This was posted by Bob Church to the FHL, but as you see he gives
permission to forward, As this was discussed on the FML a couple weeks
ago, I hope you will post it.  I did some formatting cleanup, but
changed no text.
 
Linda Iroff
 
 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:03:13 -0500
 Bob C: Q&A New Zealand Ferrets
 
I am not sure this post is specific to the FHL; I have at least six emails
from FHL people asking me to comment on the situation (by the tone of some
of the emails, it seems the question was discussed in this forum).  If
anyone knows of someone NOT on the FHL who might benefit from this post,
you have my permission to forward it to them.
 
Sorry for the lack of recent participation; my mother has been gravely
ill, and I've frequently been doing the Missouri-California shuffle.  I
have been downloading my email, but have done nothing to answer them.
Consequently, I have a tremendous amount of email to sort through, so it
might be some time before I get a chance to answer.  No, not might'it
WILL take considerable time.  My apologies.
 
Q: [Government agencies are considering making pet ferrets illegal in New
   Zealand].  Would you comment on the situation?
 
A. California must be exporting stupid.
 
One of the hardest things to do in science is to pronounce judgment on
the scholarship of others without actually having first-hand experience
or having an extensive investment in academic research.  Of the two,
first-hand experience trumps academic research almost every time.  I've
been to many places in the world, yet have never spent time in New
Zealand, especially studying the feral ferrets and other introduced
animals.  This doesn't make me the first choice in making pronouncements
about scholarly work done half a world away.  Don't misunderstand; I have
studied the New Zealand feral ferret situation quite extensively, maybe
as much as anyone in the States, but only a fool would try to describe an
elephant with his eyes closed.
 
Still, there ARE things regarding this situation that I think I can
comment upon, especially in how the argument of the opposing side is
constructed.  Bluntly, the desire to outlaw ferrets appears (from my
viewpoint) to be more reactionary than scholarly, and there are several
strawmen and argumentative flaws that can be commented upon (a 'strawman'
is a weak example, easily 'knocked down', usually used by those supporting
weak positions wishing to make their argument seem stronger).  DO NOT
expect this reply to be in the form of an academic response.  Rather, I
will point out some areas that others can exploit on their own time, at
their own expense, as they see fit.
 
The crux of the problem in New Zealand appears, at least to me, to be
two-fold.  First, there is the very real problem that feral ferrets exist,
they sometimes kill threatened native birds, and they are a factor in the
spread of bovine tuberculosis.  Those are facts, and nothing can really be
done about refuting them.  Second, there is the equally real problem of
the public's perceptions towards ferrets, which is rarely positive, lying
somewhere between 'ferrets are blood-sucking, viscous creatures that tear
out the throats of children,' to 'only a poaching criminal would own a
thieving ferret.' These may not be facts, but they ARE real in the minds
of the people who think them.  I will discuss my OPINIONS on both
subjects.
 
Ferrets were introduced into New Zealand as early as the 1860s, although
the really serious acclimatization programs didn't start until the 1880s.
It is a myth to assume the only ferrets (and polecats) released into the
wilds of New Zealand were those imported and bred for the purpose by the
government and acclimatization societies; there is ample evidence that
many private ranches had their own breeding programs, and released
thousands of ferrets on their own property as late as the 1950-1960s.
Additionally, starting on a small scale in the first part of the century,
but gaining momentum during the 1940-1970s, ferrets were bred in large
numbers for their fur, on both the North and South Islands.  Originally,
many of these animals were New Zealand feral ferrets trapped and pressed
into service, but later, many ferrets and possibly some polecats and
ferret-polecat hybrids were imported.  Some of these animals escaped, but
many were intentionally released when fur prices dropped in the late 70s
and fitch ranches went out of business.  Thus, over more than 130 years,
ferrets and, to a lesser extent, polecats were intentionally and
accidentally released throughout New Zealand.  On the other side of the
equation, you have a small handful of private ferret breeders and their
pets.  I would suggest a numeric comparison could be made between the two
groups to show the significance of numbers should pet ferrets somehow
make it into the wild.  I have obtained many documents over the last few
years that show numbers of ferrets released historically (at least those
numerically documented), but, honestly, I can either work to make house
payments and buy food, or I can spend a couple weeks digging out the
information, compiling it, and doing the statistics.  I would suggest
starting with Caroline King's book, 'Immigrant Killers,' (in several New
Zealand libraries, or can be purchased through online used book stores at
a fair price), and combing through her references for some of the data.
 
That is only part of it.  FIND OUT how many feral ferrets are killed per
year in trapping, hunting, road kills, poisoning programs, etc., THEN
compare that number to the estimated total number of pet ferrets.
Government agencies should have some rough idea of the feral ferret
population and death rate.  You can estimate the number of pet ferrets by
totaling the known pet population, then randomly calling a couple hundred
people and asking them if they have owned, own, or might consider owning
a pet ferret.  Take the total estimated number of pet ferrets, compare it
to the probable total number of owners, and do some statistics.
 
My guess: The total possible number of pet ferrets (in NZ) will be vastly
outnumbered by the total number of killed feral ferrets.  THAT makes the
impact of pet ferrets on the local population, even if all were released
at once, INSIGNIFICANT.
 
If the total number of feral ferrets killed in New Zealand (road kills,
poisoning, hunting, trapping, etc.) exceeds the total pet population, then
accidental releases would be moot.  Why?  It's a demographics question
really.  Assuming the numbers of feral ferrets have reached a sort of
general population stability, then existing losses are sustainable (you
know this because feral ferret populations are not dwindling).  That is,
the population of feral ferrets has neither a long-term fall, nor rise.
Since feral ferrets are same-sex exclusionists and guard their territories
jealously, new releases are forced to disperse to find unoccupied
territories, or else force an existing feral ferret from theirs.  Since
the second possibility is statistically unlikely, newly released ferrets
have the same problem as dispersing new kits, meaning they are at an
extreme disadvantage for survival.  Most die of starvation, predation,
disease, or human hunting.  In short, assuming the pet population doesn't
exceed the numbers of feral ferrets killed yearly and are about as
successful surviving their exodus into the wild as new kits, then even if
they were all released at once, their impact on the total feral ferret
population would be minimal (if not nonexistent).  For additional support,
search the web and literature for instances where PETA or some other pet
terrorist group has released hundreds of ranched mink; the death rates
should be similar to those expected for released pet ferrets (mortality
in these instances can exceed 90% or more).
 
Nothing really can be said refuting the impact that feral ferrets have
on the native bird population, because they do, in fact, kill and eat
threatened native birds, and even a small loss can be significant.  Even
if the impact is exaggerated, compared to, say, a feral housecat, feral
ferrets are still guilty of eating threatened birds.  However, feral
ferrets are only a small, tiny part of a huge problem, and there is
ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE removing all ferrets would have any impact
whatsoever.  The number one problem for ANY threatened species is NOT
predation, but lack of space, and THAT is caused by human encroachment.
Farms are more responsible for loss of species than ANY introduced
predator (excepting human), followed by home development, city
construction, roads, and timber harvest.  I question if the existing
nature reserves are large enough to fully protect the species under threat
of extinction.  If not, then removing every ferret, feral or pet, from
both islands will not change the outcome.  It's the same problem with
black-footed ferrets.  Even if we can save the American polecat in a
captive breeding program, is there enough space to guarantee survival in
the wild?  Increasingly, more and more scientists suspect more has to be
done to understand this question.  I recommend reading Lande, Russell 1988
'Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation.' Science
241:1455-1460.  Here is a suitable quote:
'Destruction and fragmentation of natural areas, especially tropical rain
forests with their high species diversity, is now causing extinction of
species at a rate that is orders of magnitude as high as normal background
rates of extinction.'
 
I would point out that while bird remains have been found in the stomachs
of feral ferrets, they are but a small aspect of the total predation
problem.  Eliminating feral ferrets will not reduce the predation caused
by feral cats and dogs, introduced stoats and weasels, foxes, possums,
hedgehogs, rats, and pigs.  Nor will it reduce the impact of direct
competition with herbivores, especially that from rabbits, cattle and
sheep.  I think this question is a key one, and considering stoats,
housecats and fox may have an even worse impact on endangered animals, it
should be answered PRIOR to the elimination of feral ferrets.
 
The important point here is the problem is extremely complex and the
ELIMINATION OF FERRETS WILL NOT PROVIDE A CURE.  It can, in fact, pose a
greater danger because the presence of feral ferrets may actually reduce
the number of other predatory species, such as stoats or feral cats.
Worse, what would happen to the numbers of rats and rabbits should ferrets
be eliminated?  Rats can kill as many, or more, birds than ferrets simply
by eating the contents of unhatched eggs.  The worry about bovine Tb is
indeed troublesome, but feral ferrets are only a single factor in the
epidemiology of the disease.  In New Zealand, bovine Tb has been reported
in red deer (American elk), cattle, possums, housecats, sheep, dogs,
hedgehogs, and fox, among others.  Making all the feral ferrets go away
will not change the spread of the disease by much.  A paper that can help
you here is Norbury, G.  L., et al.  1998 'Behavioral Responses of Two
Predator Species to Sudden Declines in Primary Prey.' Journal of Wildlife
Management 62(1):45-58.  Here is a nice quote:
 
'In the absence of a clear understanding of the role of ferrets and cats
in the epidemiology of bovine Tb, and of their effects on native fauna,
the implications of this induced dispersal [due to artificial removal of
primary prey] are unknown.  Intuitively, however, any consequences are
likely to be adverse.'
 
Also, 'Induced dispersal of hungry ferrets and cats may also impose
additional (and as yet unquantified) predation pressure on native fauna
adjacent to rabbit control areas.'
 
Most importantly, while New Zealand is not as large as many states here
in America, they are still quite large pieces of rock.  From what I
understand, the areas were feral ferrets are a problem is only a small
part of the total land mass because populations of threatened species
are sparse and geographically isolated.  I would suggest it makes more
economic sense to remove feral ferrets from specific areas than to try
to eliminate them altogether.  Ecologies are holistic entities, and
predicting the effect of removing one predator over another is risky,
perhaps as foolhardy as the initial introductions of carnivores.
Reactionary steps are hazardous; caution is advised.
 
Finally, the feral ferrets in New Zealand are no longer domesticated
ferrets.  I have absolute proof of this, but I will NOT publish the data,
nor even go on record to what I think they are until I can confirm my
findings by comparison to data garnered from European polecats and from
a sample randomly collected in New Zealand.  Currently, I don't have
the money for such trips, and even though such research would be of
significant value to Californians and New Zealanders, not mentioning the
vast ferret ownership as a whole, I don't seem to have many benefactors.
Sooner or later, I will make it to New Zealand and Europe, and compare my
skeletal data to those materials.  Until then, a significant finding that
could devastate feral ferret objections in California (and New Zealand)
will remain veiled.
 
The second aspect is the public perception of ferrets, one that has a
long, dark history.  The idea that ferrets are bloodthirsty creatures
dates back hundreds of years, even thousands, and is rampant in older
natural history literature.  Remember one of the first things I said in
this post?  I said only a fool would describe an elephant with his eyes
closed.  Many books published in the past, even until the modern ages,
depended on prior work for their information, rather than by primary
research; they were describing elephants without ever seeing one.  Even
now, I can read a modern book that discusses ferrets, and know immediately
that the author never owned ferrets, or only had a cursory knowledge at
the most.  Most historic authors didn't have a grudge against ferrets;
they were only writing what was felt to be true at the time.  Still, they
spread misinformation, and today we suffer the consequences of the lack
of scholarship.  This is why I am so adamant about modern misinformation,
such as ferrets being domesticated longer than cats, or that the Egyptians
domesticated the original polecat progenitor to create ferrets.  Who knows
what problems this modern misinformation can cause in the future?
 
The point is, misconceptions about the ferret abound, and people believe
them, correct or not.  The only solution is education.  I've been to
ferret shows all over the country, including two rather impressive
international conferences, but NONE really reach out to the public in a
manner that would increase public awareness of the positive attributes of
ferrets.  What a shame.  The truth is, unless you can win the hearts and
minds of the public, you will NEVER win the vote of the politician.  To
quote Abraham Lincoln, 'Public sentiment is everything.  With public
sentiment nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.'  In *MY*
opinion, I think one of the major reasons Massachusetts ferret owners won
freedom for their furry friends, and California ferret owners have not,
has been the handling of public sentiment.
 
I could suggest ferret shows, newspaper articles, guest spots on radio,
whatever, but this is not an area where I can offer advice.  Whatever
strategy is devised has to be specifically focused to particular areas.
All I can say is that the most important factor in creating positive
public sentiment is one hell of a good public relations spokesperson.
Well, that and a LOT of hard work.  Hell, if they could do it with wolves
and coyotes, the ferret should be easy.
 
The original question is not an easy question to answer, especially in
light of the vast distance between knowing something on paper, and
first-hand experience.  I can read about the issues, but I can't hear
the politicians.  I've seen some horrific reporting on ferrets from New
Zealand newspapers, but don't know why it was allowed without litigation
or at least boycotts.  In a sense, I know that an elephant exists because
I can hear and smell it, but being in the middle of the United States, I
can't see it well enough to describe it.
 
I hope these few ideas might help, or at least help in refuting the
argument.  Of all ideas presented, I think the only one that has any real
chance of helping is to sway public support.  You have my support and I
wish I could do more.  Good luck!
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 3757]