>Sukie keeps reiterating "fake" entries by others into databases. She has
>privately informed me that 15-20% of the information she has experienced
>has been "fake". We are taking many precautions to prevent this from
>happening. However, even if 20% are "fake" entries, at least the other
>80% wont be, so I will take the "margin of error" into account (even
>though I think it will be even less). Since I am not a scientist,
>biologist or vet, this is the only way I can gather information.
Danielle, I am used to such things. To be more accurate then, what you
will need to do is to point out will have to include:
1. Internet surveys have a large potential for error.
2. You are looking specifically at problems encountered from one
breeder, so readers will need to remember that the numbers do NOT
reflect the proportion of ferrets thus afflicted, and do NOT indicate
that anyplace else may have different proportions.
3. That there is no way for you to know the proportions of ferrets
with problems from MF or any of the farms.
That was not a small percentage, and it was for a vet-access list that
help everyone and had no reason for anyone to be exercising a grudge.
That means that you will likely encounter a higher portion of fakes since
there are those with grudges about your topic. You have NO way to know
what percentage will be faked/partly reported/incorrectly reported, etc.
unless you personally check with the treating vets, and they likely won't
want to disagree with clients because that could lose them business.
This is built-in weakness of such a survey. Sampling at all accurately
is not as easy to do as those who aren't in scientific endeavours assume
that it is.
Without those statements being made prominently it will be on very shakey
ground, and the upshot will be that it will be perceived as a grudge-site
which is something i suspect you and almost anyone else would rather
avoid. (Have encountered some folks who like grudge sites, but many,
many, many more who listen at first and then afterward become very
disenchanted.)
Oh, unless, things have changed i think that there might have been a
miscommunication in your call about what constitutes an on-site vet
(full-time and on-site vs. contracted to show up on-site on a periodic
basis such as once a week.
>I'm certain that Marshall Farms does not really want or intend to ship
>ferrets too young. As a breeder of ferrets, and as a company it is
>simply bad business. I don't say it doesn't happen, but I find it highly
>unlikely that more than one or two people at Marshall Farms would respond
>to complaints with "just send them back and we'll replace them, but of
>course we will destroy the young ones." This is downright bad business.
>Why would they so sabotage themselves? Shipping out ferrets they KNOW are
>too young, assuming that it would be ok because if someone DID complain
>they would simply replace the ferrets and destroy the others? I doubt it.
>Even removing the humane notions about such a thing, would they knowingly
>and intentionally leave themselves open for such a profit loss, when
>waiting another two weeks would give them TWICE the profit?
It was exactly this sort of statement which made me think that the person
who first wrote it may be dealing with a disreputable pet-store or the
store may be dealing with a disreputable distributor. Why? Because so
many have written here so many times that MF does NOT do this -- that
from people whose got money back, vet care, supplies, etc. when one had
a health problem, even a common thing like deafness which occurs in too
many ferrets from anywhere ever since folks began demanding certain
fancies. BTW, MF is the ONLY farm I have read which helped out people
when a ferret turned out to be deaf (as per vet's confirmation on
letterhead stationary). Anyone here have a different farm help in that
case? Have read of some private breeders who helped in that situation.
[Posted in FML issue 3627]
|
