library catalog, or maybe didn't have access to a
computer.  Friends, most introductory biology students are familiar with
"Zoological Records" or "Biological Abstracts." Not this dweeb.  Out of
hundreds of suitable papers, they selected Smallwood, already reviewed, and
the "required" citation of Constanine and Kaizer.
 
One skipped paper is James H. Brown 1989 PATTERNS, MODES AND EXTENTS OF
INVASIONS BY VERTEBRATES, pp. 85-109 IN "Biological Invasions:  A Global
Perspective" edited by J. A. Drake, et al.  John Wiley and Sons. THIS is a
well balanced and honest apprasial of vertebrate invasions.  Of special
interest is a graph (figure 5.2) on p.89.  It shows the correlation between
the number of introduced species compared to native species (something the
CaCa Flushing Gestapo fails to even remotely understand).  New Zealand
graphs at about 90-95% introduced mammals, while North America graphs at
less than 5%.  In fact, it is almost setting on the X-axis, scaled at zero.
The two areas are about as polarized as two places can be.  That means, THEY
ARE NOT THE SAME!  Now, I have told many people that Australia ALSO released
ferrets a century ago, but no feral colonies exist today.  Guess where
Australia falls on this graph?  Just slightly higher than North America.
Oooooooooooooo!  Lets see.  Similar climate, similar number of species
(richness and diversity), lots of ferrets, NO feral populations.  Better
ignore the facts when they are contrary to the suppositions.
 
But is CaCa Land much like Australia?  Well, I doubt if they have any slime
turds like Wee Weasel Wilson and the CaCa Flushing Gestapo living there and
thats a big difference.  But the two areas ARE comparable, as evidenced by
the following reference, also not cited by the Davis Dolt, in which
California is specifically compared to parts of southern and western
Australia (and other areas of the world): R.  H.  Groves and F.  Di Castro
1991 "Biogeography of Mediterranean Invasions" Cambridge University Press.
 
The problem with citing a well balanced paper is that it might disagree with
your own ideas of how things work.  Take the Gestapo and my positions on
feral ferrets as an example.  Long-time readers will attest I have always
admitted situations where ferrets do indeed run wild.  I admit them,
investigate them, and look for commonalities.  After extensive investigation
and study, I say that while the occasional ferret might be able to survive a
season or two, all things considered, ferrets, as kept in North America,
cannot form feral colonies in California.  The Flushing Gestapo, in
contrast, invents data, does not research the question, and based on
personal hatred towards an inoffensive domestictaed mammal, proclaims it to
be a menace to wildlife.  They can't afford to cite good research because it
will make them look stupid.
 
So, why does the CaCa Flushing Gestapo insist on forcing round pegs into
square holes?  Are they stupid or just good caretakers of their state?
Nowhere in the recent history of the Great State of CaCa has A SINGLE
SPECIES been forced into extinction by a non-human mammal.  Every recent
extinction of a species within the state has been caused by the direct
influence of humans, mostly through agricultural, industrial or hunting
practices.  Maybe a few have been caused by livestock or feral cats, but
nearly all have been caused by humans only.  The bear on the state flag is a
grizzly, having been hunted to extinction under the care and directorship of
the CaCa Flushing and Gestapo Agency nearly a century ago.  They almost were
able to do the same thing to the puma, but law forced them to place the
carnivore on the protected species list, and they were ended their bounty on
the cat.  They are not animal caretakers: they regulate hunting "harvests"
so next year they can kill as many as last year.  That is their function,
and they do it very well.  Protecting animals is NOT something they do well,
either historically or today.  And investigating ecological theory is
WAAAAAAAY down on their list of things to do, perhaps even lower than
kissing Satan's ass.  I'm sorry; they have already been sleeping with Wee
Weasel Wilson, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society.  Microcephalics,
every one, and in every way.
 
Sometimes people think I hate the CaCa Flushing Gestapo.  Not true.  I
wouldn't cross the street to spit on them if they were on fire, but I don't
exactly *hate* them.  What bothers me is this arrogance in thinking they can
dictate to a large group of people something that is neither factual nor
compelling, and in a so-called free society to boot.  We all have a moral
obligation to stand up to these self-lobotomized lunatics and force them
into scientific and representative compliance.  To do any less would be
immoral.  In the same spirit as George Washington Carver fighting ignorant
prejudice to become one of the Einsteins of his day, and against those
self-righteous brown-shirted bullies that hide that truth under the whitest
of sheets, I will fight those innept suckwads of deception with my dying
breath.  If the core is rotten, no part of the apple is edible.
 
This is the agency that cannot stop poachers from killing black bears for
their gallbladders, penises and paws, leaving entire carcasses to rot in
plain view.  Nor can they stop the selling of such items in markets in Los
Angeles and San Francisco.  BUT they can sure as hell can stalk a housewife
in Fresno and capture evil ferrets.  They sure as hell can identify hundreds
of feral ferrets in the state, when biologists only see longtailed weasels.
They can sure as hell spend 11 months on a stakeout to catch a single person
and their handful of dangerous mammalian invaders.  I AM NOT IMPRESSED!
Californians!!  Stand up and unite, and kick these politically corrupt,
intellectually primitive and morally retarded dingleberries of deception out
of office!  If Patrick Henry can shout "Give me liberty or give me death!"
and survive, you can shout "GIVE ME FERRETS OR GET OUT OF OFFICE!" and maybe
survive to your next birthday.
 
Bob C and 20 MO Ferret Henrys.
Bob C and 20 MO Ferts itching to bite small wood.
[Posted in FML issue 2243]