I visited the site at http://www.avma.org/aaphv/year2000.html as Joe
suggested, and was suitably appalled.  The only reasonable idea contained
in the plan was to get better data, since it does seem that people like Dr.
Klein and Cal Fish&Game are in the habit of saying there's not enough data
to determine that ferrets are safe -- more scientific data on topics such
as the domestic ferret population in the US vs.  the number of so-called
"unprovoked ferret attacks on helpless children", as well as the
effectiveness of certain vaccines in ferrets would help dispel the
mustelaphobic attitudes certain medical and governmental organizations
continue to hold, and at least we could be dealing with facts rather than
prejudices.  I won't hold my breath, though.
 
Recommendation #2 (to "widely publicize the risk that ferrets pose for
inflicting injurious bites to infants and small children") seems ominous:
imagine full-page ads in USA Today depicting a child with its face chewed
off and the caption "Innovent little Timmy is so hideous he will never lead
a normal life, thanks to a vicious, unprovoked ferret attack.  Now the
ferrets are coming after YOUR children.  Protect our traditional family
values -- report all suspicious ferret activity to the California Fish and
Game Commission."
 
Recommendation #4 (to "conduct appropriate scientifically designed studies
on ferrets to establish the period of rabies virus shedding prior to onset
of definitive signs") is the worst.  We all know how these "appropriate"
studies work: they inject innocent ferrets with rabies and then keep them
penned up to see how long it takes them to die.
 
It seems to me that if rabies infection in ferrets is so rare that data
on the subject is hard to come by, it can hardly be worthwhile to mount
a horrid, inhumane experiment in order to find out what would happen if
infection was more common.
 
Baldrick says the person who wrote that article better not ever cross HIS
path wearing open-toed shoes.
 
-Brandon Burt
[Posted in FML issue 2979]