There’s a common experience shared by mustelid enthusiasts which often raises the questions: “Why are so many mustelid species frequently demonised and physically misshapen in media?” or “My pet ferrets are sweet; why are they accused of being vicious by people who haven’t met them?” It’s difficult to explain exactly why some species are more prone to stigmatisation than others, since their reputations differ depending on one’s culture, profession, and, dare we say, even politics. This could in part be due to mustelids often being simply portrayed as either “cute” or “vicious” animals, with little to no attention given to their overall complexity or diversity.
Even though most of us have never academically studied, cared for, or even seen a mustelid before, the elusive and predatory nature of some of the more well-known species have given rise to various negative—and often human-centric—assumptions. Despite our advances in ethology, these species continue to be broadly stigmatised because of perpetuated myths and unsubstantiated rumours from offhand or biased encounters. Even with the combined efforts of zoologists and wildlife biologists, there’s still much we don’t know about mustelids, and the methods used to study them continues to evolve. However, unlike myths and rumours, science is instead focused on objectively improving our understanding of these animals.
Viral misinformation, sensationalism, and anthropomorphising
Although not always viewed entirely negatively, many mustelids like weasels, martens, and the wolverine have been frequently mischaracterised in media due to sensationalism: imaginative minds taking advantage of society’s fear of the unknown. It is unfortunately too easy to make these elusive predators appear more vicious or threatening to human life than they naturally are, since many don’t think critically about the information they’re receiving. For example, if one films a wolverine behaving “savagely” (while stuck in a trap and agitated), takes a photo of an “angry” marten baring its fangs (despite clearly just yawning), or a mink “furiously” ripping tough meat apart with its bare teeth (despite having no other practical way of eating), an initial impression could be made that mustelids are nothing more than bad-tempered killing machines. Furthermore, there exist even examples of taxidermy (often disturbing-looking) used in staged photography to completely fabricate an unrealistic scene or narrative. We hypothesise that these methods are intended to increase viewership by simply rousing and manipulating our emotions rather than appealing to curiosity or intellect.
In the age of the internet, this manifests itself in so-called “clickbait” online articles and videos with dramatic or misleading titles and headlines such as “Terrifying and Deadly Assassins” or “Most Ferocious Killing Machines”, and are better at spreading unwarranted fear than serving to educate. Critically, we have observed many of these sensational articles to not mention that the depicted predator in question often fall prey themselves, struggle with endangerment, or play an important role in their local ecosystem. We believe that mustelids don’t require sensationalism to be captivating, yet sadly, even researchers dedicated to wildlife education will resort to these tactics at times to capture an audience. It’s true that most mustelids are feisty and have formidable hunting skills, but when these traits remain the sole focal point of the discussion, we present an oversimplified view of their complex nature.
They’re prone to mistaken identity
Mustelids are not as well-known as canids and felids, and as such are often misidentified. This is reasonable owing the small amount of exposure the average person may have; however, we have encountered many instances of seemingly authoritative content on the internet mistaking the identity of species with vastly different traits, all presumably in the name of delivering shock value or clickability. For example, some content creators have misleadingly (at times knowingly) displayed a pet ferret while discussing traits of the beech marten, meanwhile others have shown a stoat after referring to American mink on mink farms. Unfortunately, these creators are often taken at face value, since most aren’t aware of what the physical differences are between the species. Mistaken identity may seem harmless, but it can lead to faulty generalisations about animal behaviour, with some mustelids being falsely accused of attacks on wildlife or damage to property that was performed by a different relative. This is why we must never adopt the ol’ motto, “it looks close enough” as an excuse for showing the wrong animal.
Even when shock value isn’t the motive, it is not uncommon for any animal with a slinky body to be confused for a weasel or otter. Mustelids are also commonly mistaken for cats, foxes, small bears, mongooses, and are very often called rodents. Part of the problem is lack of detail when describing lesser-known animals. Given that there are thousands of extant mammal species in the world, typical descriptions like, “mustelids have short-legs, rounded ears, and bushy tails” are far too generic and broad. In order to better identify these animals, we must first acknowledge and respect that every mustelid species has distinctive characteristics.
Furthermore, given that modern society is much more connected than ever before, using generic local names in media to describe mustelid species (e.g., simply “badger”, “otter”, or “weasel”) can be confusing or misleading to an international audience.
No, they do not frequently attack humans
There are exaggerated claims on social media that mustelids like weasels, martens, and badgers will “attack” people, as if implying this frequently happens and for seemingly no reason. In actuality, wild mustelids have a natural fear of people and typically avoid human contact. They would much rather flee at the sight of us than go out of their way to attack without provocation. As cliché as it may sound, we pose a greater threat to them than they do to us.
However, even if this is the case, sometimes we forget that almost any wild animal (even a harmless-looking rabbit) would become aggressive if someone were to corner or make the animal feel threatened. This is especially true for those protecting their young. Of course, unprovoked attacks can happen if an animal is suffering from trauma or diseases such as rabies, but in most cases respecting their personal space and exercising common sense will prevent injury. Unfortunately, people are often too quick to allow an isolated incident to shape their opinion of the whole, and don’t critically consider the circumstances that may have led to the confrontation.
Anthropomorphising can be both supportive and harmful
As previously mentioned in About Our Project, over-anthropomorphising can lead to misinterpretations of non-human animal behaviour and inappropriate conduct towards wildlife. Anthropomorphism, by definition, means attributing human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. We often intentionally (sometimes subconsciously) anthropomorphise animals to make them seem more interesting, entertaining, or relatable, or to mobilise support for a cause. Indeed, much of the legendary myths and misconceptions surrounding mustelids has stemmed from this arguably innocent, yet common practise.
Many denounce anthropomorphisation of animals in children’s literature, cartoons, and other fictional media, stating children are susceptible to the dangerous impression that “cute” wild animals are approachable or make good “pets”. While we agree over-anthropomorphisation can be problematic, there’s more to life than “book smarts”. We believe it is unreasonable to deprive people of their creativity and imagination, and that providing education while coinciding with creativity is a better alternative. In fact, many people who contribute to this website became aware of and interested in mustelids because of fictional media. In contrast, outright demonisation of animals in media can be harmful and encourage cruel actions by adults. While we may support creativity, we hope to discourage such content by helping people better understand and respect wildlife.
Sometimes we forget they’re just trying to survive
Unlike most of us, wild predators do not have the benefit of purchasing a pre-killed meal when hungry, so they must be bold, proficient hunters and scavengers to survive. This is especially true for the smaller species like weasels, polecats and the American mink, who have both a high metabolic rate and short gastrointestinal tract. Unlike many larger animals, these mustelids cannot depend on long-term fat reserves, so they must eat more frequently (especially during winter), leading to a relentless dietary struggle which is often misconceived as killing for sport. Just the same, it is this struggle which helps to keep both rodent and rabbit populations in check in some ecosystems.
This cycle leads to instances of “surplus killing”, where many more prey are killed than the predator could possibly eat in a single sitting. This has been harmful to poultry farmers, leading to certain aggressive measures being taken to prevent loss. Even so, this behavioural phenomenon is by far not unique to the family Mustelidae. Similar to how we humans tend to hoard more food than we can eat during times of uncertainty, when some carnivorous animals are presented with an abundance of food, multiple prey are killed and sometimes cached for later consumption. Though the exact reason for this behaviour is inconclusive, it is presumably triggered by an evolutionary survival instinct, since food resources in the wild can be unpredictable. We do not claim that these predators are innocent little angels, but that there is more to the truth than reckless carnage. The problem with human-centric perceptions in this matter, is that they allow us to commend mustelids (and other predators) when they’re killing mice, rats, and other animals we deem “vermin”, but then switch to vilifying them when they target animals that are important to us.
Nevertheless, demonising labels such as “bloodthirsty”, “killing machine” and even “murderer” are frequently used to describe their nature. Some species are even perceived as “evil” or “sadistic” for their aggressive social behaviours in the wild; matters which we as humans, frankly, are in no position to criticise. In the case of non-human animals, one must remember that abstract moral concepts such as “right and wrong” or “good and evil” don’t exist in the way we perceive them. Their behaviour is based on instinct, as well as learning and thinking with the end goal of feeding, protecting territory, and reproducing, thus insuring the survival of the species. This isn’t to say that we humans don’t share some of these qualities, since many of our behaviours derive from the same basic instinctual drives. However, in terms of non-human animals, they are not burdened with moral conscience.