Pet Ferret owners and the general public have a right to feel “shafted” by Conservations Minister Lees’ actions over the declaring pet ferrets as unwanted organisms. By making such a declaration she has effectively bypassed all the select committee process of legislation and muzzled the scientists and individual opinions of those inside the conservation department. The Conservation Departments Director General must support the Minister and her decision to ask her Department to find ways to implement a ban on the keeping of pet ferrets. This means they have to do this regardless of what they individually think. It is a shame that by doing this she has effectively destroyed the chance of New Zealanders having a environmentally friendly alternative pet to the cat and the dog.

Pet ferret owners are now left without scientists’ direct support of the facts which they need to dispute Forest and Birds one sided fanatical opinions regarding pet ferrets. F&B talks of ferrets killing wekas in the Karangahake Gorge but they forget to tell the public about the fact that 80% of them were killed by dogs. They also talk of ferrets being only seen in Northland since fur farming began in 1980s. They forget to tell the public that feral ferrets had been detected in eastern Kaipara 20 years before. Just like they forget to tell that the biggest killer of kiwis is dogs. We all know that feral ferrets are a problem. However to disregard the pet ferrets status is immoral and in my view should be considered.

It is a sad day that we have to look at taking legal action just to get the process of legislation to follow the normal democratic procedure. All ferret owners were looking forward to a review of the legislation but have really been stunned by this miscarriage of justice.


On the 28th of March 2002, the Minister of Conservation, Ms Lee announced the sale, distribution and breeding of ferrets is to be banned. This declaration is to come into effect after the Biosecurity Amendment Bill 2001 is passed into law. Ms Lee states the reasons for the ban are due to the threat ferrets posed to the environment and risk to the farming industry through their potential to carry TB.

In support of her argument, Ms Lee refers to submissions made in response to a discussion document on the issue of ferrets in New Zealand. The document in question is one that was released in 1999 in relation to suggested changes in the Wildlife Act. The document was titled “What Can We Do About Ferrets” and was distributed in response to a review of the regulations surrounding the current status of ferrets. Ms Lee states that the 934 responses to this document, 77% of which suggest a ban on the keeping of ferrets as pets, has given her a clear message from the public that they support a total ban of ferrets as pets.

While these types of figures at first glance, appear to support Ms Lee and make her claims seem reasonable, well informed, and carried out with full and due process, on closer inspection this does not indeed prove to be the case. After reading the Synopsis and Analysis of Submissions prepared by Bruce Geden for the Department of Conservation, it becomes disturbingly clear that Ms Lee has manipulated and misused the results of this document and the information in it to further her own mandate. In many instances it is perplexing to define how Ms Lee could even extrapolate the course of action she has taken, from the information in Mr Geden’s analysis. To follow, is a brief outline of points in the submissions synopsis and analysis that have been disregarded by Ms Lee in her present move to ban pet ferrets. These points and excerpts also illustrate further how the information gained from these submissions has been manipulated and in many cases selectively ignored by Ms Lee in order to support her personal mandate.

*The role of this document and the included submission form was to “determine the perceptions and opinions of respondents on ferrets, and the statutory regime under which they exist, the basis for respondent’s understanding and the sorts of actions should be taken for their future management and control. It was not a ‘vote counting’ exercise. It is clear that the role of this document is only a tentative initial analysis of issues surrounding ferrets. The intention of this document was not to provide information on which to base a mandate but rather one to instigate discussion, further investigation and consultation. Ms Lee appears to have ignored this.

*In many instances Mr Geden reaffirms the need for further discussion and clarification of many issues brought up in submissions. “One of the underlying ‘problems’ over the discussion on ferrets concerned the differentiation between domesticated and feral ferrets, and their survival characteristics in the ‘wild’. This still needs to be resolved objectively.” “The number of submissions from individuals highlights the strength of feeling that people towards ferrets and the sensitivity with which the rest of the process needs to be handled” “The high submission numbers reinforces the need that the manner in which the remainder of the review process is addressed should be conducted both thoroughly and carefully.”

*In his Synopsis and Analysis, Mr Geden also comments on the fact that “Submissions were also lacking from the scientific sector…who would have added to the level of objectivity of the submission process”

*Distribution issues were also noted by Mr Geden, who pointed out that the document “was not advertised by way of Public Notices in the country’s newspapers”. Copies were purportedly sent to ferret owners, though many claim to have been totally unaware of this document. Additionally, some DoC offices either did not have copies of the Document available or were not aware of the submission process.

*Mr Geden pointed out that there was dissatisfaction with the background information provided at the commencement of the Document. There was concern expressed by respondents over the “ ‘non-factual’ statements and poorly researched information based on anecdotal claims or estimates”. Mr Geden also points out that submissions received from some groups “challenge and, in some cases refute many statements of ‘fact’ and rationale presented…they argue that many of the proposals and options outlined in the Discussion Paper are too extreme or are flawed.” It was noted that the Document did not provide any references to scientific publications about ferrets for the public to refer to in further detail.

*Mr Geden outlined the dangers of a total ban of ferrets, pointing out respondents’ views that a ban would develop a black market. Ferret owners would merely hide their ownership and become more difficult to detect and control. Many respondents such as ferret groups, recreation and game organizations and some governing bodies, were in favour of tighter controls such as licensing, de-sexing and security provisions rather than a total ban which would be not only expensive but extremely difficult to execute and police.

In conclusion, as is previously pointed out, this Discussion Document was released purely with the intention of canvassing views held in regards to ferrets in general by interested parties of the time. The Synopsis and Analysis prepared for the Department of Conservation by Mr Geden is very clear on the purpose of this document and the need for further process and discussion. It seems both foolhardy and a miscarriage that Ms Lee can selectively take information from this Document, hijack points and produce a mandate that results in a total ban of pet ferrets. It is clear that what is required at this point is further investigation, and discussion, via an informed, non-biased select committee before a total ban of pet ferrets is even considered.