One of the things that really surprised my was the amount of mail I've received regarding Trish, White Fang, and ECE. Literally, I have 43 "Don't give Trish White Fang" and 32 "Give Trish White Fang" messages. Some of these are quite nasty, but don't ask to see them because I have deleted them all. (You won't see cross-postings from me). Some of the messages even attacked my character, which is quite understandable in many personal arenas, but hey, they kind of left me wondering "why?" First, let me say that I only have good feelings for the major players in this argument. While I have yet to meet Trish, I have been greatly impressed with her deep and committed love towards ferrets. Her adoption policies (to place ferrets) are tougher than the State of Texas (to place people), and I should know; I've adopted children from Texas. Trish declined to place White Fang with me because she could not visit my house, and because she had never met me in person. Also, there were others ahead of me on the list, who wanted this little lady before I even knew about her. I will not fault her for this, nor ask her to change her policies to please me or anyone else. I knew what I was doing when I agreed to transport White Fang from Calgary, Canada to the heart of Texas, realising that I would have her in my custody for almost two months. Yes, we bonded, but I was a foster parent, not the adoptive parent. White Fang is loving and intelligent; she will bond to her permanent owners without a problem, I am sure. I will envy them somewhat, but as long as White Fang is well cared for and happy, I haven't lost anything, but become a part of something wonderful. tt At no time did White Fang ever belong to me. Dispite some suggestions, I could not ethically "kit-nap" her. I promised I would transport, and I was honor-bound to fulfill that promise. Yes, I knew White Fang would be exposed to ECE, and certainly I did not want her to suffer or risk extreme illness or even death, BUT that decision was never mine to make. From Trish's point of view, there was no proof White Fang had not been exposed or even recovered from ECE, and she was young enough to recover. In all fairness, Trish, after consultation with Monica and Margaret, had decided to leave White Fang in my care, but because I never returned a call (while on the road) I never got the message. By time I found out, both of us had been exposed to the virus, blocking the possiblity. So, ultimately, it was my fault White Fang was exposed to ECE, because I never returned a call to Monica in time to discover the change in plans. As for the ECE questions, and you have to forgive me if the subject has been closed; I have yet to catch up on the FML. It seems to me that the basic question is "If ferrets are bound to get ECE, why not expose them early when they can physically recover?" I think this is a very good question, one that we all must ultimately answer. I have some comments. I understand (and somewhat agree to) both sides of the argument, but admit I fall on the "Do not expose" side for several reasons, the most important being the long term effects of the disease are poorly understood. Can ferrets have relapses? How long are they infective? What happens to the bowel years after the disease seems to have disappeared? These questions need long term study to answer, and ECE simply hasn't been a serious problem long enough for some of these questions to be answered fully. Second, I've suffered serious and life-threatening bowel problems. They are very painful, and even good days can be quite distressing. I refuse to believe ferrets (or ANY animal) cannot feel pain. The sensations caused by sloughing off portions of the bowel lining, having chronic liquid stools (and associated anal chapping and cracking), gas and God knows what else, MUST be nasty. Folks, pain is pain, even if the ferrets hide it somewhat. Third, I don't buy the argument that ECE exposure at an early age is like measles exposure. I remember having measles, and the neighborhood ladies running their daughters over to catch it. But, in non-pregnant Europeans anyway, measles is fairly benign, with little risk of death. Not so with ECE. Also, we know the long term effects of the measles, and those of ECE are still being studied. Sure, you might get a recovery and perhaps even some immunity, but what if the virus damages the cells such that it increases cancer risks tremendously? Doesn't happen? Wrong! There are dozens of correlations between viral infections and later cancers. Just ask any doctor about the cancer risks of women getting herpes. Last, it is not neccessarily true that ECE will take over, and all ferrets will get it sooner or later. We can act responsibly, and segregate exposed from non-exposed ferrets. Just take standard public health precautions, some common sense, and a strong ethical position, and the disease can be curtailed, even "starved-out," at least until medicines can be created. Heck, I can come up with many more reasons, but these along are good enough. I am currently ECE free, yet have visited many ECE households without problems. To tell the truth, I am far more worried about distemper than ECE, and pancreatic/adrenal disease than distemper. I've mentioned Trish's name but have not identified anyone else, not to make Trish standout, but because she was the central figure in the White Fang controversy. In truth, WE ALL KNOW both sides have nothing but the welfare of ferrets foremost. I have been stuck between a rock and a hardspot for the last few weeks over this mess. I do think Trish could have been more sensitive to the arguments against ECE exposure--I think she misread the FML attitudes, especially about White Fang--but I'll be damned if I'll fault her for her decisions. I respect the work she has done, which I am sure is reflective of her character, even if I disagree with her conclusions towards ECE. Who knows, she may be right.... Anyway, just my two cents. I consider everyone on the FML my friend, and will not choose sides against people, only arguments. Mo' Bob and the 19 Furry Poop-shooters. [Posted in FML issue 1673]