Definitions:
 
One of the fatal flaws of the Constantine and Kiser report was the lack of
definitions for such basic terms as "feral," or " agressive behavior." This
lack of definitions was clearly purposely done in order to inflate the data
base and inflame the reader.  By not stating or referring to specific
definitions, such as ferality, the authors could include any sighting or
aggressive incident they wished, even those that by any standard would have
been discarded.  Even with this "non-standard" in place, many of the
incidents cited in the report are unsupported by *any* evidence, including
their own records.  It is easily assumed that they were simply made up.
Since the publication of the report, the authors have been challenged on
numerous occasions to provide the records, which, as far as can be told,
they have never done.
 
A domesticated animal is any animal that is subject to human selective
processes (generally by controlling reproduction) in order to accomodate
human desires or needs.  The selective process may have radically altered
the morphology and/or physicology of the animal, or the alterations could be
minor.  Very often the domesticated form has lost those traits which would
allow it to survive in the wild, and is dependent on humans for survival.
 
Feral is from the Latin ferus, meaning "wild." It generally is applied to
those domesticated animals that have reverted to a wild state, but can also
be used to describe any wild animal.  This was common practice early in the
history of zoology, but after a while, it was recognized as redundant, and
fell into disuse.  Today, the term is almost exclusively used to denote a
domesticated animal which has reverted to a wild state and subject to
natural selection (rather than human-mediated selection).  Reproduction is
not normally part of the definition, because an animal can be feral and
still be selected against and never reproduce.  For example, a white bunny
or crippled dog can become feral if the circumstances allow it; they may be
living in an area free of predators, and with bountiful food, but with a
limited life span or no opportunity to reproduce.
 
A feral colony is a different thing.  Feral colonies are self-sustaining
groups (either by direct reproduction or through recruitment) that live
outside human control and subject to natural selection.  Feral colonies are
basically one of two types; those which sustain themselves without
recruitment, such as feral pigs, horses, burros, goats, and pigeons, and
those which generally require a minimum amount of sustained recruitment,
such as cats, dogs, and in specific circumstances, ferrets.  Notice the
pattern?  Most of the time, feral carnivores require recruitment in order to
maintain their colony, while feral herbivores do not (This is not hard and
fast, just a general observation).  More on this later in the paper.
 
The difference between a feral animal and a lost one is often quite difficult
to define because lost pets can become feral with time.  A general marker to
differientiate the two is the ability of the animal to feed itself.  In
other words, a ferret living in the woods for a week is not feral if it
cannot find food to eat.  This issue is confused by pets that are clearly
not feral, but hunt, such as cats, or free-roaming dogs that occasionally
join packs.  The issue is clarified by the original definition of feral
which refers to the selection process governing the animal.  Pet cats that
hunt are not feral because humans are the selective agents, while wild cats
that hunt *are* feral because they are now subject to the laws of natural
selection.
 
Outside of the question of ferality are the introduced wild species, such as
rats, mice, starlings, pheasants, walking catfish, foxes, and mustelids.
Because these animals were never subjected to domestication and where never
under human selective processes, they are not feral.  They were wild, they
are wild, and once introduced, they remain wild.  The selection processes
which govern them have always been natural in origin.  Mink are difficult to
catalog because of their short domestication history making the differences
between the wild form and the domesticated form minor.  This issue will be
discussed in more detail later.
 
The last definition is really more of a standard, and that is, what is
evidence?  Without getting to the philosophy of science, or causing the
solicitation of opinions by solicitors, lets just say there are two basic
types; that with a known history, and that without a known history.  It is
clear that the first type is more reliable than the later, because you know
where it comes from, the status of the observer, and any other factors which
might have some impact on the final acceptance or rejection of the evidence.
Ultimately, the strength of the evidence is dependent upon the reliabilty of
the reporter-observer.  For example, in the May 8th, 1973 Congressional
Record-Senate (p.14769) is an entry called "Predator Control." This entry
has been cited numerous times as evidence that predators are a problem in
the USA.  However, the piece is just a statement and a reading of letters
from people who claim they have been negatively impacted by dogs and coyotes
killing and eating sheep.  Weither true or not, they are general statements
given by people convinced of a specific causitive agent.  No testing was
done, no investigation followed, no supportive evidence offered.  In short,
they are just stories and not evidence at all.  For evidence to be
acceptable, the circumstances of the collection must be apparent and
explained.
 
Next installment: The factors controlling ferality.
 
Mo' Bob and the 18 Domesticated Dummies (Missing Gus)
[Posted in FML issue 1755]