J. C. A. Craik "Notes from a war zone," 1993 Seabird Group Newsletter
66(Oct):2-4.
I have read this paper three times and am unable to find the word "ferret"
or even "polecat" mentioned anywhere. The paper is about how American mink,
the ranch mink bred for fur that escaped and went feral, have effected the
nesting seabird sites of various islands. Any citation of this paper used
to prove are ferrets are feral or they distroy seabird nesting sites is
either proof the author didn't read the paper, or the author is a lair, and
in the case of the CaCa Fish and Gestapo, probably both. (what do you mean,
probably?)
J. C. A. Craik "More serious than Shetland?," 1991 Seabird Group
Newsletter 60(Sept):2-4.
This is another paper about mink predation of seabirds. Except for a single
reference to "other mustelids," mink are the only predators mentioned. At
least in the previous paper (mentioned above), otter, fox and stoats are
mentioned. Any citation of this paper used to prove are ferrets are feral
or they distroy seabird nesting sites is either proof the author didn't read
the paper, or the author is a lair, and in the case of the CaCa Fish and
Gestapo, probably both. (Get that feeling of reading this once already?
Its not deja vu; its deja CaCa.)
Anonymous "Ferrets in a seabird colony," 1993 Seabird Group Newsletter
64(Aug):8.
Of the three papers, this is the *_ONLY_* one than mentions ferrets.
Interestingly enough, it only addresses the presence of ferrets, not what
they are eating, or even if they have *had* an impact on the local birds.
In fact, this excerpt should be of interest: "...nothing is known of their
impact on wild birds." The paper goes on to say a proposal has been made to
study the ecology of feral ferrets, and their impact on island biota which
is at present (1993) unknown. The paper talks about how 4-5 ferrets were
found on the island in rabbit burrows, and subsequently four were easily
trapped. (It was thought a 5th ferret eluded trapping). The paper also
saying the increase in ferrets is probably correlated to the increase in
rabbits, but that domestic bird losses had taken place. The paper never
says there was an established feral colony, or ferrets had indeed impacted
the local bird population.
Some comments: 1) No evidence the domestic bird losses were by ferrets;
other papers (see above) place American mink in the area, and native stoats
abound. The statement is unsuportable without evidence. Any citation of
this paper to support ferret predation on domestic birds is erroneous and
misleading.
2) *ANY* use of this paper to support feral ferret predation on birds is
unfounded; the paper only discusses the presence of feral ferrets, not their
predation habits. In fact, the paper states nothing is known of feral
ferret predation on wild birds. Also, most (or all) of the feral ferrets
were easily removed by trapping, so the problem was solved before there was
actually a problem.
3) The paper reported the incided so others could be on the look-out for
similar problems. As yet, no similar reports have been published. The
paper doesn't state how they determined the animals caught were ferrets
instead of polecats or hybrids, but I'll allow the identification to
"non-polecat, including ferrets and hybrids" because obviously these people
have experience with these animals. Every study of the differences in
predatory behavior in ferrets and polecats prove polecats are better
hunters. So if the birds evolved in the presence of polecats, native to the
area, how can the presence of ferrets be worse? Perhaps equal, but worse?
Also, studies have shown that in the face of predation, the birds simply
move somewhere else to rear babies. The real danger, mentioned only briefly
in the paper, was the possible loss of tourists who regularly visit the area
to see the birds.
4) The object of the paper was NOT "ferrets are killing seabirds" as
suggested by citation-use in anti-ferret papers, but instead WAS "Ferrets
were found near a seabird colony but were trapped and removed." The citation
of a paper to purposely mislead is unethical and dishonest at best. The
CaCa Fish and Gestapo obviously has more evil motivations.
Overall comments on all three papers: Only one paper mentioned the presence
and removal of ferrets; the other papers discuss feral mink. These papers
were published in a newsletter, not a peer reviewed journal. Like ferret
newsletters, they are mailed out to interested parties, and because they are
not peer-reviewed, just about anything can be published within it, right or
wrong. This newsletter seems to be better than most, but it is still a
newsletter of limited scientific impact.
All three of these papers has been cited in recent anti-ferret propaganda; I
know because that is where *I* found them. If the anti-ferret authors cited
these without reading them, then they were stupid and their writing must be
considered flawed. If the authors read the papers and thought they were
supportive of anti-ferret positions, then they were stupid and their writing
must be considered flawed. If the authors read the papers and knew they
were not supportive of anti-ferret positions, then the use of them was
dishonest, and their writing must be considered to be dishonest. In all
three hypothetical positions, the citing these papers to prove anti-ferret
positions is flawed in the least and dishonest at worst.
What do I think? The papers cited were in a small and poorly circulated
newsletter. It took my library almost six months to get copies of the
papers to me. I honestly the authors knew anyone trying to get copies of
the papers would have great difficultly, if they could get them at all. I
think the citation of the papers was done on purpose, for dishonest reasons,
by dishonest people. Why would they cite obscure sources? Ever notice the
scarcity of anti-ferret citations in peer-reviewed journals? I can cite
perhaps 30 or 40 feral dog papers, perhaps as many regarding the feral cat.
I know of a couple dozen or so regarding other feral animals, mostly burros
and sheep/goats. There are maybe 3 papers published in peer-reviewed (or
refereed) journals regarding ferrets living in a feral state, and they refer
to the New Zealand populations.
What do I think? The papers cited were in a small and poorly circulated
newsletter. It took my library almost six months to get copies of the
papers to me. I honestly the authors knew anyone trying to get copies of
the papers would have great difficultly, if they could get them at all. I
think the citation of the papers was done on purpose, for dishonest reasons,
by dishonest people. Why would they cite obscure sources? Ever notice the
scarcity of anti-ferret citations in peer-reviewed journals? I can cite
perhaps 30 or 40 feral dog papers, perhaps as many regarding the feral cat.
I know of a couple dozen or so regarding other feral animals, mostly burros
and sheep/goats. There are maybe 3 papers published in peer-reviewed (or
refereed) journals regarding ferrets living in a feral state, and they refer
to the New Zealand populations.
I have said it before and I will say it again. When you read the stuff
crapped out by the CaCa Fish and Gestapo, go to the citations and see who
they use. If the citations are primarily "Personal Communications,"
"Newspapers," "Newsletters," "Unpublished Reports," "Letters From," or
"Self-Citations," the paper cannot be good because all evidence is weak and
unreliable, IF IT EVEN EXISTS!! I don't think I would be wrong to posit 80%
of the anti-ferret propaganda citations fit in these categories.
I don't mean to rant, but the dishonest use of these citations pisses me off
to no end. As a scientist, I am not only embarrased, but furious. They are
the intellectual equivalent to assalt and rape, or of racial or religious
prejudice. You heard of the KKK? These people are the CaCaCa. Heard of
"skinheads?" These people are boneheads. They prove the adage, "If you
don't have evidence, make it up. Probably no one will go to the source."
This is disgusting, and the people involved should be censored and the facts
made public about their dishonesty. Personally, knowing the difference
between domestic and wild animals, I think they should be stripped naked,
staked out on a floor, slathered in linatone, creamed chicken and nutrical,
and videotaped when 200 hungry mink and weasel kits, all 8-10 weeks old, are
released in the room. The videotape would be shown to future biocrats prior
to their first publication; "(Voice over:) here you see the wild mink
stashing something in a hidey-hole, but we don't think it is a bird..."
Hummm, I wonder if we could train black-footed ferrets to eat bloated
biocrats instead of prairie dogs? There would be an endless supply...
Bob C and the 17 Mad As Hell Missouri Carpet Sharks
[Posted in FML issue 2009]
|
