To Judi Lunn: Your report on Rachel's TV stunt with the Postal Service is completely outrageous. I'm sure lots of us can find ways to use it against her--among other things it would probably be good grist for the mill for a follow-on letter to Paul Irwin and the HSUS board, driving home the inconsistency between her all-tolerant view of dogs and her pogrom against ferrets. --On dog bites: According to the Insurance Information Institute, headquartered in Washington D.C., 3.5 million dog bites are reported each year, and half of them are serious enough to need medical attention. --On the Nevada bite case: >Also, can someone confirm that the affidavit posted the other day was actually the affidavit of the Animal Control person at that scene? Is little Michelle in fact now in the custody of her grandmother?< The person who escorted Michelle around to testify at the CA hearings and appear on CBS is identified as her grandmother, though I don't know anyone who has seen the actual legal papers transferring custody. If anyone knows the name of Michelle's parents, it might be possible to do some investigating. On the ACO letter, I talked to Lee Wittek a few days ago, and he is an officer with Carson City Animal Control, but trying to explot his statement could be legally tricky, for two reasons: first, he is terrified about losing his job--probably got a pretty stern talking-to from his superiors--and refuses to answer any questions about it--says he "put his neck on the line" and got "no support", whatever that means. Since we don't know the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement, if we were challenged regarding its authenticity, we probably could not prove it. Second, if you look closely at the text of his statement, he himself apparently SAW NOTHING. It is all hearsay, or at least he is rendering it as hearsay. There is nothing to indicate he himself ever participated in the investigation or talked to any of those involved. Again, if we were challenged on the facts, it could prove embarrassing. To James Cristea: While appreciating your helpfully volunteering to speak the LAST WORD on the BFF controversy, I must quarrel with your interpretation of the BFF video, which I also have seen. The handler was sitting in the middle of the habitat, and various ferrets came up to him, climbed onto his lap and shoulder, occasionally appeared to nuzzle him, and allowed themselves to be gently stroked by the bare-handed handler. When he picked one up with a hand under the belly several times, it squirmed but did not in any way make a serious effort to get away, nor did it make any move to bite. Also, when the ferrets were eating (food that had been left for them), they lazily ate out of the food bowl, placed about six inches in front of the entrance to the next box, and lounged lazily half-in half-out of the nest box while finishing their meal. This is not smart survival behavior. You are right that they are not completely tamed--the handler kept his movements slow (no surprises!), using caution he would not have needed with a domestic ferret--but their survival skills have been gravely compromised by having lived a lifetime without facing threats or learning to avoid them. I am not in a position to say whether they should have been treated this tamely, though my understandingiwas it was never part of the original scheme to release the breeders born in captivity. But at all events, it is not the ferrets' fault that their natural survival skills have been compromised. Howard Davis [Posted in FML issue 1222]