Years ago I wrote a quick little piece detailing ten reasons why ferrets could not go feral in California. In the piles of email I am trying to catch up on, an anonymous person from California asked me to update the list. Ok, I will, BUT, only one point per post, posted irregularly as I have time and energy. I will NOT be providing references at this time (to save bandwidth; references could double or as I cite, triple the length of the post). IF, when the series is complete, there is a desire to compile the material into some sort of reference, I will happily provide a reference-filled (and edited together) version for use. At this time, this is just designed to stimulate debate and discussion, NOT to be downloaded for web or newsletter use. PLEASE, I retain all rights; this is to be considered a "preliminary draft only: do not cite, redistribute nor duplicate with the permission of the author" version. This is a modified draft of a paper I am working on, meant for journal publication. To make the text more readable, I have simplified some parts and omitted others (hence the request not to cite; simplification can lead to inadvertent errors), but in most cases, the argument and points are identical between the two versions. Because I basically have to do a rewrite to get the more scientific version toned-down for a general-audience posting, some of the wording might be rougher than in my scientific draft. Ten Reasons Ferrets Cannot Go Feral In California (Actual working title: The California Ferret Issue: Putting the "Con" into Controversy): Introduction and Nomenclature The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has long posited the domesticated ferret (Mammalia: Mustelidae: Mustela furo) constitutes an ever present danger to the wildlife and livestock of the state of California, and has fought expensive legal battles to retain their legal jurisdiction over the increasingly popular pet. To this end, the CDFG has emphasized the danger of the domesticated ferret being abandoned or otherwise escaping captivity and establishing feral colonies. Chief among the CDFG's evidence are the existence of feral colonies of ferrets in New Zealand, a former colony on one of the San Juan Islands (Washington), infrequent rescues, and sightings in several U.S. locations. The CDFG position has increasingly come under attack by pet ferret owners, biologists, politicians, and even a recent think-tank study. Currently, the CDFG is embroiled in several intensive legal battles, costing thousands of taxpayer dollars. This paper will argue the CDFG position is a politically based decision which neither relies on scientific protocols and procedures, nor on empirical data which allows scientific falsification and review. Rather, the CDFG argument is tautological in nature, relying on misrepresentation and exaggeration to make it's point, and ignores contradictory data in their preoccupation to retain legal jurisdiction of what is universally recognized a domestic animal. To this end, I shall refute ten implicit CDFG arguments, used to justify their ban of ferrets in the state of California. 1. The ferret is the same animal as the European Polecat, so it can live in a wild (feral) state. While the CDFG has recently admitted on it's web site that the pet ferret is domesticated, they still continue to link the domestic variant with the ancestral progenitor and characterize both as blood-thirsty animals, capable of invading and naturalizing in California, causing the destruction of native fauna. Part of this emphasis is demonstrated by their constant referral to the taxonomic binomial of the domesticated ferret as M. putorius, even to the point of characterizing the use of M. furo as incorrect. This emphasis is faulty on the following grounds. First, the exact taxonomic position of the ferret is unclear. A review of recent work by Davison et. al (1999) suggest the exact ancestral polecat which gave rise to the ferret is undetermined. Under taxonomic protocol, because it is unclear if the steppe polecat (M. eversmannii) or the European polecat (M. putorius) or even some sort of hybridization of the two is the progenitor species, the domesticated ferret's binomial should revert to M. furo. SInce Davison's work directly compared the DNA of the domesticated ferret to the polecats, it should be considered a refinement over earlier work which only compared the karyotype, that is, the external morphology of the chromosomes. In other words, since it is currently impossible to prove which polecat gave rise to the domesticated ferret, it is improper to assign any binomial other than the original M. furo. Secondly, the emphasis on the ancestral species being the same animal as the domesticated variant is inflammatory in the context of the issue being presented. Using Wilson and Reeder (1991) as a standard for naming species, not only is the domesticated ferret listed as M. putorius, but the domestic dog is listed as Canis lupus rather than C. familiaris. In one breath the CDFG ignores Wilson and Reeder, listing domestic dogs as C. familiaris, but in the other, it chastises ferret advocates, insisting Wilson and Reeder are the standard and ferrets are properly M. putorius. This type of contradiction, for whatever actual purpose, presents an image of an organization content to manipulate scientific nomenclature to further political policy. It smacks of duplicity and manipulation. Finally, the issue of scientific nomenclature towards domestic animals is controversial. Currently, a petition is being considered by the International Committee for Biological Nomenclature which would officially revert the ferret's binomial to M. furo. Regardless of the ultimate ruling, the protocols of naming a domestic species grant little recognition to the process of domestication, which, as Darwin recognized, is a human-selected form of evolution. Indeed, it is arguable that the gene frequency shifts required for domestication, the morphological and behavioral changes, and the reproductive isolation would exceed those criteria for recognizing a new species, if the animal in question were wild. Clearly, this issue needs further study and comment beyond the scope of this paper. In the context that the domesticated ferret's ability to naturalize in California, the frequent mention of the domesticated ferret's scientific binomial as being the same as the ancestral progenitor serves to link the domestic species with the wild one in such a way that the uninformed or unwary might consider the two "identical" animals. It is a simple trick; guilt by association. The emphasis is designed to create an unsubstantiated bias towards the pet ferret by creating a false perception that the polecat and ferret are the same animal. Once that perception is created, and guilt by associated is assumed, then the CDFG cites characteristics more common to the wild progenitor than to the domestic variant as dangerous behaviors. Without using empirical support to back up the claims, predatory, reproductive and dispersing behaviors are assigned to the domestic variant. This isn't only manipulative to a scientifically uninformed audience, but it is also bad science. Regardless of the ultimate classification of the pet ferret, there is no evidence presented that a domesticated variant of a wild species can go feral simply because the ancestral progenitor lives in the wild condition. The ability to naturalize and create feral populations is dependent upon a myriad number of factors, such as competition, local guild structure, risk of predation, prey type and availability, to name a few. But one trait never mentioned in the introduced species literature for increasing risk of introduction is the sharing of species names between the domestic variant and the wild ancestor. Indeed, it is likely that the factors allowing successful exotic species introductions are so complex as to render useful predictions of naturalization impossible. The CDFG's inordinate focus on the domesticated ferret's Linnean binomial serves no useful purpose other than an apparent attempt to manipulate and confuse. Regardless of the ultimate taxonomic classification of the domesticated ferret, the discussion has no bearing on the ability of a pet ferret being able to successfully introduce itself into the wild. The comparison is inflammatory, and when being used to influence political positions, it is simply unethical. Bob C and 15 Mo' Furrowing Pharts [Posted in FML issue 3163]