I want to begin with a disclaimer.  I am not advocating a ban on ferrets
in any place.  Nor am I justifying such a ban.  I have two fuzzbutts
myself and would hate to have to feel like a criminal simply because
Johnny and Edgar have taken over my life.
 
However, I have often read comments by people concerning the connection
between ferret bans and animal rights organizations.  As a former employee
and volunteer for a number of such groups, I'd like to discuss some of the
issues that have caused animal rights organizations to oppose legalization
of ferrets.
 
First and primarily is the issue of how companion animals are generally
treated.  Everyone on this list knows that thousands of perfectly healthy
dogs and cats are killed each year for no other reason than that there is
no home for them.  The "stray" animal problem in most cities is seriously
out of control.  And, of course, animal control officers are so busy
pursuing the strays that in many locales, they have no time to enforce
anti-cruelty statutes.
 
Many animal rights advocates fear that opening the door to "exotic"
companion animals will result in an even greater number of animals being
placed in shelters and the like.  And, of course, we know from the
dedicated work of our shelter folks on this very list, that to a certain
extent, this fear is justified.  The difference, however, between ferrets
and most other companion animals -- especially dogs and cats -- is that
the overwhelming majority of pet-quality ferrets are spayed or neutered.
This ensures that the endless cycle of suffering which occurs with other
strays cannot happen with ferrets.
 
Another concern of animal rights advocates relates the the close ties
between some ferret breeders and the animal experimentation industry.  The
specifics of this issue have been addressed and readdressed previously on
this list.  But there is some legitimacy to the argument that an increase
in the acceptance of ferrets as companion animals will result in an
increase in the profits of these companies.  This is, usually, an unstated
concern which underlies the support of animal rights organizations for
ferret bans.
 
And lastly, there is the worry that opening the door to ferrets will open
the door to an increasing number of exotics and weaken the protection the
law provides wildlife against those who would, as a friend of mine once
said, "hug it all to death."  This is a very real concern and a difficult
one to address.
 
My suggestion for dealing with the vast majority of animal rights
organizations on the issue of ferret bans is to sit down with them and
talk out the issues one at a time in a civil and respectful fashion.
Regardless of differences in philosophy and politics, ferret-lovers and
animal rights people have a common interest in doing what is best for the
animals involved.  Giving in on some issues, such as accepting mandatory
spaying and neutering, will do much to take the sting from such
discussions.  You might even show some political savvy by pointing out
that once the precedent has been set for mandatory spaying and neutering
of ferrets, a San Mateo-style mandatory-spay/neuter law would be harder
to oppose.  (The San Mateo law, despite the name, doesn't make spaying
and neutering mandatory.  It simply increases the fee-differential for
unaltered animals most communities have and changes the wording of the
ordinance so that the 'default' idea is that all dogs and cats are spayed
and neutered.)
 
A little political wheeling and dealing will do a great deal to bring you
closer to your new-found allies.
 
A word to the wise: I saw a man single-handedly ensure that ferrets would
remain illegal in his community.  And he was a ferret-advocate.  He did
this by yelling at the city council, pestering them, and generally being
a pain until they decided that they'd rather get even than placate him.
Don't forget that elected officials have all the faults or ordinary
mortals -- and then some.
 
Just my .02 (less recent currency devaluation),
David
[Posted in FML issue 3684]