>Bob Church wrote:
>>In truth, ferrets have severely injured babies, and have been involved in
>>two deaths.
>
>Gotta agree.  The sooner we admit the problems that go hand in hand with
>ferrets the better off we'll be in the long run.  Anti-ferret groups are
>painfully aware of the "downside" of ferrets -- the infant maulings, the
>feral populations in NZ & Europe, the musky smell, the nippy nature ...
 
I didn't know about feral ferret populations anywhere -- this is news.
However, it stands to reason that there might be ferrets out there somewhere
that would maul infants or small children.  This happens with *ALL* pets.
 
The point is not to deny that ferret ownership has potential problems.  Of
course it does -- so does owning any kind of pet.  The point *is* that the
banning of ferrets as pets in the US is a completely inconsistent policy
based on ignorance, greed, political crap, and (IMHO, of course) the refusal
by CF&G to give up the large degree of brute power they have, both as an
organization and as specific individuals within that organization, over the
pet-owning population of the state.
 
The two basic problems always cited are the potential for feral populations
and the "vicious nature" of ferrets.  This is what I mean by a completely
inconsistent policy: if this is really the reasoning behind keeping ferrets
illegal, then dogs and cats should also be illegal!
 
1.  Feral populations -- good grief.  There are *far* greater numbers of
feral cats and dogs in the US that do untold damage to bird populations.
The Audobon Society cites this as a reason to oppose ferret legalization,
but I can only imagine the impact that the current feral cat population in
the US already has on wild birds.  Ferrets are a very minor threat compared
to this, and it is wildly inconsistent and unfair to single out ferret
owners when the situations that produce feral populations -- owners letting
their pets run free, releasing them into the wild, etc -- are far less
likely to occur with ferrets than with cats and dogs.  The average ferret
owner never allows his/her ferret outside unsupervised.  In order to be
consistent and fair, either ferrets should be legalized or dogs and cats
should be made illegal.
 
2. "Vicious" ferrets.  Of course kits tend to be nippy, and ferrets aren't
the best pets to have around small children.  There is also, as with any
domestic animal, the occasional truly vicious specimen (usually produced by
abuse).  However, *DOGS* maul FAR, FAR more children annually than do
ferrets, even taking relative percentages into account.  Cats also have been
known to attack children and even adults -- there is at least one reported
case of a pet cat killing its owner by severing the woman's femoral artery!
Simply put, ferrets are much smaller than cats and dogs and thus have far
less potential to do serious damage should a "vicious" ferret attack
someone, adult or child.  It is a simple fact that dogs, especially certain
breeds, are FAR more dangerous to children and adults alike than ferrets
could EVER be.  Dogs are far more likely to launch an all-out attack on a
child by mistaking it for prey.  Ferrets are again a very minor threat
compared to dogs (and possibly even cats), so anyone who is going to oppose
the legalization of ferrets on this point once again has to also oppose dogs
being legal, especially the specific breeds of large dog that are
responsible for a large percentage of maulings.
 
-Tasha
 
"It has been said that man is a rational animal.  All my life I have been
searching for evidence which could support this."
                                        -- Bertrand Russell
[Posted in FML issue 1917]