Hi, David.  I hear your disclaimer, so I'm not taking aim at you, but I
just have to respond.  Please understand that my statements are in reply
to the arguments you posed - I understand that they are not necessarily
your opinions.  None of this is intended personally.
 
That said, I could not possibly disagree more.
 
Bans do not help anyone, people or the pets.  There are currently many
thousands (millions?) of ferrets in the country today.  What would happen
if we were suddenly to have a national ban?  (This is not as far fetched
as you might imagine - it's a dangerously possible situation in New
Zealand right now.) What would we do with these pets?  Ship them out of
the country?  Euthanize them?  Turn them out into the wild?  These animals
exist - they need good homes.  Instituting bans will not change that basic
fact.
 
You say shelters are filled with abandoned dogs and cats right now.  Since
this is such a problem, why don't we ban cats and dogs?  We can't because
people would cry foul.  For each animal in a shelter, there are many, many
out in the world with good homes, making their families happy.  I would
prefer not to see animals abandoned to shelters, either, but it's an ugly,
ugly fact of life.  However, the number of animals in shelters does not
justify taking away the pride and joy of many loving, caring homes.  We
have to consider the percentages.
 
Furthermore, you speculate that lifting bans on ferrets would place more
of them in shelters.  This may or may not be true.  Ferrets do not seem to
enjoy the same univeral appeal as cats and dogs, so this seems unlikely to
me.  I like to think that ferret owners are on average more knowledgeable
about their pets.  (I don't want to be, but could be proven wrong on
this.) The fact is, the governmental bans are few and far between today -
how would lifting the few remaining bans significantly increase the
numbers already in shelters?
 
You also advance the reasoning that allowing ferrets would allow in other
"exotic" species.  (Sounds a lot like "gateway" drugs, don't you think?)
This is completely specious reasoning and has no causal data to back it
up.  When someone can show me that data, I'll listen to the argument.
 
If you want to examine causal relationships, let's take a look at the
bans themselves and the number of animals in shelters.  I think you will
quickly see that bans INCREASE the number of pets in shelters.  Take a
look at all of the ferrets surrendered on this list lately.  The reasons
given very often include "we're moving to a place that doesn't allow
pets", or "we're moving to an area that doesn't allow ferrets".
Apartment-level bans are just as serious as city, state or national bans -
they prevent people from having pets.  So where do these poor pets go when
the people move?  Many end up in shelters, undoubtedly.  (Whether or not
these are good reasons is a separate matter.  For every irresponsible pet
parent, there are others who are forced by circumstances into these
situations.)
 
Bans don't help anyone - people or the pets.  They just strip people of
their freedoms, and strip animals from good homes.  "Animal rights" groups
have GOT to learn that "animal rights" does not mean turning them all out
into the wild.  (I am not accusing you or your groups of this, David.)
Imposing more bans will only hurt pets more than it will help.
 
If you want a solution, I suggest that we license pet owners.  Not the
pets - the pet *owners*.  If you want a pet, you will have to go through
a two-week training class (for example) and pay for your license.  You
will have to prove your knowledge and commitment before you are allowed
to own a pet.  It seems a small concession to make for someone who is
going to be responsible for other *lives*.  This of course isn't a perfect
solution either, but will cut down on casual impulse adoptions - like the
free kittens in front of the local WalMart.
 
A ban prevents *anyone* from owning a pet - responsible or not.  Licensing
at least attempts to separate the good from the bad, and thus allows those
who will be good pet owners to keep them.
 
Personally, I can't imagine that anyone on the list would be opposed to
licensing, but I welcome any dissent.  Please note that I don't imply any
restriction on numbers of pets kept when licensing owners.
 
Roger, Digger, Bear, Fox (aka Pepper) and Stripe (aka Badger)
Ban-free and happier for it
[Posted in FML issue 3685]