4felinehouse, I would just like to apologize for my post. I did not properly read your post before responding to it. When I went back and read your post over again I realized that you were not saying what I had originally thought so I went back and changed my message, but probably not enough. Also to respond to your points I stated that *IF* you believed that keeping animals in cages was immoral I could understand your point. When I said that I had thought that you were saying that ferrets should not be allowed as pets.

Also I would be a hypocrite to say that I did not believe that fish or reptiles should be pets as I have a pair of anoles (lizards). I got them because I had wanted an anole since I was about 12 years old. These lizards are not pets, they are animals that I care for. I give them a spacious enclosure and plenty of food (live crickets) but I can fully understand why people would think that these lizards should be in the wild. And I'm fine with that.

Anyway (and this is not directed at you at all anymore 4felinehouse) I do not understand why 26% of the people on this website, a pet lovers website, do not think that ferrets should be allowed as pets. The question was not "Should iguanas be allowed as pets?" or "Should tigers be allowed as pets?" nor was it something like "Would you ever own a pet ferret yourself?" it was "Do you believe that people should not be permitted to own ferrets?". I can understand that 5-10% of the people on here may be ignorant about what ferrets are but with the other 16% I just don't get it. As someone else stated on another board why is there even a question about it, ferrets are pets and they can be nothing else. I read the Sierra Clubs argument and frankly it is filled with loopholes. They are worried about ferrets hurting native wildlife but yet humans are doing far more damage to native wildlife then "feral ferrets" could ever do. Not to mention the fact that a colony of feral ferrets is practically impossible as ferrets are animals which, generally, were never taught to hunt (75% don't know that a mouse is prey), are not let out of the house, and are spayed before being adopted. I have also heard that ferrets should not be allowed as pets because they bite. This makes no sense because dogs and cats bite too but they are practically never banned from being pets.
I believe that it is hypocritical to own cats or dogs and state that it is wrong to own a ferret, unless you believe that it is wrong to keep animals in cages.

Originally when reading 4felinehouse's reply I thought that an anti-ferret person had actually spoken up to defend themselves. It was wrong of me to reply so quickly without reading the message properly. Still I would really like to see even one person on this website who believes that ferrets should be *against the law to own* to own defend their position.

Personally I do not agree with pet bans, especially if they are new, for two reasons.

1) The laws usually encompass animals that do not belong in them, for example ferrets, chinchillas, gerbils and/or hedgehogs

2) Especially if the ban is new people will already own banned animals and they will not want to give up their pets. Some of these people will own their pet in secret and will not take it to the vet when it is necessary in fear of getting caught, getting a big fine and having the animal euthanised. I own an exotic animal called a gambian pouched rat. If a general animal law, which would surely exclude him from pets legal to own, was enacted here I would keep him. I would try to move and if he needed vet care I *WOULD* drive him to a vet in a place where it was legal to own gprs. I would not however give him up, he is my pet.

Sorry for my long winded reply, this is a subject I feel very passionate about.