Thanks to the domestication quiz, I've received a couple dozen inquires about ferret domestication. Here are a few short, sweet answers. 1. Alexandra did a nice job regarding the human consumption of small rodents. I will add that rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters were domesticated for food, NOT as pets. The extirpation of wild hamsters from most of Europe is thought to be largely due to food-centered exploitation. Even dogs were domesticated as much for food as for any other purpose (called "barking mutton;" Native Americans would complain that every time Lewis and Clark's company visited, the local dogs would disappear). A single rodent may not supply a lot of food, but would be an important source of trace nutrients for early agricultural peoples, especially in the spring and early summer before the crops mature. Small rodents abound, are usually easy to catch (especially with ferrets), and three or four in a pot containing calorie-rich grains or starches provides a significant amount of iron, vitamins, protein and fat. The consumption of small rodents is quite common in many cultures. Generally, the animals were skinned, pounded flat and dried, then stewed as needed, or simply boiled or roasted and eaten from the bone. At the time of ferret domestication, wild hamsters were quite common, as were sousliks (a type of ground squirrel). It is probable the practice of ferreting rabbits evolved from an earlier practice of ferreting hamsters and sousliks. Rabbits were being introduced into Europe at about the same time wild hamster and souslik populations were in serious decline. 2. Ferrets were commonly used in the United States to hunt various furbearers. Similar to ferreting rabbits, the goal wasn't to have the ferret actually catch or kill the animal, but to bolt it from the burrow, where men with clubs, guns, or dogs did the killing. Ferrets were reportedly very good at the job. One of the main reasons ferrets were made illegal in the USA was because it was nearly impossible to regulate their use in hunting; it was easier to simply outlaw them than try to police their use. 3. During and just after the Civil War, several states passed game laws regulating the use of ferrets for hunting rabbits or furbearers. The implications of these laws are that ferrets were common enough for state legislatures to identify potential problems, discuss solutions, and pass regulatory laws. Civil war era documents in the Library of Congress, as well as in my personal possession, either directly discuss hunting with ferrets, or ask the cost of obtaining ferrets. Armies on both sides of the conflict relied on local foods to supplement existing stores, or as a primary source. One of the laws appears to prohibit the use of local people from using ferrets to hunt, presumably to allow soldiers (who were exempt) a better chance to forage game. Tasks assigned these ferrets where hunting small game (principally rabbits), ratting, and hunting various furbearers. Taken as a whole, there is little doubt ferrets were sometimes used during Civil War times for procuring additional food, fur, and to eliminate rodent pests. 4. No, I WILL NOT provide copies of early documents, nor will I specifically discuss them in detail or tell you where to get them until AFTER I publish the material. I used to make ideas and materials freely available, only to find them "borrowed" by others. Using other people's ideas without crediting them is unethical, but doing it to a friend? I don't mind helping people, but I will no longer do their homework for them. 5. I will discuss lifespan and diseases of old age in a follow-up post. [second post tacked on to this one... BIG] 6. The way scientists name domesticated species is rather illogical, inconsistent, contradictory, and, if you ask me, obtuse. Some domesticates are named after the wild species, others are not. Dogs are domesticated wolves, Canis lupus, but carry the scientific name Canis familiaris. Pigs are domesticated European boar and both use the same scientific name, Sus scrofa. The problem is that while criteria exist for naming wild animals, there is no real procedure for naming domesticated beasts. The move to permanently return ferrets to the original Linnaean binomial "Mustela furo" is like pasting a band-aid over a carbuncle; it really solves nothing, but it does make things look better. 7. Ferret coloration is intimately tied to domestication. If you breed for tameness, one of the results is a change in the timing of the migration of melanocytes during early development. This impacts the distribution of melanocytes in the skin and fur; excluding fancy melanistic breeds, domesticates have diluted coloration compared to the progenitor. For example, a dark polecat has a black coat with an almost purple sheen, but "black sable" ferrets are usually only a very dark brown. Some hobby breeders, hoping to breed black fur, have crossed ferrets back to polecats. The tactic generally works to increase the darkness of the coat, BUT it also decreases the behavioral traits of domestication as well. Many of the resulting offspring are more nervous, easily stressed, bite more frequently and harder, and are far more aggressive to other ferrets. Bred them to be tame again, and you lose much of the dark coloration. The tactic is a waste of time, temporary at best, and dangerous to the reputation of ferrets at worst. 8. The idea that ferrets were domesticated in Egypt isn't actually that old, dating to perhaps the middle of the 1800s. Prior to then, there was always the suggestion that ferrets were domesticated in Libya or North Africa, although most of the authors scientifically trained summarily rejected the idea for a lack of support. The "Out of Egypt" idea bubbled up in the caldron of origin hypotheses from time to time, but really got rolling shortly after King Tut's tomb was discovered. While the idea was never accepted by scientific investigators, it was seized upon by a few ferret breeders who saw ferrets in hieroglyphs of mongeese, and support in a mistranslated word in an early version of the King James Bible. Still, the idea of Egyptian domestication never entered the mainstream until ferrets became popular as pets during the later 1970s and early 1980s. At that time, the idea was presented as fact in several books promoting ferrets as pets, and the idea became entrenched in ferret dogma there after. Even so, the idea has never been taken seriously by scientific researchers, especially those with a background in Egyptology or domestication. The promulgation of the idea has always been a weak point for those promoting ferrets because it suggests, by implication, the overall scholarship of ferret owners is in doubt. After all, if ferret owners accept an easily disproved idea about ferrets being domesticated by Egyptians, couldn't they be mistaken about feral issues, bite safety, or the risk of passing dangerous diseases? I have heard this objection by three leading zoologists when I queried them regarding ferret issues. While some might suggest the belief is benign, it is not. Promoting the idea harms efforts for ferret legalization, and causes scientists to question the scholarship of other, more important, analyses. 9. Ferrets were domesticated to hunt. To better serve that purpose, specific traits were promoted, such as tameness towards humans, reduced fear of new situations and environments, and increased curiosity. Ferrets actively seek out novel situations, and are obsessed with investigating new objects. The difference between ferrets and polecats is that polecats recognize they run great risk of becoming a meal, while ferrets think EVERYTHING is a meal. This one behavioral characteristic is probably the single most important reason ferrets fail to go feral EXCEPT in areas where food is plentiful, competition is slight, and predation is minor. 10. We will probably NEVER really understand the who or where of ferret domestication because it probably occurred without purposeful intent by common people who lack recorded histories. Genetic studies imply ferrets may be a European-steppe polecat hybrid, osteological studies are inconsistent and contradictory (thus untrustworthy), archaeological studies lack significant data, and historic documents are skewed by observer bias. It is far easier to say where it wasn't than where it was, or who didn't do it than who did. I find it a compelling mystery and I dedicate as much time as possible to its solution, but I recognize a lifetime of investigation will yield few concrete answers. Bob C [Posted in FML issue 4066]