On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:44:53 -0500, Lin Talbot-Koehl
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Ok, maybe I'm not getting something here, but why would a
>spayed/neutered* ferret be considered "defective" because it happens
>to be deaf?  It's not like you're going to be perpetuating a genetic
>condition by breeding them.
 
Hi,
 
I don't like to jump into these things very often, but I want to correct
an impression some people may have regarding MF deaf ferrets.  I too
have an MF deaf ferret and would never have considered returning her and
I don't think of her as "defective," however MF does guarantee their
ferrets against genetic defect.  By MF's own definition, deafness is
considered a genetic defect.
 
I absolutely applied for (and received) a refund from MF.  I did keep the
ferret as well.  I wanted a refund for a couple reasons:
 
1) Most ferrets will require at least one major surgery during its
lifetime and the surgery can become quite expensive - this can help
cover a bit of that expense.
 
2) MF needs some incentive to make sure THEY are not perpetuating
genetic conditions.  Forcing them to refund on such conditions gives
them the only incentive they are likely to notice - financial.
 
While it's quite true that my ferret is spayed and therefore I cannot
pass along the condition, even if I had wanted to breed, MF still can.
They may or may not know that the specific combination of parents to my
ferret will cause at least some deaf babies.  By requesting a refund, I
make them aware of the fact and give them a financial incentive not to
breed that pair of ferrets again.  If enough people do the same, perhaps
MF will take enough notice that they will improve their husbandry
practices.  However, they cannot improve these practices if they are
not aware of the conditions they are perpetuating.  And they will not
change if they have no financial incentive.
 
Kim
[Posted in FML issue 5136]