Dick, Thanks for the info. It turns out I do have a copy of several years of Compendiums by virtue of Troy Lynn's information packet (it's been a while since I read the packet). The line you quoted from it: > "Management of animals other than dogs and cats depends on the species, > the circumstances of the bite, and the epidemiology of rabies in the area." seems the key line (currently), and apparently leaves policy fairly open to judgement by the State Vet or State Epidemiologist (and whoever else). I had a long talk with John Poppy, CO state Epidemiologist (one of, or the one), and he confirmed that line's importance. He says the difference in CO state policy (which is fairly liberal) and MD state policy stems at least in part from the difference between the state epidemiologies, that is, CO has little rabies to begin *and* has only one major host, bats. He says there is a great focus in MD, however, on terrestrial mammal hosts which carry rabies (such as raccoons and skunks). If I interpret correctly (and I'm not sure I follow this part yet), the reasoning goes: with MD's population of terrestrial mammal hosts, there is more danger of rabies spreading for at least two reasons: 1) terrestrial mammals with rabies more likely to contact uninfected mammals than bats (bats, John says, keep to themselves more (though I thought at least some bats feed on blood); he mused about an infected bat falling and being ingested, apparently as more likely than the bat biting (?)), and 2) carnivores ("bitey" animals to begin with) such as racoons, skunks, and coyotes more likely to transmit rabies than non-carnivores (and I don't know the truth there). The Compendium does make a distinction between bats and terrestrial mammals, and it does mention that herbivore transmission (at least to other herbivores) is rare (section III, 5). John was well aware of the stats on ferrets (regarding number of cases, lack of transmission to humans, etc). I got a verbal description (and will receive a printed version) of the CO state policy of management of ferrets that bite humans, as follows: If vaccinated, quarantine for 30 days. If not vaccinated, consider circumstances of the bite (history of pet, whether pet owned, whether reasonably certain indoor pet, where purchased, bitee's comfort with no kill & test), and then kill & test if factors warrant. Given the open nature of the line in the Compendium (III, 6), I would think that the best approach for us enthusiasts would be to get the European studies admitted in the US (if that's possible, and it sounds hard), and/or work on making sure people know of and go through the right process in evaluating the species, circumstances of bite, and epidemiology as per III, 6. Thanks for the CDC quote -- I might want to look that up and send it to Suzanne Albert of Jack Grigor's office in MD. Now that I know what the Compendium says, I think Suzanne misrepresented the Compendium to me (it's possible, though unlikely, that she was referring to an earlier, more ferret-hostile Compendium, such as 1992). I also still think her talk of escape is unreasonable. I would like to ask Suzanne if she is following the 1994 Compendium, and if so, ask about her considerations of: the species, circumstances of the bite, and epidemiology of the area. It seems to me she's at least partially ignoring the first, and *fully* ignoring the second, hence contradicting her stated policy of following the Compendium. Todd Cromwell Dors and Seldon [Posted in FML issue 1082]