I've been meaning to post this for a few days.  Every time I started, I
ended with about 300 lines and gave up.  One last attempt to keep it brief.
 
Public Health has been using the old saw about ferrets being considered a
high risk for rabies because "the closest relative to the ferret on which we
have rabies natural history data is the skunk" [subfamily Mephitinae] and
skunks are a high risk for rabies.
 
Two points: 1) the closest relatives to the ferret on which we have rabies
natural history data are the weasel and the mink [subfamily Mustelinae;
genus Mustela - includes Weasels, Mink, E.  Polecat, D.  Ferret].  For the
years 1989-1994 the "Rabies Surveillance in the United States" published in
the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, show zero
weasel, zero mink found with rabies; but 928 dogs, 1425 cats, 10733 skunks,
21447 raccoons, 15 humans, and 4 ferrets with the disease.  Seems to me that
the same logic would say that since the closest relatives to the ferret
(weasel and mink) are not a high risk for rabies, then the ferret is
probably not a high risk for rabies.  2) The recently completed KSUVM rabies
shedding study on ferrets, using the skunk strain of the rabies virus,
showed that the ferret did not shed the virus.  So much for the similarity
between the skunk and ferret with regard to rabies.
 
Do you think that might be the reason for the officials in NJ involved in the
recent killings of the three ferrets, saying that "ferrets are considered a
risk for rabies because they are related to the *raccoon*"?
 
Dick B.
[Posted in FML issue 1611]