TESTIMONY BEFORE THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 161.01 OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HEALTH CODE
PROHIBITING THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF "WILD" ANIMALS

Lisa B. Weisberg
Vice President, Government Affairs
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
June 3, 1999

Good morning. On behalf of the ASPCA and its 70,000 New York supporters, I would like to thank the Department of Health for this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to section 161.01 of the New York City Health Code regarding the keeping of "wild" animals.

The ASPCA certainly appreciates the need to regulate the harboring of animals in a city the size and density of New York City, especially those that are to be kept as pets. As you probably know, the ASPCA only espouses responsible pet ownership and only for those animals we believe are appropriate to keep in a confined environment. After much consideration, however, the ASPCA must respectfully oppose the proposed amendment to section 161.01 of the NYC Health Code as it applies to ferrets. We do not believe that ferrets today should be considered "wild" animals to be prohibited entirely from being kept as a companion animal. We, of course, qualify this statement based on certain requirements with which the owner must comply; i.e., spaying or neutering the animal, annual veterinary exams, necessary inoculations, and other criteria of responsible pet ownership.

The ferret under consideration today is actually the European stoat, not a wild ferret. It is estimated that the European stoat was domesticated over 1000 years ago. They have become common household pets both in England and the United States for many years. Although at one time rabies was a serious factor in harboring "ferrets," today they can be easily vaccinated against this disease, in a similar fashion as dogs and cats.

There also has been some concern expressed over the biting incidence in ferrets and the public safety risk this presents. We do not believe the biting potential of ferrets is any greater than that posed by dogs or cats. In fact, according to the Department's own statistics for calendar year 1998, there were only three reported bites by ferrets, whereas reported cases involving dogs and cats numbered 6,568 and 1,311 times respectively. Certainly, as the ASPCA advises all pet owners, no animal, whether it is a dog, cat or ferret should be left unsupervised with an infant or young child. This precaution, however, should not preclude the ability for people to own ferrets in New York City.

Nor does the ASPCA believe that the harboring of ferrets in New York City represents any justifiable risk to any wild ferret population since ferrets are not native to New York State.

Finally, should the Department adopt the proposed regulations, there is no provision to grandfather those people who already harbor ferrets. The ASPCA questions how the Department intends to enforce this provision and the disposition to be made of these animals. We would strongly propose that, at the very least, those people who possess ferrets be allowed to keep these animals which have become their close companions.

In conclusion, we would urge the Department to reconsider their position on the issue of ferrets as wild animals, and revise the regulations to allow them to be considered a domesticated, companion animal subject to all the duties and responsibilities that come with good pet ownership. Thank you.