Name
English 100
Refutation
Date December 10, 1998
You Can't Own a Ferret in California
Why? You might ask. Because the California Department of Fish & Game classified the domestic ferret as a wild animal more than 60 years ago. Despite grassroots efforts by many Californians and huge amounts of data that proves that the ferret is a domestic animal, the agency has refused to correct its mistake. The California Department of Fish & Game is the only DFG that maintains the domestic ferret on the prohibited wildlife list. Let's remember that the DFG is an agency whose reason for being is the control of wildlife not domesticated animals. California is the only states in the United States that bans the domestic ferret as a companion animal. Compounding this problem and supporting the CDFG position are some very powerful organizations. The Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and the Los Angeles Zoo. The Sierra & the Audubon Society have argued that lifting the ban on ferrets will allow for the creation of feral ferret colonies as a result of lost or abandoned pet ferrets. They further fear that these feral colonies will be harmful to California's fowl life. The Los Angeles Zoo as well as the CDFG have put forth that ferrets are dangerous animals and quite capable of harming children.
In June 1998 my girlfriend and I had the occasion to visit the Los Angeles Zoo. We decided to start our visit by attending one of the zoo's regularly scheduled children's animal shows. To the delight of the children and quite a few of the adults, one of the animals they brought out was a small sable female (jill) ferret. She was coiled in the hands of her handler like a slinky with large, blinking inquisitive eyes darting back and forth across the audience. After showing her around up close to many of the children in the audience, the handler when into a half-hearted explanation that ferrets where not domestic animals, they are dangerous to people, if let loose in the wild they are a danger to birds and they are illegal in California. This irked me, as her explanation seemed too similar to the CDFG's position to be a coincidence. I waited until after the show and then I approached the animal handler. I told her that I had owned ferrets in Texas for many years as pets and so had many of my friends and not one of us had ever thought of them as dangerous creatures or had even heard they were detrimental to the fowl life. I further told her that I didn't feel that the zoo had been fair in its representation of the domestic ferret. She stood there a few seconds, then almost as if to see if anybody might be within earshot she looked left and right and whispered "I know". She went on to explain that she also didn't feel that ferrets were dangerous creatures and that she unfortunately had to say so because the official position of the zoo is such. That intrigued me so I asked her if it had anything to do with the fact that they have to get permits from the CDFG for their animals; she said "could be" and told us she had to go and prepare for the next show.
What all of this means is that in the whole U.S. only Californians are being denied the right to choose the ferret as their companion animal. The solution to this is to pass legislation lifting the ban on ferrets so that Californians can have the same access as the rest of the country to America's third favorite pet after dogs & cats: the pet ferret. We could craft legislation that would allay some of the stated fears of those against the legalization of ferrets, while at the same time good for the ferret. A mandatory spays & neuter attachment to the bill would answer the very unlikely occurrence of a feral colony as the result of a lost pet ferret. Another attachment to the bill might be a minimum age requirement for owning a ferret. This would help to decrease the possibility of biting incidents due to the mishandling of ferrets by younger owners and put the ferret into more responsible hands. Workshops presented to potential pet owners by pet shops and "ferret people" organizations which would include promotional literature and information would help to educate the public about the ferret and help counteract the negative image that the public has been exposed to by the sensationalist media. The veterinary community also must be made aware that there are specific rabies vaccines for the ferret that have been in use in Europe and many other states which could be used in California as well.
Much of the position of the CDFG and other opponents to the legalization of the ferret is based on the studies put forth in a 1988 report by the California Department of Health Services. The CDFG upholds the classification of the domestic ferret as a wild animal with the reasoning that ferrets were developed by man from their original ancestors, the polecat. The CDHS report characterizes the polecat as "being extremely bloodthirsty" and reports that the development of the ferret was based on selectively breeding the most "savage characteristics" into the ferret. According to the report the reason for the development of the ferret was to be an even "more ferocious and effective predator than its polecat progenitor" and that this involvement of man in the creation of the ferret can not be construed as a form of domestication (Constantine & Kizer, 15,18).
It is true that genetically speaking there is a near identical match between the domestic ferret and the European polecat in that both have 40 chromosomes unlike the wild U.S. black-footed ferret, which has 38. Behaviorally, however, there are a few major differences. The European polecat is a solitary animal while ferrets are gregarious. Polecats in their natural state are very territorial while ferrets on the other hand seem to enjoy sharing space with other ferrets (Church). In most households where more than one domestic ferret is kept, the sight of the pet ferrets sleeping next to each other or even on top of each other is a common sight. Ferrets also tend to display more playful tendencies than the European polecat. These characteristics in the ferret can not really be considered more "savage" than the European polecat.
The report's claim that the ferret was developed as a result of man's involvement with the European polecat is true. In fact, Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third edition defines the ferret as "a small domesticated European polecat easily tamed for hunting rabbits, rats, etc." While it may be surmised that characteristics useful in hunting may have been somehow sought in the development of the ferret, the conclusion that they would necessarily be "blood thirsty" is inaccurate. Hunting with ferrets is referred to as "ferreting". Ferreting involves muzzling a ferret and sending the ferret into a rabbit burrow, in order to scare any rabbits within the burrow out and into the sights or nets of waiting human hunters. Rodents have a natural fear of the European polecat, as a matter of fact most members of the Mustelid group of carnivores, which includes the domestic ferret, emit a musky odor whose slightest trace sends rodents into a panic. It is therefore, more logical to assume that hunters would want the to develop the characteristics of curiosity and stronger musk than bloodthirstiness. The purpose of hunting rabbits by ferreting was to supplement diet and was used from the days of the Roman Empire up to the 1800's (Jeans). It would not make sense to develop killing instincts in the ferret who would then kill and possibly eat the game down a hole unseen and inaccessible to its masters.
Further supporting the idea that ferrets are, contrary to the CDFG's position, not wild but domesticated can be seen in the various roles that the ferret has played in the U.S. In 1875 American furrier companies imported the ferret from Spain (Jeans). The ferret was put to use as a fur animal, not a hunter. The quality of the fur or coat of the animal was probably the most important trait for this purpose. In the early 1900's the domestic ferret was used to develop the underground wiring system for the telephone. It was used to carry wire through pipes and into areas inaccessible to the workers (Jeans). Again, it would seem unlikely that "bloodthirsty" or "savage" animal would have been used for such purposes.
The truth of the matter is that the ferret has served man and been a companion to man for hundreds of years. Man has tamed the ferret and bred the ferret to be his friend, like the dog. It is important to note that all domesticated animals have come from originally "wild" roots and yet have been changed by man into the animals we love and enjoy today.
If the CDFG were to acknowledge the fact that the ferret is a domesticated animal and not a wild animal, they would still hold on to idea that escaped ferrets might establish feral ferret colonies and endanger California's wildlife. It is proper that the CDFG express its concern regarding any danger to California's wildlife perceived or real, as according to the Legislative Intent Service, the CDFG was created to manage and conserve the state's wildlife and endangered species. To support its claim that ferret can and do establish feral ferret colonies it uses its own published Ferret Fact Sheet dated March 25, 1994. This fact sheet mentions an example of a feral ferret colony that was established on the San Juan Islands in Washington State. The problem with the fact sheet is that it omits the fact that ferrets were intentionally introduced to control and overpopulation of European hares on the island and that despite several efforts by officials to help keep the introduced ferrets alive, they died out about 10 years ago (Lynch).
Harry V. Thompson and Carolyn M. King in their book "The European Rabbit: The History & Biology of A Successful Colonizer" had an interesting observation on the issue of feral ferret colonies. In writing about the introduction of ferrets to Australia, they mention that ferrets had been used quite successfully to catch rabbits, but that although there were thousands of accidental releases, the ferrets could not establish colonies. This was true even when accidentally released into areas where rabbits were abundant. They hypothesize that this occurred because these ferrets had been trained to hunt rabbits and that a lack of an alternative prey when the rabbits stopped breeding caused them to die out (Thompson & King 131).
A reference to the domestic ferret in the Encyclopedia Britannica shows that "The Domestic Ferret has been domesticated for a very long time and seldom survives in the wild for more than a few days." Perhaps the CDFG should ask its fellow DFGs in the 48 states where ferrets are legal, their inquiry would inform them that there is no current or archived report of established feral ferret colonies. The solution to the question of the ability for a pet ferret to escape from it's owners and establish a feral colony is allowing the legalization of ferrets while limiting sales to the public to neutered and spayed ferrets.
Another issue of concern to the CDFG and the CDHS is the belief that the ferret is dangerous to humans and particularly vicious (Constantine & Kizer). A government's concern for the welfare of it's citizens is right and proper, however the it is also right and proper that it respect the will of it's citizens and their right to make choices that produce happiness in their lives. According to the CDHS "Ferrets find a near parallel with other wild species that have received similar rearing or (bite) training. All such species are characterized by a relatively high frequency of biting compared to dogs, and some have killed human infants and or eaten their tissues (Constantine & Kizer)."
This statement must be compared to the report by the Center for Disease Control in May 30, 1997 that was compiled from the NEXIS database of the Humane Society of the United States, which showed that during 1979-1996 California was the leading state in the country for dog-bite-related fatalities. During that same period there were no reported cases of a fatality resulting from ferret attack. According to a L.I.F.E. fact sheet, which quoted a 1988 JAVMA report, it estimated that within the decade of 1978-1988 there from 1,000,00 to 3,000,000 reported bite incidents involving dogs. The same fact sheet presented to The Humane Society of the United States reported an average of roughly 65 bites annually involving ferrets that same decade.
It is interesting to note that in California it is legal to own a Boa Constrictor or Python that when fully grown can easily suffocate a child or small adult, and you can buy a fifty pound Pit bull whose bite not only pierces the skin but can crush your bones, but a three pound ferret is too dangerous to own. All animals if cared for improperly or abused can and sometimes do bite, but educating potential owners and owners would go a long way to prevent or greatly diminish this possibility. Seminars hosted by local pet stores, information brochures by ferret organizations and agencies like the Humane Society could help to disseminate valuable information and educate anybody interested in the domestic ferret as a pet.
The CDHS's responsibility is the health of California's citizens and it has expressed concerns about the possible spread of rabies by the domestic ferret. The CDFG has also added to the CDHS concern by a statement in a Ferret Fact Sheet dated March 25, 1994 which states "Is there a "proven" vaccine to prevent rabies? No".
After reading this fact sheet the President of Rhone Meriux, Donald G. Hildebrand, sent a letter to the CDFG which read "Rhone Meriuex is the manufacturer of IMRAB, a killed rabies vaccine which has been approved by the USDA for use in six species of animals, including ferrets. It has come to our attention that your Department has been publishing false and misleading information we ask that you cease and desist and further publications or commentary which do not accurately reflect the proven efficacy or safety or our IMRAB product (Lynch)."
In 1997 The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians' Rabies Compendium Committee met in New York in order to develop the 1998 Rabies Compendium. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention brought the results of their current studies on rabies in ferrets that indicated that ferrets shed the virus within a few days of their manifesting rabies symptoms. As a result of these studies the Committee concluded that a 10-day confinement period after a bite by a healthy ferret would be enough to determine rabies status. This is the same policy that currently exists with dogs & cats proving that ferrets are certainly no more capable of rabies transmission than dogs or cats.
Legalization of the domestic ferret for use as a pet can be accomplished in California without a detrimental effect on California's wildlife or the health of its citizens. Legislation legalizing ferrets coupled with a mandatory spay and neuter clause would virtually eliminate the unlikely event of a feral ferret colony being established by escaped or lost ferrets. Seminars and public information programs by local pet stores, ferret organizations and animal rights organizations could prevent and diminish the possibility of ferret bite incidents and abuse of ferrets by educating potential and current owners of the proper care and handling of ferrets. Californians can safely enjoy the ferret as a pet without fear of rabies by the use of the IMRAB rabies vaccine. Let's give Californians the right to choose the ferret and join the rest of the country in enjoying this wonderful pet.
Works Cited
Jeans, Deborah. A Practical Guide to Ferret Care. Florida: Ferret, Inc. 1994
Thompson V., Harry and King M., Carolyn. The European Rabbit: The History and Biology of a Successful Colonizer, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994
Webster's New World college dictionary / Victoria Neufeldt, editor in chief, David B. Guralink, editor in chief emeritus. - 3rd ed. Simon & Schuster, 1997
League of Independent Ferret Enthusiasts (L.I.F.E.). "Ferret Vs. Dog Bites." Ferret Bite Fact Sheet. http://www.acmeferret.com/infobank/biteinfo.htm (03 November 1998).
MMWR Weekly. "Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities-United States, 1995-1996" 46(21):463-466. May 30, 1997. http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm (12 November 1998).
Lynch, Michael. "Ferreting Our the Facts on the California Department of Fish & Game's War on the Domestic Ferret." Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, May 1996
Constantine, Danny G. and Kizer, Kenneth W. "Pet European Ferrets: A Hazard to Public Health, Small Livestock and Wildlife, California Department of Health Services, December, 1988
Church, Bob. "Ferret Natural History FAQ" http://www.ferretcentral.org/faq/history.html (November 11, 1998).