From:
wwhooligan@netscape.net
Date: 2001-08-22 11:10:00 UTC
Subject: Re: Bob C: Feral Ferrets and California
Bob, May I post this message in its entirety on the Yahoo calferret
message board as a refresher for those of us in the CA legalization
effort?
--- In Ferret-Health-list@y..., RRC <rrc961@m...> wrote:
> Q: "I heard through the grapevine that you allowed [California
ferret
> legalization advocates] use of a paper that proves ferrets cannot go
> feral in California like in New Zealand. ...Can I get a copy? I try
to
> answer those sort of questions all the time."
>
> A: I did allow use of the article in question, but only on a limited
> basis. The scope of the paperas you describe itappears to be
> exaggerated. It is NOT a paper that has been submitted for
publication,
> but is rather what I consider a working draft. While the paper will
> ultimately be submitted for publication, I plan on making major
> revisions, and (believe it or not) expansion.
>
> I've had three other requests for this work, so IF the list
moderators
> feel it is appropriate for publication on the FML, I'll post it
here and
> people with an interest can use it for PERSONAL USE ONLY. Because I
plan
> on using it for eventual publication, I will evaluate requests for
use
> on web pages and newsletters on a case-by-case basis. Sukie can
post it
> to the FML as long as this caveat is in place.
>
> When reading the article, keep in mind it is a largely unedited
piece,
> and designed as a working paper only. Because the references
support the
> core of the paper and the research represents intellectual property,
> they have been removed. However, I will supply then upon request to
> people with a legitimate interest.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> WHITE LIES THE FISH AND GAME TOLD YOU:
> FERRETS WILL GO FERAL IN CALIFORNIA LIKE THEY DID IN NEW ZEALAND
>
> By Bob Church ©2001
>
>
> The California Fish and Game objects to ferrets being legal in
> California because there exists feral ferret colonies in New
Zealand.
> True, but it is a white lie; the well documented conditions in which
> ferrets became feral in New Zealand are vastly different than those
> found in California.
>
>
> 1. Ferrets, preconditioned to eat rabbits, were deliberately
released by
> the government of New Zealand, dozens of acclimation societies, and
> private citizens for decades. The government and the acclimation
> societies gradually stopped releasing ferrets as the populations
> stabilized, but ranchers continued to raise ferrets for deliberate
> release decades longer, exacerbated by accidental and purposeful
> releases from fur farms. While the total numbers of ferrets
released in
> that time period is unknown, those totals probably exceed the total
> number of ferrets lost or released in the entire United States
during
> the last century (based on shelter populations). For the release
> conditions between New Zealand and California to be the same, tens
of
> thousands of ferrets would have to be annually released in
California
> for several decades, with smaller numbers released periodically for
> nearly a century. 1
>
> 2. Ferrets released in New Zealand were 100% sexually intact. Pet
> ferrets in California are neutered to prevent seasonal odors in male
> ferrets, and to prevent anemia and death from prolonged estrus in
female
> ferrets. For the sexual conditions between New Zealand and
California to
> be the same, all ferrets in California would have to remain sexually
> intact. 2
>
> 3. The government of New Zealand proactively protected ferrets by
> banning hunting, and sheltering and feeding them. Legal protections
> lasted for decades, preventing citizens, wildlife societies, or
> government agencies from reducing or controlling feral ferret
> populations. For the protective conditions between New Zealand and
> California to be the same, laws prohibiting removal or control of
feral
> ferrets would be required. 3
>
> 4. Ferrets were released in New Zealand in an environment devoid of
> native terrestrial mammals and suffering from widespread ecological
> disturbances caused by over populations of introduced rabbits, rats,
> livestock (including cattle, horses, sheep and goats), poultry, and
> wildlife (including various marsupials, deer, elk, and game birds).
A
> study of those few instances where feral ferrets have managed to
exist
> show they share a common trait; they all existed where widespread
> populations of the introduced European rabbit (Oryctolagus
cuniculus)
> occurred. For the introductory conditions between New Zealand and
> California to be the same, widespread feral colonies of European
rabbits
> would have to exist throughout California. 4
>
> 5. Most feral ferret sightings in the United States are based on
single
> observations rather than from verifiable collections, and are
limited in
> scope to a particular time and location. While there are often
reports
> of "feral ferrets in the area," sightings and collections are never
> repeated. Such anecdotes are paraded as clear and empirical
evidence of
> the existence of feral ferret colonies, yet return visits never
produce
> more captures, sightings, photographs, tracks, signs, carcasses, or
> scats from the hypothesized feral colonies. In New Zealand, feral
> ferrets are readily found, photographed, captured and hunted in
those
> areas in which they have been introduced. The excuse for the lack of
> repeated observations in the United States is blamed on the
difficulty
> of locating ferrets, which apparently does not exist in Britain
despite
> the rarity of European polecats (road kill is frequently used to
> establish population and health demographics in most European
> countries). For the signs of introduced ferrets between New Zealand
and
> the United States to be the same, repeated observations, captures,
> photography, recovered carcasses, scats, tracks and other signs of
> sustained and established populations would also have to occur in
areas
> of reported feral ferret colonies within the United States. 5
>
> 6. The claims of possible damage to the California ecosystem by
ferrets
> is based largely on the ecological damage which has occurred in New
> Zealand. Paramount in those claims are the loss of native bird
species;
> a claim which is cited as caused by introduced feral ferrets. The
> California Fish and Game ignores the effects of urbanization and
> industrialization, lost of habitat due to agriculture, introduced
> disease, introduced carnivores (including pigs, rats, cats, dogs,
fox,
> stoats, and weasels), vehicular traffic, introduced livestock
(including
> rabbits, cattle, horses, sheep and goats), poultry, and wildlife
> (including various marsupials, hedgehogs, deer, elk, and game
birds),
> amid others. Also ignored is the evolutionary history of the bird
life
> which inhabited New Zealand, where birds adapted to environmental
> conditions which precluded the presence of terrestrial mammalian
> predators. Long term studies have failed to pinpoint blame for any
bird
> extinction on feral ferrets. For the ecological conditions between
New
> Zealand and California to be the same, prey species in California
would
> have had to evolve in an environment devoid of terrestrial
predators. 6
>
> 7. Ferrets were introduced into a New Zealand which lacked
established
> predators which would have competed for food and other resources.
Well
> established predators native to California include short- and
> long-tailed weasels, American mink, spotted and striped skunks,
> raccoons, bobcats, gray fox, coyotes, badgers, pine martens, owls
and
> raptors, and introduced red fox, opossums, cats (both feral and
pet),
> dogs (both feral and pet), rats, and pigs. When the ferrets were
> introduced in New Zealand, the populations of introduced rabbits and
> rats were so high that in those few areas where competition
existed, it
> was a minor factor. For the niche and competitive conditions
between New
> Zealand and California to be the same, widespread populations of
native
> predators would have to be removed or some other way found to
prevent
> their competition with ferrets. 7
>
> 8. Ferrets were introduced into New Zealand when ferret predators
were
> generally absent, allowing ferret populations to reach self-
sustaining
> levels without danger of predation. California has abundant
predators
> capable of killing and eating ferrets, including gray and red fox,
> coyotes, dogs (both feral and pet), bobcats, mountain lions, cats
(both
> feral and pet), badgers, feral pigs, snakes, and various raptors and
> owls. Weasels could prey on immature ferrets, and the American
mink is
> known to kill and consume the domesticated ferret's wild
progenitor, the
> European polecat. For the predatory conditions between New Zealand
and
> California to be the same, widespread populations of native
predators
> would have to be removed or some other way found to prevent their
> predation on ferrets. 8
>
> The California Fish and Game argues New Zealand and California are
very
> similar, and allowing ferrets into the state places wildlife at risk
> because if it could happen there, it could happen here. The white
lie
> told by the California Fish and Game is that while superficially the
> conditions between the two regions appear the same, the conditions
in
> which ferrets were introduced are markedly different. For analogs to
> have value in modeling probabilities, they have to have as many
similar
> conditions as possible; something which is clearly not the casein
terms
> of introductory conditionsbetween New Zealand and California.
Indeed,
> between New Zealand and the rest of the United States, which
explains
> why in more than two centuries of the presence of ferrets, including
> mass excapes and releases from numerous ferret farms, not a single,
> repeatable or verifiable feral ferret population has been
demonstrated.
> The best example, the ferrets that may have formed a feral colony
on one
> of the San Juan Islands in Washington, the ferrets died out when
> introduced European rabbit populations dropped below predator
> sustainability. Feral ferret populations appear to be so tied to the
> presence of introduced European rabbits that ferrets may not be
able to
> form feral colonies without them (worldwide, there is not a single,
> confirmed instance where ferrets have managed to establish feral
> populations without the presence of European rabbits). Clearly, the
use
> of analogs in the manner chosen by the California Fish and Game is
> inappropriate. The conditions which allowed the introduction of
ferrets
> into New Zealand are so vastly different from those found in
California
> as to render arguments based on analogy invalid. 9, 10, 11, 12
>
> While the California Fish and Game has not presented outright lies
> regarding the ferret's ability to become a feral predator, from the
> pattern of evidential use, they either lack a clear, concise
> understanding of the history of ferret introduction in New Zealand,
and
> the concepts of competition, predation, and niche theory, or they
are
> guilty of blatant duplicity by spreading half-truths twisted to
> emphasize negative aspects. Clearly, they are presenting anecdotes,
> unconfirmed sightings, and rescues of lost or abandoned ferrets as
> empirical evidence, and not presenting the facts in a clear and
unbiased
> fashion to allow lawmakers to perform their job free of bureaucratic
> manipulations which suggests purposeful duplicity is intended.
> Ultimately, they rely on nonspecific, negative, uncorrelated, and
> anecdotal evidence to substantiate claims. Still, even if duplicity
> and/or self-promotion is not intended, the lack of clear
understanding
> of the issues is a sign of scientific incompetence, tainting
whatever
> evidence is presented in open debate. In other words, the arguments
> presented by the California Fish and Game are untrustworthy because
they
> are either poor scientific evidence or simply white lies. 13, 14,
15,
> 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
>
>
> ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYRIGHT 2001 BY ROBERT R. CHURCH.