FERRET-SEARCH Archives

Searchable FML archives

FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:56:47 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
Again, the point is missed.  Petsmart is a business.  Yes, they have an
obligation to keep within their stated policies.  And they also have a
right to change those stated policies, whether we like it or not.  You
criticize them for being concerned with their bottom line.  Well, that's
why they exist - for their bottom line.  Which business on the planet
doesn't?  But who says the bottom line has to be in disagreement with
humane policies?  Why do we just assume that?
 
We all have our perceptions on how things should be.  If I had my way,
probably a third of the people on this list might not be allowed to own
ferrets.  I would advocate the classifying of ferrets to "exotic" and
make the requirements stringent.  People would have to have enough space,
time, and money to own a ferret.  They would have to have a certain
amount of ferret medical and general knowledge, maybe even take a test.
License fees for exotics would be prohibitive, probably a few hundred
dollars.  People owning ferrets would be required to contract with a
ferret-experienced veterinarian for vaccinations and regular checkups.
I'm sure I could think of a few more things.
 
I don't run the planet with an arrogant iron fist, thank God.  But no one
could dispute that regulating ferret ownership, as stated above, might
solve many, many problems that ferrets are faced with.  Don't get me
wrong.  I'm not advocating my ideas.  But what's the difference between
the arrogance of my plan and the arrogance of telling pet stores what
kind of pet they can sell?  Not much that I can see.  Either plan wants
to limit public access to ferret ownership, simply put.  And neither plan
has the practical capacity to work.  I don't know how some people's logic
gets around that.
 
I understand the concept of the ferret impulse buy.  Most of us have done
it.  But if you truly want to limit impulsive ferret sales, the way to do
it is not to throw a blanket over the ferret cages and pretend they don't
exist.  You have to educate the prospective ferret-buying customer about
the responsibilities of ferret ownership.  If we can persuade Petsmart
to do anything, it should be that.  Imagine if Petsmart started talking
about ferrets.  They have big red signs.  They have television
commercials.  Being a good-sized corporation, they have the means to get
this message out, if they so choose.  If Petsmart could educate impulse
buyers that ferrets are not the same as cats or hamsters, think of the
impact it could have, not just at Petsmart, but all over.  This is what
we should be shooting for.  Email 'em about that.
 
Roary
Albuquerque, NM
 
"Go back to bed America, your goverment is in control again.  Here, watch
 this, shut up.  You are free to do as we tell you."
- from "We Want Your Soul" by Adam Freeland
[Posted in FML issue 4792]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2