| Special to the Standard-Examiner: Ferret restrictions rooted
in history
Standard-Examiner
Friday, August 26, 2005
By Ben Reeves
Special to the Standard-Examiner
There have been a lot of letters in the newspaper about the outlawing
of ferrets. Let me, with my 30-plus years of experience in the field of
animal control, address this issue.
Let's look at why ferrets were banned or made illegal in the first place.
When we established the ordinance making them unlawful, it was based on
two factors: The protection and welfare of the people in the communities
we serve, and the welfare of the animals themselves. We had discussions
with the Utah State Health Department regarding the human issues and with
the Utah Division of Wildlife on the animal side.
The Health Department had two concerns. A well-recognized trait of ferrets
is that they are known to have a tendency to attack young infants and
babies as they sleep. I know this statement will be debated by ferret
owners, but I have read the statistics and seen pictures of children who
are missing noses, ears, fingers and other appendages to the body that
have been chewed off by ferrets.
In addition, there was the rabies issue. At the time, there was no approved
vaccine available.
The issue that concerned wildlife managers was the black-footed ferret,
a wild ferret found in Utah and listed as threatened. There was concern
that escaped ferrets might interbreed and thus threaten the black-footed
ferret population.
Based on these concerns, we, as the animal control agencies both locally
and nationally through our various associations, recommended that cities
and counties pass laws banning ferrets. Most did. As time went on, several
of these concerns changed or were proven invalid. The wildlife people
found through studies that the domestic ferret would not interbreed with
the black-footed variety. Also, the veterinary community developed an
approved rabies vaccine for ferrets.
As these studies came to light, the opposition to ferrets diminished.
The state association withdrew its opposition, and thus it was left up
to each community to evaluate and change its laws as it felt appropriate.
Many communities still felt there was a legitimate threat and did not
lift the ban. New York City, for example, felt that the attacks on infants
was sufficient to maintain the ban, and recent court decisions have been
in agreement. In challenges to the ban on ferrets, the court ruled that
the tendency for ferrets to go into holes and cracks in walls, and thus
be able to travel from one apartment to another, posed a threat to infant
children sufficient to uphold the ban.
Many cities, such as Roy and communities in Davis County, felt that because
the majority of their residences were single-family dwellings, and any
threat to children was from a family pet, the decision was one to be made
by the parent.
Any risk or injury would be the result of their choices and on their
own consciences. We recommended repeal of the ban, with requirements for
vaccination attached. Other communities, for various reasons, chose not
to act, and the ban stayed in place.
Where will this issue go from here? Ogden Animal Services is currently
reviewing it and is considering licensing, requiring vaccinations and
other options. When it has formulated a plan, it will go to the City Council,
which has the final say.
As I recommended to the Roy City Council several years ago, I personally
feel that ferrets should be allowed, with regulations in place to ensure
vaccination for rabies with appropriate follow up. This will provide the
protection for our citizenry that we are required to accomplish.
However, I can't help but wonder how many of these vocal ferret owners
have current vaccinations for their pets.
Reeves is the supervisor of Roy Animal Control. |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
