Thanks to the domestication quiz, I've received a couple dozen inquires
about ferret domestication.  Here are a few short, sweet answers.
 
1. Alexandra did a nice job regarding the human consumption of small
rodents.  I will add that rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters were
domesticated for food, NOT as pets.  The extirpation of wild hamsters
from most of Europe is thought to be largely due to food-centered
exploitation.  Even dogs were domesticated as much for food as for any
other purpose (called "barking mutton;" Native Americans would complain
that every time Lewis and Clark's company visited, the local dogs would
disappear).  A single rodent may not supply a lot of food, but would be
an important source of trace nutrients for early agricultural peoples,
especially in the spring and early summer before the crops mature.  Small
rodents abound, are usually easy to catch (especially with ferrets), and
three or four in a pot containing calorie-rich grains or starches
provides a significant amount of iron, vitamins, protein and fat.
 
The consumption of small rodents is quite common in many cultures.
Generally, the animals were skinned, pounded flat and dried, then stewed
as needed, or simply boiled or roasted and eaten from the bone.  At the
time of ferret domestication, wild hamsters were quite common, as were
sousliks (a type of ground squirrel).  It is probable the practice of
ferreting rabbits evolved from an earlier practice of ferreting hamsters
and sousliks.  Rabbits were being introduced into Europe at about the
same time wild hamster and souslik populations were in serious decline.
 
2. Ferrets were commonly used in the United States to hunt various
furbearers.  Similar to ferreting rabbits, the goal wasn't to have the
ferret actually catch or kill the animal, but to bolt it from the burrow,
where men with clubs, guns, or dogs did the killing.  Ferrets were
reportedly very good at the job.  One of the main reasons ferrets were
made illegal in the USA was because it was nearly impossible to regulate
their use in hunting; it was easier to simply outlaw them than try to
police their use.
 
3. During and just after the Civil War, several states passed game laws
regulating the use of ferrets for hunting rabbits or furbearers.  The
implications of these laws are that ferrets were common enough for state
legislatures to identify potential problems, discuss solutions, and pass
regulatory laws.  Civil war era documents in the Library of Congress, as
well as in my personal possession, either directly discuss hunting with
ferrets, or ask the cost of obtaining ferrets.  Armies on both sides of
the conflict relied on local foods to supplement existing stores, or as a
primary source.  One of the laws appears to prohibit the use of local
people from using ferrets to hunt, presumably to allow soldiers (who were
exempt) a better chance to forage game.  Tasks assigned these ferrets
where hunting small game (principally rabbits), ratting, and hunting
various furbearers.  Taken as a whole, there is little doubt ferrets were
sometimes used during Civil War times for procuring additional food, fur,
and to eliminate rodent pests.
 
4.  No, I WILL NOT provide copies of early documents, nor will I
specifically discuss them in detail or tell you where to get them until
AFTER I publish the material.  I used to make ideas and materials freely
available, only to find them "borrowed" by others.  Using other people's
ideas without crediting them is unethical, but doing it to a friend?  I
don't mind helping people, but I will no longer do their homework for
them.
 
5. I will discuss lifespan and diseases of old age in a follow-up post.
 
  [second post tacked on to this one...  BIG]
 
6. The way scientists name domesticated species is rather illogical,
inconsistent, contradictory, and, if you ask me, obtuse.  Some
domesticates are named after the wild species, others are not.  Dogs are
domesticated wolves, Canis lupus, but carry the scientific name Canis
familiaris.  Pigs are domesticated European boar and both use the same
scientific name, Sus scrofa.  The problem is that while criteria exist
for naming wild animals, there is no real procedure for naming
domesticated beasts.  The move to permanently return ferrets to the
original Linnaean binomial "Mustela furo" is like pasting a band-aid
over a carbuncle; it really solves nothing, but it does make things look
better.
 
7. Ferret coloration is intimately tied to domestication.  If you breed
for tameness, one of the results is a change in the timing of the
migration of melanocytes during early development.  This impacts the
distribution of melanocytes in the skin and fur; excluding fancy
melanistic breeds, domesticates have diluted coloration compared to the
progenitor.  For example, a dark polecat has a black coat with an almost
purple sheen, but "black sable" ferrets are usually only a very dark
brown.  Some hobby breeders, hoping to breed black fur, have crossed
ferrets back to polecats.  The tactic generally works to increase the
darkness of the coat, BUT it also decreases the behavioral traits of
domestication as well.  Many of the resulting offspring are more nervous,
easily stressed, bite more frequently and harder, and are far more
aggressive to other ferrets.  Bred them to be tame again, and you lose
much of the dark coloration.  The tactic is a waste of time, temporary
at best, and dangerous to the reputation of ferrets at worst.
 
8. The idea that ferrets were domesticated in Egypt isn't actually that
old, dating to perhaps the middle of the 1800s.  Prior to then, there was
always the suggestion that ferrets were domesticated in Libya or North
Africa, although most of the authors scientifically trained summarily
rejected the idea for a lack of support.  The "Out of Egypt" idea bubbled
up in the caldron of origin hypotheses from time to time, but really got
rolling shortly after King Tut's tomb was discovered.  While the idea was
never accepted by scientific investigators, it was seized upon by a few
ferret breeders who saw ferrets in hieroglyphs of mongeese, and support
in a mistranslated word in an early version of the King James Bible.
Still, the idea of Egyptian domestication never entered the mainstream
until ferrets became popular as pets during the later 1970s and early
1980s.  At that time, the idea was presented as fact in several books
promoting ferrets as pets, and the idea became entrenched in ferret dogma
there after.
 
Even so, the idea has never been taken seriously by scientific
researchers, especially those with a background in Egyptology or
domestication.  The promulgation of the idea has always been a weak point
for those promoting ferrets because it suggests, by implication, the
overall scholarship of ferret owners is in doubt.  After all, if ferret
owners accept an easily disproved idea about ferrets being domesticated
by Egyptians, couldn't they be mistaken about feral issues, bite safety,
or the risk of passing dangerous diseases?  I have heard this objection
by three leading zoologists when I queried them regarding ferret issues.
While some might suggest the belief is benign, it is not.  Promoting the
idea harms efforts for ferret legalization, and causes scientists to
question the scholarship of other, more important, analyses.
 
9. Ferrets were domesticated to hunt.  To better serve that purpose,
specific traits were promoted, such as tameness towards humans, reduced
fear of new situations and environments, and increased curiosity.
Ferrets actively seek out novel situations, and are obsessed with
investigating new objects.  The difference between ferrets and polecats
is that polecats recognize they run great risk of becoming a meal, while
ferrets think EVERYTHING is a meal.  This one behavioral characteristic
is probably the single most important reason ferrets fail to go feral
EXCEPT in areas where food is plentiful, competition is slight, and
predation is minor.
 
10. We will probably NEVER really understand the who or where of ferret
domestication because it probably occurred without purposeful intent
by common people who lack recorded histories.  Genetic studies imply
ferrets may be a European-steppe polecat hybrid, osteological studies
are inconsistent and contradictory (thus untrustworthy), archaeological
studies lack significant data, and historic documents are skewed by
observer bias.  It is far easier to say where it wasn't than where it
was, or who didn't do it than who did.  I find it a compelling mystery
and I dedicate as much time as possible to its solution, but I recognize
a lifetime of investigation will yield few concrete answers.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4066]