[Sent in 2 parts -- combined into one. BIG] >But let's be very clear on this - not one person on this mailing list has >even hinted at the REASON why a ferret inflicts biting wounds on an infant, >as in the Toronto case as well as all the others that history has recorded. Ed, your memory seems to be very selective. Such discussions were held on the FML several times, or is it possible that the reason you deliberately chose not to recall such comments is because they don't fit in with your theories that ferrets are not "fully domesticated" and prone to feral attacks on babies? No one here has ever denied that ferret bites do occur from time to time. That is a fact. Several reasons have been suggested in the past for why ferret bites occur: -- The ferret was attempting to play with the baby. We all know ferrets nip and bite each other multiple times when they play in a rough and tumble way. There is also the explanation for multiple bites in one area. Observe two ferrets playing and you will see multiple play bites delivered to the same area on the opponent. -- The infant hits or inadvertantly hurts the ferret and the ferret reacts to the threat in the only way possible. Since the baby is unable to run away, it flails its arms continuing the perceived threat to the ferret and multiple bites occur. -- The ferret is attempting to show dominance over the infant who is a newcomer into the house. This is normal ferret behavior. >Those who have attempted to find a reason for the ferret mauling the >infant in Toronto have cited that oft repeated cliche: >It's not the ferrets fault; it's not the infant's fault either. It's >the fault of the adult. >Please note here that the word "reason" is somehow changed by the >respondents to the word "fault." No, no one other than you is substituting the word "reason" for "fault." The number one *reason* ferret bites occur on infants is indeed adult human neglect. The humans neglect to take the proper precautions to prevent a very preventable and predictable incident. It doesn't take an Einstein to know that infants and any living animal unsupervised in the same location are not a safe combination. In almost every infant/ferret bite incident reported, the infant was left in a room alone with an uncaged, unsupervised ferret. Had an adult human been watching over the infant, the ferret, or both (as they should have been), the bite incident(s) would not have occurred. The incidents of infant/ferret bites are the direct result of adult human neglect, and lack of common sense, and nothing more. They are regretable and preventable. But, they are not the result of some dormant feral instinct to attack and maul infants that is suddenly turned on like a light switch the moment a ferret first sees/hears/smells an infant. The common factors behind every infant/pet bite incident is neglect and/or a lack of common sense on the part of the adult human responsible for providing a safe environment for both the infant and the pet. Every parenting expert and pet expert will tell the public in no uncertain terms DO NOT leave an infant and pet together unsupervised. So yes, we can educate the public on what it takes to prevent infant/ferret bite incidents. The answer is simple, supervise your infant and pets at all times. Never leave the infant and ferret in the same room alone together. Never turn your back on the infant and ferret even when you are in the same room as they. Do those simple things and there will be no ferret/infant bite incidents again. PART 2 >Also I have to ask, why has not even one individual expressed the desire to >determine the physical condition of the attacking ferret? What is there >about this Toronto ferret that is unique to him (her)? Is there something >comparable in this ferret to all the other ferrets that have mauled infants >that may be discovered by a finely detailed examination of the Toronto >Terrifier before he is killed, or for that matter, even after he is killed. You assume again that the reason for the incident in Toronto is to be found physically within the ferret. That is as logical as trying to determine what the picture on a puzzle will look like by examining only one puzzle piece. You deliberately choose to ignore the common factor between the Toronto incident and other infant/ferret bite incidents. Look there and you will find the answers you claim you are seeking. That is if you really are interested in discovering the reasons behind infant/ferret bite incidents. >Thus I return to my point made in the original post, unless questions such >as I have proposed above are asked and fully answered, there is no >knowledge to pass on to other ferret owners or the general public as to >how best protect infants from continued ferret attacks. How can ferret >owners who are ignorant, and I'm afraid we are all ignorant in this field >of ferret behavior, educate the public? Simple. We can't. We are as >dumb as doorknobs, wouldn't you agree? No, I would not agree. I am surprised that someone who claims to run the Ferret Research Institute and have many years of experience with ferrets can also claim ignorance of ferret behavior. Ferret behavior is understandable and even predictable. Ferrets bite for a number of reasons: -- Ferrets bite in play and need to learn human/ferret social skills to learn how not to harm the less bite resistant human skin. Even a well socialized ferret who has mastered the skill of play biting their adult human companions is in strange new territory when confronted by a human infant. The old rules just don't apply since an infant's skin is more prone to injury. This is predictable ferret behavior and can be prevented by not allowing infant/ferret interaction. -- Ferrets bite out of fear and/or anger. Infants lack coordinated motor skills and can easily frighten or injure a curious ferret who is allowed into contact with the infant (again, either through neglect or lack of common sense). The natural ferret behavioral response is to bite at the source of injury. This, too, is predictable ferret behavior and can be prevented. -- Ferrets bite to establish and maintain social dominance. An infant is a new member of the established household. Ferrets do not know that a human infant is automatically higher on the established social dominance scale of the household. This is normal and predictable ferret behavior, and again, can be prevented. -- Ferrets tend to be more prone to biting when ill or injured. This is predictable ferret behavior. They have so few other methods for communicating when they are unwell. Ferret communication -- like most animal communications -- is complex, and involves, vocalizations, body language, and even biting. The knowledge on how to prevent infant/ferret/pet bite incidents is available, and has been available for generations. My great-grandmother knew it, and her great-grandmother knew it. It is rooted in common sense -- do not permit infant/ferret/pet interaction without close, responsible adult human supervision. There is no mystery, no deep feral instinct, no unknown ferret behavioral syndrome. There is just good, old-fashioned common sense, or a lack thereof. The real problem is that so many people may be just don't use common sense. They may be too busy, may assume that the pet has never bitten before, or just plain don't think something will happen to them. Accidents and incidents happen, and many of them are preventable if common sense is employed ahead of time. >Edward Lipinski, who's been there and done that! Seventy-two inches of >intestine in the ferret that was necropsied here in my vet's lab. And >you know what? Not one bit of food in the stomach or intestine - only 20 >millimeters of feces just inside the anus. Does this suggest that this >ferret that inflicted 47 lacerations of a premature infant's scalp was >starving? You tell me. As I said before, the situation as you described was less than credible, ferrets are not permitted in the Neonatal ward where premature infants are kept and hospitals do not routinely release premature babies to a home environment. But, for argument's sake, if the stomach and intestine indicated the ferret was suffering from starvation, then once again the one factor which you continue to ignore comes into play -- human neglect. The humans in that household created the conditions which directly led to the alleged incident. The causation was external to the ferret and not internal -- namely, the humans did not feed the ferret. FSG [Posted in FML issue 2741]