I am both confused and saddened by Ed AND the responses his request for
someone's beloved pet has garnered.  Whatever has been said at least
partially stems from my earlier comments (perhaps a smaller degree or
larger depending on my ego).  It has never been my attention, AT ANY TIME
to try to remove Ed from this list, either by direct or indirect means.  I
have met Ed a couple of times, and I honestly like him.  I think he is an
important facet of the FML, and I--for one--would not like him to leave.
Regardless of our differences in opinion, I consider him a friend.
 
I have not read Ed's original "request post", but regardless of the tact
(or lack of), the request itself was NOT a bad thing.  Perhaps Ed's choice
of venue was lacking, but in all honesty, I personally feel the request is
not philosophically different than a request to harvest a beloved child for
organs.  Yet, doctors and nurses are REQUIRED to ask for organs BEFORE the
final breaths of the child.  Now imagine how you might feel if you were
watching your child as they were dying, on life support, and a doctor came
in and asked if they could cut out the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and
eyes.  I'm sorry, but the loss of a pet ferret, as deeply as I feel about
them, cannot exceed the feelings of loss by a parent for a child.
 
It is my personal OPINION that requests for dead pets are quite appropriate
provided such requests support research of a valued and meaningful nature.
And while the harvesting of a skeleton for biometric data is hardly in the
same category as the harvesting of lungs for a child with cystic fibrosis,
IT IS biometric data which fuels ALL research--in a sense, if skeletal
scholarship can increase awareness or understanding of ferret issues, then
it can be just as much of a life-saving activity as organ transplants.
Maybe not as apparent, but as important.
 
HOWEVER, it is pointless to harvest the skeleton of a loved pet for
biometric data if the data is not collected in a scientific manner and
published in a readily obtainable format.  I have questioned Ed's
motivations and scientific reasoning towards his experiment, and have
twice advised FML members to not support his experiments.  That position
has nothing at all to do with Ed (other than it was he that brought up the
subject) but rather with his experimental protocol.  I wasn't suggesting Ed
was dumb or had a bad idea.  The point I have repeatedly tried to make is
there are so many variables that are not controlled that his experiment is
absolutely worthless.  Ed is attempting to duplicate existing studies which
have been repeatedly shown to be flawed.  Admittedly, the issues involved
are not recognized by all participants; for example, zoologists are not
typically taught issues paleontologists, physical anthropologists and
zooarchaeologists spend a career studying.  Because of this, while the
technique of ageing by tooth wear has been shown in the zooarchaeological
literature to be practically worthless, some wildlife zoologists are still
being taught it as part of their dogma.  Some recognize it doesn't work,
but it is all they have, and since they are required to estimate ages for
demographic reasons, they still use it.  BUT, regardless if Ed thinks it
works, if a grizzled old fish and game warden thinks it works, or even if
*I* think it works, the fact is, any 2nd year zooarchaeologist,
paleontologist or physical anthropologist would laugh us out of the
building if we imply the technique is meaningful.
 
We already have too much misunderstanding towards ferrets to want to
increase that misunderstanding OR to decrease our scientific reliability.
I like you Ed, but this is just plan dumb and you should either learn the
theory behind it (I am more than willing to teach it to you), or drop the
damn thing and do something else with more value.  How about dividing all
your ferrets into two groups, and feed one group L.U.M.P.S. and the other
kibble, then do a long term study on the health of the individuals?  THAT
would have meanful value.  Damn it Ed, I really dislike what you are doing
because there are few people qualified to address the issues, and your
stubborn idiotic refusal to read and understand the topic is going to force
the issue to a point where I will post stuff that will make you look stupid
and silly and just plain ignorant.  I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT!!  I take no
pleasure in it and I resent being forced into the confrontation.  Don't be
stupid, Ed.  Read the background literature and you will see for yourself
that you are trying to catch a rabid cat through an arm-sized hole in the
fence.
 
One final point I want to make clear to all members of the FML.  I have
in my possession (temporary possession; they will all end up at the
Smithsonian when the study is complete) the skeletal remains of scores of
ferrets.  There are some shelters, vets, and a few individuals which freeze
their departed ferrets and ship them to me.  I carefully harvest the
skeletons (it takes WEEKS of careful and time consuming work for a single
skeleton, and is quite unpleasant), label them, measure and record their
morphometric data, then store them in the same archival manner used by the
Smithsonian, Berkeley, Seattle, Harvard, The American Museum, and the
Carnegie.  The route from frozen carcass to scientifically valuable bone is
difficult and expensive, and I will not tell anyone how to do it (There are
already too many animal skulls for sale on Ebay and Yahoo).
 
The point is, *I* ask for ferret carcasses from time to time.  I honestly
believe the use of dead pet, if done carefully, can GIVE meaning to the
death.  The problem with ferrets is they are domesticated, sexually
dimorphic AND neutered prior to skeletal maturation.  That means Ed's data
is USELESS unless he controls for dozens of variables, which, even if he
read the literature and learned what to control for, he cannot control for
them within a "donated pet population." Even in my case, I cannot control
for them and must use extreme caution in what I measure and how I interpret
it.  I use two programs (Statistica and Mathematica) and put my data
through scores of tests (which takes weeks of work) before I can even
decide if a measurement is important or useless.  I have found that the
age of neutering ALONE has a significant effect on the final skeletal
morphology.  Even the diet fed to the jill will have an effect on the final
size of the offspring.  The problem is, NO ONE ON THE PLANET has ever tried
to work out the dental and skeletal differences between feral ferrets,
neutered pet ferrets, and unneutered working ferrets.  I am trying, and I
have come quite a long way, but even now, after measuring hundreds of
individual ferrets, I STILL CANNOT overcome the biases of my sample.  Ed
might as well build a rocketship in his backyard and fly to the moon for
all the scientific credibility his "data" will have IF HE DOESN'T TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT those variables I have spoken of.
 
One final point.  While I see no philosophical problem with Ed asking
for remains (other than it would be a waste of resources for such a
pseudoscientific venture), I do think it was insensitive in the format and
timing.  I am desperate for the carcasses of unneutered ferrets; if I had
20 or 30 of them, I could finish my research and write a kick-ass paper
which could be used as positive evidence ferrets do not typically go feral.
It would help all people, from California to New Zealand, who have the
difficult job of trying to explain feral issues.  I already have the
evidence gathered from New Zealand feral ferret carcasses, but I NEED the
unneutered pets to prove the point.  Yet, even with such a desperate need
and with such positive results, I would never directly ask people for their
dead pets.  In nearly every case, *I* am offered the remains by people who
know--one way or another--about that I am doing.  I have asked some vets
and shelters to save them for me, but I don't typically ask individuals.
In fact, when offered, I try to gently talk the person out of it.  Only if
they are really, really sure, do I accept the donation.  But that is a
matter of personal taste; not morality.
 
The FML is large enough to house vegetarians and red-meat eaters, pegans
and Christians, and even me and Mr. Ed.  I don't personally like what Ed is
wanting to do, based on scientific reasons, but I cannot fault him for his
request.  As for the FML, well, we need Ed.  We need everyone.  3000 minds
is smarter than 2999.  While we have the right to complain about stuff,
removing a person from the list is a drastic measure.  I don't think Ed
deserves it.  And if it happened, who would be next?  Me?  You?
 
Bob C and 16 MO' Pseudocats
[Posted in FML issue 2941]