In the past, a license was required in order to breed or sell ferrets, or to keep more than 3 ferrets as pets (there were also some localized restrictions on ferret ownership). Under new regulations, owners will be able to keep their current ferrets . However, it will be illegal for ferrets to be "bought, sold or bred." Existing farms that sell ferrets overseas will be exempted and allowed to continue overseas sales (no ferrets are to be sold in New Zealand), and no new farms will be allowed. With the breeding and selling of ferrets stopped there will theoretically be a decline in the population of pet ferrets to zero over the next several years.
The reason for the ban is the unique nature of the native New Zealand wildlife population - many flightless birds are on the verge of extinction and wild populations of ferrets are contributing to the decline. The logic that bases a ban on ferret ownership on this problem is puzzling, though. According to the Department of Conservation's own discussion paper, ferrets (along with stoats and weasels) were introduced into the wild in New Zealand over a hundred years ago in a failed attempt to control rabbits. The native wildlife, especially flightless birds such as the kakapo and kiwi, couldn't cope with these agile new predators. In addition, ferret farming became popular late last century, and escapees from the farms may have contributed to the wild population. The government seems to have decided that it now cannot risk having the potential for any pet ferrets escaping and surviving so will ban pet ferrets, although the impact on the wild bird population from pet ferrets must be fairly negligible in comparison to the number of other pressures straining New Zealand's ecosystem.
There is little question that New Zealand's unique wildlife is in need of serious conservation measures, and the loss of any species is devastating. However, the ban of pet ferrets is oddly misguided, even with the potential for ferrets to escape and retain the instincts to hunt. Having read the Department of Conservation's "Public Discussion Document" it seems that the pet ferret has become victim of misconceptions and a vehicle for political posturing. Perhaps pet ferrets were a convenient scapegoat, easier to ban than other contributors to the decline of native wildlife, such as cats, dogs, and destruction of habitat. With these other threats to wildlife, I don't see how banning pet ferrets will significantly reduce the loss of native species. And, if there is such concern over escaped ferrets, why are existing farms going to be exempted and allowed to continue operations as a potential source of escaped ferrets? It seems the ferret ban is simply a way for the government to claim they are making meaningful attempts at conservation:
"It makes little sense to spend sizeable sums of taxpayers' money protecting native species if we then take no action to remove avoidable threats to these species such as the menace of escaped pet ferrets" -- "Pets Ferrets to be Banned" - New Zealand Department of Conservation Media Release
The official discussion document used to gather submissions on possible management options for pet ferrets was extremely biased against ferrets. Flaws in the document and design of the questionnaire are pointed out in the official analysis of the submissions received. Links to several of the documents mentioned in this article are included below. Also included is a link to the New Zealand Ferret Protection and Welfare Society site, which has information and discussions on the ban.
Further Reading:
- New Zealand Ferret Protection and Welfare Society
- "Pet Ferrets to be Banned" - New Zealand Department of Conservation Media Release
- "What Can We Do About Ferrets?" - Public Discussion Document from the New Zealand Department of Conservation (This document is in PDF format - you can download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader here.)
- "Synopsis and Analysis of Submissions" - An analysis of response to the above document, also in PDF format.