Okay, I have gotten some notes.
Those from Laura and Bill and from Debbie herself understood what I was
saying and clarified things for me.
Others said that the original statements confused them, too, as they
were worded.
Another (ONLY ONE LETTER) was one of the most... Well, I won't even say
it. That third party "defender" of someone I didn't even attack in the
first place was angry, really angry, really, really angry and got on a
roll with a whole strong of false accusations. It's funny how third
party "defenders" get like that.
IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO REASON TO EVEN DEFEND! There was just
confusion about semantics in two sentences. Not a big deal.
Plus I never said anything about the Chris or her business, just about
two statements because those two statements didn't make sense. The way
that I read the most worrisome of those two statements (quoted below)
had it reading like a very concerning impossible statement which had
been make by some others in the past.
What I had objected to were statements about retroviruses and the one
which said that all genetics defects had been removed from the stock:
>Deb sent:
>
>>Chris said any genetic defects are eliminated from her stock with
>>no if ands or buts.
>
I replied:
>Okay, just speaking as someone who spent a LOT of time in Genetics,
>E&E and paleo classes and who still reads things on the topic
>regularly: The above statement is IMPOSSIBLE. Sorry, it just can't be
>done. That isn't just because of things which can "hide", it is also
>because all of us (and all of everyone's ferrets) can pretty much be
>guaranteed to have more than one mutation. Most mutations are benign,
>of course, but not all are. Point blank: if ANYONE says that all
>"genetic defects" have been removed from their stock then you can
>be sure they do not understand basics of genetics.
Now, I know that there were others who read Deb's statement the way
that I did (that all of the ferrets had no genetic defects).
Since then Deb, Bill, and Laura all told me that the problem was that
the way the statement was worded it could be taken multiple ways.
Then I was told something very good: that WHAT WAS MEANT was that when
Chris has a ferret who shows an obvious genetic problem that ferret is
neutered instead of remaining as part of the breeding stock. Now, THAT
is a good process. It can't eliminate genetic problems but it can help
reduce them. Other good things are getting detailed breeding records
and health and longevity records on the offspring (including those who
are sold when possible). It sounds like Chris also does those good
things because i was told of one of her lines where a purchased ferret
developed a problem which can be genetic and the father, mother, and
siblings were removed from breeding. That is a very responsible
approach!
I don't know Chris's operation, and of course, I never said that I did,
nor did I say anything about Chris or her operation. What I DO know are
some genetics and some medical aspects.
Also, I know from Ferret-Genetics some of the problems seen often with
angoras, and if her angoras are from the original lines then they might
be at increased risk for them simply by being angoras.
What I DID object to were two statements. From the way things were
worded originally it sounded like an impossible claim was made. That's
it, and let's face facts: anyone can accidently word things so that
they can be taken in more than one way. Not only have I done it, but
I don't think that I know anyone who hasn't done it!
It is good to know what was actually meant!
Sukie (not a vet)
Recommended ferret health links:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/
http://ferrethealth.org/archive/
http://www.afip.org/ferrets/index.html
http://www.miamiferret.org/fhc/
http://www.ferretcongress.org/
http://www.trifl.org/index.shtml
http://homepage.mac.com/sukie/sukiesferretlinks.html
[Posted in FML 5724]
|
