J. C. A. Craik "Notes from a war zone," 1993 Seabird Group Newsletter 66(Oct):2-4. I have read this paper three times and am unable to find the word "ferret" or even "polecat" mentioned anywhere. The paper is about how American mink, the ranch mink bred for fur that escaped and went feral, have effected the nesting seabird sites of various islands. Any citation of this paper used to prove are ferrets are feral or they distroy seabird nesting sites is either proof the author didn't read the paper, or the author is a lair, and in the case of the CaCa Fish and Gestapo, probably both. (what do you mean, probably?) J. C. A. Craik "More serious than Shetland?," 1991 Seabird Group Newsletter 60(Sept):2-4. This is another paper about mink predation of seabirds. Except for a single reference to "other mustelids," mink are the only predators mentioned. At least in the previous paper (mentioned above), otter, fox and stoats are mentioned. Any citation of this paper used to prove are ferrets are feral or they distroy seabird nesting sites is either proof the author didn't read the paper, or the author is a lair, and in the case of the CaCa Fish and Gestapo, probably both. (Get that feeling of reading this once already? Its not deja vu; its deja CaCa.) Anonymous "Ferrets in a seabird colony," 1993 Seabird Group Newsletter 64(Aug):8. Of the three papers, this is the *_ONLY_* one than mentions ferrets. Interestingly enough, it only addresses the presence of ferrets, not what they are eating, or even if they have *had* an impact on the local birds. In fact, this excerpt should be of interest: "...nothing is known of their impact on wild birds." The paper goes on to say a proposal has been made to study the ecology of feral ferrets, and their impact on island biota which is at present (1993) unknown. The paper talks about how 4-5 ferrets were found on the island in rabbit burrows, and subsequently four were easily trapped. (It was thought a 5th ferret eluded trapping). The paper also saying the increase in ferrets is probably correlated to the increase in rabbits, but that domestic bird losses had taken place. The paper never says there was an established feral colony, or ferrets had indeed impacted the local bird population. Some comments: 1) No evidence the domestic bird losses were by ferrets; other papers (see above) place American mink in the area, and native stoats abound. The statement is unsuportable without evidence. Any citation of this paper to support ferret predation on domestic birds is erroneous and misleading. 2) *ANY* use of this paper to support feral ferret predation on birds is unfounded; the paper only discusses the presence of feral ferrets, not their predation habits. In fact, the paper states nothing is known of feral ferret predation on wild birds. Also, most (or all) of the feral ferrets were easily removed by trapping, so the problem was solved before there was actually a problem. 3) The paper reported the incided so others could be on the look-out for similar problems. As yet, no similar reports have been published. The paper doesn't state how they determined the animals caught were ferrets instead of polecats or hybrids, but I'll allow the identification to "non-polecat, including ferrets and hybrids" because obviously these people have experience with these animals. Every study of the differences in predatory behavior in ferrets and polecats prove polecats are better hunters. So if the birds evolved in the presence of polecats, native to the area, how can the presence of ferrets be worse? Perhaps equal, but worse? Also, studies have shown that in the face of predation, the birds simply move somewhere else to rear babies. The real danger, mentioned only briefly in the paper, was the possible loss of tourists who regularly visit the area to see the birds. 4) The object of the paper was NOT "ferrets are killing seabirds" as suggested by citation-use in anti-ferret papers, but instead WAS "Ferrets were found near a seabird colony but were trapped and removed." The citation of a paper to purposely mislead is unethical and dishonest at best. The CaCa Fish and Gestapo obviously has more evil motivations. Overall comments on all three papers: Only one paper mentioned the presence and removal of ferrets; the other papers discuss feral mink. These papers were published in a newsletter, not a peer reviewed journal. Like ferret newsletters, they are mailed out to interested parties, and because they are not peer-reviewed, just about anything can be published within it, right or wrong. This newsletter seems to be better than most, but it is still a newsletter of limited scientific impact. All three of these papers has been cited in recent anti-ferret propaganda; I know because that is where *I* found them. If the anti-ferret authors cited these without reading them, then they were stupid and their writing must be considered flawed. If the authors read the papers and thought they were supportive of anti-ferret positions, then they were stupid and their writing must be considered flawed. If the authors read the papers and knew they were not supportive of anti-ferret positions, then the use of them was dishonest, and their writing must be considered to be dishonest. In all three hypothetical positions, the citing these papers to prove anti-ferret positions is flawed in the least and dishonest at worst. What do I think? The papers cited were in a small and poorly circulated newsletter. It took my library almost six months to get copies of the papers to me. I honestly the authors knew anyone trying to get copies of the papers would have great difficultly, if they could get them at all. I think the citation of the papers was done on purpose, for dishonest reasons, by dishonest people. Why would they cite obscure sources? Ever notice the scarcity of anti-ferret citations in peer-reviewed journals? I can cite perhaps 30 or 40 feral dog papers, perhaps as many regarding the feral cat. I know of a couple dozen or so regarding other feral animals, mostly burros and sheep/goats. There are maybe 3 papers published in peer-reviewed (or refereed) journals regarding ferrets living in a feral state, and they refer to the New Zealand populations. What do I think? The papers cited were in a small and poorly circulated newsletter. It took my library almost six months to get copies of the papers to me. I honestly the authors knew anyone trying to get copies of the papers would have great difficultly, if they could get them at all. I think the citation of the papers was done on purpose, for dishonest reasons, by dishonest people. Why would they cite obscure sources? Ever notice the scarcity of anti-ferret citations in peer-reviewed journals? I can cite perhaps 30 or 40 feral dog papers, perhaps as many regarding the feral cat. I know of a couple dozen or so regarding other feral animals, mostly burros and sheep/goats. There are maybe 3 papers published in peer-reviewed (or refereed) journals regarding ferrets living in a feral state, and they refer to the New Zealand populations. I have said it before and I will say it again. When you read the stuff crapped out by the CaCa Fish and Gestapo, go to the citations and see who they use. If the citations are primarily "Personal Communications," "Newspapers," "Newsletters," "Unpublished Reports," "Letters From," or "Self-Citations," the paper cannot be good because all evidence is weak and unreliable, IF IT EVEN EXISTS!! I don't think I would be wrong to posit 80% of the anti-ferret propaganda citations fit in these categories. I don't mean to rant, but the dishonest use of these citations pisses me off to no end. As a scientist, I am not only embarrased, but furious. They are the intellectual equivalent to assalt and rape, or of racial or religious prejudice. You heard of the KKK? These people are the CaCaCa. Heard of "skinheads?" These people are boneheads. They prove the adage, "If you don't have evidence, make it up. Probably no one will go to the source." This is disgusting, and the people involved should be censored and the facts made public about their dishonesty. Personally, knowing the difference between domestic and wild animals, I think they should be stripped naked, staked out on a floor, slathered in linatone, creamed chicken and nutrical, and videotaped when 200 hungry mink and weasel kits, all 8-10 weeks old, are released in the room. The videotape would be shown to future biocrats prior to their first publication; "(Voice over:) here you see the wild mink stashing something in a hidey-hole, but we don't think it is a bird..." Hummm, I wonder if we could train black-footed ferrets to eat bloated biocrats instead of prairie dogs? There would be an endless supply... Bob C and the 17 Mad As Hell Missouri Carpet Sharks [Posted in FML issue 2009]