John wrote:
>What Bob Church has been writing isn't "new".  It is common knowledge...
>It has been an accepted principal for many years that animals in captivity
>live longer than those in the wild.  Ask any zoologist.  Or farmer.
 
Yes, much of what he wrote on genotypes vs. phenotypes and captive vs.
wild is to be found in any intro E&E course (Evolution and Ecology)
including those a quarter century ago so the used book pile will work and
save you cash <G>, though the info specific to ferrets isn't in those and
took Bob a LOT more work to find and learn.  Those on the Ferret Geeks
List have seen the first something like 400 refs (alphabetically by author)
in Bob's personal ferret refs file and that's only to the early mid-section
of the alphabet.  He's still collecting should you find new references.
 
I have a question for John.  I haven't seen Mary's survey, Did she look
at lighting or darkness?  You wrote "lighting" so I assume that you meant
that.  The reason I ask is that there is a grouping of studies (NOT with
ferrets) in which TRUE darkness made a difference in melatonin production,
and yet others in which there is early evidence that melatonin which is
produced by the body might reduce some hormonal cancers, and still others
in which blind people appear to have fewer hormonal cancers.  Still other
studies indicate that even small amounts of light can reduce the body's
melatonin production.  We just figure that since ferrets are descended from
crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity) animals which lived in very dark
burrows that darkness may be very important to them.  Hypothesis only, of
course, but in relation to ferrets and adrenals it all pretty much is
merely hopeful speculation, so pick your favorites and just try what you
can since it is not past that stage...
 
We've never had a vet operate for insulinoma based on numbers alone when no
symptoms were present -- never had any even suggest doing so.
 
Last I saw the MD still has NOT changed the webpage:
http://www.drklein.net/bites.htmin which he writes:
>Ferrets can be dangerous pets, particularly when small children are
>present in the household.  Ferrets are known to engage in unprovoked
>attacks on infants.  These attacks are typically directed at the child's
>face, and may involve up to two-hundred separate bites.  Once begun, the
>vicious attacks usually cannot be stopped.  Ferrets can contract and
>transmit rabies, and no ferret vaccine is available against the disease.
>Ferrets should not be kept as pets, especially by households with small
>children.
 
I've also noticed that he has targeted ferrets; for instance groundhogs are
a documented rabies vector animal but look at the rodent section compared
to the ferrets section -- when there have never been any documented cases
world-wide of ferrets passing on rabies.  I also don't think that he
understands just how MANY ferrets really ARE out there.  This puts me in a
quandary.  Here are my competing thoughts.
1. That he simply has not had time to look up the information or to read
the Compendium of Animal Rabies Control to which I gave him a direct link
at the AVMA.
 
2. That he still could remove the nasty section till he gets a chance to
re-write (if he plans to rewrite).
 
3.  That he merely may have been trying to get contact and ref info without
any desire to actually use it (though I still think that it makes sense to
send such since info can't hurt and may only help).
 
4.  That he wants a LOT of hits and a LOT of mail because he is trying
to use the numbers alone to get advertisers (Has anyone noticed any
advertisers even though he even has an address for them to sign up on?  I
didn't but I'm rather naive on that score.) so it might make sense for
groups of friends to send all their comments but do it AS A GROUP in ONE
mail only, and have ONE designated person to check the site from your group
of friends to minimize the numbers while making your feelings all known.
That decreases the chances of our being USED ***IF*** that is what is
going on.
[Posted in FML issue 2976]