wl cal
PET EUROPEAN FERRETS:
A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH,
SMALL LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
PET EUROPEAN FERRETS: A HAZARD TO
PUBLIC HEALTH, SMALL LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE
Denny G. Constantine, D.V.M., M.P.H.
Public Health Veterinarian
Veterinary Public Health Unit
and
Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.
Director
California Department of Health Services
714 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
December 1988
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
European ferrets are cute and playful, and they are becoming
increasingly popular as pets. However, their growing popularity is viewed
with alarm by numerous public health entities and animal care organizations.
Ferret play frequently assumes the form of mock attacks, which may
result in bites to humans. Serious bites may occur, especially if the
animal is surprised or angered. Adults are able to quickly terminate such
encounters, and thereby limit injury. However, infants, who often seem to
be perceived by ferrets as prey, may suffer severe injury as a result of
ferret attacks. Indeed, ferrets sometimes unleash frenzied, rapid-fire bite
and slash attacks on infants, usually on their heads and throats, and
sometimes inflict hundreds of bites. The animals have been reported to then
drink the victim's blood and eat the shredded tissues.
In order to better define the nature and extent of ferret attacks, and
in response to requests for information from other state agencies, the
California Department of Health Services solicited reports about ferret
attacks in early 1986. During the subsequent 2 years, information was
obtained on 452 ferret attacks spanning the 10-year period 1978 through
1987. 425 attacks on people were reported from California, Oregon, and
Arizona. One hundred of these attacks were from California, where it is
illegal to keep ferrets as pets. Also reported from a total of 18 states
were 63 unprovoked attacks on infants and small children. Several of these
were near fatal attacks. One additional case, a fatal attack, was reported
from London, England.
Data from California indicate that the majority of attacks were
inflicted by pet ferrets belonging to households other than the victim's.
Twenty-eight percent of infants required plastic and reconstructive
surgery; 22 percent of victims required rabies prophylaxis; and 4 percent of
victims were known to have been exposed to rabid ferrets.
Ferrets have a propensity for escaping from their principle residence,
and escaped ferrets are known to boldly approach wildlife. These ferrets
may develop rabies after returning home. Twelve such cases have been
reported in the United States.
Ferrets develop feral populations and are especially destructive of
poultry and small wild animals such as rabbits. As a result of this well
recognized problem, the keeping of ferrets as pets was outlawed in
California in 1935. However, data gathered from our survey indicate that
greater surveillance and enforcement efforts in this regard may be needed.
-ii-
II.
IIl.
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........ cee eccccceeee ee er
Introduction ..........20.. eee eee Bebe Td ade haa ees Bbiwee d
MEthodS .. cere ccc c ccc r cece scene eee seer reer ener ere ereenseenes
Results csacsesesevcssvecs (8.6 6 UDUMSD TW LETTE SEO KER we EERO
A. Unprovoked Attacks on InfantS ........cecccccceecevssvcers
B. Attacks on Persons in California ........ cc cece eee enesees
C. Attacks on Persons in California, Oregon,
and Arizona .... cece eee e cence neces PERSE WERT eee di Soba dus
D. Ferret Rabies in the United States .......... cece ee eens
E. Feral Ferrets in California TTTTERT CLE
DISCUSSION .o cece r cece cnc cece cere cece eet e crete eee ese eee eresees
A.
H.
Concl
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
History of Ferret Selective Breeding and Interaction
With Man. cicesc ncivieceee se cseew ee sive eee Rtn e eee ROME
Problems Consequent to Pet Ferret Ownership ........... a
Rabies in Pet Ferrets ....... ia fa (910 a! ow ie We te 9 6) al mi fate 19 91 8h gi wn He
Attacks According to Age of Victim ........... TTT eT
Ferrets Apparently Perceive Human Infants as Prey ........
Liability of Ferret Ownership .........cccceecescccecsence
Feral Ferret Populations Can Devastate Small
Livestock and Native Vertebrates and Contribute
to the Wildlife Rabies Problem .............. scene eens cece
Ferrets and. Rabies ciscss iv civassescvsswses ivavenne i vewews
WSLON, 2k kd sitepedingaadeue cdiSed esd Hwa O Ma HOME T ERAS DETR ER
rrr Teer TTT Tere rrerT Terirrrierrerrrr irri rote
2 saweeue 5 Te HORT d.s DHNMTSH ELTNSRNS So URRS RAs D MRS
i rr eee ceeees eee cece es eythane o ‘ $81d gad
GY Bee SESE OE SE NEE ONO USO ES ROSE Ewe ee HER Es sete cee w ee sees
§ Rede eRe RONDE T TES RHR ESTES ERTS RRS O HE TT ere (awee BSS
GC BBR EM eA R ae Se HATE ie chews ud Sve Shwwe Home de de www
12
13
14
15
15
18
22
25
27
31
33
35
37
40
46
47
48
49
50
51
Acknowledgments ........ eee re wese db bb beoan ded FATTTT ES RETRO
References .. cece cere c cece rece reece new n ere eee e ree eters trees
Appendix I. California State Law Relevant to Ferrets........ aie
I. INTRODUCTION
The European ferret, Mustela putorius, is cute and playful, and it has
become an increasingly popular pet in recent years. However, reports of
ferret attacks on people, especially infants, also have increased in recent
years. This report briefly describes the history of the European ferret and
reports the findings of a survey of ferret attacks conducted by the
California Department of Health Services (CDHS).
Developed from the European polecat, Mustela putorius (Volobuev, et al,
1974), European ferrets resemble weasels, except for being larger and
stockier. Ferrets--along with the wolverine, weasel, marten, and mink--are
members of the family Mustelidae and subfamily Mustelinae. They measure 17
to 22 inches in length and typically weigh between 2 and 6 pounds. Most
ferrets are albino or "sable" colored (yellow-buff undercoat overlaid with
blackish guard hairs) with a blackish mask, limbs, and tail, although other
colors exist. The European ferret should not be confused with the similar
but biologically distinct American black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes, an
endangered species of the Great Plains.
Since at least 63 B.C., ferrets have been used by man to drive rabbits
and rats from their holes (Owen, 1969). They are preferred for this because
of the fierce and relentless nature of their attacks (Everitt, 1897). Only
recently have ferrets become popular as household pets not expected to
engage in the "ferreting" activities that have characterized the animal's
long relationship with man. And while ferrets may be cute and playful, they
are frequent biters, sometimes inflicting bites with machine gun rapidity
and occasionally tenaciously refusing to let go of their victim. These
traits have been recently reported in numerous accounts of ferret attacks on
human infants, although the propensity of ferrets "to attack and kill
children in the cradle" is longstanding (Fennell, 1841).
Our first acquaintance with problems concerning pet ferrets occurred in
early 1986, consequent to requests from two other departments of California
State Government. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the
Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) asked DHS to define any public
health concerns relevant to pet ferrets. DFG had restrictions against entry
of pet ferrets into the State (except for an occasional castrated male, an
exception since deleted), due to knowledge that escaped ferrets develop
feral populations that have a tendency to ravage wildlife and small
livestock (e.g., poultry and rabbits).
Since 1986, California's ferret restrictions, along with those of other
states, have been under attack by proponents of pet ferrets. Apparently,
this is part of a national campaign to popularize and sell the animals
(Anonymous, 1986). Ferret proponents claim that: (1) ferrets are domestic,
rather than wild, and therefore, they should not be restricted; (2) ferrets
bite people less often than dogs, so they are less hazardous; (3) pet
ferrets are kept indoors, so there is no danger that they will get rabies
from wildlife; and (4) ferrets will die if they escape and are not cared for
by man.
In an effort to respond to the DFG and DFA, we reviewed historical and
recent literature on ferrets, and we solicited information on ferret attacks
on people in order to better define the nature and extent of such events.
In the process, we rediscovered and added to information that contradicts
the claims of pet ferret proponents.
II. METHODS
Beginning in early 1986, we requested reports of ferret bites and
attacks from all California counties and from two adjacent states. Requests
for data from more distant states were also made concerning attacks on
infants and rabies in ferrets. The medical literature was reviewed, as was
literature regarding the habits of ferrets and their polecat progenitors and
the existence of feral ferret populations.
Early in the investigation it became apparent that some animal control
personnel and laboratory workers needed help differentiating ferrets and
weasels, whereupon a table somacicing differences was devised and provided
to these persons.
Other difficulties were experienced gathering and interpreting data.
Ferret proponents made widely varying claims about the number of illegal pet
ferrets existing in California (ranging from 100,000 to 500,000), and we
lacked reliable figures on actual statewide numbers of either captive,
stray, or feral ferrets. Owners of illegal ferrets generally were reluctant
to report ferret attacks out of fear of prosecution or loss of their
animals, and some bitten friends of owners were similarly reluctant. Most
biting ferrets appeared to be strays or animals that had escaped or been
released after biting their owners. Available reports, which were usually
retrospective, generally lacked uniformity, and reflected varying degrees
of effort in documenting details of the incident. Spectacular incidents,
including those from rabid ferrets or involving infant maulings, seemed more
likely to be reported.
Rabies diagnostic tests were usually performed using the fluorescent
rabies antibody test and mouse inoculation test (Johnson, 1979), although
the monoclonal antibody technique (Wiktor and Koprowski, 1978) was used in
some instances. When performed, the statistical significance of data
associations were determined using the chi-square test, four-fold table
method with Yates' correction.
IIT. RESULTS
Altogether, information was obtained on a total of 452 ferret attacks
spanning the 10-year period 1978 through 1987. This included 64 unprovoked
attacks on infants and young children and 388 attacks on older children and
adults. The nature and details of these attacks are described below.
A. Unprovoked Attacks on Infants
Reports were received from 18 states and London, England, on
unprovoked attacks on infants and young children (Tables 1 and 2).
Thirty seven of these were from California (11), Arizona (17), and
Oregon (9). All but one of the infants and small children were either
reported to be, or appeared to be from bite report descriptions, three
years of age or younger. One 6-year old is included among these cases
because, upon being forced to release its hold, the ferret that seized
the cheek of this sleeping girl ran and jumped into the crib of a
subsequently rescued 16-month-old male sibling, each time biting the
rescuing parent. The one fatal case was reported from London, although
-~4-
several of the other attacks were severe enough so as to nearly be
fatal.
The specific ages of the victims were reported for 50 of these
youngsters, and ranged from 2 days to 3 years, with a median of 6
months. Several of the most severely mauled infants were only a few
weeks old.
Gender was reported for 46 of the 64 infants; 24 (52 percent) were
females.
It appeared that as many as 58 (91 percent) of the victims were
attacked while sleeping or lying down. Of the remaining six infants,
one was bitten in the face by a rabid ferret from a pet shop. Another.
was attacked on the wrist during a diaper change. A third was playing
on the floor when bitten on its scalp. Two infants were outdoors when
Stray ferrets attacked their feet. The last one was sitting on the
toilet when the ferret jumped onto her face, inflicted multiple wounds,
and then refused to open its jaws, requiring that it be pried loose.
Wound sites were reported for 62 of the 63 injured infants. (The
64th attack was blocked by a parent, so that the infant was not
actually harmed.) Thirty (48 percent) infants suffered head wounds
only; 11 (18 percent) received head or neck and limb wounds; 3 (5
percent) were attacked on the neck only; and 18 (29 percent) were
bitten just on their limbs or appendages. One infant was bitten on the
end of his penis. Overall, 44 (71 percent) of the infants were bitten
on the head or neck (plus limbs in 11 of these cases), whereas 18 (29
percent) were bitten only on limbs or appendages. These data suggest
that ferrets have a predilection for biting infants and small children
on the head and/or neck.
The sites of the head and neck wounds were identified in the
reports (involving some overlap) as follows: head, 6; face, 23; cheek,
7; eyelids, eyes, and conjunctiva, 5; lips or mouth, 4; scalp, 5;
forehead, 2; nose, 1; ears, 3; neck, 3.
Bites were usually described as consisting of multiple puncture
wounds and lacerations, sometimes involving hundreds of bites per
victim and leaving macerated tissues that resembled bloody ground beef.
In 62 reports containing relevant information, 3 (5 percent) victims
received a single bite or laceration, 14 (23 percent) were reported
only as “bitten,” 44 (71 percent) received multiple bites and/or
lacerations, and 1 (2 percent) had his ear eaten off. Ears were also
bitten on 3 of the victims that received multiple facial bites, one of
these having 40 percent of both ears eaten.
The greatest reported numbers of multiple facial bites per victim
were as follows: "hundreds," two; more than 200, one; 100, one; 80,
one; 50, one; 40, one; and 20, one. The number of facial bites was not
reported for one infant that exsanguinated and another that nearly bled
to death. One 29-day-old infant lost her entire nose, and most of her
eyelids, lips, and other facial tissues; her hands were also chewed. A
2-day-old infant with some 80 puncture wounds on her head was reported
by the mother as being "flipped over like a piece of meat" by a pet
ferret that had its teeth fixed in the baby's scalp. In at least three
instances, the jaws of the biting ferret had to be pried open to
release the victim.
Data on the characteristics of the ferrets attacking the infants
are given in terms of numbers of persons attacked to underscore the
assault perspective and to avoid confusion, because in two instances
two persons were attacked by one ferret, and in two other instances
one person was attacked by two ferrets. In one of the latter
instances, ferret sex and age data were available and added to the
appropriate columns of Table 2, resulting in a greater total number of
ferrets (65) than assaulted infants (64). Seven (39 percent) of the
ferrets whose ages were reported were less than one year old. The
genders of the attacking ferrets were evenly divided between males and
females, although this information was reported for only 14 animals.
At least 8 of the 64 attacks were by unneutered animals.
Data on the apparent ownership of the attacking animal were
available for 48 of the 65 ferrets. These data indicated that 16 (33
percent) attacks were from ferrets of the victim's household, whereas
32 (67 percent) either had other known owners (25) or were strays (7).
Of note, none of the 32 animals hesitated to approach people,
suggesting that they were previously or currently pets. Six of the
seven strays were friendly and had just been taken as household pets.
Twenty-one of the 25 known owners were described as babysitters (6),
visitors (7), hosts (5), and vendors (3) who had just supplied the
ferrets. One (4 percent) of the 25 attacking animals that were tested
for rabies was rabid.
ae
Data were reported on 100 ferret attacks in California (Table 3);
this included 11 of the 64 infants reported above.
The age of the victim was reported in 87 cases. Fourteen (16
percent) were 3 years old or younger (3 of these were not unprovoked
attacks), 9 (10 percent) were >3 to 10 years old, 13 (15 percent) were
>10 to 20 years old, and 51 (59 percent) were older than 20 years. The
oldest person was 70 years.
The gender of the victims were approximately evenly divided, and
similar in all age groups except for there being four males and ten
females three years old or younger.
Eleven (79 percent) of the 14 infants or children 3 years old or
younger were attacked without provocation, 10 being in bed or asleep at
the time of attack. A stray or feral ferret was found outdoors near a
screaming three-year-old child whose feet and hand had been bitten.
Three (19 percent) attacks occurred when handling or playing with stray
or pet ferrets.
According to the reported data, only 8 of 66 (12 percent) victims
over 3 years of age were attacked without provocation. Illustrative of
these cases was that of a seven-year-old girl who was bitten on the leg
by a stray ferret that rushed from some bushes immediately after the
girl had gotten out of an automobile. It had to be driven away, but it
was later captured, killed, and tested for rabies.
Seven adults were reported to have been attacked without
provocation. The ankle of one was bitten, penetrating leather boots,
by a feral or stray ferret. Another person's finger was bitten as he
-8-
tried to put trash into a dumpster, where the animal was hiding.
Another man was bitten on his foot as he stepped onto his porch. A
woman was bitten on the ankle by a stray ferret hiding in her garage.
The feet and toes of two adults were bitten by pet ferrets; another
adult was bitten several times in the Achilles' tendon by a stray
ferret that had scratched on his front door. Two other feral or stray
ferrets climbed onto persons and subsequently bit them. It was
sometimes not clear from the reports whether the animals were friendly
Or aggressive.
The remaining 58 (88 percent) victims over 3 years of age, and 6
of the 13 persons of unreported age, facilitated the attacks by
handling, feeding, or in some way interacting with or provoking the
animal. At least ten animal control officers were bitten trying to
manipulate or care for ferrets.
The following "victim-facilitated" or provoked cases are
noteworthy:
o An 18-year-old girl was bitten on her chin by a ferret being
offered for sale in a shopping mall by an unknown free-lance
vendor; he left with the ferret immediately after the incident.
Rabies prophylaxis was discussed with the patient, but she was
lost to follow up.
o Reaching through the window of an auto parked in a shopping mall
lot, a 23-year-old woman was bitten as she tried to pet a ferret
held by its owner. The owner immediately drove away with the
ferret.
-9-
o A 12-year-old boy was carrying his pet ferret in his partially
opened jacket; the boy uttered a loud whistle, whereupon the
ferret bit the boy's chest and neck.
o Three adults were exposed to a recaptured pet ferret that
subsequently developed rabies. Evidently, the infection was
acquired from a skunk.
No report of the circumstances attendant to the attack were given
for 14 cases.
Eight (57 percent) of the California infants and children aged 3
or younger were bitten on the head (5), neck (2), or face and
hands (1). The remainder (six) were bitten only on the limbs. All
attacks involving the head or neck and three involving the limbs only
were unprovoked. Sites of head wounds were specifically reported (with
some overlap) as follows: head, two; face, three; cheek, one; and
lips, one. The wounds of eight infants were described as multiple
punctures or lacerations; two were described as single bites or
lacerations; and four were reported as just "bitten." One 10-month-old
infant had 20 lacerations and punctures on the right side of her neck.
A two-year-old had four bites on the right side of her neck. A
5-month-old girl had 50 puncture wounds on her face. All the
victim-facilitated or provoked attacks consisted of only etngle bites
or scratches.
Medical treatment reports were received on only 5 of the 14
infants. For these cases, plastic and reconstructive surgery was
required for one. Rabies prophylaxis was also administered to one.
-10-
Among the older children and adults, three (five percent) were
bitten on the head or neck. These were all victim-facilitated or
provoked. As many as ten of the limb bites were unprovoked, as
described above. Bites on limbs were usually singular.
For bites on the extremities, the wound sites were: finger, 22 (2
multiple); hand, 19 (4 multiple); wrist, 4; elbow, 1; arm, 1; toe, 3;
foot, 2 (1 ferret bit both toe and foot); ankle, 2; Achilles' tendon
area, 1; unreported, 13. Wounds were described as "bitten" in 37
cases; "bite" in 12 (5 multiple); "puncture" in 12 (6 multiple);
"laceration" in 4 (1 multiple); "scratch" in 2; preexistent scratches
contaminated by saliva of a sick ferret in 1; and unknown in 2.
Overall, about 22 percent of reports indicated multiple wounds.
Relevant wound data were provided for only 3 of the 13 victims of
unreported age. Two received finger bites (one multiple), and one
received multiple hand bites.
Medical treatment data were provided for only 27 of the 73 (37
percent) victims over 3 years of age. Six (22 percent) of these
persons received rabies prophylaxis.
As above, reported data on ferrets that attacked persons over
three years of age are given here by numbers of persons attacked to
facilitate evaluation from the attack perspective and to avoid
confusion due to multiple bite victims per ferret or vice-versa.
Although most ferrets bit only one victim, six ferrets bit two victims
each, and three ferrets bit three victims each.
Twenty-seven (87 percent) of the attacks where information was
reported, were by ferrets one year of age or older. Twenty-five (68
—li=
percent) were by male ferrets. Three (21 percent) attacks, out of 14
having data concerning reproductive intactness, were from neutered
ferrets. Of the 42 reports containing relevant information, all the
attacks were inflicted by ferrets that lacked state licenses.
Fifty-one (55 percent) of the 92 animals for which information was
available were identified as pets; the remaining 41 (45 percent) were
presumed to be stray or feral animals. Of the 51 attacks by ferrets
reported to be pets, 48 (94 percent) were from ferrets with identified
owners--14 (29 percent) of these were from pets owned by the victim's
family, and 34 (71 percent) had other owners.
Three (four percent) of the bites by ferrets that were tested for
rabies were inflicted by a rabid ferret.
Attacks on Persons in California, Oregon, and Arizona
The Department's request for data in early 1986 resulted in
maximal California reports for that and the two adjacent years, whereas
data received from Oregon and Arizona were nearly all retrospective,
being largely pre-1986. Moreover, Oregon data were unavailable for
1980 and 1984, and that state's ferret bite reporting system had been
rendered largely nonfunctional in 1984. Thus, data from the three
states are both incomplete and somewhat staggered temporally (Table 4).
Altogether, 100 reports were available from California, 76 from Oregon,
and 249 from Arizona, for a total of 425 attacks for the 3 states,
spanning the 10-year period 1978-1987. Most of the reported incidents
occurred between 1980 and 1985.
-12-
Data collection was not uniform for the three states. However,
data on ages of victims were compared as closely as report categories
and judgment permitted (Table 5). Persons 4 years old or younger
comprised 11 to 16 percent of victims, averaging 13 percent.
Gross estimates of annual rates of ferret attacks on people were
made for the three states (Table 6). Near maximal reported numbers of
attacks per annum were assumed to be typical (since reporting is almost
certainly more likely to be deficient than inflated), and were divided
by the State's approximate population to obtain a rough estimate of the
number of ferret attacks per million human residents. Of note, while
the Arizona reports came only from Maricopa and Pima counties, these
two counties contain most of Arizona's population.
The estimated rates suggest that ferret attacks, per one million
human residents, were 1 in California, 7.4 in Oregon, and 25 in Arizona
(Table 6). Data from Oregon indicated that 36 percent of their attacks
were from stray or feral ferrets; 45 percent of California attacks were
from stray or feral ferrets. a
Twelve cases of ferret rabies have been documented in the
United States, six of them since 1985 (Table 7). It is either known or
reasonably assumed that essentially all of these ferrets had been
bitten by rabid wild animals. (It is possible that one ferret may have
developed a live rabies virus vaccine infection. Another ferret
apparently was infected by a 13th rabid ferret to which it had been
bred.) One ferret fought a raccoon in an area noted for raccoon rabies
shortly before it developed the disease. In two incidents, one of
-13-
L—
which was in California, escaped ferrets developed rabies shortly after
they were recaptured.
Rabies-infected ferrets also have been purchased in pet shops. In
one case reported to us, a child was bitten in the face by a rabid
ferret purchased at a pet shop. In another case, a ferret died of
rabies a month after its purchase from a pet shop.
Feral Ferrets in California
According to information provided by DFG, there is scant evidence
of feral ferret populations in California, at present. However,
several years ago, a ferret kitten was found near its mother after the
adult had been hit by an automobile in Kern County. It was concluded
that the female had bred in the area. Since then, a male and female
pair of ferrets have been live-trapped at Folsom Lake (Placer County),
and another pair was trapped in Sonoma County. Sightings of individual
ferrets, made by knowledgeable and reliable observers, also have been
reported from Sonoma, Napa, Riverside, and San Francisco counties. In
the latter instance, the ferret was emerging from a burrow at
Candlestick Point Recreation Area.
Animal control personnel and county public health laboratory
directors in Northern California frequently report observations and
captures of single ferrets. It is usually impossible to distinguish
escaped or released pets from feral animals, although the former seem
more likely to be observed in populated areas. Similarly, ferrets that
approach people, sometimes inflicting bites as persons pet them, are
likely to be stray pets.
-14-
“ewer
A.
At this time, the available information suggests that if feral
ferret populations exist in California, they may not yet be beyond
control. It must be emphasized, though, that feral ferrets abound in
other states with climates far more severe than occurs in most of
California, and that California's poultry producing and game bird
producing areas provide habitats especially attractive to ferrets.
IV. DISCUSSION
History of Ferret Selective Breeding and Interaction With Man
Ferrets were developed by man from polecats, which have a
reputation for being extremely bloodthirsty, killing far more than they
can devour and indiscriminately attacking any and all animals within
range (Johnston, 1903). “In addition to killing native animals,
polecats also have been reported to ravage small livestock, such as
rabbits and poultry. Larger animals also may be attacked. For
example, it has been reported that 16 turkeys were killed during a
single night by one polecat and 10 ducks by another, with each victim
being left with a hole in its neck (Bell, 1837). Feral ferrets behave
as polecats (Corbet and Ovenden, 1980), and have been known to engage
in wholesale slaughtering of livestock (Everitt, 1897; Dolensek and
Burn, 1976; Harding, 1915).
The savage characteristics of polecats were highly valued and
emphasized in man's selective breeding and development of ferrets for
killing rats and rabbits or for driving them from their holes so they
could be killed by men or dogs for sport or pest control (Everitt,
-15-
1897). Unusually large and persistent fighters also have been bred to
attack skunks and minks (Harding, 1915).
In addition to being developed to be bold, man selectively bred
ferrets to be unafraid of humans in order to get the animals to return
on command and to facilitate handling them (Thomas, 1946). Thus,
unlike polecats, ferrets lack an innate fear of man (Poole, 1972). An
interesting anecdote in this regard involved a case of four wild
ferrets from a reproducing feral population in Washington State that
were found feeding on the carcass of a cow when a veterinarian arrived
to autopsy the animal. The ferrets refused to leave and continued to
chew on the carcass throughout the autopsy (Porter, 1987).
Although ferrets have been selectively bred over the centuries,
one should not presume that man's development of ferrets from polecats
means that the ferret has undergone isolation from and differentiation
from polecats for thousands of years. On the contrary, ferret breeders
have periodically crossed ferrets with polecats to produce the
polecat-ferret or fitch-ferret coat color pattern (Fennell, 1841;
Matthews, 1968; Corbet and Southern, 1977).
Training of ferrets, as well as those who handle them, is required
in order to prevent the animals from biting or attacking their
handlers. Ferrets that have undergone training not to bite persons
find a near parallel with other wild species that have received similar
rearing or training. All such species are characterized by a
relatively high frequency of biting compared to dogs, and some (e.g.,
wolves, wolf-dog hybrids, coyotes, raccoons, and ocelots) have killed
human infants and/or eaten their tissues (Constantine, 1986). However,
-16-
ferrets seem to present a somewhat different hazard, because, like pit
bulls, they have been bred not only to be instinctively unafraid of man
but also to be especially ferocious and tenacious against intended
victims. Whereas trained ferrets may exercise restraint in biting
adults, human infants may be regarded as prey to be killed and eaten.
That ferrets are capable of restraining this behavior may be inferred
from the data showing that these attacks have almost always occurred
when adults were absent from small children. It is as if the animal
waited until the adults left before attacking the hapless infant. Add
to this the adeptness with which ferrets escape cages, and all the
circumstances are present for tragedy to occur, as has been reported.
Thus, it appears as if training of ferrets may not be entirely
effective in preventing attacks on infants.
For several reasons, infants may be somewhat irresistible to
ferrets due to odors, sounds, taste, and actions resembling that of
their natural prey. Ferrets encountering a nest of suckling rabbits
underground will typically kill and eat them all, regardless of
training (Brodie, 1978). Sucking or squeaking sounds that resemble
utterances of rabbits in pain stimulate attacks by many kinds of
predators, including ferrets. We believe that sounds made by human
infants are among stimuli that trigger predatory ferret behavior.
Bell (1837) cautioned persons against confidence in "the tameness
of this sanguinary and deceitful animal" that had on multiple
occasions attacked infants through "the resuscitation of its inherent
though dormant propensity for blood." He declared:
-17-
"The Ferret exhibits a considerable degree of tameness, but
without any discriminating attachment: it is in fact nothing
more than the indifference and absence of fear and anger,
which are the result of hereditary dependence upon and
association with mankind. It will allow itself to be handled
and played with, and in some cases may be suffered to run
about the house with impunity, if it is carefully watched and
well fed. But all this appearance of innocence and good
temper is deceptive; and the Ferret, when tempted by
opportunity, and excited by the smell or taste of blood,
becomes as savage, and as indiscriminate in its attacks, as
the Polecat itself.”
Man's development of ferrets to be a more ferocious and effective
predator than its polecat progenitor cannot be construed to be a form
of domestication like that of animals designed to be pets, beasts of
burden, or food animals. Indeed, even ferret proponents have not
regarded ferrets as domestic animals; they have categorized them as
less than domestic. Everitt (1897) quoted legal opinion that ferrets
are not domestic animals, in contrast to animals generally acknowledged
to be domestic. At a loss for adequate terminology, Harding (1915)
stated that ferrets "are capable of only partial domestication,"
cautioning that "they never cease to be dangerous if not carefully
watched, especially where infants are within their reach."
Problems Consequent to Pet Ferret Ownership
Ferrets are purchased as pets because they are cute and playful.
Owners usually give them the run of the house in order to play with
them and enjoy their antics, although many owners confine them to
indoor cages at night because they normally are most active at night.
However, ferrets are very adept at escaping cages and households (e.g.,
often through clothes dryer vents), and they can be difficult to find
and recapture. Upon realization that one's pet ferret is missing, a
~18-
major promoter of pet ferrets advises organizing a search of
surrounding houses (Morton and Morton, 1985). Thus, if one owns a
ferret, one can expect difficulties confining the animal and
interaction of the animal with neighbors.
Ferrets become especially bite prone when they reach about three
months of age. Ferret play includes mock attacks, which in young
animals are merely practice for adult behavior (Biben, 1982). People,
particularly infants and strangers, may react to ferrets in a manner
that encourages or exacerbates attack behavior.
Attacks other than mock attacks can have a variety of causes
(Fennell, 1841; Holz, 1982; Moody et al., 1985; Morton and Morton,
1985; Roberts, 1977; Ryland et al., 1983; Wellstead, 1982; Willis and
Barrow, 1971; Winsted, 1981). For example, circumstances observed to
precede attacks include the following:
Tpie>: Normal behavior. (As soon as young animals open their eyes, they
TRUE
«
will treat as food anything put near their mouths until they learn
better.)
2. Lack of training not to bite. (Such training must be initiated
very early, although some animals seem refractory to training, and
training is not entirely successful in any case.)
3. A new environment.
4. A "nervous disposition" in the ferret.
5. Anxiety or fear, i.e., anything that upsets the animal.
«iS.
6. Hunger. (Ferrets require a constant supply of food having a high
content of animal protein because food transit time is only three
hours.)
FAISET. The smell or taste of blood.
? 8. Attempts to confine or Manipulate the ferret against its will.
? 9, Quick movements or sounds that startle the animal.
tw ? 10. Pain.
ll. "Natural aggressiveness" in uncastrated males.
12. "Natural aggressiveness" in females from one week before
parturition through lactation.
FA/sE. 13. Mistaking as food fingers smeared with meat juices.
FALSE 14. Anatomic parts, movements, or sounds that simulate the animal's
natural prey.
FFAlsE 15. Illness or disease (e.g., rabies).
V he pe iS NO
It is unclear why ferrets bite and sometimes hang on tenaciously
to faces or limbs of persons who are sleeping or merely looking at,
holding, or petting them. Likewise, it is unclear why these animals
sometimes run to and reportedly viciously attack people on their lower
limbs. Tenacious holding of the neck, with simultaneous blood
drinking, has been reported in young ferrets upon the very first
VAT URIL pred: {encounter with natural prey, suggesting that this is instinctive
7k %,
lomesr/e Fepeers
be CAPTINE
Ce lel sud ent
MMCkCIAL Pet
NOT E.KIST
W The *witd.”
behavior (Everitt, 1897). Perhaps, in some instances, unrecognized
human activity has a triggering effect on such instinctive behavior.
Stimuli that apparently incite ferrets to attack sleeping infants may
include some of the previously mentioned circumstances or may be due to
(2/T here. po The. identification of infants as prey.
ERROTS
-20-
Bites to hands of persons who handle ferrets can be decreased by
heeding commonly espoused advice to wear gloves when handling these
animals (Rowlands, 1967; Willis and Barrow, 1971; Roberts, 1977;
Winsted, 1981; Wellstead, 1982; Ryland et al., 1983), although holding
a ferret with leather gloves heavy enough to fully protect against the
animal's canine teeth may injure the animal (Hammond and Chesterman,
1972).
There are additional notable problems peculiar to ferret
ownership. Ferrets have anal sacs and other cutaneous glands in the
perianal skin that emit an obnoxious smelling substance, the production
of which can be decreased but not entirely eliminated by "descenting"
surgery similar to that performed on skunks (Creed and Kainer, 1981).
Frequent bathing, especially of males, that removes greasiness from the
coat also decreases the odor. Surgical neutering is said by some
persons to lessen the tendency to bite, but others claim it does not
help. Female ferrets are seasonally polyestrus, exhibiting signs of
estrus from spring to fall, and they are induced ovulators. Unless
they are bred or neutered, half of females will die from hypoplastic
anemia (Ryland et al, 1983). These things, combined with the
relatively short life span of ferrets (usually about half that of dogs
or cats) are further reasons why ferrets would appear to be less
desirable pets than other common pet species.
Given the foregoing kinds of difficulties peculiar to ferret
ownership, especially biting, many owners try to rid themselves of the
animals by (1) returning them to pet shops or other source of
-21-
9o30 pith APBIES
“7 - BlCAKS tr
4. ~ LSUPLEY
BITS, SKUMKS
IND SGA(REELS
ia
)
MOT ;
YVERIFIFD. L
acquisition, (2) selling or giving them away, (3) turning them loose,
(4) turning them in to animal control authorities for destruction,
often accompanied with requests for rabies tests, and (5) not
endeavoring to recover escaped animals. Of course, once loosed into
nature, ferrets are likely to interact with wild animals, and they may
become infected with rabies. Whether or not they get rabies, under
these circumstances they may bite other persons, including those they
befriend, necessitating antirabies prophylaxis for the bite victim. In
addition, released pets may initiate feral populations.
Despite the difficulties of pet ferret ownership, many owners are
exceedingly attached to their animals. For example, several ferret
owners with extensively assaulted infant children apparently have
seemed to place the welfare of their ferrets above that of their
children, taking actions to prevent destruction of their ferrets that
is required to perform rabies tests. In one recent case, a mother
whose ferret had savagely attacked her newborn infant and attacked the
face of a neighbor's infant succeeded in preventing destruction of the
ferret, reportedly declaring she would rather destroy the child,
because she had possessed the ferret for a longer time.
Rabies in Pet Ferrets
Twelve cases of rabies in pet ferrets are known to have occurred
in the United States since 1958 (Table 7), ten of them in the last
seven years. During this period great effort has been made by ferret
proponents to market ferrets as pets. Available reports indicate that
22 percent of Californians who were bitten by ferrets underwent rabies
-22-
prophylaxis. Other state's reports that were received indicate that
the same proportion (22 percent) of assaulted infants and young
children were given rabies prophylaxis. In a number of cases, though,
the biting ferret was not available to be tested, making it necessary
to administer rabies prophylaxis.
No rabies vaccine trials have been performed in ferrets to justify
licensing any product for that purpose; thus, no rabies vaccine can be
guaranteed to be effective in ferrets. Moreover, some live virus
rabies vaccines are known to produce rabies infections at unknown
frequencies in wild carnivores, so live rabies virus vaccines should
not be used in ferrets. False security could arise from use of killed
vaccines not licensed for use in ferrets, generating health hazards and
possible legal problems. -It is conceivable that trials with killed
virus vaccines will be done and a product eventually approved for use
in these animals. However, rabies vaccines used for dogs or cats,
although tested and licensed, sometimes fail, especially when the
vaccinated animal is permitted to run free and contact skunks or other
wild animals that may transmit overwhelming doses of virus. Moreover,
vaccines usually are prepared from laboratory strains of the virus,
and these stock are known to differ somewhat from the many other
strains found in wild animals, diminishing the vaccine's effectiveness
in some instances (World Health Organization Expert Committee on
Rabies, 1984). Given the adeptness with which ferrets escape and/or
are released by their owners, thereby allowing contact with wildlife,
vaccinated ferrets and their bites would still have to be regarded as
potentially hazardous from a rabies standpoint. This concern is
-23-
especially significant in light of the number of reported ferret bites
inflicted by stray or feral animals.
A ferret that bites should be killed and tested for rabies as
quickly as possible to determine whether the bite victim has been
exposed to rabies (Centers for Disease Control, 1986b). However,
because there is no optional grace period, it is probably prudent to
initiate rabies prophylaxis immediately after the bite and later
discontinue it if the animal proves not to be rabid (Public Health
Service Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 1984). This is
especially so for facial bites. To merely quarantine the animal and
wait for it to develop rabies signs is problematic, for the maximal
interval between an infectious bite and the advent of rabies signs in
ferrets is unknown. Of interest, though, this interval is known to be
as long as eight days in the striped skunk, another mustelid (Parker,
1975). Also of concern, signs of rabies are little known in ferrets,
and as such they may not be recognized. These signs are known to vary
markedly in different species according to the viral strain and the
dose received (Constantine, 1967).
The claim that pet ferrets cannot get rabies because they are kept
indoors is unsubstantiated, and is undermined by the frequency that
these animals escape the home and by the details of known ferret rabies
cases. Rabid ferrets have been encountered at the breeding or
wholesale source, the pet shop or retail source, in the home, and in
the wilds. It appears, then, that rabid ferrets may occur any place at
any time.
-24-
D.
Ferret Attacks According to Age of Victim
As tabulated in Tables 2 and 3, the circumstances attendant to
ferret attacks and the types of wounds inflicted differ according to
the age of the person attacked. Infants aged three years or younger
usually were attacked without provocation by ferrets known to be pets,
and they generally were attacked when asleep or lying down. The wounds
in these cases typically consisted of multiple bites or lacerations,
usually to the head and/or neck. In contrast, older children and
adults usually provoked or otherwise prompted the attack. About half
of the attacks on these persons involved Stray or feral animals, with
the victim being awake and ambulatory at the time of attack. The
wounds in these cases typically consisted of single bites inflicted on
the extremities. The differences in circumstances attendant to bites
on infants and older persons and the differences in the anatomic site
and extensiveness of the wounds were significant (p<0.01). In
addition, the data suggested that older persons were more likely to be
attacked by male ferrets, while attacks on infants involved male and
female animals equally (p<0.05).
The foregoing differences seem explainable largely on the basis of
opportunity. A sleeping or reclining infant is far more susceptible to
repetitive attack than are older, ambulatory persons. Likewise,
infants are exposed primarily to pet animals, rather than strays.
Similarly, male ferrets are reported to be more aggressive than females
(Lavers, 1973; Biben, 1982), and probably are more inclined to approach
or attack ambulatory persons.
~25-
Several cases occurring outside of California are worth describing
because of their unusual circumstances that contrast with the above
noted general patterns of attack according to the victim's age. For
example, a sleeping six-year-old Oregon girl was bitten on the face
beneath her eye while sleeping (Williams, 1986a). A 17-year-old
New York girl was also bitten on the face under similar circumstances
(Orr, 1986). Whereas adults usually have no problem promptly
terminating attacks, it is not always possible to do so. For example,
an animal shelter employee in Nevada opened the door to a previously
playful ferret's cage in order to move the animal to another cage, and
the animal quickly ran up his arm, over his shoulders, and down the
other arm, inflicting 20-30 bites along the way (Coffey, 1985b;
Boneck, 1988). This was similar to an attack on a New York infant, in
which case bites were inflicted at about one-fourth-inch intervals all
along the arm. Two other cases of note involved a two-year-old Oregon
boy who was bitten on the end of his penis while sleeping (Williams,
1986a), and a seven-year-old Arizona boy who was similarly bitten
(Wright, 1986).
Another noteworthy incident involved a ferret sitting alongside a
road at night. The victims, who were driving by, stopped and opened
the front door of their car, whereupon the ferret hopped into the car
and onto the front seat between the driver and his wife, who was bitten
when she tried to pet the animal. The ferret would not release its
bite grip, and the husband was bitten when he tried to force its
release. Subsequently, he delivered the ferret to an animal shelter
(Williams, 1986a).
~26-
Ferrets Apparently Perceive Human Infants as Prey
Observations consistent with the notion that ferrets perceive
human infants as prey include the small size and helplessness of the
victims, the anatomical locations of and extensiveness of inflicted
wounds, and ferret ingestion of the tissues of live, human infants.
Victim odors, sounds, and reactions to the initial bites may play a
role, as may the taste of blood and flesh. The smell or taste of blood
is said to stimulate savage and indiscriminate attacks by ferrets
(Fennell, 1841).
Our data show that attacks were more frequently reported in
infants less than a year of age, decreasing with increasing infant age
and size. Apfelbach and Wester (1977) reported that ferrets are
inhibited from attacking pexceived ‘prey as the latter approach more
than double the size of the ferret. The same authors reported that
when hunting, ferrets appear to innately aim at the most anterior part
of the prey, which is consistent with the extensive head and neck
attacks involving infants.
That the attractiveness of infants as victims is not due solely to
their small size is suggested by a 1987 New York incident wherein a
blind, seven-year-old spina bifida victim received numerous leg bites
and scratches during a nocturnal attack by two pet ferrets (Abelseth,
1987). The inability of the victim to terminate an attack may
encourage more extensive damage.
-27-
Suckling rabbits are among favored ferret foods in the wild, and
certain characteristics (e.g., odors or sounds) shared by suckling
humans may make the latter especially attractive "prey." As previously
noted, certain sounds have been observed to trigger ferret attacks,
with persons having unintentionally triggered seemingly instinctive
attacks on themselves by ferrets. For example, while lying down
outside a rabbit burrow, a ferret handler made squeaking and sucking
sounds resembling utterances made by rabbits in pain. This
successfully called his ferret out of the burrow, but the animal fixed
its teeth firmly in the man's cheek after rushing from the burrow
(Everitt, 1897). The same author referred to a ferret that nearly bit
off its trainer's ear lobe. It also seems that ferret attacks may be
triggered by certain sucking or squeaking sounds, including infants
sucking on milk bottle nipples or pacifiers. However, the association
of such sounds with prey may have to be learned in nature and, thus,
may not apply to animals reared in captivity.
Movements of various kinds are also known to elicit attacks. For
example, the carcass of a dead rabbit may be ignored by a ferret but it
has been observed to be attacked if it is shaken as if it were alive
(Thomas, 1946). Movements of infants may also serve as triggers for
attacks, especially quick or jerky movements.
Ferrets and polecats seem to display "frenzy" behavior, such as
occurs with sharks, during some attacks. In such situations they seem
to become detached from any semblance of reason, functioning on a
purely instinctive level. This may have survival value in nature.
Illustrative of such behavior are reports of mass killings of chickens,
*
-28-
ducks, turkeys, and rabbits in poultry houses or rabbit hutches. In
these cases, ferrets have reportedly killed all animals present,
although eating relatively little of the prey. In nature, ferrets
store small game food (e.g., frogs or fish) in their dens, but they
are generally unable to transport or store great numbers of larger prey
such as chickens or rabbits.
Also supportive of the notion of instinctive "ferret frenzy" is
the seemingly unexplainable situation of a ferret seizing a familiar
and friendly adult person with its teeth and then refusing to let go,
especially when the attack is triggered by simulated utterances of a
rabbit in pain. Of interest, polecats commonly bite prey with such a
"death grip,” although young, inexperienced polecats may grip the wrong
site--perhaps due to their relatively poor eyesight (Southern, 1964).
Similar simulated sounds have been used by hunters to trigger charges
by large wild canids and felids. It is possible, then, that with
suitable stimulation, the urge for ferrets to attack infants may be
guided by instinctive behavior, especially when the inhibitory presence
of adults is removed.
A brief review of methods of ferret attacks on natural prey is
relevant here. Upon recognizing prey, polecats and ferrets utilize
typical musteline attack methods. The attacking animal leaps on the
prey animal, clutching the victim's body with the forelimbs, and
killing it with either a bite on the occipital region, which usually
crushes the back of the skull (Jennison, 1927; Apfelbach and Wester,
1977), or by a bite of the neck, which opens major blood vessels of
-29-
larger or long-necked prey (Ewer, 1973). The "death grip" to the head
or neck is concomitant with violent shaking of the prey by polecats
(Southern, 1964). The neck bite, often used to kill rabbit sucklings,
is said to be instinctive but only partially developed in young
polecats, requiring perfection by practice (Corbet and Southern, 1977).
This seems to be accomplished, in part, by mock neck biting during play
and by sustained neck biting during intraspecies combat (Biben, 1982).
A further possible explanation of the repetitive and mutilating
Nature of ferret attacks on infants is found in the older literature on
ferrets. That is, ferrets may inflict hundreds of bites on infants to
increase the flow of blood on which to feed. Similarly, they may
extensively bite and tear the scalp and face in an effort to get at and
eat brain tissue, as reported in musteline attacks on natural prey.
Frequent reference is made in older publications of the marked appetite
of ferrets, polecats, and other mustelines for the blood and brains of
their victims. Everitt (1897) stated that lactating ferrets require
blood or they will eat their offspring. Fennell (1841) and Roberts
(1977) reported that ferrets drink the blood of their victims, and
Harding (1915) claimed that in an abundance of slaughtered prey,
ferrets merely suck the blood of their victims, a practice also
attributed to polecats (Bell, 1837; Johnston, 1903). Bell, like other
early writers, cited the victim's brain as the first choice of solid
tissues eaten after kills made by polecats and other mustelines. The
accuracy of such accounts cannot be verified, but the repeated mention
of such behavior suggests that these tendencies be considered when
analyzing attacks of ferrets on human infants.
-30-
Of further interest in this regard is an account of a pet ferret
drinking human infant blood in England more than 150 years ago. Jesse
(1834) wrote:
"Some few years ago, a poor woman, holding a mangled infant in
her arms, rushed, screaming with agony and fright, into my
— Wh friend's house, who is a surgeon, imploring him to save the
AW yo child's life, who, she said, had been almost killed by a
Qo ferret; the face, neck, and arms, were dreadfully lacerated,
ae Ww the jugular vein had been opened, as also the temporal
\ A artery; the eyes were greatly injured, and indeed the child,
Ve Ww who is still living, has lost the entire sight of one of
ae a them, and has very imperfect vision in the other. Having
stopped the still bleeding vessels, my friend accompanied the
N) ny u mother to her cottage, on entering which the child, in some
Y degree recovering from its state of apparent death, began to
Ye cry, when the Ferret was in an instant seen rushing from
behind some bavins where he had taken shelter, and, with his
5 head erect, boldly came forward and met the infuriated parent
eae We in the middle of the room, still holding the infant in her
¢ RY arms. On my friend's kicking the Ferret, as the first
\ vy impulse of protection, the animal endeavored to seize his
an ¢ leg, and not until his back was broken by repeated kicks, did
ye 0 he give over his earnest and reiterated attempts to renew his
ee oy sanguinary feast; and indeed, whilst in the agonies of death,
a wt the piteous screams of the child seemed to rouse him to vain
« efforts to regain his prey. The Ferret was of large growth,
and much distended with the infant's blood; and although
formerly of peculiar shyness, yet he lost sight of fear, and
became ferocious in the pursuit of the unfortunate infant.
It appears the poor woman had left her child (about six
months old) in a cradle whilst she went to market, when it is
supposed the infant's cry had arrested the attention of the
Ferret, who managed to make his escape, and thus effected his
purpose. There is good reason to believe he must have past
more than half an hour in the indulgence of his appetite,
from the circumstance of the neighbors having heard the
piercing shrieks of the child for a long time without the
slightest suspicion of the mother's absence."
F. Liability of Ferret Ownership
We are aware of litigation against pet shops and ferret owners
consequent to ferret attacks. Therefore, in our review of these cases
we tried to assess the nature of ownership of ferrets that attacked
-31-
persons. Based on the available information, it appears that 55
percent of the ferret attacks in California were inflicted by known
pets, with the remainder presumably due to strays or feral animals-~-at
least they were of uncertain ownership. Of note, the ferrets of
unknown origin may well have been former pets or strays because they
did not hesitate to approach people. In fact, some were suspected to
be pets of neighbors who were known to own ferrets, although ownership
was typically denied following attacks. (If one were to consider the
attacks of animals having unknown or disputed origin to be from pets
of unknown owners and include them with the aforementioned attacks from
pet ferrets not owned by the victim's family, then 84 percent of ferret
attacks on Californians were inflicted by pet ferrets belonging to
persons other than the victim, a percentage similar to what has been
observed for dog bites.) Of the attacks from known pets, 29 percent
were from ferrets residing in the victim's household.
Data relevant to the 64 unprovoked attacks on infants are similar
to the foregoing except fewer of the infants were outside and available
to be attacked by stray ferrets. Overall, in 45 (70 percent) of these
cases information on animal ownership was known. Of the attacks on
these infants from known long-established pets, 39 percent were from
ferrets owned by the victim's family and 61 percent were from ferrets
of other known ownership. Of the 7 attacks that were inflicted on
infants by stray ferrets, 6 (86 percent) were from animals that had
just been brought into the household because they were friendly. Of
the 21 known owners of attacking ferrets from without the victim's
-32-
family (i.e., for whom specific data were available), 7 (33 percent)
were visitors, 6 (29 percent) were babysitters, 5 (24 percent) were
hosts, and 3 (14 percent) were vendors.
Our data indicate that 28 percent of attacked infants 3 years of
age or younger required plastic and reconstructive surgery, especially
of their faces. Some of the infants were left with permanent
disfigurement. Four percent of bitten persons were exposed to rabid
ferrets, and 22 percent of attacked persons were given rabies
prophylaxis. It is possible that the actual occurrence of these
sequelae are exaggerated, since more serious cases tend to be reported.
However, it is also known that rabies prophylaxis is significantly
underreported.
Given the above findings and concerns, it appears that ownership
or selling of pet ferrets may present significant liability risks.
Feral Ferret Populations Can Devastate Small Livestock and Native
Animals and Contribute to the Wildlife Rabies Problem
Intentional or accidental releases of pet ferrets have led to the
development of feral ferret populations. This continues to be a
problem. Indeed, "throughout the centuries the number of ferrets that
have escaped and returned to the wild must be enormous" (Matthews,
1968). Such populations, a few of which have been trapped to
extinction, have been reported in numerous places, including England,
Wales, and Scotland (Corbet and Southern, 1977; Corbet, 1980; Howes,
1980), mainland Europe (Lyneborg, 1971), Eurasia (De Vos et al., 1956),
the Mediterranean islands of Sardinia and Sicily (Corbet, 1980; Konig,
-33-
1973), New Zealand (Corbet and Southern, 1977; Nowak and Paradiso,
1983), and the United States (Dolensek and Burn, 1976; Stevens, 1979;
Hoffmeister, 1986; Olson, 1987). As already noted, feral populations
seem to also have developed in California in recent years, even though
the animals are officially banned from the State.
Feral ferrets are well known to behave like their polecat
progenitors (Corbet, 1980), so it is not surprising that they have
proved to be exceedingly destructive to small livestock like poultry
and rabbits, as well as to native vertebrates. Their sometimes wanton
destruction of small animals far beyond their food needs wreaks havoc
on victimized native populations. Not only may adult animals be
killed, but native species populations may be further harmed by the
ferret's particular appetite for and ability to reach nestling mammals,
birds, and eggs of the latter (ground-nesting species in particular).
Long known for their potential to harm small domestic animals and
wildlife in Britain and Europe, ferret populations were established in
New Zealand to lower populations of rabbits that had been introduced in
1864. Ferrets, and other introduced predators, now feed on native
animals and have contributed to the extinction of 20 species of endemic
New Zealand birds and have pushed many others to the brink of
extinction (King, 1984).
Dolensek and Burn (1976) report that European ferrets were
imported into the United States about 1875 to kill rats. New London,
Ohio used to be known as "Ferretville, U.S.A." due to its large-scale
breeding and sales of ferrets. However, feral populations developed,
~34-
and the animals became a plague to poultry producers. Subsequently,
control measures became necessary, including passage of anti-ferret
regulations by many states.
Presently, a feral ferret population exists on San Juan Island,
Washington, where the animals feed on introduced European rabbits,
native animals, and possibly barnyard fowl. In addition to devastating
European rabbit populations, they are believed responsible for
reducing the native mink population in this area (Stevens, 1979).
Similarly, at least three widely separated feral populations of
European ferrets have been reported to be subsisting on prairie dog
colonies in New Mexico (where they are competing with the near-extinct,
native black-footed ferret) and have been reported to have attacked
domestic poultry elsewhere (Olson, 1987). In a similar vein,
Hoffmeister (1986), reporting on European ferrets living in the wild in
various places in Cochise County, Arizona, has raised ecological
concerns about feral ferrets in this area.
Ferrets and Rabies
As already discussed, ferrets can be infected with rabies
transmitted to them by wild animals, and they can expose people and
other vertebrates to the virus. Their ability to spread the infection
among themselves is demonstrated by the infected caged ferret whose
only known source of exposure was a ferret to which it had been bred.
Moreover, rabies is regularly reported in European polecats, where
populations of these animals have long been actively suppressed because
of their destructive effects on livestock. Especially dangerous rabies
-35-
problems may develop in feral ferret populations in areas not native
to the polecat but having rabies endemic in other species.
There are two notable examples of outstanding rabies problems that
have developed and persisted or grown worse in populations of
introduced, nonnative carnivore species. At the turn of the century
the raccoon dog was introduced from Korea into the far eastern Soviet
Union, from which it has spread westward to Finland, Sweden, and
Germany, becoming second only to foxes as a rabies vector in this part
of the world (Kaplan, 1985). Similarly, Indian mongooses were
imported to various Caribbean Islands in the late 1800s to control
introduced pest rats and native poisonous snakes, but after destroying
the rats they soon became the worst of all pests, greatly reducing the
native fauna (i.e., all but exterminating several native species of
mammals, birds, and reptiles) and causing serious economic
repercussions by killing small domestic animals. Furthermore, the
mongoose populations became infected with rabies, evidently from
domestic dogs, and mongooses are now the most prominent rabies vector
in the Caribbean Islands (De Vos et al, 1956; WHO Expert Committee on
Rabies, 1984).
Being fearless, savage and tenacious, ferrets may readily suppress
native competitors and thrive on smaller native and domestic
vertebrates, such as those found in California. The same
characteristics should make them exceptionally effective transmitters
of rabies among themselves and to other wild and domestic mammals,
and to man. The presence of rabies in wildlife in most of California's
counties constitutes a ready source of infection. The potential for
-36-
such transmission was realized in 1985, when an escaped pet ferret
developed rabies of skunk origin upon recapture near Red Bluff,
Tehama County, California (Table 7).
VY. CONCLUSTON
The legalization of ferrets as pets in California is opposed for
Many reasons, as discussed in the preceding pages. Indeed, after
reviewing the history of ferrets and the data gathered here, there
seems to be no conclusion other than ferrets are miscast as pets. Even
though some pet ferret owners are willing to suffer bites as a price of
pet ownership, it is not reasonable to expect their neighbors and other
persons to do so, especially in light of the potential for devastating
attacks on infants and concerns about rabies, to say nothing of
potential establishment of feral populations and the destructive
effects on wildlife and small livestock. One might also question the
humaneness of producing and marketing as pets any animal that typically
must undergo two surgical operations in an effort to decrease biting,
minimize offensive odors, and prevent death from anemia.
Although ferret producers, vendors, and owners have been
systematically pressuring various states and local jurisdictions to
drop legal restrictions against pet ferrets (e.g., Anonymous, 1986),
the converse has been encouraged by various organizations with
knowledge of the hazards attendant to legalization of these animals as
pets. Among the organizations opposing ferrets as pets are The Humane
-37-
Society of the United States (Herbet, 1987), The Defenders of Wildlife
(Spotts, 1985), The Council on Public Health and Regulatory Veterinary
Medicine of the American Veterinary Medical Association (American
Veterinary Medical Association, 1985), the Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists (Freeman, 1988), the United States Animal
Health Association (Diesch, 1982b), and the Centers for Disease
Control, United States Public Health Service (Centers for Disease
Control, 1986b). To help translate the concerns into action, the
Humane Society of the United States (1985) has developed model state
legislation that restricts ferrets as pets.
The differences in reported ferret attack rates between
California and adjacent states (Table 6), where pet ferrets are
unrestricted, indicate that California should continue to prohibit pet
ferrets, albeit by no means entirely successful in this regard.
If California's present estimated annual ferret attack rate of 1
per million humans were to rise to that of Arizona, California's
ferret-associated health problem would increase 25 fold. The increase
might translate into annual increases in ferret attack reports on
persons of all ages from 25 to 625 per year, rabies prophylactic
treatments from 5.5 to 138 per year, and known exposures to rabid
ferrets from 1 to 25. In addition, there would undoubtedly be a
corresponding increase in financial costs for associated medical
treatment and litigation. Likewise, the adverse effects of feral
ferret populations on small livestock and wildlife would be increased.
Enforcement of California's ferret exclusion rule is necessary.
And while the ferret industry claims that hundreds of thousands of
-38-
ferrets are already in California illegally, that claim has not been
verified, although there is evidence that efforts to import ferrets
into California have increased greatly in the past few years. Ferret
interceptions at agricultural inspection stations increased steadily
from none in fiscal year 1975-76 to 210 in 1985-86 (California
Department of Food and Agriculture, 1987). Greater surveillance and
enforcement efforts in this regard may be needed.
-39-
Neva
CASE
NO. YEAR SITE
1. 1978
2. 1978
3. 1978
4. 1978
5. 1978
6. 1978
7. 1978
8. 1980
9. 1981
Table 1
Unprovoked Ferret Attacks on Infants and Young Children
VICTIM*
INJURY
London, 6mo F
Eng] and
Maryland Sday M
South Child M
Carolina
Oregon 6yr F
16mo
Ohio
‘Arizona Child
Exsanguin-
ation due
multiple
bites of
face
Multiple
bites of
head, face,
neck and
arms
Face bite,
Antirabies
treatment
Cheek bite
No bite;
attack
interrupted
Scalp bite
Cheeck bite,
had to pry
loose
"Mauled, u
including
CIRCUMSTANCES
OF ATTACK
2 ferrets escaped
cage, entered baby
carriage in bedroom
where infant was
lying
Ferret escaped cage,
entered crib and
attacked sleeping
infant
No details
available —
Child in bed, father
bitten trying to
remove ferret
Above ferret ran,
jumped into crib;
father bitten
Infant asleep in
playpen
Ferret dead next
day
Attack initially
unobserved, then
face; massive interrupted
hemorrhage
Multiple
puncture
wounds of
finger
Crawled on child
SOURCE
OF
FERRET
Family
pets
Visitor’s
pet
Purchased
same day
Family
pet
RABIES
TesT**
Pos
REFERENCES
Anon 1978, 1979
Diesch 1981, 1982a
Lebar 1978;
Price & White 1978;
Friedland 1978
Diesch 1981
Williams 1986a
Williams 1986a
Williams 1986a
Williams 1986a
Stevens 1980
Wright 1986
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
2l.
22.
198]
198]
1981
1981
1981
198]
1981
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Infant
Child
Smo M
Colorado 5mo F
Nevada
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
7mo M
Child
Child
Child
3wk M
amo F
2yr M
Multiple Crawled into crib
puncture
wounds and
laceration
of face
Single lacer- Crawled on child
ation (bite)
on leg
Multiple
lacerations
on cheek,
wrist, leg
Baby sleeping
Multiple
puncture
wounds of
arm and leg
Baby sleeping
Forearm bite At relative’s hame
40% ears Infant attacked in
eaten; crib
multiple face
bites :
Hundreds of Infant asleep in
bites on in crib; ferret was
face, hand, 4mo M, not neutered
back of knee
Multiple
puncture
wounds and
laceration
on neck
Child sleeping
Multiple
puncture
wounds of
scalp & lip
Child sleeping
Multiple
lacerations
above eye
Child sleeping
Wrist
"bitten"
Diapers being
changed
Arm “bitten" At relative’s hone
Face Unknown
"bitten"
4]
Host’s pet
Found in
yard day
before
Pet of
babysitter
Family
pet
Family
pet
Neg
Neg
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
COC 1981
Coffey 1985a, 1985b
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
23.
24.
25.
26.
27,
30.
31.
32.
33.
1982
1983
1983
1983
1983
1984
. 198
1984
1984
1985
1985
Maryland 2mo M
Arizona amo F
Nevada 50 M
Oregon limo M
Arizona Child
Arizona Child
Cali- l0mF
fornia
Arizona 5mo M
Cali- &oM
formmia
Face Unknown
"mauled";
antirabies
treatment
Bites to foot Crawled into baby’
and ankle bed
Hundreds of Infant asleep on
of bites to bed; 7mo unspayed
to face, ferret escaped
eyelids, cage
back of head
hands, wrists
4)
Bites on Attacked infant in
head and crib
face
Bite on hand Infant lying on
floor
Multiple Child asleep
puncture
wounds on
cheek
Single Child asleep
puncture
wound on face
20 lacera- _‘ Ferret escaped cage,
tions and attacked infant in
puncture crib; ferret was
wounds on uncastrated 7-9n0 M
right side
of neck
Severe, Ferret jumped
multiple into face of
bites on child while
face; had to she was on
pry animal _— the toilet
off cheek
Bites on Ferret entered crib
back of
neck, fore-
head, hands
Bite on Infant attacked
hand while lying on a
blanket on the
floor
42
Non-family
pet; owner
would not
sacrifice
Pet of Neg
babysitter
Pet shop --
Visitor’s --
pet
Illegal pet
Pet having
several
previous
owners
Illegal pet Neg
(obtained 2
days earlier
from owner
of 2 yrs)
AP 1982
Wright 1986
Coffey 1985a, 1985b
Williams 1986a
Williams 1986a
Wright 1986
Wright 1986
Kelly 1986
Williams 1986a
Wright 1986
Miller 1986
35.
36.
37.
39.
41.
42.
43.
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
Cali-
fornia
Indiana
Virginia 20m F
Nevada 29da F
North
Carolina
North
Carolina
Arizona
Cali-
fomia
Cali-
fornia
Cali-
fornia
Cali-
fornia
18m0 F Bite on head; Unknown
&mo
lmo M
Smo
Baby
Smo F
3yr M
1&no F
Antirabies
treatment
Extensive
bite wounds
of the face,
hands and
ayms
Bites on
ankle.
Nose eaten;
chewed eye-
lids, lips,
face and
hands
Ear eaten
100 puncture
wounds to
face and head
Multiple
puncture
wounds of
wrist
50 puncture
wounds of
face
Bites &
scratches
on hand &
feet
Bites on
face
Multiple
bites on
face
Ferret escaped cage
and attacked infant
in crib
2yr F ferret
escaped cage,
ran to and bit
child walking
with mother
near the
ferret’s home
Attacked infant at
2 a.m. while child
sleeping in playpen;
ferret uncastrated
5mo M
Ferret attacked
infant in bed
Unknown
Crawled on baby
Infant on floor with
milk bottle when
attacked
Ferret found near
screaming child
Not reported
Not reported
43
Ferret owner --
was visitor
who left
with animal
Caught Neg
in yard
Belonged Neg
to another
party
Pet Neg
Pet --
Family --
pet
legal Neg
pet
Feral or Neg
stray
I] legal
pet (Feral
or stray
ferret
adopted by
family
Illegal
pet
Fisher 1986
AVA 1985;
Diesch 1986
Anon 1985;
Carton 1985
Coffey 1985a,1985b
Freeman 1987
Freeman 1987
Wright 1986
California
Department of Food
& Agriculture 1986;
Tacal 1987a
Weeks 1986
Giles 1986
Avedian 1986
45.
47.
49.
51.
52.
55.
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1987
Cali- 14m M
fornia
Jersey
Mexico
New 3yr M
Mexico
Texas
Texas Infant
Wash- 180
ington
New York 9mo F
Wash-
ington
2da F
Bites on
lip, cheek,
and hands
20-25 bites
on arms and
legs, deep
laceration
on foot sole
Bitten on
face
Bitten on
face
Over 200
bites on
cheek, hands
forearms and
back
Bit end
of penis
Severe bites Ferret escaped cage,
and scratches entered infant’s
crib during the
to ears,
around eyes
and arm
Severely
bitten on
face and
ears
Severely
bitten on am
& leg; would
not let go
Multiple
bites of
hand and
forearm
Ferret attacked
child in bed
Attacked in crib at
babysitter’s home
Infant in crib
Child in crib
Infant sleeping in
crib
Climbed under bed-
covers with sleeping
‘child
night
Uncaged ferret
attacked infant in
crib
Unknown
Ferret attacked
infant sitting on
the floor
Ferret entered
bassinet; mother
awoke observing
ferret with its teeth
in scalp flipping
infant over "like
a piece of meat."
4
Illegal
pet
Babysitter’s Neg
pet for 2yrs
Family
pet
Feral or
stray,
brought
into hore
Family pet
for 6 mo
Pet (pur-
chased as
kit 3 mo
earlier)
Family pet
for 1 yr
Family
pet
Family
pet for
4 m
Family
pet
Host’ s
pet
Neg
Tacal 1987b
Sorhage 1986, 1987
Hull 1986
Hull 1986
Williams 1986b
Williams 1986a
Clark 1987a, 1987b
Clark 1987a
Nicola 1986
Abelseth 1987
Gilmore 1987
57.
59.
61.
62.
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
Texas
Texas 14da
Cali-
fornia
5mo F
Cali-
fornia
5mo F
Colorado 4mo F
New 4mo
Hampshire
Wis-
consin
7mo F
New York 6mo F
Cali-
fornia
ayr F
Facial bites Ran to and attacked Pet; _
Bitten
many times
on arms
Multiple
bites on
forearm
and elbow
"Wounds
to head"
Multiple
puncture
wounds and
lacerations
to face,
including
conjunctiva
Bites to face 2 ferrets escaped
and hands cage; entered crib
9 bites to
scalp &
3 scratches
from eye to
tenple
Unknown
4 bites on
right side
neck; had
child on the floor;
unspayed F ferret
Above ferret entered
crib of sleeping
infant
Unspayed, 2yr F
ferret climbed into
bassinet to attack
Ferret attacked
child in bed; attack
interrupted
Ferret escaped cage;
attacked child
Child playing on
floor when attacked
Ferret entered crib
were infant was
lying
Asleep in crib at
babysitter’s home
when uncaged ferret
to pry loose attacked
Purchased at
pet shop 2
yrs earlier
by another
conmune
member
Same as -
above
Family -
pet for
4 mo
Babysitter’s --
pet in
owner’s hone
Babysitter’s --
pet in
ower’s home
Pets of
visitor
Pet Neg
Visitor’s Neg
pet
Stray F Neg
ferret
adopted
1.5 yrs
earlier
NOTE: The same amount of information is not available on all cases.
* --M = Male; F = Female; yr = year; mo = month; wk = week; da = day
wk -- Pos = Positive; Neg = Negative; -- = no information about
child, baby and infant = young child of unspecified age
but in all but one case appeared to be three years of age
or younger.
test results or no test performed.
45
Rutty 1987
Rutty 1987
Minor 1987
Tacal 1987b
Pape 1987
Mock 1987;
Clayton 1987
Kurth & Weiss 1987
Barr 1987
Liska 1987
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF 64 UNPROVOKED FERRET
ATTACKS ON INFANTS AND SMALL CHILDREN*
Characteristics of Attack Number (Percent)
Sex of Person Attacked
Male 22 (48)
Female 24 (52)
Not reported 18
Site of Wounds
Head 30 (48)
Neck 3 (5)
Head or neck and limbs 11 (18)
Limbs 18 (29)
Assault blocked 1
Site of wounds not reported 1
Treatment Reported
Reconstructive surgery 5 (28)
Wound debridement, dressings, etc. 7 (39)
Antirabies prophylaxis 4 (22)
None 2 (11)
Treatment not reported 45
Characteristics of Attacking Ferrets
Less than one year old 7 (39)
Adult 11 (61)
Not reported 47
Male 7 (50)
Female 7 (50)
Not reported 51
Pet 45 (87)
Stray 7 (13)
Not reported 12
Neutered
Not neutered 8 (100)
Not reported 56
Positive Rabies Exposure (FRA) 1 (4)
Negative Rabies Exposure (FRA) 24 (96)
Not reported 39
* In all but one case, the children were three years old or younger.
-46-
TABLE 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF 100 FERRET ATTACKS ON CALIFORNIANS
AGE OF PERSON ATTACKED
_ Characteristics 3 Years or Younger >3 to 10 Years > 10 to 20 Years More than 20 Years Not Reported Totals
aaa Number (Percent) | Number (Percent) | Number (Percent) | Number (Percent) | Number (Percent) | Number (Percent)
Sex of Person Attacked
Male 4 (29) 4 (50) 8 (62) 26 (59) 2 (50) 44 (53)
Female 10 (71) 4 (50) 5 (38) 18 (41) 2 (50) 39 (47)
Not reported 1 7 9 17
Total persons attacked 14 9 13 51 13 100
Site of Wound
Head 5 (36) 2 (15) 7 (9)
Neck 2 (14) 1 (8) 3 (4)
Head or neck and limbs 1 (7) 1 (1)
Limbs 6 (43) 9 (100) 10 (77) 38 (100) 3 (100) 66 (86)
Not reported 13 10 23
Treatment Reported
Reconstructive surgery* 1 (20) 1 (3)
Wound debridement,
dressings, etc.* 2 (40) 2 (67) 2 (40) 7 (37) 13 (41)
Tetanus prophylaxis 1 (20) 1 (20) 7 (37) 9 (28)
Antirabies prophylaxis 1 (20) 1 {33) 4 (21) 6 (19)
Tetanus and antirabies 1 (20) 1 (3)
None 1 (20) 1 (5) 2 (6)
Not reported 9 6 8 32 13 68
Characteristics of
Attacking Ferrets
' ess than one year old 1 (20) 2 (40) 1 (20) 4 (13)
jult . 4 (80) 3 (60) 4 (80) 12 (100) 4 (100) 27 (87)
“wot reported 9 4 8 39 9 69
Male 3 (60) 2 (100) 3 (75) 14 (70) 3 (50) 25 (68)
Female 2 (40) 1 (25) 6 (30) 3 (50) 12 (32)
Not reported 9 7 9 31 7 63
Pet 11 (79) 8 (89) 5 (38) 22 (50) 5 (42) 51 (55)
Stray 3 (21) 1 (11) 8 (62) 22 {50) 7 (58) 4 (45)
Not reported 7 1 8
Unlicensed 10 4 4 19 5 42
Not reported 4 5 9 32 8 58
Neutered 3 (43) 3 (21)
Not neutered 2 (100) 1 (100) 2 (100) 4 (57) 2 (100) 11 (79)
Not reported 12 11 44 11 86
Positive Rabies
Exposure (FRA) 3 (7) 3 (4)
Negative Rabies
Exposure (FRA) 9 (100) - 4 (100) 10 (100) 38 (93) 11 (100) 72 (96)
Not reported 5 5 3 10 2 25
” Circumstances of Attack
Unprovoked 11 (79) 1 (11) 7 (15) 19 (22)
Climbed on person 1 (9) 1 (2) 2 {2}
Handling/petting 1 (7) 6 (67) 5 (45) 21 (46) 4 {67} 37 (43)
Feeding 1 (9) 4 (9) 5 (6)
Finger in cage 1 (7) 1 (9) 2 (2)
Otherwise provoked 1 (7) 2 (22) 3 (27) 13 (28) 2 (33) 21 (24)
Not reported 2 5 7 14
“ fay have included tetanus prophylaxis.
Nee”
-47-
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Total
NUMBER OF FERRET ATTACKS REPORTED
IN RESPONSE TO CDHS REQUEST FOR DATA IN EARLY
Table 4
Reporting State
California
3
3
14
23
31
_26
100
Oregon
20
13
10
22
76
* Reporting from two counties only
** Data had been lost by Oregon health officials although
48
kk
kk
1986
Arizona*
17
53
51
34
49
37
249
cases were reported to have occurred in these years.
Table 5
Reported Ages of Ferret Attack Victims
Age of
Victim California Oregon Arizona Totals*
"Baby" 5 5
<1yr. 6 4 5 15
1-2 yrs. 4 5 \
>2-3 yrs. 4 \ 8 2 32
"Child" Z
>3-4 yrs. J 2 P.
>4-5 yrs. 3 7 1 7
>5-6 yrs. 2 3
>6-7 yrs. ] 2
>7-8 yrs. +64 ; +342
>8-9 yrs. 200**
>9-10 yrs. 3
"Adult" 63 J J
Unknown 14 17 31
Total 100 76 249 425
* 13 percent of attacks were in children 4 years old or younger.
** Presumably in this age range.
49
Table 6
Estimated Annual Ferret Attack Rates Per Million Persons
California Oregon
Estimated attacks/year 27 20
(from Table 4)
1986 State population 27 Quek
(millions)
Attacks/million persons ] 7.4
(Persons)
* Reporting from two counties only
50
Arizona*
50
25
~<
c
[e*)
3
1958
1978
198]
1982
1982
1983
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1987
Table 7
Rabies-Infected Pet European Ferrets Reported in the
State
Kentucky
South Carolina
North Dakota
Kansas
Virginia
Wisconsin
California
Michigan
South Carolina
Washington, D.C.
North Dakota
Towa
United States
Details/Circumstances
None available
Child bitten in face by
ferret from pet shop
Pets; no vaccination
Pet; no vaccination
Ferret fought with
raccoon in yard
None available
Developed rabies after
recapture; had escaped
3 months earlier after
imported from Colorado.
(Possible error in
diagnosis) FRA-positive
but adult mouse test
negative; live virus
vaccine-induced?
Bit owner who “spanked” it;
purchased in a North Carolina
pet shop 1 month earlier;
Unneutered 5 month old male
"Kissing" exposure of person;
Purchased from pet shop
1 year earlier
Developed rabies after re-
capture; Never vaccinated
Ferret maintained in a cage
as a breeder; was bred
earlier in year
51
Reference
CDC 1983
Diesch 1981
CDC 1983
CDC 1983
Jenkins 1985
CDC 1985
VPHU 1986
Anderson 1986
CDC 1986a
CDC 1986a
CDC 1987
Currier 1987
The authors gratefully acknowledge help from the following persons in
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
compiling data on which this report is based:
M.
G.
E.
B.
A.
Ss.
L.
S.
M.
M.
P.
V.
W.
D.
L.
mrAw
.
WMmRaoONragan
K. Abelseth
R. Anderson
F. Baker, Jr.
Benda
Chandler
Coffey
Curtis
L. Diesch
Eidson
Ford
Fisher
A. Giles
H. Griffith
I. Herbet
Hunter
Klein
Kwan
S. Mahoney
Miller
Mock
- Pape
Porter
E. Reynolds
- Ruprecht
Sawyer
Shumway
- Tacal
K. Weeks
. Wise
-52-
. Alishouse
Avedian
M. Beck
Bunter
A. Clark
Cookson
Davis
. M. Doll
- Elliott
. Fishbein
Freeman
A. Greco,
K. Grigor
T. Horman
S. Kelly
Kurth
Liska
Maier
Minor
Murrill
Pearson
Purves
J. Ruff
Rutty
Scott
E. Sorhage
Walsh
P. Williams
E. Wright
REFERENCES
Abelseth, M. K. 1987. Reports of ferret attacks, transmitted by the
State of New York Department of Health to the CHDS Veterinary Public
Health Unit. November 27, 1987.
American Veterinary Medical Association. 1985. AVMA recommends not
keeping ferrets as pets. News Release. December 20, 1985.
Anderson, G. R. 1986. Michigan Department of Health report to the
CHDS Veterinary Public Health Unit. February 5, 1986.
Anonymous. 1978. Warning by RSPCA after ferrets kill baby. The
Times (London), page 4. October 25, 1978.
Anonymous. 1979. ‘License ferrets' call after baby's death. The
Daily Telegraph (London), page 3. February 1, 1979.
Anonymous. 1985. Ferret found not rabid. Washington Post.
August 26, 1985.
Anonymous. 1986. Your help is needed to eliminate restrictions
against ferrets. Amer. Ferret 1:30.
Apfelbach, R. and U. Wester. 1977. The quantitative effect of
visual and tactile stimuli on the prey-catching behaviour of ferrets
(Putorius furo L.). Behav. Proc. 2:187-200.
Associated Press. 1982. Baby mauled by ferret. April 3, 1982.
-53-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Avedian, R. 1986. Fresno County Department of Health rabies control
investigation report. September 24, 1986.
Barr, W. 1987. Report of ferret attack on child. Chemung County
Health Department. April 8, 1987.
Bell, T. 1837. A History of British Quadrupeds, including the
Cetacea. Van Voors, London.
Biben, M. 1982. Sex differences in the play of young ferrets. Biol.
Behav. 7:303-308.
Boneck, L. 1988. Report From Washoe County Animal Control to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. December 1, 1988.
Brodie, I. 1978. Ferrets and Ferreting. Blandford Press, Poole,
Dorset.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1986. Report of
attack on infant. December 19, 1986.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1987. Ferret
interceptions at agricultural inspection stations. State of
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Sacramento, California.
June 1987.
Carton, B. 1985. Ferret's future in show biz rudely terminated by
events. Washington Post. August 13, 1985.
-54-
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Centers for Disease Control. 1981. Ferret attacks infant--Colorado.
Veterinary Public Health Notes, March: 23.
Centers for Disease Control. 1983. Rabies Surveillance Annual
Summary 1980-1982. August 1983.
Centers for Disease Control. 1985. Rabies Surveillance Annual
Summary 1983. November 1985.
Centers for Disease Control. 1986a. State reports forwarded to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. 1986.
Centers for Disease Control. 1986b. Rabies Surveillance Annual
Summary 1985. December 1986.
Centers for Disease Control. 1987. Report to Veterinary Public
Health Unit, CDHS. February 11, 1987.
Clark, K. A. 1987a. Texas Department of Health Zoonotic Incident
Case Report. May 5, 1987.
Clark, K. A. 1987b. Pet ferrets and health. Texas Preventable
Disease News 47:1-2.
Clayton, J. 1987. Pet ferrets bite baby after escaping cage. Union
Leader (Manchester, NH), pp. 1& 8. July 9, 1987.
Coffey, S. 1985a. Letter to Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.
November 25, 1985.
-55-
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Coffey, S. 1985b. Ferrets. Report to City of Carson City, Nevada.
December 5, 1985.
Constantine, D. G. 1967. Bat rabies in the southwestern United
States. Pub. Health Rep. 82:867-888.
Constantine, D.G. 1986. Wild animal pets: hazardous and illegal.
Outdoor California 47:16-18.
Corbet, G. B. 1980. The Mammals of Britain and Europe. Blackwell,
London.
Corbet, G., and D. Ovenden. 1980. The Mammals of Britain and Europe.
Collins, London.
Corbet, G. B., and H. N. Southern. 1977. The Handbook of British
Mammals. Blackwell, London.
Creed, J. E. and R. A. Kainer. 1981. Surgical extirpation and
related anatomy of anal sacs of the ferret. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc.
179:575-577.
Currier, R. W. 1987. Rabies in a ferret. Iowa Disease Bull. 11:4.
De Vos, A., R. H. Manville, and R. G. Van Gelder. 1956. Introduced
mammals and their influence on native biota. Zoologica 41:163-194.
Diesch, S$. L. 1981. Should wild-exotic animals be banned as pets?
California Vet. 35:13-18.
-56-
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44,
45.
46.
47.
Diesch, S. L. 1982a. Reported human injuries or health threats
attributed to wild or exotic animals kept as pets (1971-1981).
J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 180:382-383.
Diesch, S. L. 1982b. The hazards occurring by the private ownership
of wild and exotic animals to animal and public health. Proceedings
of the 86th Annual Meeting, U.S. Animal Health Association
Nashville, TN. pp. 46-49.
Diesch, S. L. 1986. Report to Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS.
January 30, 1986.
Dolensek, E. P. and B. Burn. 1976. A Practical Guide to Impractical
Pets. Viking Press, New York.
Everitt, N. 1897. Ferrets. Adams and Charles Black, London.
Ewer, R. F. 1973. The Carnivores. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Fennell, J. 4. 1841. A Natural History of British and Foreign
Quadrupeds; Containing Many Modern Discoveries, Original Observations,
and Numerous Anecdotes. Thomas, London.
Fisher, P. 1986. Santa Clara County Animal Control records
transmitted to Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. March 5, 1986.
Freeman, J. I. 1987. The ferret--a dangerous pet. Epi Notes, North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, 87:1. Also reports sent to
Veterinary Public Heaith Unit, CDHS. October 26, 1987 and
November 4, 1987.
-57-
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Freeman, J. I. 1988. Personal communication, April 14, 1988.
Friedland, B. 1978. Bitten infant returned to home. Anne Arundel
Report (Anne Arundel County Health Dept., Annapolis, MD).
August 28, 1978.
Giles, V. A. 1986. Sacramento County animal bite report. June 1986.
Gilmore, S. 1987. Ferrets: too fierce to be pets? Seattle Times.
June 22, 1987.
Hammond, J., Jr., and F. C. Chesterman. 1972. The ferret. Chap. 29,
UFAW Handbook, 4th ed. United Federation for Animal Welfare, London.
Harding, A. R. 1915. Ferret Facts and Fancies. A. R. Harding,
Columbus, Ohio.
Herbet, D. I. 1987. Letter to the California Department of Health
Services. October 6, 1987.
Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Univ. Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Holz, L. 1982. Ferrets: pet of the future? Pets-Supplies-Marketing,
February: 32-34.
Howes, C. A. 1980. Aspects of the history and distribution of
polecats and ferrets in Yorkshire and adjacent areas. Naturalist
105:3-16.
-58-
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64,
65.
66.
Hull, H. F. 1986. Ferrets--a new menance to health. Epidemiology
report. New Mexico Health and Environment Department. November 1986.
Humane Society of the United States. 1985. Captive Wild Animal
Protection: Model State Legislation. HSUS, 2100 L Street,
Washington, D.C. 20037, 6 pp.
Jenkins, S. R. 1985. Pet ferrets and rabies. Memo to all cooperators
on ecologic study of epidemic raccoon rabies in Virginia.
July 5, 1985.
Jennison, G. 1927. Natural History: Animals. Black, London.
Jesse, E. 1834. Gleanings in Natural History. Second Series. John
Murray, London.
Johnson, H. N. 1979. Rabies virus. In: E. H. Lennette and J. Schmidt
(eds.), “Diagnostic Procedures for Viral, Rickettsial and Chlamydial
Infections,* 5th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington.
pp- 843-877.
Johnston, H. 1903. British Mammals. Hutchinson & Co., London.
Kaplan, C. 1985. A worldwide disease. In: Bacon, P. J. (ed.),
"Population Dynamics of Rabies in Wildlife." Academic Press,
New York. pp. 1-21.
Kelly, N. S&S. 1986. Orange County Health Department reports to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. February 1986.
~59-
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
King, C. 1984. Immigrant Killers. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Konig, C. 1973. Mammals. Collins, London.
Kurth, W. and H. Weiss. 1987. Ferret bites increasing in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Epid. Bull. 19:1-3.
Lavers, R. B. 1973. Aspects of the biology of the ferret, Mustela
putorius forma furo L. at Pukepuke Lagoon. Proc. N. Z. Ecol. Soc.
20:7~12.
Lebar, S. 1978. Ferret attacks baby in crib. Evening Capital
(Annapolis, MD). August 24, 1978.
Liska, S. 1987. Santa Clara County Health Department reports to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. December 1987.
Lyneborg, L. 1971. Mammals. Blandford Press, London.
Matthews, L. H. 1968. British Mammals. Collins, London.
Miller, M. 1986. Placer County Health Department report to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. February 28, 1986.
Minor, S. 1987. Susanville, Lassen County, Animal Control report to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. October 9, 1987.
Mock, 4H. 1987. New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game and
New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services reports to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. October 29, 1987.
-60-
ed
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Moody, K. D., T. A. Bowman, and C. M. Lang. 1985. Laboratory
management of the ferret for biomedical research. Lab. Anim. Sci.
35:272-279.
Morton, C. and F. Morton. 1985. Ferrets. Barron's Education Series,
Woodbury, New York.
Nicola, R. M. 1986. Reported ferret attacks. Epi-Log. Communicable
Disease and Epidemiology News, Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health. August 1986.
Nowak, R. N. and J. L. Paradiso. 1983. Walker's Mammals of the
World, 4th ed., vol. II, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Olson, H. F. 1987. State of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
report. October 7, 1987.
Orr, S. 1986. County issues warning against ferrets as pets.
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY). May 6, 1986.
Owen, C. 1969. The domestication of the ferret. In: P. J. Ucko and
G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), "The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants
and Animals.* Duckworth, London. pp. 489-493.
Pape, J. 1987. State of Colorado Department of Health report to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. October 28, 1987.
Parker, R. L. 1975. Rabies in skunks. In: G. M. Baer (ed.), "The
Natural History of Rabies." Academic Press, New York. pp. 41-51.
-61-
87.
8&8.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
Poole, T. B. 1972. Some behavioural differences between the European
polecat, Mustela putorius, the ferret, M. furo, and their hybrids.
J. Zool., London: 166:25-35.
Porter, J. 1987. Personal communication. December 8, 1987.
Price, J. and S. White. 1978. Pet ferrets bite 9-day-old. The News
American (Baltimore, MD). August 24, 1978.
Public Health Service Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
1984. Rabies prevention--United States, 1984. Morbid. Mortal. Week.
Rep., 33:393-402, 407.
Roberts, M. F. 1977. All About Ferrets. T.F.H. Publications,
Neptune City, New Jersey.
Rowlands, I. W. 1967. The ferret. Chap. 35, UFAW Handbook. 3rd ed.
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, London.
Ruprecht, J. 1986. Humboldt-Del Norte Counties Health Department
report to Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. March 5, 1986.
Rutty, K. 1987. Reports to the State of California Department of
Health Services. June 30, 1987 and September 21, 1987.
Ryland, L. M., S. L. Bernard and J. R. Gorham. 1983. A clinical
guide to the pet ferret. Compendium Continuing Educ. Pract. Vet.
5:25-32.
-62-
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
Sorhage, F. E. 1986. State of New Jersey Department of Health news
release. November 12, 1986.
Sorhage, F. E. 1987. State of New Jersey Department of Health report
to Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. February 5, 1987.
Southern, H. N. 1964. The Handbook of British Mammals. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Spotts, R. 1985. Defenders of Wildlife statement of concern
regarding feral exotic ferrets, sent to the California Department of
Food and Agriculture, December 7, 1985.
Stevens, K. A. 1980. Baby mauled by ferret. Voice of the Trapper,
July: 21-22.
Stevens, W. F. 1979. Status of ferrets and other introduced animals
on San Juan Island. San Juan Environmental Studies Report,
October 15, 1979.
fTacal, J. 1987a. San Bernardino County Health Department report to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. January 20, 1987.
Tacal, J. 1987b. San Bernardino County Health Department reports to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. October 15 and 20, 1987.
Thomas, W. 1946. Rabbit Shooting to Ferrets. Hutchinson & Co.,
London.
-63-
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
Veterinary Public Health Unit. 1986. Rabid ferret, Tehama County,
California. California Department of Health Services memo to the
record. February 7, 1986.
Volobuev, V. T., D. Ternovsky and A. Graphodatsky. 1974. Taxonomic
status of the ferret (Putorius putorius furo) by karyological data.
Zool. Zh. 53:1738-1740.
Weeks, E. K. 1986. County of Los Angeles Department of Health
Services reports to Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. April 1986.
Wellstead, G. 1982. Ferrets and Ferreting. T.F.H. Publications,
Neptune City, New Jersey.
Wiktor, T. J. and H. Koprowski. 1978. Monoclonal antibodies against
rabies virus produced by somatic cell hybridization: Detection of
antigenic variants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 75: 3938-3942.
Williams, L. P. 1986a. Oregon State Health Department reports to
Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS. January 31, February 14 and 20,
1986.
Williams, L. P. 1986b. Oregon State Health Department warns of
danger of keeping pet ferrets in home with infants. News Release,
Department of Human Resources. September 17, 1986.
Willis, L. S. and M. V. Barrow. 1971. The ferret (Mustela putorius
furo L.). Lab. Anim. Sci.: 21:712-716.
-64-
113.
114.
115.
Winsted, Vv. 1981. Ferrets. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City,
New Jersey.
World Health Organization Expert Committee on Rabies. 1984. Seventh
Report. World Health Organization, Tech. Rep. Ser. 709.
Wright, M. E. 1986. Arizona Department of Health Services reports on
ferret bites sent to Veterinary Public Health Unit, CDHS, in
March 1986.
-65-
APPENDIX I
CALIFORNIA STATE L
RELEVANT TO FERRETS
66
§ 2116 FISH AND GAME GENERALLY
Article 1
GENERALLY
Section
2116. Wild animal defined.
2116.5. Legislative findings and intent.
2117. Enforcing officer defined. 7
2118. Importation, transportation, possession and release of specified wild
animals; permit.
2118.2. Elk; importation; findings.
9118.3. Elk horns or antlers; removal from live elk for commercial purposes.
2118.4, Elk; importation; seizure.
2118.5. Possession without permit.
2119. Publication of list. ; ; ;
2120. Regulations governing entry, transportation, keeping, etc., of restricted
wild animals; possession of other wild animals. —
212), Freeing or permitting escape or release of restricted wild animals.
2122, Regulations in co-operation with department of food and agriculture.
2123. Descriptive material concerning restricted wild animals.
Historical Note
For general discussion of prior game
laws, see Historical Note preceding § 3000.
Cross References
Exclusion of specified species from definition of “aquaculture”, regulation under this
chapter, see § 17.
§ 2116. Wild animal defined
As used in this chapter, “wild animal” means any animal of the class
Aves (birds), class Mammalia (mammals), class Amphibia (frogs, toads,
salamanders), class Osteichtyes (bony fishes), class Monorhina (lam-
preys), class Reptilia (repitles), class Crustacea (crayfish), or class Gas-
tropoda (slugs, snails) which is not normally domesticated in this state as
determined by the commission.
(Stats.1957, c. 456, p. 1348, § 2116. Amended by Stats.1961, c. 617, p. 1770, § 2;
Stats.1974, c. 15038, p. 3296, 8 1.)
Legislative Counsel Notes
“Wild animal” used in place of “wild bird
or animal.”
Historical Note
The 1961 amendment included the classes The 1974 amendment substituted “is not
Amphibia, Osteichtyes, Monorhina, Reptilia normally domesticated in this state for ei-
and Gastropoda; and deleted “phylum Mol- ther is not normally domesticated in this
lusca (snails)’”’. State or not normally native to this State”.
236
IMPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION § 2117
th. 2
Similar to § 1165 of the Fish and Game Section 1165 was derived from Stats.1933
Code of 1933, added by Stats.1953, ¢. 178, p.e, 76 87. ae
1105, § 1. y ¢ p c. 76, p. 516, & 7.
Forms
See West’s California Code Forms, Fish and Game.
Cross References
Importation of wild animals by permit, application to excluded animals under this chapter,
see Health and Safety Code § 259948.
§ 2116.5. Legislative findings and intent
The Legislature finds and declares that wild animals are being cap-
tured for importation and resale in California; that some populations of
wild animals are being depleted; that many animals die in captivity or
transit; that some keepers of wild animals lack sufficient knowledge or
facilities for the proper care of wild animals; that some wild animals are
a threat to the native wildlife or agricultural interests of this state; and
that some wild animals are a threat to public health and safety. It is the
intention of the Legislature that the importation, transportation, and
possession of wild animals shall be regulated to protect the health and
welfare of wild animals captured, imported, transported, or possessed, to
reduce the depletion of wildlife populations, to protect the native wildlife
and agricultural interests of this state against damage from the exist-
ence at large of certain wild animals, and to protect the public health and
safety in this state.
(Added by Stats.1974, c. 1503, p. 3296, § 1.5.)
Library References
Game @3'/..
C.J.S. Game § 7.
Notes of Decisions
1. In general raccoons for the pet trade. 65 Ops.Atty.
The fish and game commission has the Gen. 648, 12-30-82.
authority to prohibit the captive breeding of
§ 2117. Enforcing officer defined
As used in this chapter, “enforcing officers’? means the enforcement
personnel of the department, the state plant quarantine officers, and the
county agricultural commissioners.
(Stats.1957, c. 456, p. 1343, § 2117.)
Legislative Counsel Notes
No change.
237
§ 2117 FISH AND GAME GENERALLY
Div. 3
Historical Note
Identical with § 1165.1 of the Fish and Section 1165.1 was derived from Stats.
Game Code of 1938, added by Stats.1953, ¢. 1933, ¢. 76, p. 517, § 8.
178, p. 1105, § 1.
Cross References
Deputies and county fish and game wardens, see § 850 et seq.
§ 2118. Importation, transportation, possession and release of spe-
cified wild animals; permit
It is unlawful to import, transport, possess, or release alive into this
state, except under a revocable, nontransferable permit as provided in
this chapter and the regulations pertaining thereto, any wild animal of
the following species:
(a) Class Aves: (birds)
Family Cuculidae (cuckoos)
All species.
Family Alaudidae (larks)
Skylark, Alauda arvensis
Family Corvidae (crows, jays, magpies)
All species.
Family Turdidae (thrushes)
European blackbird, Turdus merula
Missel (or mistle), thrush, Turdus viscivorus
Family Sturnidae (starlings and mynas or mynahs)
All species of the family, except hill myna (or hill mynah)
Gracula religiosa (sometimes referred to as Eulabes religiosa)
Family Ploceidae (weavers)
The following species:
Spanish sparrow, Passer hispaniolensis
Italian sparrow, Passer italiae
European tree sparrow, Passer montanus
Cape sparrow, Passer capensis
Madagascar weaver, Foudia madagascariensis
Baya weaver, Ploceus baya
Hawaiian rice bird, Munia nisoria
Red-billed quelea, Quelea quelea
Red-headed quelea, Quelea erythrops
Family Fringillidae (sparrows, finches, buntings)
Yellowhammer, Emberiza citrinella
(b) Class Mammalia (mammals)
Order Primates
All species except those in family Homonidae
Order Edentata (sloths, anteaters, armadillos, etc.)
All species,
238
IMPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION § 2118
Ch. 2
Order Marsupialia (marsupials or pouched mammals)
All species.
Order Insectivora (shrews, moles, hedgehogs, etc.)
All species.
Order Dermoptera (gliding lemurs)
All species.
Order Chiroptera (bats)
All species.
Order Monotremata (spiny anteaters, platypuses)
All species.
Order Pholidota (pangolins, scaly anteaters)
All species.
Order Lagomorpha (pikas, rabbits, hares)
All species, except domesticated races of rabbits.
Order Rodentia (rodents)
All species, except domesticated golden hamsters, also known as
Syrian hamster, Mesocricetus auratus; domesticated races of rats or
mice (white or albino; trained, dancing or spinning, laboratory-reared);
and domestic strains of guinea pig (Cavia porcellus).
Order Carnivora (carnivores)
All species, except domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and domestic
cats (Felis catus).
Order Tubulidentata (aardvarks)
All species.
Order Proboscidea (elephants)
All species.
Order Hyracoidea (hyraxes)
All species.
Order Sirenia (dugongs, manatees)
All species.
Order Perissodactyla (horses, zebras, tapirs, rhinoceroses, etc.)
All species except those of the family Equidae.
Order Artiodactyla (swine, peccaries, camels, deer, elk, except elk
(genus Cervus) which are subject to Section 2118.2, moose,
antelopes, cattle, goats, sheep, etc.)
All species except: domestic swine of the family Suidae; American
bison, and domestic cattle, sheep and goats of the family
Bovidae; races of big-horned sheep (Ovis canadensis) now or
formerly indigenous to this state.
Mammals of the orders Primates, Edentata, Dermoptera, Monotrema-
ta, Pholidota, Tubulidentata, Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, Hyracoidea,
Sirenia and Carnivora are restricted for the welfare of the animals,
except animals of the families Viverridae and Mustelidae in the order
Carnivora are restricted because such animals are undesirable and a
239
§ 2118 FISH AND GAME GENERALLY
Div. 3
menace to native wildlife, the agricultural interests of the state, or to the
public health or safety.
(c) Class Amphibia (frogs, toads, salamanders)
Family Bufonidae (toads)
Giant toad or marine toad, Bufo marinus
(d) Class Monorhina (lampreys)
All species.
(e) Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
Family Serranidae (bass)
White perch, Morone or Roccus americana
Family Clupeidae (herring)
Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum
Family Sciaenidae (croakers)
Freshwater sheepshead, Aplodinotus grunniens
Family Characidae (characins)
Banded tetra, Astyanax fasciatus
All species of piranhas
Family Lepisosteidae (gars)
All species.
Family Amiidae (bowfins)
All species.
(f) Class Reptilia (snakes, lizards, turtles, alligators)
Family Crocodilidae
All species.
(g) Class Crustacea (crustaceans)
Genus Cambarus (crayfishes)
All species.
Genus Astacus (crayfishes)
All species.
Genus Astacopsis (crayfishes)
All species.
(h) Class Gastropoda (slugs, snails, clams)
All species of slugs.
All species of land snails.
(i) Such other classes, orders, families, genera, and species of wild
animals which may be designated by the commission in cooperation with
the Department of Food and Agriculture, (a) when such class, order,
family, genus or species is proved undesirable and a menace to native
wildlife or the agricultural interests of the state, or (b) to provide for the
welfare of wild animals.
(j) Classes, families, genera, and species in addition to those listed
above may be added to or deleted from the above lists from time to time
240
IMPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION § 2118
Ch. 2
by commission regulations in cooperation with the Department of Food
and Agriculture.
(Stats.1957, ¢. 456, p. 1343, § 2118. Amended by Stats.1961, c. 617, p. 1770, § 3;
Stats.1970, c. 302, p. 578, § 1; Stats.1974, c. 1503, p. 3296, § 2; Stats.1977, c. 436,
p. 1470, § 1; Stats.1979, c. 1074, p. 3844, § 1, eff. Sept. 28, 1979.)
Legislative Counsel Notes
“Wild animal” used in place of ‘wild bird
or animal.”
Historical Note
The 1961 amendment rewrote the section,
which prior thereto read:
“It is unlawful to import or transport
alive into this State, except as provided in
this chapter, any wild animal of any of the
following species or groups:
“(a) Yellowhammer, Emberiza citrinella;
hooded crew, Corvus cornix; carrion crow,
Corvus corone; rook, Corvus frugilegus;
European starling, Sturnus vulgaris; crest-
ed starling, Aethiopsar cristatellus; com-
mon mynah, Acridotheres tristis; skylark,
Alauda arvensis; European blackbird, Tur-
dus merula; missel thrush, Turdus viscivo-
rus; baya, Ploceus baya; Madagascar
weaver, Foudia madagascariensis.
“(b) Opossums of the family Didelphidae;
European rabbit, Lepus cuniculus; Europe-
an hare, Lepus europaeus, and all other
species of the family Leporidae except
domesticated races of rabbits; bank vole,
Clethrionomys glareolus; field voles, Micro-
tus hirtus and Microtus agrestis; water rat,
Arvicola amphibus; long-tailed field mouse,
Apodemus sylvaticus; and aJ] other species
of the following rodent families, Muridae
(mice and rats), Cricetidae (hamsters and
old world field mice), Sciuridae (ground
squirrels, prairie dogs, woodchucks, etc.),
and Geomyidae (pocket gophers); weasel,
Mustela nivalis; stoat, Mustela erminea;
ferret, Mustela furio; mongoose, Herpestes
mungo, and all other species of the genus
Herpestes; European mole, Talpa europaea,
and all other Talpidae; flying foxes or fruit
bats of the family Pteropodidae; bats of the
family Desmodontidae.
“(c) Crayfishes of the genera Cambarus
and Astacus; slugs and land snails of the
mollusean class Gastropoda.
‘(d) Such other species of wild animal
which may be subsequently designated by
the commission when such species are
proved undesirable and a menace to the
native wildlife or to the agricultural inter-
ests of this State.”
The 1970 amendment made “possession”
of the listed species unlawful.
The 1974 amendment inserted “revocable,
nontransferable” preceding ‘‘permit” in the
introductory sentence; rewrote subd. (b),
which prior thereto read:
“Class Mammalia (mammals)
“Family Didelphidae (opossums)
“All species
“Family Leporidae (rabbits, hares)
“All species, except domesticated
races of rabbits
“Family Cricetidae (hamsters, field
mice, voles)
“All species, except laboratory-reared
golden hamsters, also known as
Syrian hamster, Mesocricetus aura-
tus
“Family Muridae (mice, rats)
“All species, except domesticated
races (white or albino) of rats and
mice
“Family Geomyidae (pocket gophers)
“All species
“Family Sciuridae (squirrels, wood-
chucks)
“All species
“Family Dasyproctidae (agoutis)
“AIL species
“Family Procyonidae (raccoons, coatis)
“All species
“Family Mustelidae (weasels, ferrets)
“All species
“Family Viverridae (civets, mongooses)
“All species
241
§ 2118
“Family Talpidae (moles)
FISH AND GAME GENERALLY
Div. 3
The 1977 amendment, in subd. (b), under
“Order Rodentia”, substituted “‘domesticat-
ii All species : ‘ ed” for “laboratory-reared’’ preceding
Family Pteropodidae (flying foxes or “golden hamsters”, and deleted “nutria pos-
fruit bats) sessed in accordance with provisions of the
“All species Food and Agricultural Code” following
“Family Desmodontidae (true vampire “Mesocricetus auratus”.
bats) The 1979 amendment, in subd. (b), under
“All species “Order Artiodactyla”, inserted “except elk
“Family Cervidae (deer, elk, moose)
“All species
“Pamily Bovidae (cattle, buffaloes, bi-
son, sheep, goats, gazelles, Old
World and African antelopes)
“All species, except domesticated cat-
tle, sheep, goats, and the races of
big-horned sheep (Ovis canadensis)
now or formerly indigenous to this
(genus Cervus) which are subject to Section
2118.2”.
Section 4.5 of Stats.1979, c. 1074, p. 3845,
provides:
“Any person prior to January 1, 1980,
may apply to the State Board of Control
for, and the board shall pay, compensation
for actual damages, which shall not include
any anticipated loss of profits, not to exceed
“ State ‘ . one hundred fifty thousand dollars
Family Tayassuidae (peccaries) ($150,000), as a result of establishing a busi-
“All species ness in reliance on a permit issued by the
“Family Suidae (swine)
“All species, except domesticated
swine”;
substituted ‘Department of Food and Agri-
culture” for “State Department of Agricul-
ture” and “Department of Agriculture” in
subds. (i) and (j), respectively; inserted des-
ignation (a) within subd. (i); and added, to
the end of subd. (i), “or (b) to provide for
the welfare of wild animals”.
Department of Fish and Game, pursuant to
approval granted by the Fish and Game
Commission, when it is no longer legal to
conduct such business.”
Similar to § 1165.2 of the Fish and Game
Code of 1933, added by Stats.1953, c. 178, p.
1105, § 1.
Section 1165.2 was derived from Stats.
1933, c. 76, p. 515, § 1.
Cross References
Inspection and refusal of admittance of restricted wild animals, see § 2185. .
Permits for importation or transportation of certain wild animals designated by this
section, see § 2150.
Supply of descriptive material concerning restricted wild animals, see § 2123.
Administrative Code References
Permits for research purposes, see 14 Cal.Adm. Code 671.1 et seq.
Library References
Fish 8.
Game 3'/.
CJ.5. Fish § 26.
C.J.S. Game § 7.
Notes of Decisions
In general 2
1. Validity
IMPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION § 2118.4
Ch. 2
piranha which he was ordered to destroy or
otherwise dispose of, and as he thus ac-
quired no protectible property right in the
fish, the order and the legislation and regu-
lations pursuant to which the order was
issued did not deprive appellant of his prop-
erty without due process of law. Adams v.
Shannon (1970) 86 Cal.Rptr. 641, 7 C.A.3d
427.
2. In general
In suit wherein tropical fish dealer
sought an injunction to restrain the depart-
ment of fish and game from enforcing stat-
utes and regulations prohibiting the impor-
tation and possession of piranha, the record
established that legislature’s action was
based upon a firm foundation in fact, there
being qualified expert opinion that piranha,
if introduced into the waters of California,
could seriously endanger existing species of
aquatic life. Adams v. Shannon (1970) 86
Cal.Rptr. 641, 7 C.A.3d 427.
3. Raccoons
The fish and game commission has the
authority to prohibit the captive breeding of
raccoons for the pet trade. 65 Ops.Atty.
Gen. 648, 12-30-82.
§ 2118.2. Elk; importation; findings
Except as provided in Section 1007, it is unlawful to import any elk
(genus Cervus) into this state. The department may import elk pursuant
to Section 1007, if prior to such importation, the department issues
written findings justifying the need for and explaining the purpose of the
importation.
This section shall not apply to zoos certified by the United States
Department of Agriculture.
(Added by Stats.1979, ¢. 1074, p. 3844, § 2, eff. Sept. 28, 1979.)
Library References
Game 3'2.
C.J.S. Game § 7.
§ 2118.3. Elk horns or antlers; removal from live elk for commer-
cial purposes
No part of any elk horn or antler shall be removed from any live elk
for commercial purposes.
(Added by Stats.1979, c. 1074, p. 3845, § 3, eff. Sept. 28, 1979.)
Library References
Game 3'.
C.J.S. Game § 7.
§ 2118.4. Elk; importation; seizure
The department shall seize any elk imported in violation of Section
2118.2.
(Added by Stats.1979, c. 1074, p. 3845, § 4, eff. Sept. 28, 1979.)
Raccoons 3 As appellant, a tropical fish dealer, im-
Validity 1 ported in violation of California law the 140
242
243
§ 671 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION TITLE 14
(p. 52.72.4) (Register 87, No. 19—6-0-87)
(h) Any permit issued pursuant to these peigulations may be cancelled or
sospendal at any time by the director of the department when, in his judg-
ment, permittee is acting or has acted contrary to the terms and conditions of
subject permit, or if, in his judgment, the safety or welfare of the species
authorized to be taken by subject permit is or may be jeopardized by the actions
of permittee.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 1002, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 3511,
4700, 5050 and 5515, Fish and Game Code.
HISTORY:
1. New section filed 2-18-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 8).
671. Importation, Transportation and Possession of Wild Animals.
The following species of the families which are prohibited or for which a
permit is required are determined to be not normally domesticated in this state
and shall not be imported into, transported within or possessed in this state, and
permits for their entry, transportation or possession will be refused by the
Department of Fish and Game, except that permits may be granted for the
species as specified herein and for purposes designated below subject to the
conditions and restrictions contained in Sections 671.1, 671.2, 671.4, 671.5, and/or
671.6 and such other conditions as may be designated by the department.
The birds, amphibians, fish, reptiles, crustaceans, and gastropods which are
prohibited or for which a permit is required in this regulation are restricted to
reduce the depletion of these wild animal populations, or because such animals
are undesirable and a menace to native wildlife, the agricultural interests of the
state, or to the public health or safety.
Mammals of the orders Primates, Edentata, Dermoptera, Monotremata,
Pholidota, Tubulidentata, Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, Hyracoidea, Sierenia,
and Carnivora, which are prohibited or for which a permit is required are
restricted for the welfare otf the animals, except ani of the families Viver-
ridae, Procyonidae except pandas and Procyon lotor (American raccoon), and
Mustelidae excepting genera Amblonyx, Aonyx, Pteronura and Lutra (river
otters), and the family Felidae in the order Carnivora are restricted because
such animals are undesirable and a menace to native wildlife, the agricultural
interests of the state, or to the public health or safety. Mammals of other orders
which are prohibited or for which a permit is required except the families
Macropodidae (kangaroos, wallabies) and Phalangeridae (Phalanger, koalas)
in the order Marsupialia, and the family Camelidae (camels, etc.) in the order
Artiodactyla are restricted because auch animals are undesirable and a menace
to native wildlife, the agricultural interests of the state, or to the public health.
Subject to applicable provisions of the Fish and Game Code or regulations of
the Fish and Game Commission set forth in Title 14, species not listed below
may be imported, ale hea or possessed without a permit. No person shall
release into the wilds of this state any animal which is not native to California
except as provided in these regulations. (See Section 671.5.)
(a) Class Aves—Birds
(1) Family Alaudidae—Larks
Alauda arvensis (Skylark) —Prohibited.
(2) Family Cuculidae—Cuckoos
All species—Prohibited.
@) Family Corvidae—Crows, Ravens, Rooks, Jackdaws (Genus Corvus)
All species—Prohibited. .
TITLE 14 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION § 671
{Register 67, No. 19—6-0-87) (p. 52.72.5)
(4) Family Turdidae—Thrushes, Blackbirds, Fieldfare
(A) Turdus merula (European blackbird) —Prohibited.
(B) Turdus viscivorus ae thrush) —Prohibited.
(C) Turdus pilaris (Fieldfare)—Prohibited.
(D) Turdus musicus (Song thrush)—Prohibited.
& Family Sturnidae—Starlings, Mynahs
species except Sturnus is (Starling) and Gracula religiosa or
Eulabes religiosa (Hill mynahs)—Prohibited.
(6) F “mil y Ploceidae—Sparrow, Weavers, Queleas
(A) Genus Passer (Sparrow)
All species except Passer domesticus (English house sparrow) -—Prombites,
(B) Foudia madagascariensis (Madagascar weaver)—Prohibited.
(C) Ploceus baya (Baya weaver)—Prohibited.
(D) Genus Quelea (Quelea)—All species prohibited.
(7) Family Estrildidae—Waxbills, Munias, Ricebirds
(A) Padda oryzivora (Java sparrow)—Prohibited.
(B) Munia nisoria (Hawaiian rice bird)—Prohibited.
(8) Family Emberizidae—Yellowhammer
Emberiza citrinella (Yellowhammer)—Prohibited.
(9) Order Falconiformes—Falcons, Eagles, Hawks, Vultures
ies prohibited, except under conditions set forth in Section 670, Title
14, California Administrative Code. .
(10) Order Stigfones—Owis
Alpes prohibited, except under conditions set forth in Section 670, Title
14, California Administrative le.
(
11) Family Pyenonotidae—Bulbuls or Fruit Thrushes
Pycnonotus jocosus (Red-whiskered bulbul)—Prohibited.
(12) Family Zosteropidae—Whiteeyes
Genus Zosterops—All species prohibited.
(13) Family Psittacidae—Parrots, Parakeets
Myiopsitta monachus (Monk or Quaker parakeet) —Prohibited.
(b) Class Mammalia—Mammals
(1) Order Primates
species except Family Hominidae—Prohibited.
@ Order Edentata—Sloths, anteaters, armadillos, etc.
species—Prohibited.
@ Order Marsupialia—Marsupials or Pouched Animals
species except Didelphis marsupialis (Common opossum)—Prohibited.
(4) Order Insectivora—Shrews, Moles, Hedgehogs, etc.
species—Prohibited.
& Order Dermoptera—Gliding Lemurs
species—Prohibited.
& Order Chiroptera—Bats
species—Prohibited.
@ Order Monotremata—Spiny Anteaters, Platypuses
Species—Prohibited.
@ rder Pholidota—Pangolins, Scaly Anteaters
species—Prohibited.
§ 671 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION TITLE 14
(p. 52.72.6) (Register 87, No. 19—6-0-87)
@) Order Lagomorpha—Pikas, Rabbits, and Hares
species except domesticated races of rabbits and hares of the Family
Leporidae—Prohibited.
(10) Order Rodentia—Hamster, Field Mice, Voles, Muskrats, Gerbils, Squir-
rels, Chipmunks, Woodchucks, and Prairie Dogs
(A) species protibited except:
1. Ondatrazibethica (Muskrats)—Under conditions set forth in Fish and
Game Code Section 2250;
2. Myocastor coypus (Nutria)—Under conditions set forth in Food and Agri-
cultural Code Sections 165-165.6;
3. Domesticated races of golden hamsters of the species Mesocricetus aura-
tus;
4. Domesticated races of rats or mice (white or albino; trained, dancing or
spinning, laboratory-reared); and
5. Domesticated races of guinea pigs of the species Cavia porcellus.
6. Domesticated races of chinchillas of the species Chinchilla laniger.
(11) Order Carnivora—Raccoons, Ringtailed Cats, Kinkajous, Coatis, Caco-
mistles, Weasels, Ferrets, Skunks, Polecats, Stoats, Mongoose, Civets, Wolves,
Foxes, Coyotes, Lions, Tigers, Ocelots, Bobcats, Servals, Leopards, Jaguars,
Cheetahs, Bears, etc.
(A) Skunks (all species) —Prohibited except under conditions set forth in
Section 2606.8, Title 17, California Administrative Code.
(B) Family Felidae—All species except Felis catus (domestic cats) —Prohib-
ited except as provided in Sections 671.1 and 671.4(b) of these regulations and
Section 3005.9, Fish and Game Code, except that permits are required for
cheetahs (Acinonyx).
(C) All other species except Canis familiaris (domestic dogs) —Prohibited.
(12) Order Tubulidentata—Aardvarks
All species—Prohibited.
(13) Order Proboscidae (Elephants)
All species—Prohibited.
(14) Order Hyracoidae (Hyraxes)
All species—Prohibited.
(15) Order Sirenia (Dugongs, Manatees)
All species—Prohibited.
(16) Order Perissodactyla (Horses, Zebras, Tapirs, Rhinoceroses, etc.)
All species except Family Equidae—Prohibited.
(17) Order Artiodactyla—Swine, Peccaries, Camels, Deer, Elk, Moose, An-
telopes, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, etc.
(A) Family Cervidae
Elk (Cervus)—Prohibited, except a permit may be issued to a California
licensed domesticated game breeder for possession of domesticated elk already
within California.
All other species—Prohibited, except permits may be issued for all species to
a California licensed domesticated game breeder.
(B) Family Bovidae
All species—Prohibited, except permits may be issued to a California licensed
domesticated game breeder for races of Ovis canadensis (Bighorn sheep)
which are now or were formerly indigenous to this state.
TITLE 14 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION , § 671
(Register 88, No. 92-27-68) (p. 52.72.7)
(C) Family Antilocapriade—Pronghorn Antelope Prohibited, except per-
mits may be issued to a California licensed domesticated game breeder.
(D) All other families and species except Bison bison (American bison) and
domesticated swine, cattle, sheep, or goats—Prohibited.
(c) Class Amphibia—Frogs, Toads, Salamanders
(1) Family Bufonidae—Toads
Bufo marinus, Bufo paracnemis, Bufo horribilis (Giant toad or marine toad
group) and all other large toads from Mexico and Central and South America—
Prohibited.
@ Family Pipidae—Tongueless Toads
species of genus Xenopus—Prohibited.
(d) Class Agnatha—Jawless Fishes
(1) Family Petromyzontidae—Lampreys
nonnative species—Prohibited.
(e) Class Osteichthyes—Bony Fishes
(1) Family Bescienthritee— emperate Basses
Morone americana (White perch)—Prohibited.
(2) Family Clupeidae—Herrings
Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard shad)—Prohibited.
(3) Family Sciaenidae—Drums
Aplodinotus Ejunniens (freshwater drum)—Prohibited.
(4) Family Characidae—Characins
(A) Astyanax fasciatus (Banded tetra) —~Prohibited.
(B) All species of genera Serrasalmus, Serrasalmo, Pygocentrus, Taddyella,
Rooseveltiella, and Pygopristis (Piranhas)—Prohibited.
(C) Hoplias malabaricus (Tiger fish)—Prohibited.
5) Family Lepisosteidae—Gars
species—Prohibited.
6) Family Amiidae—Bowfins
species~—Prohibited.
(1) Family Poeciliidae—Livebearers
Belonesox belizanus (Pike top minnow)—Prohibited.
i Family (Channidae)—Snakeheads
: s en hima ”
(9) ily rinidae—Carps or Minnows
(A) Leuciscus idus or—Prohibited.
(B) Ctenopharyngodon idellus (Grass carp) —Prohibited.
(10) Family Trichomycteridae (Pygidiidae)—Parasitic Catfishes.
All species—Prohibited.
(11) Family Cetopsidae—Whalelike Caifishes.
All species—Prohibited.
(12) Family Clariidae—Airbreathing Catfishes
a species of genera Clarias, Dinotopterus, and Heterobranchus —Prohibit-
(13) Family Heteropneustidae (Saccobranchidae)—Airsac Catfishes
All species—Prohibited.
(14) Family Cichlidae—Cichlids
(A) Tilapia sparrmanii (Tilapia) —Prohibited.
(B) Tilapia zillii (Redbelly tilapia)—Prohibited, except permit may be is-
sued to a person or agency for importation, transportation, or possession in the
counties of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and
mperial.
§ 671 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION TITLE 14
(p. 52.72.8) (Register 88, No. 92-27-48)
(15) Family Anguillidae—Freshwater Eels.
All appeits of genus Anguilla—Prohibited.
(f) Class Chondrichthyes—Cartilaginous Fishes
(1) Family Carcharhinidae—Requiem sharks
All species of genus Carcharhinus (Freshwater sharks) —Prohibited.
(2) Family Potamotrygonidae—River stingrays
All species Prohibited’
(g) Class Reptilia—Reptiles
(1) Order Crocodilia—Crocodiles, Caimans, Alligators and Gavials
All species—Prohibited.
(2) Family. Chelyridae—Snapping turtles
All species—Prohibited.
(3) Family Elapidae—Cobras, Coral Snakes
All species—Prohibited.
(4) amily Viperidae—Adders and Vipers
All species—Prohibited.
(5) Family Crotalidae—Pit Vipers .
All species—prohibited, except Crotalus viridis (western rattlesnake) , Crota-
Jus atrox (western diamondback rattlesnake), Crotalus ruber (red diamond
rattlesnake), Crotalus scutulatus (Mojave rattlesnake), Crotalus mitchellis
(speckled rattlesnake) and Crotalus cerastes (sidewinder)
(6) Family Colubridae—Colubrids
(A) Dispholidus typus (Boomslang)—Prohibited.
(B) Theoltornis kirtlandi (Bird or Vine Snake) —Prohibited.
(h) Class Crustacea—Crustaceans
(1) All species of family Cambaridae except Procambarus clarkii and Or-
conectes virilis—Prohibited.
(2) All species of genus Eriocheir—Prohibited.
(i) Class Gastropoda—Slugs, Snails
All nonnative species of slugs and land snails except Rumina decollata (decol-
late snail) in the counties of San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, Orange, San
Diego, Los Angeles, Ventura, Tulare and Santa Barbara with the concurrence
of the appropriate county agricultural commissioners; and Helix aspersa
(brown garden snail)—Prohibited.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 1002, 2116, 2118, 2120, 2122, 3005.9 and 3005.92, Fish and
Game Code. Reference: Sections 1002, 2116-2118, 2118.2, 2118.4, 2119-2155, 2185-2191,
3005.9 and 3005.92, Fish and Game Code.
HISTORY:
1. Amendment of subsection (g) (5) filed 2-9-84; effective thirtieth day thereafter
(Register 84, No. 6). For prior history, see Register 81, No. 29.
2. Amendment of subsection (i) filed 7-8-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register
85, No. 28).
3. Editorial correction of NOTE filed 9-20-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Regis-
ter 85, No. 38).
4. Notice of Erroreous Filing filed 3-24-86 by OAL; purported amendment of subsec-
tion (g) (5) filed in error on 2-5-86 is null and void and text as filed with Secretary of State
on 2-9-84 remains in effect uninterrupted (Register 86, No. 13).
5. Amendment of subsection (g) (5) filed 3-24-86; effective thirtieth day thereafter
(Register 86, No. 13).
6. Amendment of subsection (h) filed 11-7-86; effective upen filing (Register 86,
No. 43).
7. Amendment of subsection (g) (1) filed 5-1-87; operative 5-31-87 (Register 87, No. 19).
8. New subsection (e) (15) filed 2-16-88; operative 3-17-88 (Register 88, No. 9).
TITLE 14 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION § 671.2
(Register 88, No. 92-27-88) (p. 52.72.9)
671.1. Permits for Zoological Gardens, Research and Film Making.
(a) With the concurrence of the Departments of Health and Food and
Agriculture, the Department of Fish and Game may issue permits for importa-
tion, transportation and possession of restricted and prohibited species listed
herein for exhibition by zoological gardens and for use for scientific or public
health research by a college, university, or government research agency, or
other bona fide scientific institution as determined by the department, to meet
immediate research or medical needs. With the above concurrence the depart-
ment may issue permits authorizing the importation, transportation, and
possession of restricted or prohibited species listed herein if such animals are
to be used for public display or public exhibition through the mediums of
motion pictures and television; no permittee shall transfer possession or owner-
ship of any such animal without approval of the department. All animals import-
ed and/or possessed under this subsection must be imported, transported,
maintained, and disposed of under such conditions as the department may
prescribe,
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 1002, 2116, 2118, 2118.5, 2120, 2122, 3005.9 and 3005.92,
Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 2002, 2116-2118, 2118.2, 2118.4, 2119-2155,
2185-2191, 3005.9 and 3005.92, Fish and Game Code. :
HISTORY: ° .
i. Amendment filed 5-6-75 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 75, No. 18).
For prior history, see Register 75, No. 4.
2. Certificate of Compliance filed 7-3-75 (Register 75, No. 27).
3. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 5-11-79; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Regis-
ter 79, No. 19).
4. Amendment of NOTE filed 7-16-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81,
No. 29).
5. Order of Repeal of subsection (b) filed 6-3-85 by OAL pursuant to Government Code
Section 11349.7; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 85, No. 26).
6. Editorial correction of NOTE filed 9-20-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Regis-
ter 85, No. 38).
671.2. Neutered Male Animals.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 1002, 2116, 2118, 2120, 2122, 3005.9 and 3005.92, Fish and
Game Code. Reference: Sections 1002, 2116-2118, 2118.2, 2118.4, 2119-2155, 2185-2191,
3005.9 and 3005.92, Fish and Game Code.
HISTORY:
1. Amendment filed 6-30-66; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 66, No. 20).
2. Amendment filed 1-24-75 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of
Compliance included (Register 75, No. 4).
3. New NOTE filed 7-16-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 29).
4, Editorial correction of NOTE filed 9-20-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Regis-
ter 85, No. 38}.
5. Repealer filed 7-15-87; operative 8-14-87 (Register 87, No. 29).