FERRET-SEARCH Archives

Searchable FML archives

FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sukie Crandall <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:45:17 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
>I can see the store using that as a scapegoat, but I can also see
>where MF ships their kits way too
 
It is a problem with every single one of the large farms which is why
legislation is being pursued.  Years ago MF actually did not ship before
8 weeks.  One of their competitors began the early shipping and the rest
were forced to do it to retain a sales base.
 
Legislation to raise shipping and sales ages to 8 weeks with folks
verifying ages using dental markers DOES make sense for the sake of the
ferrets, even if it isn't liked by farms in general.  BTW, in case anyone
here needs the info: size is affected by too many factors to be used in
determining age.  Anyone who needs dental eruption details can find them
by using the search engine at the FML Archives.  The URL is in the header
of every issue of the FML.
 
Legislation is the only viable and fair way to get this changed for all;
the rest have been tried.  Those who want to learn more about such
legislation will be interested in going to http://www.ferretcongress.org
to see how to learn more on the topic.  It can be done, it HAS been done,
it WILL be done again!
 
That competitor which first began selling kits younger than 8 weeks as
far as I've been able to learn so far was also one which introduced the
sales of a number of fancies without regard to health consequences, ditto
some private breeders.  I know that this farm had a series of smaller
sub-set breedings designed to get special looks and discussed them face
to face with one of the then-owners.  These concentrated on appearance
and did not place health or longevity first.  (My own take is that
breeders of ANY size SHOULD consider health (physical and mental),
longevity, and personality more highly than appearances.) Before then
the rest of the farms selling over very large regions (then two others:
MF and Hagan) pet-stock farms did not breed from these fancies which was
a good health practise so the genetic flaws in some of these variations
did not get concentrated or emphasized.  Now the bad practise of going
for fancies too often with specific mutations that carry flaws is another
mistake which some farms (and a number of private breeders) are
scrambling to try to repair bit by bit.
[Posted in FML issue 4101]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2