From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 16-FEB-2002 16:48:47.25 To: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Robin, I did mean "Inquisition" as in "Spanish Inquisition". Your point about the Khmer Rouge and their back to basic agricultural society program, with it's associated outcome is excellent. This more recent example should give pause to those who pose great solutions to the problems caused by competition/market driven systems. Dallas >Dallas E Weaver > >When you write "inquisition", do you mean "Inquisition" as in >"Spanish Inquisition"? > >As I recall, the joke is that "nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition". > >I would go further to say that nobody expected Stalin would kill the >agricultural >entrepreneurs (Kulaks). > >Nobody seems to have fully expected the Khmer Rouge either. > >It sounds like a most important symposium. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. [mailto:deweaver@gte.net] >Sent: 14 February 2002 22:43 >To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >Cc: jc.weaver@verizon.net >Subject: Re: What Price Cheap Food? > >Michael C. Appleby > > >So "Competition should no longer be the main determinant of food >prices"!!!!! History has shown two major systems that based food >prices on something other than competition. One was the USSR and >the other was China. These two system did achieve the sustainable >goal of reducing the population. However, starvation may not be the >most desirable way to achieve a slower population growth rate. > >To achieve "Sustainable Agriculture" on a finite planet with a >finite solar input with an unbounded population is mathematically >impossible. The question then becomes how to decrease the >population growth rate. The alternatives to market competitive >approaches have a history of decreasing growth by starvation and >force, while the competitive approaches place such a strong benefit >to high quality offspring, people have very few children (how many >can you afford to get through the university) in their own self >interest. > >What are your "alternatives to competition"? What will prevent the >chosen few from using the system for their personal advantage, >advantage for their children, etc.? If the non-market decision >making system starts out with good ideals, what will prevent it from >evolving into a self-serving system? > >Always keep in mind that you can form an organization with the best >of intentions, made up of the "best and brightest" of a society and >get the "inquisition" as an outcome. > >Dallas > > > > > >>Dear Colleagues >> >>A meeting called 'What Price Cheap Food?' will be held on Monday >>8th April 2002 at the University of York, UK. >> >>It is possible to attend just this meeting, or up to three others >>over the period from Monday 8th to Wednesday 10th April. The >>meeting is a satellite to the Annual Meeting of the British Society >>of Animal Science, and the main arrangements for accommodation and >>so on are being made by BSAS. Those attending the main BSAS meeting >>are exempt from paying a registration fee for the satellite. The >>other two meetings, as Jon Day indicated in his message, are of the >>World Poultry Science Association and the UK/Eire Region of the >>ISAE. More information can be found on the UK/Eire ISAE website, >>including a booking form for all the meetings, accommodation and >>meals. >> >>http://www.isaeuk.freeserve.co.uk/ >> >The theme 'What Price Cheap Food?' is obviously topical. Pressure >for cheap food production has been a major factor in many negative >developments: problems for animal welfare, reduced food safety, >unreliable farm incomes, pressures on small-scale producers, reduced >food security, loss of competitiveness for third-world producers and >environmental damage. Cheap food - or rather, apparently cheap food >- involves other 'prices' that are not reflected in the monetary >cost. Competition should no longer be the main determinant of food >prices, and we need to find mechanisms to achieve this aim. > >Best wishes > >Mike > >(Dr) >Vice-President >Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture >The Humane Society of the United States >2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA >Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 >Direct 1 301 258 3111 >Fax 1 301 258 3081 >Email mappleby@hsus.org > > > >-- > >Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries >deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. >714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA >Fax 714-890-3778 92649 > > >-- > >Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries >deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. >714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA >Fax 714-890-3778 92649 -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 16-FEB-2002 16:51:37.73 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Jon, I do understand what you mean by competition. I am a small farmer producing aquatic products (aquaculture) and I do compete in an oversupplied market with open international competition (primarily Asian producers -- including China) where the actual price (not inflation adjusted dollars) has decreased since 1973. In the sub-sector of aquaculture that I work in, we have a world wide market shrinkage which means that my job as an owner/manager is to make sure we innovate enough to make us part of the survivors, when the market re-stabilizes. This competition is truly nasty for me and my staff, but good for world as a whole. Low prices are a problem for producers, but they are also the driving force for innovation and reallocation of assets. For example, the low shrimp prices may help stop the "clear cutting" of the ocean floors around the world by putting some of the shrimp trawlers out of business -- reallocating the assets to more productive purposes. This will only occur if we have open competitive market driven systems, otherwise we will keep subsidizing the construction of more trawlers to further clear cut the ocean bottom (I understand that we presently clear cut -- bottom trawl -- about 150% of the continental shelf per year in the US waters and it takes 2 years for the bottom to recover from the environmental damage). Dallas >Dallas E Weaver > > >I think you are getting the wrong idea about the kind of competition >that is being described; the discussion is not about competition for >food, but competition within the markets that drive food prices. > >These are not the same thing because: >1) There is ample ability to overproduce so we are not in a demand >driven agricultural economy. This is particularly true because in >the EU the system is akin to a planned economy. The intention >since WW2 has been to protect the volume of food produced in order >to avoid fluctuations in supply and price. This, combined with >competition from non-EU countries with lower welfare standards, has >created a downward spiral of prices supported by direct subsidy to >the producer. >2) Not all food produced enters the world market or even national or >local markets so 'competition for food' and 'competition driven >market prices' will never be the same thing in any situation where >food supply is not evenly distributed. >3) The people most at threat of inadequate food supply do not have >the money to participate fully in this global food market, so their >intense demand for food is not capable of driving prices up. >4) We are not yet in a state of needing to consider the limitations >of supply relative to population. >5) Supply and production problems in regions such as Africa have as >much to do with politics as they do anything else. > >I therefore don't think that the argument over food vs.population is >very relevant to the conference on welfare and environmental effects >of low food prices, other than to say that in some cases low food >prices are leading to environmental damage in countries where >subsistence needs are being crushed by the desire to get foreign >currency through selling inedible cash crops. > >I think the proposition of the meeting is that current forms of >competition within the agricultural market are unsatisfactory, not >that competition is itself a bad thing. > >So far the best means of controlling population has been the >education of women and their participation in the professional >labour market. > >Jon -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"jim.yang@usask.ca" "Jim Yang" 16-FEB-2002 22:18:28.92 To: IN%"admin_database_notify@usask.ca" "Admin_Database_Notify", IN%"Ssam_support_all@usask.ca" "SSAM Support All" CC: Subj: RE: UWHO-PROD, SSAM PROD Maintenance Please be advised that UWHO-prod maintenance is now complete. However, work on SSAM-prod has been delayed for some unexpected problems. A further notice will be sent out when the work is done. Thanks. Jim Yang (ph. 6888) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Yang [mailto:jim.yang@usask.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:31 AM > To: Admin_Database_Notify; SSAM Support All > Subject: UWHO-PROD, SSAM PROD Maintenance > > > DBA maintenance is needed for UWHO-PROD and SSAM-PROD databases. > The purpose > is to correct some erroring conditions and contention. > > We're scheduling a time window of about 2 hours, from 8:30 PM to 10:30 PM, > Saturday, Feb. 16. During the time, the databases will be unavailable to > users. > > Should this present a problem for you, please let us know ASAP. > > Contact us if you have any question/concern. > > Thanks. > > Jim Yang From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-FEB-2002 04:51:03.99 To: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Re: What Price Cheap Food?Hi Dallas, I personally believe that free market systems are good. However, there is the discrepancy between price and cost. Prices for a lot of goods are unnaturally low due to certain kinds of subsidy that actually continue to force prices below levels that are economically viable. Costs actually increase because they include things such as environmental damage and welfare impacts that are not apparent in the market price. Essentially a combination of subsidy [in the west], low labour costs [elsewhere] , and a lack of environmental accountability in production systems [everywhere] are combining to drive prices dons and 'costs' up. This has to be sorted out, and there are two ways to do this. Firstly to de-commoditise products so that consumers don't regard all 'meat' as the same. Get them to value and pay for qualities like sustainability, environmental impact ans welfare friendliness. This is happening already, but needs helping along. The other way to do this would be to impose penalties on competitor products [from countries] that have less good welfare and environmental profiles. Rather than being dumped intot he economy of the nation imposing the levy, it could be partly redirected into improving the systems of the producer countries where standards are currently low. Utopia? Jon From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 17-FEB-2002 17:57:08.08 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Jon, I think at any system of "penalties on competitors products" will rapidly evolve into a system where the politically and regulatory connected control the system and that "welfare" and "environmental profiles" will just become arbitrary legal issues used as a rationalization for "self-interest". We only have to look at our sugar quota system to determine how well such a system will work. As far as de-commoditization goes, that is what every producer tries to do and sometimes he may actually have a better product. But the usual case at the retail level is just marketing hype. Increasing levels of customer knowledge is fracturing the commodity structures. In the animal feed businesses, not all fish meal is the same, not all corn is the same, not all wheat products are the same, etc. It would be good if this knowledge level extended to the consumer level, but the consumer spending a few dollars can't spend the effort to separate hype from reality. Someone spending 10 to 100 million dollars per year on commodity X will use the knowledge available and does require performance and specification (there are tighter specifications on fish for catfood with specific measures for quality than their are for supermarkets). As an example of what is largely marketing hype is what are marketed as "organic products". There is very little scientific information to indicate that "organic" is better from a nutritional viewpoint, while there is lots of information to indicate that the yields per acre are lower. Lower yields per acre mean more area is used per consumer and the potential environmental damage is higher. For people with limited income, you can get a lot more nutrition per dollar with commodity products and end up with healthier children than with more expensive and smaller amounts of "organic" product (if you are wealthy, this is an irrelevant issue). I have no problem with internalizing some of the present external cost. For example, fresh water could be considered a commons of the "people" and sold to the highest bidder and that even governmental agencies such as Fish and Game Departments would have to bid on water for their fish & wildlife needs. This would rapidly separate the "whiners" (we need this water to maintain XXX ) from those who truly need the water. Of course, this would kill a lot of irrigation for low value crops in California (among the politically connected whiners), but would free up water for other uses and provide a massive income to the state which intern could be used by the legislature to buy water for endangered salmon. It would end up making all the decisions transparent (yes, fruit and nut growers could out bid rice growers for water -- so what -- let Asia where water is not limiting grow the rice). As a small farmer, I would also like to see all farm subsidies eliminated and that includes any non-phytosanitary or non-pathology related import restrictions (it is a good idea to keep out nasty bugs). However, I have seen even reasonable pathology restrictions become nothing but a method of keeping competition out and getting a local price premium of over a factor of 2. That is great for my producer friends, but a bit rough on the consumers. In this case, the pathogen in question is already in the wild in California, but the regulations won't change. Looking at how the decisions are actually made on these issues (who sits on the boards, committee's, commissions, etc.), I don't think I could get the regulations changed over the interest of my friends for the benefit of a bunch of nameless consumers who are quietly overcharged a few dollars each. Every non-market based regulatory or governmental system I have observed has evolved in the same self-serving direction, and I have even been part of it while it was evolving and couldn't change the direction. All we can ever do is try to design systems that make the self-interest more aligned with the common interest of the planet which is why competitive system are the preferred approach. Dallas >Hi Dallas, > >I personally believe that free market systems are good. >However, there is the discrepancy between price and cost. >Prices for a lot of goods are unnaturally low due to certain kinds >of subsidy that actually continue to force prices below levels that >are economically viable. > >Costs actually increase because they include things such as >environmental damage and welfare impacts that are not apparent in >the market price. > >Essentially a combination of subsidy [in the west], low labour costs >[elsewhere] , and a lack of environmental accountability in >production systems [everywhere] are combining to drive prices dons >and 'costs' up. > >This has to be sorted out, and there are two ways to do this. > >Firstly to de-commoditise products so that consumers don't regard >all 'meat' as the same. Get them to value and pay for qualities like >sustainability, environmental impact ans welfare friendliness. >This is happening already, but needs helping along. > >The other way to do this would be to impose penalties on competitor >products [from countries] that have less good welfare and >environmental profiles. >Rather than being dumped intot he economy of the nation imposing the >levy, it could be partly redirected into improving the systems of >the producer countries where standards are currently low. > >Utopia? > >Jon -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D. B. Cameron" 17-FEB-2002 18:50:36.46 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Marginally interesting stuff, but what has it got to do with applied ethology? I don't mind an occasional polemical comment, but a continuing diatribe is not appropriate here!!! DBC On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:55:42 +0000 Jon Bowen writes: Hi Dallas, I personally believe that free market systems are good. However, there is the discrepancy between price and cost. Prices for a lot of goods are unnaturally low due to certain kinds of subsidy that actually continue to force prices below levels that are economically viable. Costs actually increase because they include things such as environmental damage and welfare impacts that are not apparent in the market price. Essentially a combination of subsidy [in the west], low labour costs [elsewhere] , and a lack of environmental accountability in production systems [everywhere] are combining to drive prices dons and 'costs' up. This has to be sorted out, and there are two ways to do this. Firstly to de-commoditise products so that consumers don't regard all 'meat' as the same. Get them to value and pay for qualities like sustainability, environmental impact ans welfare friendliness. This is happening already, but needs helping along. The other way to do this would be to impose penalties on competitor products [from countries] that have less good welfare and environmental profiles. Rather than being dumped intot he economy of the nation imposing the levy, it could be partly redirected into improving the systems of the producer countries where standards are currently low. Utopia? Jon ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic ! ! Nevada City, California .. There is no sadder sight in life than a beautiful theory mugged by a gang of facts. From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 18-FEB-2002 03:30:26.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Re: What Price Cheap Food?Thanks for that DBC. Don't worry, I won't be posting to AEL any more, and will instead just wait for the notices of jobs and conferences. It just isn't worth the grief. Cheers, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: D. B. Cameron To: rondog@btinternet.com ; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: Re: What Price Cheap Food? Marginally interesting stuff, but what has it got to do with applied ethology? I don't mind an occasional polemical comment, but a continuing diatribe is not appropriate here!!! DBC On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:55:42 +0000 Jon Bowen writes: Hi Dallas, I personally believe that free market systems are good. However, there is the discrepancy between price and cost. Prices for a lot of goods are unnaturally low due to certain kinds of subsidy that actually continue to force prices below levels that are economically viable. Costs actually increase because they include things such as environmental damage and welfare impacts that are not apparent in the market price. Essentially a combination of subsidy [in the west], low labour costs [elsewhere] , and a lack of environmental accountability in production systems [everywhere] are combining to drive prices dons and 'costs' up. This has to be sorted out, and there are two ways to do this. Firstly to de-commoditise products so that consumers don't regard all 'meat' as the same. Get them to value and pay for qualities like sustainability, environmental impact ans welfare friendliness. This is happening already, but needs helping along. The other way to do this would be to impose penalties on competitor products [from countries] that have less good welfare and environmental profiles. Rather than being dumped intot he economy of the nation imposing the levy, it could be partly redirected into improving the systems of the producer countries where standards are currently low. Utopia? Jon ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic ! ! Nevada City, California .. There is no sadder sight in life than a beautiful theory mugged by a gang of facts. From: IN%"JJCooper@dmu.ac.uk" "Jonathan Cooper" 18-FEB-2002 04:12:51.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ISAE (E-mail)" CC: Subj: FW: Call for Russell and Burch Award nominations -----Original Message----- From: Lesley King [mailto:lking@hsus.org] Sent: 15 February 2002 16:51 To: Jonathan Cooper Subject: Call for Russell and Burch Award nominations Dear Jonathon, Could you circulate this on the ethology list? It may be of interest to scientists working in the field. The Humane Society of the United States Solicits Nominations for the 2002 Russell and Burch Award The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) presents the Russell and Burch Award to scientists who have made outstanding contributions toward the advancement of alternative methods in the areas of biomedical research, testing, or higher education. Alternative methods are those that can replace or reduce the use of animals in specific procedures, or refine procedures so that animals experience less pain or suffering. The award, which carries a $5,000 prize, is named in honor of William M. Russell and Rex L. Burch, the scientists who formulated the Three Rs approach of replacement, reduction, and refinement. Prior to 1999, The HSUS presented the award on an annual basis. It is now bestowed every three years at the triennial World Congresses on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. The next World Congress will be held August 2002 in New Orleans, Louisiana. For more information, go to: www.worldcongress.net The Russell and Burch Award is a means of recognizing the important role that scientists themselves can and do play in advancing the cause of animal protection in laboratories. Candidates for the award are judged on the scientific merit of their contribution to the alternatives field and on their professional commitment to this field. Applicants should have a history of laboratory work that is above reproach on humane grounds. Send nominations by May 15, 2002 to: Russell & Burch Award, Animal Research Issues Section, The HSUS, 2100 L street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA (tel.: 301-258-3041, fax: 301-258-7760, e-mail: ari@hsus.org). No special forms are necessary. Persons nominating themselves should submit a cover letter explaining their suitability for the award (see preceding paragraph), a curriculum vita, and representative published articles. Persons nominating others should submit a letter explaining the nominee's suitability for the award and arrange to have supporting documents forwarded. Winners are selected with the aid of an advisory panel. Past winners of the Russell and Burch Award are Alan Goldberg, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University (1991); Charles Branch, Ph.D., Auburn University (1992); Coenraad Hendriksen, Ph.D., D.V.M., Dutch National Institute of Health and Environmental Protection (1993); Michael Balls, D.Phil., European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (1994); Robert Van Buskirk, Ph.D., State University of New York at Binghamton (1995); Andrew Rowan, D. Phil., Tufts University (1996); Horst Spielmann, Prof. Dr. med, the German National Center for the Documentation and Evaluation of Alternatives to Animal Testing (1997); William Stokes, D.V.M., National Institute of Environmental Health Science and Neil Wilcox, D.V.M., M.P.H., U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1998); and Katherine Stitzel, DVM, Procter & Gamble (1999). Lesley King Program Officer (Education) Animal Research Issues Humane Society of the United States 2100 L St., NW, Washington, DC, 20037. Tel: 301-258-3046 Fax: 301-258-7760 lking@hsus.org From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" "W. Ray Stricklin" 18-FEB-2002 04:50:20.25 To: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D. B. Cameron", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? The comments by Jon Bowen were very much appropriate in a discussion about animal welfare. The costs of food production (monetary and otherwise) has everything to do with how animals are ultimately treated. What behavior animals are able to perform and what behavior is thwarted is too frequently dictated by the value - especially monetary - of the animal.. Persons who are knowledgeable about current interests and activities in applied ethology are very aware that the topic of "What Cost Cheap Food?" is of critical importance. Recent discussion of this topic by some members of this group is a welcome relief and a step in the right direction. The comments by D.B. Cameron below are - in my opinion - way out of line and do not at all reflect the current position of applied ethology. The comments by Jon Bowen do very much reflect current ideas in applied ethology - provided one accepts that applied ethology is inclusive of animal welfare issues. W.Ray Stricklin "D. B. Cameron" wrote: > Marginally interesting stuff, but what has it got to do with applied > ethology? I don't mind an occasional polemical comment, but a > continuing diatribe is not appropriate here!!! > DBC On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:55:42 +0000 Jon Bowen > writes: > > Hi Dallas, I personally believe that free market systems are > good.However, there is the discrepancy between price and > cost.Prices for a lot of goods are unnaturally low due to > certain kinds of subsidy that actually continue to force > prices below levels that are economically viable. Costs > actually increase because they include things such as > environmental damage and welfare impacts that are not > apparent in the market price. Essentially a combination of > subsidy [in the west], low labour costs [elsewhere] , and a > lack of environmental accountability in production systems > [everywhere] are combining to drive prices dons and 'costs' > up. This has to be sorted out, and there are two ways to do > this. Firstly to de-commoditise products so that consumers > don't regard all 'meat' as the same. Get them to value and > pay for qualities like sustainability, environmental impact > ans welfare friendliness.This is happening already, but > needs helping along. The other way to do this would be to > impose penalties on competitor products [from countries] > that have less good welfare and environmental > profiles.Rather than being dumped intot he economy of the > nation imposing the levy, it could be partly redirected into > improving the systems of the producer countries where > standards are currently low. Utopia? Jon > > > ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM > < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic > ! ! Nevada City, California > .. > There is no sadder sight in life than a beautiful theory mugged by a > gang of facts. From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 18-FEB-2002 08:35:40.16 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: What Price Cheap Food? Dear Jon, I want to register my total agreement with W. Ray Stricklin's support and add that it would be sad to lose your considered and well-reasoned contributions to the list. For this reason I always take the trouble to read them so I hope you reconsider. Best wishes David -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: 18 February 2002 09:34 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: What Price Cheap Food? Thanks for that DBC. Don't worry, I won't be posting to AEL any more, and will instead just wait for the notices of jobs and conferences. It just isn't worth the grief. Cheers, Jon -----Original Message----- From: W. Ray Stricklin [mailto:ws31@umail.umd.edu] Sent: 18 February 2002 10:50 To: D. B. Cameron; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: What Price Cheap Food? The comments by Jon Bowen were very much appropriate in a discussion about animal welfare. The costs of food production (monetary and otherwise) has everything to do with how animals are ultimately treated. What behavior animals are able to perform and what behavior is thwarted is too frequently dictated by the value - especially monetary - of the animal.. Persons who are knowledgeable about current interests and activities in applied ethology are very aware that the topic of "What Cost Cheap Food?" is of critical importance. Recent discussion of this topic by some members of this group is a welcome relief and a step in the right direction. The comments by D.B. Cameron below are - in my opinion - way out of line and do not at all reflect the current position of applied ethology. The comments by Jon Bowen do very much reflect current ideas in applied ethology - provided one accepts that applied ethology is inclusive of animal welfare issues. W.Ray Stricklin "D. B. Cameron" wrote: > Marginally interesting stuff, but what has it got to do with applied > ethology? I don't mind an occasional polemical comment, but a > continuing diatribe is not appropriate here!!! > DBC On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:55:42 +0000 Jon Bowen > writes: > > Hi Dallas, I personally believe that free market systems are > good.However, there is the discrepancy between price and > cost.Prices for a lot of goods are unnaturally low due to > certain kinds of subsidy that actually continue to force > prices below levels that are economically viable. Costs > actually increase because they include things such as > environmental damage and welfare impacts that are not > apparent in the market price. Essentially a combination of > subsidy [in the west], low labour costs [elsewhere] , and a > lack of environmental accountability in production systems > [everywhere] are combining to drive prices dons and 'costs' > up. This has to be sorted out, and there are two ways to do > this. Firstly to de-commoditise products so that consumers > don't regard all 'meat' as the same. Get them to value and > pay for qualities like sustainability, environmental impact > ans welfare friendliness.This is happening already, but > needs helping along. The other way to do this would be to > impose penalties on competitor products [from countries] > that have less good welfare and environmental > profiles.Rather than being dumped intot he economy of the > nation imposing the levy, it could be partly redirected into > improving the systems of the producer countries where > standards are currently low. Utopia? Jon > > > ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM > < \ / > Animal Behavior Clinic > ! ! Nevada City, California > .. > There is no sadder sight in life than a beautiful theory mugged by a > gang of facts. From: IN%"C.Dwyer@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Cathy Dwyer" 19-FEB-2002 05:37:39.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: (Fwd) postdoctoral position available The following post-doctoral position in Farm animal behaviour and welfare at SAC is now being advertised. If interested please reply to the email address given at the end of the advertisement. ------- Forwarded message follows ------- POST-DOCTORAL POSITION: FARM ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND WELFARE The qualitative assessment of behaviour is an integrative (‘holistic’) methodology addressing the animal’s overall welfare state. A position is available for a 3 year period to take part in a research programme aimed at developing the scientific potential of this approach. This post will primarily involve experimental work at SAC, but might also include on-farm research. The successful candidate will have a PhD in some aspect of behaviour research with pigs or other farm animals, and have an interest in the philosophical aspects of the animal welfare debate. The salary scale is on Band 6: £18,768 - £31,620 per annum. Application forms available from Personnel, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG. Tel: (0131)535 4343 (answering machine), Fax: (0131) 535 4322, Personnel@ed.sac.ac.uk or our website http://www.sac.ac.uk/jobvacancies. Closing date 12 March 2002. Please quote reference ABD/63/01. ------- End of forwarded message ------- From: IN%"emma@orrelwood.org.uk" "Emma Creighton & Steve Hopkins" 19-FEB-2002 09:59:57.56 To: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: removing from whiskers in horses Hello, Regarding the discussion on group housing of mature stallions. I have seen mature satllions working together and even with oestrus mares in Spain. But they are housed separately (ajoining boxes - visual contact) due to the risk injury from fighting. Can Janice Willard (or anyone) offer any details of the methods use to introduce new stallions into her reported batchelor herd, or indeed to introduce any two stallions together to reduce injury. Thanks, Emma Creighton, PhD Manchester, UK > > I was very interested in your comments about castration. I was educated to > believe that it was really necessary to castrate horses in order to have > animals that can be worked and easily housed. However, recently I have met > a man who runs a rehabilitation farm. He receives horses who have been > neglected or abused (often removed by state agencies) and rehabilitates > them. He also has a small herd of Arabs which he drives and rides > competition endurance. He saves his mares for breeding and does all his > performance work with stallions. My understanding was that stallions > couldn't be together or they would fight, but he brings his to our driving > events all in the same trailer and harnesses them together to pull sleighs. > When I saw that he tied all 3 stallions side by side while he went off to > eat lunch, with no concerns for their behavior, I realized that my > understanding was wrong and I arranged to go and visit his farm. > > At his farm, about a dozen stallions are housed together in the same pen. > Some of them are his Arabs but others are horses who have been brought to > him because of poor living conditions. So some are raised this way and > some are introduced to it. The mare and foal herd is kept close by (about > 20 feet away). And while there are some bite scars on stallions in the > herd, on no occasion that I have observed them, have I seen fighting. What > I have seen is relaxed horses out grazing together. He keeps them together > during the breeding season as well. When he wants to breed a stallion, he > gets it out from the stallion herd, takes it up to the barn and breeds a > mare and returns it to the stallion herd. One afternoon, I watched him > breed 3 different stallions (one at a time) and I watched the stallion herd > as the stallion who had just bred a mare was returned to the herd. There > was some snorting and prancing, but that was the extent of it. It is my > belief that he has created a bachelor herd, which is what stallions do in > the wild. And while I have no numerical evidence (although I would like to > get some), it is my impression that these stallions are more relaxed and > emotionally stable than a majority of stallions I have seen individually > housed at breeding farms. In fact, he takes some of these stallions to > endurance competitions with children as young as 10 years old riding them. > > > Andreas, a year ago, I would have read your statements above about looking > for alternatives to castration and just shook my head in disbelief. Now I > have something else to think about. > > (P.S., this guy relies on private donations to maintain his rehabilitation > farm. If anyone is interested in donating, you are welcome to contact me > privately). > > Janice Willard, DVM, MS > Common Ground > Moscow, ID USA > From: IN%"jraustin@telusplanet.net" "Jackie Wepruk & Rick Austin" 19-FEB-2002 13:39:45.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Latest Issue of Farm Animal Welfare News Now Available For anyone who is interested... Farm Animal Welfare News (FAWN) is a communication link to deliver current information on farm animal welfare initiatives, relevant issues and research. The content has been developed collaboratively with representatives of animal welfare organizations, agricultural groups, and animal welfare researchers. FAWN is published by Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC), a livestock industry organization. The latest issue is now available for free download and distribution from AFAC's website: www.afac.ab.ca. Issue 1 is also available here. Please feel free to reprint and distribute FAWN in whole or as individual articles (crediting FAWN as the source). We welcome comments or questions. Please direct your inquiries to Jackie Wepruk (FAWN Researcher/Writer) at fawnews@telusplanet.net. From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 19-FEB-2002 14:38:10.96 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Gentle reminder Dear All, I snipped a couple of useful points out of the welcome message you received when you subscribed to the appliled ethology network. Below are a few gems we should all try to remember. =============== We welcome you to the Applied-ethology network and ask you to participate, contribute and enjoy! This e-mail network was set up for the exchange of information, discussions, announcements, news items, etc. that are of interest to people working and studying in the field of applied animal ethology... When using this network we ask that you please refrain from the use of profanity and avoid comments which could be interpreted as a personal attack on someone with an opposing viewpoint. Disagreements should be stated in a manner fitting an open forum or public debate. REMOVAL FROM NETWORK: If at anytime you wish to be removed from the network, send message to: applied-ethology-request@sask.usask.ca Within the text of your message (NOT at the subject header) you must type the command: UNSUBSCRIBE applied-ethology your e-mail address If you have any trouble send an e-mail message to me at: joseph.stookey@usask.ca -- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Dr. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 Canada From: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" 19-FEB-2002 20:48:43.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: removing from whiskers in horses ----- Original Message ----- From: "WHFEEP" To: "Emma Creighton & Steve Hopkins" Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:49 PM Subject: Re: removing from whiskers in horses > > > Emma Creighton wrote: > > > > Regarding the discussion on group housing of mature stallions. I > > have seen mature satllions working together and even with oestrus mares in > > Spain. But they are housed separately (ajoining boxes - visual contact) > due > > to the risk injury from fighting. Can Janice Willard (or anyone) offer any > > details of the methods use to introduce new stallions into her reported > > batchelor herd, or indeed to introduce any two stallions together to > reduce > > injury. > > > > First things first - I define Stallion as an entire male of 5 years or over, > prior to this they are colts.. > > The bachelor group run here are generally between at the 2 and 5 years of > age. Colts are added to the group from either of the two harem groups, and > may or may not have run with other bachelor group members previously. New > additions have all been accepted into the group very rapidly, and without > any aggression in any instance. > Recently a stray young colt of approx 18 months broke through the farm > perimeter fence in order to join the bachelor group - the results were > typical, and the followed the exact same pattern of previous planned > additions. > The newcomer was greeted with great interest and spent some time initially > as the focus of a tight group while all other members made physical contact > and explored the newcomers scent. The colt was then 'shepherded' around the > enclosure between two four year olds - one on either side, each only feet > away - as if being welcomed into the group and shown around. (For anyone > concerned that this sounds somewhat anthropomorphic I would say it is the > best description of the behavior that I can give.) Within a very short time > the newcomer had been fully accepted into the group so that there were no > visual indicators to suggest his recent arrival - in fact the oldest group > member, a 5 year old stallion, has spent some time with the youngster during > which there has been a great improvement in manners - there is no sign that > any aggression has been directed at the colt even though he appeared to be > quite ignorant of good manners and 'cheeky'at the start. (interestingly - as > a side issue - I have now traced the owners who told me the colt was also > very cheeky around people and often tried to bite them - he has now stopped > this completely and has become very easy to handle) > A rationale for this behavior is that a bachelor group acting in concert to > drive fillies off from a harem group would be virtually impossible for the > harem stallion to prevent - indeed it has been reported that in feral > populations the stallion will not even try. As the most dominant member of > the bachelor group acquires females he leaves - and the next in line steps > up. Co-operation is in the interest of all. > There is also a view taken that only around 1 in every 5 stallions in a wild > population would be sufficiently dominant to capture and hold a group of > mares - this being the case it is entirely within the equine male social > paradigm for stallions to coexist peacefully. Feral harem groups have been > observed in which there are dominant and sub-dominant stallions - each > stallion co-operating for the benefit of the group. > > I believe this idea of stallions fighting is largely myth - no doubt a > stallion will defend a bonded mare against the incursion of another, and > that there is a possibility that such a fight might become quite serious - > although the fights I have personally witnessed are much more show and > posture than actual blows. There has to be a very good reason before > stallions will actually fight - and again the rationale is quite > reasonable - any fight that becomes physical may easily result in lameness, > which for a wild stallion would undoubtedly spell loss of mares and greatly > increased threat of predation. Richard Dawkins 'reactor' is by far the best > strategy for a stallion. > > The stallions I have kept and worked together have had no special > introduction, nor do those in the bachelor group here now. It must be > possible on occasion that two equally dominant stallions might come into > contact, and I would assume that there will be a considerable amount of > noise and posturing until one achieves eminence - and there must be some > chance of injury if this kind of scenario went on for any length of time - > but this is not limited to stallions and also occurs with geldings, who in > my experience are more likely to be aggressive toward each other than either > colts or stallions, even when an order of dominance has been established - > perhaps as a result of any natural balance being disturbed and there being > less benefit to be derived from co-operation. For geldings who already have > sufficient company each further addition is merely additional competition > for resources. > Introduction of mares in oestrus into an environment in which stallions > might challenge for the right to serve her must surely be poor management, > and in terms of good welfare considerations should, I believe, be avoided, > but even then it is my experience that where colts or stallions are able to > form a bachelor group a dominant individual will emerge whose position is > accepted by the group and who will not be challenged. > Where horses are kept in confinement it becomes much more difficult to > predict behavior, as it is totally unnatural and is frequently the cause of > behavioral aberration and psychological illness. > > I first came into horse keeping through the traditional stablehand etc > route - my greatest surprise since setting the project up here has been how > reasonable, predictable and tractable entires are given appropriate > management. > > Regards to all > > Andy Beck > White Horse Farm Equine Ethology Project > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > > From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 20-FEB-2002 05:30:30.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fw: removing from whiskers in horses At 15:39 20/02/02 +1300, Andy Beck wrote: > I believe this idea of stallions fighting is largely myth - no doubt a > stallion will defend a bonded mare against the incursion of another, and > that there is a possibility that such a fight might become quite serious - > although the fights I have personally witnessed are much more show and > posture than actual blows. There has to be a very good reason before > stallions will actually fight - and again the rationale is quite > reasonable - any fight that becomes physical may easily result in lameness, > which for a wild stallion would undoubtedly spell loss of mares and greatly > increased threat of predation. Richard Dawkins 'reactor' is by far the best >> strategy for a stallion. I have some limited experience of stallions living together from observations of ponies at Glasgow Vet School. For two or three years, a Shetland and a Dartmoor stallion ran with a herd of Shetland mares in a field of 5 or 6 acres. I never saw any fighting and neither stallion showed obvious bruises. As the Shetland tended to keep to himself or grazed at the periphery of the herd, I assumed that the Dartmoor was the dominant male - though rarely saw any interaction between the two and aggression levels were low. As far as we could tell, the Dartmoor sired several foals; the Shetland one. I wasn't there when they were put in the field, so it is possible there was some kerfuffle initially. However, had there been any serious fighting, I'm pretty sure they would have been separated again. Francis http://www.gla.ac.uk/External/EBF From: IN%"ezcameron@zoology.up.ac.za" 20-FEB-2002 06:46:27.96 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Introduction As requested, I'll give a quick introduction to myself and my interests. I am a behavioral ecologist currently working on giraffe behaviour in South Africa. I did my PhD on the behavioral ecology of feral horses in New Zealand, particularly maternal behaviour. Although my interests are mostly in the behavioral ecology of wild mammal populations, I have an interest in animal welfare issues, captive animal management, and companion animal behaviour. Best wishes, Elissa *********************************** Dr Elissa Z. Cameron, Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa ********************************** From: IN%"aap28@cam.ac.uk" "Anabela Pinto" 20-FEB-2002 07:07:55.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE chat Dear colleagues You can now access isae several webpages through http://www.isae.info I would like to ask all of you managing ISAE regional webpages, to send me the URLs so we can link them all together You can also use a chat facility at the website, http://www.animal-info.net Click on button chat and login If anybody is there now willing to try it for some minutes I am now on line testing it. I have logged as animalinfo I hope this is a useful service for all of you regards Ana -- Dr Anabela A Pinto Animal Welfare and Human Animal Relationships Group Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine Cambridge University Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ES phone: +44- 1223 339 865 fax:+44-1223 330 886 mobile: 07930-890 272 http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/AWHAIG/index.html http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/ http://www.animal-info.net From: IN%"m.dierendonck@planet.nl" 20-FEB-2002 08:15:06.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Looking for (email) address Karen Hayes Dear all, A colleague of mine asked me for the (e-mail) address of Karen E.N. Hayes DVM MSc. She is probably located in Hawaii. Does anyone know? Thanks Machteld ====================================== Machteld van Dierendonck m.dierendonck@planet.nl From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 20-FEB-2002 13:59:02.98 To: IN%"emma@orrelwood.org.uk" "Emma Creighton & Steve Hopkins" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: removing from whiskers in horses At 03:53 PM 2/19/02 +0000, you wrote: >Hello, > >Regarding the discussion on group housing of mature stallions. I >have seen mature satllions working together and even with oestrus mares in >Spain. But they are housed separately (ajoining boxes - visual contact) due >to the risk injury from fighting. Can Janice Willard (or anyone) offer any >details of the methods use to introduce new stallions into her reported >batchelor herd, or indeed to introduce any two stallions together to reduce >injury. > >Thanks, >Emma Creighton, PhD >Manchester, UK > Hi Emma, First I should say that this is not my group of stallions here. I have observed and reported on what I have observed, but I am not the manager of this rehabilitation farm. Brent Glover, the manager of the farm, is the person with the actual experience, so I referred your question to him. He has had as many as 28 stallions living together at his farm and the number varies as rehabilitated horses go and needy horses arrive at the farm. Here is what Brent reported to me in a phone conversation. I took notes during the conversation and hopefully am reporting his information correctly. First, he said that every stallion is individual and so his methods are always modified according to the behavior of the animals. In other words, no one technique is going to work on all animals. Don't try this with an unmanageable stallion. There are those stallions that come out of their stalls on their hind legs looking for something to breed. With these, they need to first be trained to be manageable for him to handle. Brent stressed good leadership skills when handling the stallions. The first thing he generally does is to skip a feeding so that the horses are hungry. Then he has a halter on the horse to be introduced and lets it meet the other stallion over the fence. He brings the stallion to be introduced into the pen (this is a fairly large corral, not a small training pen) and walks it around the perimeter, so that it knows where the fences and any potential hazards are. There shouldn't be any other horses in the area or anything to distract the horses. He ties the stallion to a post in the pen. He then goes and gets the other stallion (in his case, he already has stallions he knows and trusts to be manageable and will be introducing to several stallions, not just one). He said that if the second stallion is new to this environment, he would walk that stallion around the perimeter as well. The second stallion is brought to meet the first stallion and they are allowed to sniff and meet each other. At this point, what he does is largely dependant on what the horses are now doing. He may turn one stallion loose (but keeping the halter and short lead rope on so that he can grab it if necessary) while keeping the other still tied to the post. On other times, he has untied the one stallion and lead the two of them side by side. Eventually, he leads them over to the food and lets both loose (still haltered). They are generally interested in the feed and will start eating with the occasional squeal at each other. The process of introducing takes about an hour and he stays and watches closely after he has left the pen. He seems quite experienced with this process and modifies according to needs. Andy Beck mentioned the issue of oestrus mares, and I believe that Brent never brings mares to the stallion herd. The mare herd is close by and in visual and olfactory range. But when he breeds stallions, they are always taken from the stallion herd and bred up at the barn. This also resembles a wild bachelor herd, as they might sneak into the mare herd and breed a mare if they get lucky, but don't stay and defend the herd. I should re-iterate that I am repeating what has been reported to me. I have not directly observed this process. Needless to say, the next time that a stallion needs to be introduced at Brent's farm, I hope to be there to observe and could then give a first hand account of the behaviors observed. My interpretation might be different from Brent's. If you wish to contact Brent personally and get it "straight from the horse's mouth," you are welcome to contact me privately and I can give contact information. Brent has given me permission to do observational research at his farm. It makes a great natural laboratory. I would be glad to have assistance with my research methods and design, as I have no one in the immediate area to work with. If anyone has an interest in mentoring me for this, please contact me privately. Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS Common Ground Moscow, ID USA From: IN%"johnperkins@freeuk.com" "John Perkins" 21-FEB-2002 03:36:54.20 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Hi All, As requested I shall introduce myself and give a brief outline of my interests. I have just recently completed and passed with distinction the MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare run by Edinburgh University. As part of this I completed research on the effect of light colour on the fear behaviours of broiler chickens and am currently in collaboration with my supervisor to publish the results. I am interested in all aspects of animal behaviour and welfare issues affecting animals. I am especially interested in the behaviour of captive animals and conservation of endangered species. I am currently seeking work with a hope of finding a position which improves the welfare of animals. Best wishes Gill Perkins From: IN%"johnwade@ethological.com" "Ethological Communication" 22-FEB-2002 19:29:34.17 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Mailing List" CC: Subj: On-line Journal Search Can anyone direct me to an online resource which will track down journals with papers regarding critical socialization period(s) in dogs? Regards, John Wade From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 23-FEB-2002 09:08:15.59 To: IN%"johnwade@ethological.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: On-line Journal Search John: Any of the on-line library serches should get you the most relevent articles (other than Pub Med). Most of the research is quite old (1950s and 60s) mostly by Scott from the Bar Harbor studies. Today, the periods are considered "sensitive" rather than "critical". A good summary of the literature can be found in The Domestic Dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people, edited by James Serpell (1995), Chapter 6. I hope this helps, Gerry _________________________________________________________________ Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc Carolina Veterinary Specialists Staff Behaviorist Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina 336-632-0605 (Voice) 336-632-0703 (Fax) gerflannigan@aol.com From: IN%"johnwade@ethological.com" "Ethological Communication" 23-FEB-2002 16:49:12.85 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Mailing List" CC: Subj: Sensitive vs. Critical After working in the field for several years I would be even more inclined then ever to use the word critical. I am interested in learning more about the distinction that is sought in the change. Hopefully, this might be a list topic of sufficient interest to others warranting a discussion. Regards, John "An Open Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste" Wade From: IN%"bevcee@earthlink.net" "Bev Caldwell" 23-FEB-2002 17:29:33.34 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Sensitive vs. Critical Dear John "An Open Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste" Wade, That's one great middle name you have there ..... From The Domestic Cat" by Turner & Bateson, 2000, p. 12: "Socilisation and other long-term influences on behaviour are often restricted to early stages in the life-cycle, usually referred to as 'sensitive periods'. Within a limited age range during which particlar events are especially likely to have long-term effects on the individual's development [sic]. An older term, 'critical period', was abandoned because it implied a sharply defined phase of susceptibility preceded and followed by a complete lack of susceptibility. The supposition was that if the relevant experiences were provided before or after the period, no long-term effects would be detectable. Experimental studies of imprinting in birds showed that the period was not so sharply defined and the term 'sensitive period' or 'sensitive phase' is therefore preferred by most behavioural biologists." Best regards, Bev From: IN%"fibi@fibertel.com.ar" "Rosario Medrano" 24-FEB-2002 18:34:22.48 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Hello everyone, First, I would like to introduce myself. My name = is Rosario and I am fron Argentina. Altough I am a Graphic Design = student I have had a particular interest in animals all my life. That is = why i keep myself very well informed about them, specially the african = wild life. I hope to be in the university of Pretoria in a year. I have found this e-mails to be a great learning experience. So I do = hope nobody minds having a student amongt you. I know i cannot = contribute much for, of course, i don=B4t have so much knowledge, but = still I will do my best if anybody has a question; I might surprise = you... Best wishes, Rosario Medrano From: IN%"Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at" "Knut Niebuhr" 25-FEB-2002 05:45:00.44 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Laying hens and cages/EU Dear all, My question regards animal welfare legislation in the EU: I would like to ask list-members from other European countries about the implementation process regarding the EU-directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, especially regarding cage systems. This directive had to be transferred into national legislation by 1st of January 2002. To my knowledge Germany has already done this (though not yet officially published) and banned all cage systems from 2012 onwards (conventional battery cages banned by 2007, enriched cages by 2012). From the Netherlands I have found a decision published in the "Staadsblad" (official journal?), which, if I understand it correctly, bans conventional cages from 2012 onwards (As foreseen by the directive). But the decision has no provisions for enriched cages, therefore I would like to know, whether these are actually banned and whether this decision is already legally binding/has alrady come into force or whether negotiations are still under way. What about other EU member states? I heard, that also Belgium is planning to ban enriched cages, is this true? Could anybody give me informations about other member states. Thanks a lot in advance Yours Knut Dr. Knut Niebuhr Institute for animal husbandry and aninmal welfare University for Veterinary Medicine Vienna Veterinaerplatz 1 A-1210 Wien Austria Tel. +43/1/25077-4906 Fax +43/1/25077-4990 From: IN%"pnsrodrigues@mail.telepac.pt" "Anna Olsson" 25-FEB-2002 07:47:41.85 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: severity of animal experiments Dear all, I am preparing a text on the ethics of animal experimentation and would like to include a section discussing the impact on animals of experiments . I have got statistics on distribution of experiments over categories of severity from Switzerland and the US. I have also seen a reference to similar statistics from The Netherlands but have not been able to get hold of the statistics or the scaling used to categorize experiments. If anybody could help me with this information from NL I would be grateful. Also, if there are other countries using the approach of categorizing experiments according to the expected amount if animals distress, I would appreciate more information. Yours sincerely, Anna Olsson Anna Olsson MSc (animal science) PhD (ethology) Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology (IBMC) Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 25-FEB-2002 13:16:40.22 To: IN%"Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at" "Knut Niebuhr", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Dear All, I don't understand why some areas of the world are banning cages for chickens. If the objecting is health and welfare of the animals, the first objective is health. Using gravity to separate an animal from its waste products does as much for bio-security and animal health as separating human sewerage from our drinking water supplies did for human health (the sanitary engineers have saved more lives that all the MD's in the world put together). As someone who is in aquaculture, where we can't use gravity for separating waste products, you get a greater appreciation for the value of being able to easily separate out the waste products and prevent potential pathogen loops between waste and food intake (visualize raising pigs in 0-g space). If you design systems that are inherently biologically unstable against pathogen challenge, you are asking for major animal health problems. To mandate such designs by law is even more stupid. As an example of how not to design biological systems, China installed a massive area of shrimp ponds, where the waste discharges from one farm could contaminate the intake of another farm. For many years this system increases in production to about 200,000 mt (about a billion dollars worth of shrimp) and then, being unstable to pathogen challenge, the whole system went down (90+% losses). After a decade, they are getting back into production, primarily with another imported species. Designing biological system that depend upon strict bio-security from the outside world and antibiotics and other chemical treatments is not a very wise use of resources and is unstable. Is the move to ban cages just silliness and mans propensity not to think things through or is their another agenda? Dallas >Dear all, >My question regards animal welfare legislation in the EU: >I would like to ask list-members from other European countries about the >implementation process regarding the EU-directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 >laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, especially >regarding cage systems. This directive had to be transferred into national >legislation by 1st of January 2002. To my knowledge Germany has already done >this (though not yet officially published) and banned all cage systems from >2012 onwards (conventional battery cages banned by 2007, enriched cages by >2012). From the Netherlands I have found a decision published in the >"Staadsblad" (official journal?), which, if I understand it correctly, bans >conventional cages from 2012 onwards (As foreseen by the directive). But the >decision has no provisions for enriched cages, therefore I would like to >know, whether these are actually banned and whether this decision is already >legally binding/has alrady come into force or whether negotiations are still >under way. What about other EU member states? I heard, that also Belgium is >planning to ban enriched cages, is this true? Could anybody give me >informations about other member states. >Thanks a lot in advance >Yours >Knut >Dr. Knut Niebuhr >Institute for animal husbandry and aninmal welfare >University for Veterinary Medicine Vienna >Veterinaerplatz 1 >A-1210 Wien >Austria >Tel. +43/1/25077-4906 >Fax +43/1/25077-4990 -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 25-FEB-2002 14:00:44.79 To: IN%"Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at" "Knut Niebuhr", IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU ...which is why battery farms were introduced in the first place. However the whole premise of your argument for using biosecurity issues to direct policy is in your SECOND sentence "If the objecting is health and welfare of the animals, the first objective is health". Whether or not this statement is true depends very much upon 1. How you define welfare (e.g. "Integrity" versus "psychological" definitions of welfare) 2. Which kind of welfare (health, versus psychological) you believe is most important from your argument, it's clear that you are particularly concerned with integrity definitiosn of welfare, and that you think health is more important than psychological wellbeing... which is fine (and many people would agree with you, especially in continental europe)... however this is where the confusion stems from - most welfare scientists are primarily concerned with psychological wellbeing. It's the issue that comes up in star trek all the time - would you rather be an immortal prisoner of a gilded cage, or a mortal free agent? Bearing in mind that battery cages are hardly gilded, and that free range systems are being constantly redesigned using data to find out what resources the animals value, my own individualist empathic preference would to be a free-range chicken. hope that helps Joe. __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. [mailto:deweaver@gte.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Knut Niebuhr; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Laying hens and cages/EU > > > Dear All, > > I don't understand why some areas of the world are banning cages for > chickens. If the objecting is health and welfare of the animals, the > first objective is health. Using gravity to separate an animal from > its waste products does as much for bio-security and animal health as > separating human sewerage from our drinking water supplies did for > human health (the sanitary engineers have saved more lives that all > the MD's in the world put together). > > As someone who is in aquaculture, where we can't use gravity for > separating waste products, you get a greater appreciation for the > value of being able to easily separate out the waste products and > prevent potential pathogen loops between waste and food intake > (visualize raising pigs in 0-g space). If you design systems that > are inherently biologically unstable against pathogen challenge, you > are asking for major animal health problems. To mandate such designs > by law is even more stupid. > > As an example of how not to design biological systems, China > installed a massive area of shrimp ponds, where the waste discharges > from one farm could contaminate the intake of another farm. For many > years this system increases in production to about 200,000 mt (about > a billion dollars worth of shrimp) and then, being unstable to > pathogen challenge, the whole system went down (90+% losses). > After a decade, they are getting back into production, primarily with > another imported species. > > Designing biological system that depend upon strict bio-security from > the outside world and antibiotics and other chemical treatments is > not a very wise use of resources and is unstable. Is the move to > ban cages just silliness and mans propensity not to think things > through or is their another agenda? > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > >Dear all, > >My question regards animal welfare legislation in the EU: > >I would like to ask list-members from other European > countries about the > >implementation process regarding the EU-directive 1999/74/EC > of 19 July 1999 > >laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying > hens, especially > >regarding cage systems. This directive had to be transferred > into national > >legislation by 1st of January 2002. To my knowledge Germany > has already done > >this (though not yet officially published) and banned all > cage systems from > >2012 onwards (conventional battery cages banned by 2007, > enriched cages by > >2012). From the Netherlands I have found a decision published in the > >"Staadsblad" (official journal?), which, if I understand it > correctly, bans > >conventional cages from 2012 onwards (As foreseen by the > directive). But the > >decision has no provisions for enriched cages, therefore I > would like to > >know, whether these are actually banned and whether this > decision is already > >legally binding/has alrady come into force or whether > negotiations are still > >under way. What about other EU member states? I heard, that > also Belgium is > >planning to ban enriched cages, is this true? Could anybody give me > >informations about other member states. > >Thanks a lot in advance > >Yours > >Knut > >Dr. Knut Niebuhr > >Institute for animal husbandry and aninmal welfare > >University for Veterinary Medicine Vienna > >Veterinaerplatz 1 > >A-1210 Wien > >Austria > >Tel. +43/1/25077-4906 > >Fax +43/1/25077-4990 > > > -- > > Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries > deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. > 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA > Fax 714-890-3778 92649 > From: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com" 25-FEB-2002 14:43:16.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: re laying hens and cages/EU In reference to an earlier query from deweaver, it seems to me that designing systems that are "inherently biologically unstable against pathogen challenge" is going on in the livestock industry all the time -- for example, specific pathogen free pigs and segregated early weaning (multiple site production) of pigs at 5 to 10 days of age. Marlene Halverson From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 25-FEB-2002 17:35:52.71 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Laying hens and cages/EU Joe, Without health, "psychological welfare" is irrelevant. If we were to the point where we could operate all of our animals production systems without antibiotics and other chemical treatments, we can consider more of the "psychological" variables, beyond where they impact animal health and productivity. I prefer to be "free-range", but my fish prefer to be at high densities (depending upon the specific species and life stages). I also prefer not to be part of a "pecking order", unless I am on top, but I don't want to spend the energy to stay on top. "Psychological welfare" that doesn't impact productivity (food conversion, growth rates, etc.) can rapidly evolve into "junk science" driven by unfounded belief systems. It looks like much of the "animal welfare" issues are heading in a very strange direction, which forgets about what was learned to get to where they are today. It's like saying in a desert area that using raw sewerage to create a "swimming hole" for the kids is a good idea (if we keep the BOD per Ha in the 100 kg/ha day range, we will just have a eutrophic pond with only slightly elevated levels of things like coliform bacteria -- a lot like the old "swimming hole"). We haven't had polio and a host of other enteric diseases for decades, therefore we don't need to consider these variables relative to the psychological welfare of providing our children with the experience of the old "swimming hole". Remember, all animal production system have more than one species of living organisms and many of those other species view our production animals as the largest source of protein and energy around and are busy evolving ways of exploiting that resource while we are trying to shift their evolution in non-virulent directions. Eliminating a powerful design tool like cages and gravity will shift the stability of the system. Dallas >...which is why battery farms were introduced in the first place. However >the whole premise of your argument for using biosecurity issues to direct >policy is in your SECOND sentence "If the objecting is health and welfare of >the animals, the first objective is health". Whether or not this statement >is true depends very much upon > >1. How you define welfare (e.g. "Integrity" versus "psychological" >definitions of welfare) >2. Which kind of welfare (health, versus psychological) you believe is most >important > >from your argument, it's clear that you are particularly concerned with >integrity definitiosn of welfare, and that you think health is more >important than psychological wellbeing... which is fine (and many people >would agree with you, especially in continental europe)... however this is >where the confusion stems from - most welfare scientists are primarily >concerned with psychological wellbeing. It's the issue that comes up in star >trek all the time - would you rather be an immortal prisoner of a gilded >cage, or a mortal free agent? Bearing in mind that battery cages are hardly >gilded, and that free range systems are being constantly redesigned using >data to find out what resources the animals value, my own individualist >empathic preference would to be a free-range chicken. > >hope that helps > >Joe. >__________________________ > >Dr. Joseph Garner, >University of California, >Department of Animal Science, >One Shields Avenue, >Davis, >CA 95616 >USA > >Phone: (530) 752 1253 >Fax: (530) 752 0175 > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. [mailto:deweaver@gte.net] >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:14 AM >> To: Knut Niebuhr; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >> Subject: Re: Laying hens and cages/EU >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I don't understand why some areas of the world are banning cages for >> chickens. If the objecting is health and welfare of the animals, the >> first objective is health. Using gravity to separate an animal from >> its waste products does as much for bio-security and animal health as >> separating human sewerage from our drinking water supplies did for > > human health (the sanitary engineers have saved more lives that all >> the MD's in the world put together). >> >> As someone who is in aquaculture, where we can't use gravity for >> separating waste products, you get a greater appreciation for the >> value of being able to easily separate out the waste products and >> prevent potential pathogen loops between waste and food intake >> (visualize raising pigs in 0-g space). If you design systems that >> are inherently biologically unstable against pathogen challenge, you >> are asking for major animal health problems. To mandate such designs >> by law is even more stupid. >> >> As an example of how not to design biological systems, China >> installed a massive area of shrimp ponds, where the waste discharges >> from one farm could contaminate the intake of another farm. For many >> years this system increases in production to about 200,000 mt (about >> a billion dollars worth of shrimp) and then, being unstable to >> pathogen challenge, the whole system went down (90+% losses). >> After a decade, they are getting back into production, primarily with >> another imported species. >> >> Designing biological system that depend upon strict bio-security from >> the outside world and antibiotics and other chemical treatments is >> not a very wise use of resources and is unstable. Is the move to >> ban cages just silliness and mans propensity not to think things >> through or is their another agenda? >> >> Dallas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Dear all, >> >My question regards animal welfare legislation in the EU: >> >I would like to ask list-members from other European >> countries about the >> >implementation process regarding the EU-directive 1999/74/EC >> of 19 July 1999 >> >laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying >> hens, especially >> >regarding cage systems. This directive had to be transferred >> into national >> >legislation by 1st of January 2002. To my knowledge Germany >> has already done >> >this (though not yet officially published) and banned all >> cage systems from >> >2012 onwards (conventional battery cages banned by 2007, >> enriched cages by >> >2012). From the Netherlands I have found a decision published in the >> >"Staadsblad" (official journal?), which, if I understand it >> correctly, bans >> >conventional cages from 2012 onwards (As foreseen by the >> directive). But the >> >decision has no provisions for enriched cages, therefore I >> would like to >> >know, whether these are actually banned and whether this >> decision is already >> >legally binding/has alrady come into force or whether >> negotiations are still >> >under way. What about other EU member states? I heard, that >> also Belgium is >> >planning to ban enriched cages, is this true? Could anybody give me >> >informations about other member states. >> >Thanks a lot in advance >> >Yours >> >Knut >> >Dr. Knut Niebuhr >> >Institute for animal husbandry and aninmal welfare >> >University for Veterinary Medicine Vienna >> >Veterinaerplatz 1 >> >A-1210 Wien >> >Austria >> >Tel. +43/1/25077-4906 >> >Fax +43/1/25077-4990 >> >> >> -- >> >> Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries >> deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. >> 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA >> Fax 714-890-3778 92649 >> -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"lu.do@hetnet.nl" 25-FEB-2002 18:26:24.07 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Reminder: Measuring Behavior 2002 abstract submission deadline Reminder: the deadline for abstract submission is less than a week away! MEASURING BEHAVIOR 2002 4th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27-30 August 2002 http://www.noldus.com/events/mb2002 CALL FOR ABSTRACTS Please use the Abstract Submission Form on the conference web site to submit your abstract for an oral presentation, poster or demonstration. The deadline for abstract submission is 1 March 2002. Contributions are welcome on the following topics: - Behavioral Recording - Automatic Data Acquisition Techniques - Brain Imaging and Behavior - Biotelemetry and Behavior - Behavior and Physiology - Acoustics, Speech, Language and Behavior - Behavioral Analysis - Test Paradigms for Behavior and Cognition Research - Teaching Behavior Research Methods - Other Related Topics More information about the program topics can be found on the web site. REGISTRATION You can now register online on the conference web site. Just follow the link from the homepage and you will be registered in no time at all. Deadline for early registration (reduced fee): 15 May 2002. EXHIBITION AND SPONSORHIP Companies seeking exposure for their products or services in the area of behavioral research are also encouraged to take a look at the conference web site. Attractive exhibition and sponsorhip packages are available. PUBLICATION OF CONFERENCE PAPERS A selection of presentations will be published as full articles in a special issue of Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation & Computers. If you are interested to submit a manuscript, please contact us at mb2002@noldus.nl. DEADLINES 1 March: Submission of abstract for oral papers, posters and demonstrations 1 March: Submission of proposals for SIGs, workshops and user meetings 15 May : Early registration (reduced fee) Details on presentation formats, deadlines, fees, Amsterdam, practical information, etc., can be found on the extensive conference web site. We hope to see you in Amsterdam! Measuring Behavior 2002 Conference Secretariat P.O. Box 268 6700 AG Wageningen The Netherlands Phone: +31-317-497677 Fax: +31-317-424496 E-mail: mb2002@noldus.nl Web: http://www.noldus.com/events/mb2002 From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 25-FEB-2002 19:42:49.34 To: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Hi Dallas - thanks for the reply, i think this is a really interesting topic. A few things sprang to mind when i raid your post: > Without health, "psychological welfare" is irrelevant. I'd disagree - for two reasons. First psychological welfare has a huge impact upon health. for instance: SIV infected rhesus live far longer if they are group housed than if they are isolation housed; stereotypic female mink produce underweight kits; and the psychological parameters of a stressor (i.e. predictability and controlability) fundamentally affect it's impact on health (e.g. predictable tailshock in mice has little effect on health, but unpredictable tailshock leads to greatly increased mortality). Second, i can think of plenty of examples where poor health does not lead to poor (psychological) welfare. If you were to have a painless and undetected cancer that will kill you tomorrow you'd be just as happy today as if you didn't. In the real world, ethical protocols on many painful or injurious animal experiments require the administration of analgesics. The only difference between being tortured and a life-saving operation is whether you feel the pain of the procedure. > If we were > to the point where we could operate all of our animals production > systems without antibiotics and other chemical treatments, Intensive farming still involves antibiotics. > we can > consider more of the "psychological" variables, beyond where they > impact animal health and productivity. one great contribution of applied ethology to animal welfare has been providing the data to show that poor psychological welfare is linked to poor production. coupled with the increased returns from producing high welfare products, in countries like the uk the shift to high welfare produce has involved the active co-operation of industry (good welfare is good buisness). Similar shifts are beginning in the USA. > > I prefer to be "free-range", but my fish prefer to be at high > densities (depending upon the specific species and life stages). I > also prefer not to be part of a "pecking order", unless I am on top, > but I don't want to spend the energy to stay on top. "Psychological > welfare" that doesn't impact productivity (food conversion, growth > rates, etc.) I'm having trouble thinking of an example where (when someone looked for it) psychological welfare didn't impact production value... > can rapidly evolve into "junk science" driven by > unfounded belief systems. ...which is why i'd disagree with this statement! The fact that experiments assessing psychological welfare have been published in the highest quality journals in the world (e.g. Georgia mason's stuff in mink, published in Nature) speaks to the scientific rigor of this field. > > It looks like much of the "animal welfare" issues are heading in a > very strange direction, which forgets about what was learned to get > to where they are today. It's like saying in a desert area that > using raw sewerage to create a "swimming hole" for the kids is a good > idea (if we keep the BOD per Ha in the 100 kg/ha day range, we will > just have a eutrophic pond with only slightly elevated levels of > things like coliform bacteria -- a lot like the old "swimming hole"). > We haven't had polio and a host of other enteric diseases for > decades, therefore we don't need to consider these variables relative > to the psychological welfare of providing our children with the > experience of the old "swimming hole". > I really think this is a straw-man argument. Or at least an argument from misrepresented analogy. Free-range certainly does not mean fester in your own filth. The key issue here is husbandry - you can have good husbandry and bad husbandry, and free-range systems in different countries mean very different things. Free-range is meant to mean that the animals have access to an environment that encompasses many of the resources and experiences they might have in the wild, whilst still enjoying protection from the elements, regular food and water, warmth and shelter etc. Many free-range systems involve complex structural arrangements of perches etc to achieve the 'gravitational separation' you are talking about. Similarly, battery housed hens have their own health problems, what with extremely high stocking densities in some countries (e.g. the US), one would expect disease transmission within a cage to be extremely efficient! > Remember, all animal production system have more than one species of > living organisms and many of those other species view our production > animals as the largest source of protein and energy around and are > busy evolving ways of exploiting that resource while we are trying to > shift their evolution in non-virulent directions. Eliminating a > powerful design tool like cages and gravity will shift the stability > of the system. I don't think many people in applied ethology are that stupid! Of course we care about the health of the animals. It's just that: 1) with clever design, free-range systems do not necessarily have to increase physical health problems; 2) most applied ethologists are acutely aware of the impact that psychological welfare can have on physical health; 3) behaviour is the ultimate integration of physiology expressed by the animal - - behaviour evolved and exists to maximise fitness (reproduction and survival), and to make sure the animal remains in a physiological and physical locale optimal for survival. Behaviour is how the animal alters the environment, or moves itself to a more optimal environment. Therefore behavior is an invaluable measure of welfare and overall health (physical and psychological). An animal making functionally sensible choices in its environment is telling you an awful lot about what it needs to remain healthy (e.g. Gerogia Mason's mink stuff). And an animal behaving abnormally (e.g. one that persists in foraging behaviors when food is freely available) is telling you an awful lot about how that behaviour is designed, and how that impacts pyschological health. Such an animal might be perfectly healthy and well-fed, but its environment is clearly mismatched to its psychology, and it is almost certainly suffering by any rational definition of the term. 'nuff said Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" 25-FEB-2002 19:53:27.92 To: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "'Garner, Joseph P.'", IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Hear, hear Joe - thanks for finding the time to so eloquently respond to Dallas. I thought about doing so, but thinking was as far as I got (so many things to do, so little time ......). Carol > -----Original Message----- > From: Garner, Joseph P. [SMTP:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2002 11:46 > To: 'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU > > Hi Dallas - thanks for the reply, i think this is a really interesting > topic. A few things sprang to mind when i raid your post: > > > Without health, "psychological welfare" is irrelevant. > > I'd disagree - for two reasons. First psychological welfare has a huge > impact upon health. for instance: SIV infected rhesus live far longer if > they are group housed than if they are isolation housed; stereotypic > female > mink produce underweight kits; and the psychological parameters of a > stressor (i.e. predictability and controlability) fundamentally affect > it's > impact on health (e.g. predictable tailshock in mice has little effect on > health, but unpredictable tailshock leads to greatly increased mortality). > > Second, i can think of plenty of examples where poor health does not lead > to > poor (psychological) welfare. If you were to have a painless and > undetected > cancer that will kill you tomorrow you'd be just as happy today as if you > didn't. In the real world, ethical protocols on many painful or injurious > animal experiments require the administration of analgesics. The only > difference between being tortured and a life-saving operation is whether > you > feel the pain of the procedure. > > > If we were > > to the point where we could operate all of our animals production > > systems without antibiotics and other chemical treatments, > > Intensive farming still involves antibiotics. > > > we can > > consider more of the "psychological" variables, beyond where they > > impact animal health and productivity. > > one great contribution of applied ethology to animal welfare has been > providing the data to show that poor psychological welfare is linked to > poor > production. coupled with the increased returns from producing high welfare > products, in countries like the uk the shift to high welfare produce has > involved the active co-operation of industry (good welfare is good > buisness). Similar shifts are beginning in the USA. > > > > > I prefer to be "free-range", but my fish prefer to be at high > > densities (depending upon the specific species and life stages). I > > also prefer not to be part of a "pecking order", unless I am on top, > > but I don't want to spend the energy to stay on top. "Psychological > > welfare" that doesn't impact productivity (food conversion, growth > > rates, etc.) > > I'm having trouble thinking of an example where (when someone looked for > it) > psychological welfare didn't impact production value... > > > can rapidly evolve into "junk science" driven by > > unfounded belief systems. > > ...which is why i'd disagree with this statement! The fact that > experiments > assessing psychological welfare have been published in the highest quality > journals in the world (e.g. Georgia mason's stuff in mink, published in > Nature) speaks to the scientific rigor of this field. > > > > > It looks like much of the "animal welfare" issues are heading in a > > very strange direction, which forgets about what was learned to get > > to where they are today. It's like saying in a desert area that > > using raw sewerage to create a "swimming hole" for the kids is a good > > idea (if we keep the BOD per Ha in the 100 kg/ha day range, we will > > just have a eutrophic pond with only slightly elevated levels of > > things like coliform bacteria -- a lot like the old "swimming hole"). > > We haven't had polio and a host of other enteric diseases for > > decades, therefore we don't need to consider these variables relative > > to the psychological welfare of providing our children with the > > experience of the old "swimming hole". > > > > I really think this is a straw-man argument. Or at least an argument from > misrepresented analogy. Free-range certainly does not mean fester in your > own filth. The key issue here is husbandry - you can have good husbandry > and > bad husbandry, and free-range systems in different countries mean very > different things. Free-range is meant to mean that the animals have access > to an environment that encompasses many of the resources and experiences > they might have in the wild, whilst still enjoying protection from the > elements, regular food and water, warmth and shelter etc. Many free-range > systems involve complex structural arrangements of perches etc to achieve > the 'gravitational separation' you are talking about. > > Similarly, battery housed hens have their own health problems, what with > extremely high stocking densities in some countries (e.g. the US), one > would > expect disease transmission within a cage to be extremely efficient! > > > Remember, all animal production system have more than one species of > > living organisms and many of those other species view our production > > animals as the largest source of protein and energy around and are > > busy evolving ways of exploiting that resource while we are trying to > > shift their evolution in non-virulent directions. Eliminating a > > powerful design tool like cages and gravity will shift the stability > > of the system. > > I don't think many people in applied ethology are that stupid! Of course > we > care about the health of the animals. It's just that: 1) with clever > design, > free-range systems do not necessarily have to increase physical health > problems; 2) most applied ethologists are acutely aware of the impact that > psychological welfare can have on physical health; 3) behaviour is the > ultimate integration of physiology expressed by the animal - > > - behaviour evolved and exists to maximise fitness (reproduction and > survival), and to make sure the animal remains in a physiological and > physical locale optimal for survival. Behaviour is how the animal alters > the > environment, or moves itself to a more optimal environment. Therefore > behavior is an invaluable measure of welfare and overall health (physical > and psychological). An animal making functionally sensible choices in its > environment is telling you an awful lot about what it needs to remain > healthy (e.g. Gerogia Mason's mink stuff). And an animal behaving > abnormally > (e.g. one that persists in foraging behaviors when food is freely > available) > is telling you an awful lot about how that behaviour is designed, and how > that impacts pyschological health. Such an animal might be perfectly > healthy > and well-fed, but its environment is clearly mismatched to its psychology, > and it is almost certainly suffering by any rational definition of the > term. > > 'nuff said > > Joe > > > __________________________ > > Dr. Joseph Garner, > University of California, > Department of Animal Science, > One Shields Avenue, > Davis, > CA 95616 > USA > > Phone: (530) 752 1253 > Fax: (530) 752 0175 > > ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"katmiller@ucdavis.edu" "Katherine Miller" 25-FEB-2002 23:24:40.24 To: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Hi Dallas, I have to say that I'm in total agreement with Joe on this issue, and I'd simply like to add that trying to separate physical and psychological health is an exercise in futility. The brain is an organ inextricably linked to the other body systems and making the "physical/psychological" dichotomy is a archaic misunderstanding that modern physicians and psychologists are working to dispel. Human psychological disorder is no longer the stigma that it once was because scientists are emphasizing that it is a physical problem just like a disease like coccidiosis. What is really the difference between an external organism assaulting a chicken's body and the chicken's own body assaulting itself (as we might describe a severe psychopathology)? Both cases involve a shift away from a homeostatic point at which the body operates efficiently to serve its purpose (survival and reproduction). I hope this doesn't sound too much like a diatribe. I think you have raised an issue that many ethologists on this listserve are hot to debate. Kat At 03:34 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. wrote: >Joe, > >Without health, "psychological welfare" is irrelevant. If we were to the >point where we could operate all of our animals production systems without >antibiotics and other chemical treatments, we can consider more of the >"psychological" variables, beyond where they impact animal health and >productivity. > >I prefer to be "free-range", but my fish prefer to be at high densities >(depending upon the specific species and life stages). I also prefer not >to be part of a "pecking order", unless I am on top, but I don't want to >spend the energy to stay on top. "Psychological welfare" that doesn't >impact productivity (food conversion, growth rates, etc.) can rapidly >evolve into "junk science" driven by unfounded belief systems. > >It looks like much of the "animal welfare" issues are heading in a very >strange direction, which forgets about what was learned to get to where >they are today. It's like saying in a desert area that using raw sewerage >to create a "swimming hole" for the kids is a good idea (if we keep the >BOD per Ha in the 100 kg/ha day range, we will just have a eutrophic pond >with only slightly elevated levels of things like coliform bacteria -- a >lot like the old "swimming hole"). We haven't had polio and a host of >other enteric diseases for decades, therefore we don't need to consider >these variables relative to the psychological welfare of providing our >children with the experience of the old "swimming hole". > >Remember, all animal production system have more than one species of >living organisms and many of those other species view our production >animals as the largest source of protein and energy around and are busy >evolving ways of exploiting that resource while we are trying to shift >their evolution in non-virulent directions. Eliminating a powerful >design tool like cages and gravity will shift the stability of the system. > >Dallas > > > > > > > > > >>...which is why battery farms were introduced in the first place. However >>the whole premise of your argument for using biosecurity issues to direct >>policy is in your SECOND sentence "If the objecting is health and welfare of >>the animals, the first objective is health". Whether or not this statement >>is true depends very much upon >> >>1. How you define welfare (e.g. "Integrity" versus "psychological" >>definitions of welfare) >>2. Which kind of welfare (health, versus psychological) you believe is most >>important >> >>from your argument, it's clear that you are particularly concerned with >>integrity definitiosn of welfare, and that you think health is more >>important than psychological wellbeing... which is fine (and many people >>would agree with you, especially in continental europe)... however this is >>where the confusion stems from - most welfare scientists are primarily >>concerned with psychological wellbeing. It's the issue that comes up in star >>trek all the time - would you rather be an immortal prisoner of a gilded >>cage, or a mortal free agent? Bearing in mind that battery cages are hardly >>gilded, and that free range systems are being constantly redesigned using >>data to find out what resources the animals value, my own individualist >>empathic preference would to be a free-range chicken. >> >>hope that helps >> >>Joe. >>__________________________ >> >>Dr. Joseph Garner, >>University of California, >>Department of Animal Science, >>One Shields Avenue, >>Davis, >>CA 95616 >>USA >> >>Phone: (530) 752 1253 >>Fax: (530) 752 0175 >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. [mailto:deweaver@gte.net] >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:14 AM >>> To: Knut Niebuhr; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >>> Subject: Re: Laying hens and cages/EU >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I don't understand why some areas of the world are banning cages for >>> chickens. If the objecting is health and welfare of the animals, the >>> first objective is health. Using gravity to separate an animal from >>> its waste products does as much for bio-security and animal health as >>> separating human sewerage from our drinking water supplies did for >> > human health (the sanitary engineers have saved more lives that all >>> the MD's in the world put together). >>> >>> As someone who is in aquaculture, where we can't use gravity for >>> separating waste products, you get a greater appreciation for the >>> value of being able to easily separate out the waste products and >>> prevent potential pathogen loops between waste and food intake >>> (visualize raising pigs in 0-g space). If you design systems that >>> are inherently biologically unstable against pathogen challenge, you >>> are asking for major animal health problems. To mandate such designs >>> by law is even more stupid. >>> >>> As an example of how not to design biological systems, China >>> installed a massive area of shrimp ponds, where the waste discharges >>> from one farm could contaminate the intake of another farm. For many >>> years this system increases in production to about 200,000 mt (about >>> a billion dollars worth of shrimp) and then, being unstable to >>> pathogen challenge, the whole system went down (90+% losses). >>> After a decade, they are getting back into production, primarily with >>> another imported species. >>> >>> Designing biological system that depend upon strict bio-security from >>> the outside world and antibiotics and other chemical treatments is >>> not a very wise use of resources and is unstable. Is the move to >>> ban cages just silliness and mans propensity not to think things >>> through or is their another agenda? >>> >>> Dallas >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >Dear all, >>> >My question regards animal welfare legislation in the EU: >>> >I would like to ask list-members from other European >>> countries about the >>> >implementation process regarding the EU-directive 1999/74/EC >>> of 19 July 1999 >>> >laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying >>> hens, especially >>> >regarding cage systems. This directive had to be transferred >>> into national >>> >legislation by 1st of January 2002. To my knowledge Germany >>> has already done >>> >this (though not yet officially published) and banned all >>> cage systems from >>> >2012 onwards (conventional battery cages banned by 2007, >>> enriched cages by >>> >2012). From the Netherlands I have found a decision published in the >>> >"Staadsblad" (official journal?), which, if I understand it >>> correctly, bans >>> >conventional cages from 2012 onwards (As foreseen by the >>> directive). But the >>> >decision has no provisions for enriched cages, therefore I >>> would like to >>> >know, whether these are actually banned and whether this >>> decision is already >>> >legally binding/has alrady come into force or whether >>> negotiations are still >>> >under way. What about other EU member states? I heard, that >>> also Belgium is >>> >planning to ban enriched cages, is this true? Could anybody give me >>> >informations about other member states. >>> >Thanks a lot in advance >>> >Yours >>> >Knut >>> >Dr. Knut Niebuhr >>> >Institute for animal husbandry and aninmal welfare >>> >University for Veterinary Medicine Vienna >>> >Veterinaerplatz 1 >>> >A-1210 Wien >>> >Austria >>> >Tel. +43/1/25077-4906 >>> >Fax +43/1/25077-4990 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries >>> deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. >>> 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA >>> Fax 714-890-3778 92649 > > >-- > >Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries >deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. >714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA >Fax 714-890-3778 92649 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Katherine Miller Animal Behavior Graduate Group Animal Science Dept. UC Davis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 26-FEB-2002 03:16:41.83 To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" CC: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "'Garner, Joseph P.'", IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Dear All, I too would like to echo Joe's and Carol's disagreement with Dallas' opinion. To give just one example of how cages can impinge on psychological health without necessarily affecting production. In a survey of carcasses of caged layer hens it was found that 12% had old fractures of various bones. This means that at some time in their 62 weeks (UK systems) of life housed in cages providing them with only the space of an A4 piece of paper, 12% had broken a bone and this had time to heal. Broken bones hurt. These animals had therefore experienced quite possibly very considerable pain for some time. But, these animals will continue to lay eggs each day, such is the testament to the 'integrity' we have artificially selected for. So, good production is NOT necessarily equal to good welfare. Whilst I realise this issue raises emotions and can become heated, can I suggest a little moderation in the language that is used might lead to a better debate. I find it rather offensive to have animal welfare research implicitly or explicitly described as 'stupid', 'silliness' or 'junk-science'. Chris Sherwin On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:53:38 +1000 "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" wrote: > Hear, hear Joe - thanks for finding the time to so eloquently respond to > Dallas. I thought about doing so, but thinking was as far as I got (so many > things to do, so little time ......). > Carol > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Garner, Joseph P. [SMTP:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2002 11:46 > > To: 'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > Subject: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU > > > > Hi Dallas - thanks for the reply, i think this is a really interesting > > topic. A few things sprang to mind when i raid your post: > > > > > Without health, "psychological welfare" is irrelevant. > > > > I'd disagree - for two reasons. First psychological welfare has a huge > > impact upon health. for instance: SIV infected rhesus live far longer if > > they are group housed than if they are isolation housed; stereotypic > > female > > mink produce underweight kits; and the psychological parameters of a > > stressor (i.e. predictability and controlability) fundamentally affect > > it's > > impact on health (e.g. predictable tailshock in mice has little effect on > > health, but unpredictable tailshock leads to greatly increased mortality). > > > > Second, i can think of plenty of examples where poor health does not lead > > to > > poor (psychological) welfare. If you were to have a painless and > > undetected > > cancer that will kill you tomorrow you'd be just as happy today as if you > > didn't. In the real world, ethical protocols on many painful or injurious > > animal experiments require the administration of analgesics. The only > > difference between being tortured and a life-saving operation is whether > > you > > feel the pain of the procedure. > > > > > If we were > > > to the point where we could operate all of our animals production > > > systems without antibiotics and other chemical treatments, > > > > Intensive farming still involves antibiotics. > > > > > we can > > > consider more of the "psychological" variables, beyond where they > > > impact animal health and productivity. > > > > one great contribution of applied ethology to animal welfare has been > > providing the data to show that poor psychological welfare is linked to > > poor > > production. coupled with the increased returns from producing high welfare > > products, in countries like the uk the shift to high welfare produce has > > involved the active co-operation of industry (good welfare is good > > buisness). Similar shifts are beginning in the USA. > > > > > > > > I prefer to be "free-range", but my fish prefer to be at high > > > densities (depending upon the specific species and life stages). I > > > also prefer not to be part of a "pecking order", unless I am on top, > > > but I don't want to spend the energy to stay on top. "Psychological > > > welfare" that doesn't impact productivity (food conversion, growth > > > rates, etc.) > > > > I'm having trouble thinking of an example where (when someone looked for > > it) > > psychological welfare didn't impact production value... > > > > > can rapidly evolve into "junk science" driven by > > > unfounded belief systems. > > > > ...which is why i'd disagree with this statement! The fact that > > experiments > > assessing psychological welfare have been published in the highest quality > > journals in the world (e.g. Georgia mason's stuff in mink, published in > > Nature) speaks to the scientific rigor of this field. > > > > > > > > It looks like much of the "animal welfare" issues are heading in a > > > very strange direction, which forgets about what was learned to get > > > to where they are today. It's like saying in a desert area that > > > using raw sewerage to create a "swimming hole" for the kids is a good > > > idea (if we keep the BOD per Ha in the 100 kg/ha day range, we will > > > just have a eutrophic pond with only slightly elevated levels of > > > things like coliform bacteria -- a lot like the old "swimming hole"). > > > We haven't had polio and a host of other enteric diseases for > > > decades, therefore we don't need to consider these variables relative > > > to the psychological welfare of providing our children with the > > > experience of the old "swimming hole". > > > > > > > I really think this is a straw-man argument. Or at least an argument from > > misrepresented analogy. Free-range certainly does not mean fester in your > > own filth. The key issue here is husbandry - you can have good husbandry > > and > > bad husbandry, and free-range systems in different countries mean very > > different things. Free-range is meant to mean that the animals have access > > to an environment that encompasses many of the resources and experiences > > they might have in the wild, whilst still enjoying protection from the > > elements, regular food and water, warmth and shelter etc. Many free-range > > systems involve complex structural arrangements of perches etc to achieve > > the 'gravitational separation' you are talking about. > > > > Similarly, battery housed hens have their own health problems, what with > > extremely high stocking densities in some countries (e.g. the US), one > > would > > expect disease transmission within a cage to be extremely efficient! > > > > > Remember, all animal production system have more than one species of > > > living organisms and many of those other species view our production > > > animals as the largest source of protein and energy around and are > > > busy evolving ways of exploiting that resource while we are trying to > > > shift their evolution in non-virulent directions. Eliminating a > > > powerful design tool like cages and gravity will shift the stability > > > of the system. > > > > I don't think many people in applied ethology are that stupid! Of course > > we > > care about the health of the animals. It's just that: 1) with clever > > design, > > free-range systems do not necessarily have to increase physical health > > problems; 2) most applied ethologists are acutely aware of the impact that > > psychological welfare can have on physical health; 3) behaviour is the > > ultimate integration of physiology expressed by the animal - > > > > - behaviour evolved and exists to maximise fitness (reproduction and > > survival), and to make sure the animal remains in a physiological and > > physical locale optimal for survival. Behaviour is how the animal alters > > the > > environment, or moves itself to a more optimal environment. Therefore > > behavior is an invaluable measure of welfare and overall health (physical > > and psychological). An animal making functionally sensible choices in its > > environment is telling you an awful lot about what it needs to remain > > healthy (e.g. Gerogia Mason's mink stuff). And an animal behaving > > abnormally > > (e.g. one that persists in foraging behaviors when food is freely > > available) > > is telling you an awful lot about how that behaviour is designed, and how > > that impacts pyschological health. Such an animal might be perfectly > > healthy > > and well-fed, but its environment is clearly mismatched to its psychology, > > and it is almost certainly suffering by any rational definition of the > > term. > > > > 'nuff said > > > > Joe > > > > > > __________________________ > > > > Dr. Joseph Garner, > > University of California, > > Department of Animal Science, > > One Shields Avenue, > > Davis, > > CA 95616 > > USA > > > > Phone: (530) 752 1253 > > Fax: (530) 752 0175 > > > > > ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** > The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages > (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity > to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of > disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken > or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions > contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions > of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received > this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete it from your computer system network. > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 26-FEB-2002 03:59:45.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Date sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:46:10 -0800 From: "Garner, Joseph P." Subject: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU To: "'Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D.'" , Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Thanks Joe for giving this argument the right turn. Like Carol i wanted to= respond on Dallas but ... Beeing a citizen of germany where cages will be banned i would like to underline, that beside Joe's line of arguments there is another point to l= ook at. First there is ethics: the responsibility of man towards the animal he use= s. And it means that the interest of producers in reducing environmental structures in husbandry systems to cut production costs had to be limited = at a certain level to met this responsability. Battery cage systems are the result of such cost cuttings - highest efford to reduce the animals moveme= nt and energy consumption - minimum workload and possibility to involve unskilled staff (only to get rid of the dead creatures in the cages). High= heritability of egg numbers p. a. and egg weight in chickens leads to high= egg output also under the poorest thinkable conditions but results in worn= out creatures at the end of the laying period. Defeathered hens, decalcification of the animal bones, Cage fatique, high rate of fractures = in the cages and whilst unpopulating the battery systems - these are not healthy animals also if they produce eggs, that may be free of contamination. Joe either mentioned the use of pharmacons in the cage systems. Secondly look at free market economics: Because the battery-system (not altered since 1960) had such economic advantages (low production costs, no need of qualified staff ...) there was no further improvement and quasi= no investigations of other husbandry systems. To ban the battery cage now leads to a new era of improvements of the alternative systems, which can b= e seen at agrotechnical exhibitions around the world since the EU-decision i= n 1999 to ban conventional cages after 2012 (also if not all of these "improvements would be likely to be used in farming practise, i would say)= . The german ban on other cage systems (like in swizzerland) will rush this developement. Since investment circles in agriculture are very long (15 -2= 0 years) and the cage systems are worldwide under pressure this may also give german farmers an edge on the world market ;-). Beside have a look at the bigger picture. Leaving the cage may lead to low= er animal densities and decrease of animal numbers in certain areas - deconcentration of animal production is vital from an epidemiological view= . High production density had environmental effects and resulted in a loose = of living quality for men in these areas. Whilst the benefits of the intensiv= production are taken by the farmers the costs of emissions were paid by th= e community. Therefor - lets use the knowledge and technics of the 20th century to impr= ove non cage systems and to find ways to take into account the last fourty yea= rs of veterinary science and our better understanding of animal ethology. Fir= st step is the cage ban to give other systems a chance. I have no doubt there= will be an intelligent solution which fulfills ecological, economical and = ethical demands - which are also consumer demands as you know. Andreas > Hi Dallas - thanks for the reply, i think this is a really interesting > topic. A few things sprang to mind when i raid your post: > > > Without health, "psychological welfare" is irrelevant. > > I'd disagree - for two reasons. First psychological welfare has a huge > impact upon health. for instance: SIV infected rhesus live far longer if > they are group housed than if they are isolation housed; stereotypic fem= ale > mink produce underweight kits; and the psychological parameters of a > stressor (i.e. predictability and controlability) fundamentally affect i= t's > impact on health (e.g. predictable tailshock in mice has little effect o= n > health, but unpredictable tailshock leads to greatly increased mortality= ). > > Second, i can think of plenty of examples where poor health does not lea= d to > poor (psychological) welfare. If you were to have a painless and undetec= ted > cancer that will kill you tomorrow you'd be just as happy today as if yo= u > didn't. In the real world, ethical protocols on many painful or injuriou= s > animal experiments require the administration of analgesics. The only > difference between being tortured and a life-saving operation is whether= you > feel the pain of the procedure. > > > If we were > > to the point where we could operate all of our animals production > > systems without antibiotics and other chemical treatments, > > Intensive farming still involves antibiotics. > > > we can > > consider more of the "psychological" variables, beyond where they > > impact animal health and productivity. > > one great contribution of applied ethology to animal welfare has been > providing the data to show that poor psychological welfare is linked to = poor > production. coupled with the increased returns from producing high welfa= re > products, in countries like the uk the shift to high welfare produce has > involved the active co-operation of industry (good welfare is good > buisness). Similar shifts are beginning in the USA. > > > > > I prefer to be "free-range", but my fish prefer to be at high > > densities (depending upon the specific species and life stages). I > > also prefer not to be part of a "pecking order", unless I am on top, > > but I don't want to spend the energy to stay on top. "Psychological > > welfare" that doesn't impact productivity (food conversion, growth > > rates, etc.) > > I'm having trouble thinking of an example where (when someone looked for= it) > psychological welfare didn't impact production value... > > > can rapidly evolve into "junk science" driven by > > unfounded belief systems. > > ...which is why i'd disagree with this statement! The fact that experime= nts > assessing psychological welfare have been published in the highest quali= ty > journals in the world (e.g. Georgia mason's stuff in mink, published in > Nature) speaks to the scientific rigor of this field. > > > > > It looks like much of the "animal welfare" issues are heading in a > > very strange direction, which forgets about what was learned to get > > to where they are today. It's like saying in a desert area that > > using raw sewerage to create a "swimming hole" for the kids is a good > > idea (if we keep the BOD per Ha in the 100 kg/ha day range, we will > > just have a eutrophic pond with only slightly elevated levels of > > things like coliform bacteria -- a lot like the old "swimming hole"). > > We haven't had polio and a host of other enteric diseases for > > decades, therefore we don't need to consider these variables relative > > to the psychological welfare of providing our children with the > > experience of the old "swimming hole". > > > > I really think this is a straw-man argument. Or at least an argument fro= m > misrepresented analogy. Free-range certainly does not mean fester in you= r > own filth. The key issue here is husbandry - you can have good husbandry= and > bad husbandry, and free-range systems in different countries mean very > different things. Free-range is meant to mean that the animals have acce= ss > to an environment that encompasses many of the resources and experiences > they might have in the wild, whilst still enjoying protection from the > elements, regular food and water, warmth and shelter etc. Many free-rang= e > systems involve complex structural arrangements of perches etc to achiev= e > the 'gravitational separation' you are talking about. > > Similarly, battery housed hens have their own health problems, what with > extremely high stocking densities in some countries (e.g. the US), one w= ould > expect disease transmission within a cage to be extremely efficient! > > > Remember, all animal production system have more than one species of > > living organisms and many of those other species view our production > > animals as the largest source of protein and energy around and are > > busy evolving ways of exploiting that resource while we are trying to > > shift their evolution in non-virulent directions. Eliminating a > > powerful design tool like cages and gravity will shift the stability > > of the system. > > I don't think many people in applied ethology are that stupid! Of course= we > care about the health of the animals. It's just that: 1) with clever des= ign, > free-range systems do not necessarily have to increase physical health > problems; 2) most applied ethologists are acutely aware of the impact th= at > psychological welfare can have on physical health; 3) behaviour is the > ultimate integration of physiology expressed by the animal - > > - behaviour evolved and exists to maximise fitness (reproduction and > survival), and to make sure the animal remains in a physiological and > physical locale optimal for survival. Behaviour is how the animal alters= the > environment, or moves itself to a more optimal environment. Therefore > behavior is an invaluable measure of welfare and overall health (physica= l > and psychological). An animal making functionally sensible choices in it= s > environment is telling you an awful lot about what it needs to remain > healthy (e.g. Gerogia Mason's mink stuff). And an animal behaving abnorm= ally > (e.g. one that persists in foraging behaviors when food is freely availa= ble) > is telling you an awful lot about how that behaviour is designed, and ho= w > that impacts pyschological health. Such an animal might be perfectly hea= lthy > and well-fed, but its environment is clearly mismatched to its psycholog= y, > and it is almost certainly suffering by any rational definition of the t= erm. > > 'nuff said > > Joe > > > __________________________ > > Dr. Joseph Garner, > University of California, > Department of Animal Science, > One Shields Avenue, > Davis, > CA 95616 > USA > > Phone: (530) 752 1253 > Fax: (530) 752 0175 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fuer Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Buenteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Dep. animal welfare, animal hygiene & livestoc= k ethologie Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail:andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use the first one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de andreas.briese@ml.niedersachsen.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"V.Sandilands@au.sac.ac.uk" 26-FEB-2002 04:20:57.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: laying hens and cages Dear All, Joe said: 'It's the issue that comes up in star trek all the time - would you rather be an immortal prisoner of a gilded cage, or a mortal free agent? Bearing in mind that battery cages are hardly gilded, and that free range systems are being constantly redesigned using data to find out what resources the animals value, my own individualist empathic preference would to be a free-range chicken.' I often use a similar analogy when I debate what is best for laying hens. And my gut feeling also is that free range is 'better' (freedom of movement, able to forage, dustbathe, use of nestboxes, etc), but really it is only better for the birds that are high up on the pecking order. Feather pecking and cannibalism, where it occurs, affect many more birds in free range, perchery, and barn systems, because the few birds that do the pecking have access to more birds than they would if they were in cages, and only had access to 3 or 4 cage mates. Good management seems to have a big role in the quality of life that birds in alternative systems have, and where this management is good, then I prefer these systems. But where feather pecking and cannibalism, or aggression (which is totally different) occur, then the birds lower on the pecking order have a rough life. Bald, bullied, often to be found outside on the range to escape the attention of their fellow birds, or unable to access the range at all because more dominant birds guard the pop holes. All this combined with an urge to reduce or erradicate beak trimming, which, while certainly painful at the time of the procedure, and which causes neuroma formation if carried out in mature birds, definitely reduces the effects of bird-to-bird pecking. The ban of the battery cage in the EU by 2012 is encouraging even more research into suitable alternatives. Enriched (or 'furnished') cages bring their own problems - mortality can be quite severe due to cannibalism - but I have faith that we will find a workable system. However: what do we do about egg imports from Australia and USA, where batter cages are still the norm? The banning of the battery cage in Switzerland in 1981 has lead to massive imports of battery eggs, which make up something like 75% (?) of the eggs sold in that country. Food for thought... Vicky Dr. Victoria Sandilands Avian Science Research Centre Scottish Agricultural College Ayr KA6 5HW tel +44 (0)1292 525421 fax +44 (0)1292 525098 The information in this e.mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e.mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this e.mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client engagement letter. From: IN%"pnsrodrigues@mail.telepac.pt" "Anna Olsson" 26-FEB-2002 05:41:56.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: laying hens and cages Victoria brought up some quite important problems with the loose-housing systems for poultry as we know them today: >Feather pecking and >cannibalism, where it occurs, affect many more birds in free range, >perchery, and barn systems, because the few birds that do the pecking >have access to more birds than they would if they were in cages, and only >had access to 3 or 4 cage mates. Good management seems to have a big >role in the quality of life that birds in alternative systems have, and where >this management is good, then I prefer these systems. But where feather >pecking and cannibalism, or aggression (which is totally different) occur, >then the birds lower on the pecking order have a rough life. Bald, bullied, >often to be found outside on the range to escape the attention of their >fellow >birds, or unable to access the range at all because more dominant birds >guard the pop holes. All this combined with an urge to reduce or erradicate >beak trimming, which, while certainly painful at the time of the procedure, >and which causes neuroma formation if carried out in mature birds, >definitely reduces the effects of bird-to-bird pecking. From my own experience at the Swedish Board of Agriculture and as a poultry ethology researcher, I know how sensitive this issue is and by no means do I want to make life difficult for those who want to promote loose-housing systems as a viable alternative to factory farming's most infamous example: the battery cage. Any move away from battery cages is certainly to be welcomed. But are the large-scale loose-housing systems really substantially better from the welfare point of view than the furnished cage? The former imply unnatural group sizes and are probably more difficult to manage, especially for the farmer who used to keep hens in cages and is forced to change against his will. When badly managed, cannibalism and featherpecking can be devastating in these systems. The furnished cage is not (only) an attempt from industry to hold on to a convenient system, it is a housing system developed by ethologists and based on knowledge about hen behaviour and motivation. Within a rather natural group size, hens are provided with those resources ethology research have shown they are motivated to use. Also the problems with fragile bones that Chris pointed out are at least partly overcome in the furnished cages, since birds perch and move vertically when getting in and out of dustbaths. I do not want to advocate furnished cages over loose-housing systems but I feel the discussion has not given justice to the former. Both systems have their advantages and shortcomings and there is certainly room for discussion on what is best for the hens. To me, this all burn down to one burning question: is it really at all possible to find a system which guarantees reasonable welfare for all (most) birds if we insist in keeping hens at the density which is now perceived necessary for profit-making? Yours sincerely, Anna Olsson Anna Olsson MSc (animal science) PhD (ethology) Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology (IBMC) Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 26-FEB-2002 07:09:38.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: laying hens and cages Dear Anna, dear all, only to put this right to those who don't know the actual german initiativ= es: Coming german legislation will not rule out little groups or exclusivly as= k for freerange systems (also if german "cage-lobbyists" always say this would b= e so). For farmers who have more than 350 layers (...) a husbandry system must fulfill the following demands: 1. at minimum area of 2,0m per 1,5m and a minimum height of 2,0m. 2. it has to be equipped in a manner that allow all hens their species typ= ical feeding, drinking, resting, dustbathing and nesting behaviour (nesting in = an seperate area with no wire mesh floor) (2) Haltungseinrichtungen m=FCssen 1. eine Fl=E4che von mind. 200 mal 150 cm sowie eine H=F6he von mind. 200 cm, vom Boden aus gemessen, aufweisen; 2. so ausgestattet sein, dass alle Legehennen artgem=E4=DF fressen, trinke= n, ruhen, staubbaden sowie zr Eiablage einen gesonderten Bereich, dessen Bodenoberfl=E4che nicht aus Drahtgitter besteht (Nest) aufsuchen k=F6nnen. There are other requirements (light, feeding, watering, control ...) but t= his is the one that rules out cages built in batteries or racks (convent. and furnished cages). You may find the german text at: www.verbraucherministerium.de/tierschutz/hennenhaltungsverordnung.pdf Also working in the field of chicken ethology i certainly know of the exis= ting problems with big herds: featherpicking, kannibalism, mobbing. But don't forget that kannibalism also occurs in cages, beak trimming is (also) common in caged hens especcially in furnished cages. Femur and tibia bone strengh in studies with our enriched system (Big Dutchman-AVIPLUS) was better than in conv. cage and less good than in aviary. Farmer's skills had to be a lot better in non cage systems but - to provok= e a little bit - farmers who aren't skilled enough to manage the hens will not= be in the business for long, aren't they? I would say the biggest problem (beside the undoubtable needed improvements of Systems AND hen genetics) is the (global and european) market price for eggs. Can't give you an idea how germany finds a way to solve the problem of adequat paying to the farmers. greetings Andreas Date sent: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:27:20 +0000 From: Anna Olsson Subject: Re: laying hens and cages To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Victoria brought up some quite important problems with the loose-housing= > systems for poultry as we know them today: > > >Feather pecking and > >cannibalism, where it occurs, affect many more birds in free range, > >perchery, and barn systems, because the few birds that do the pecking > >have access to more birds than they would if they were in cages, and on= ly > >had access to 3 or 4 cage mates. Good management seems to have a big > >role in the quality of life that birds in alternative systems have, and= where > >this management is good, then I prefer these systems. But where feathe= r > >pecking and cannibalism, or aggression (which is totally different) occ= ur, > >then the birds lower on the pecking order have a rough life. Bald, bul= lied, > >often to be found outside on the range to escape the attention of their= > >fellow > >birds, or unable to access the range at all because more dominant birds > >guard the pop holes. All this combined with an urge to reduce or errad= icate > >beak trimming, which, while certainly painful at the time of the proced= ure, > >and which causes neuroma formation if carried out in mature birds, > >definitely reduces the effects of bird-to-bird pecking. > > From my own experience at the Swedish Board of Agriculture and as a > poultry ethology researcher, I know how sensitive this issue is and by n= o > means do I want to make life difficult for those who want to promote > loose-housing systems as a viable alternative to factory farming's most > infamous example: the battery cage. Any move away from battery cages is > certainly to be welcomed. But are the large-scale loose-housing systems > really substantially better from the welfare point of view than the > furnished cage? The former imply unnatural group sizes and are probably > more difficult to manage, especially for the farmer who used to keep hen= s > in cages and is forced to change against his will. When badly managed, > cannibalism and featherpecking can be devastating in these systems. The > furnished cage is not (only) an attempt from industry to hold on to a > convenient system, it is a housing system developed by ethologists and > based on knowledge about hen behaviour and motivation. Within a rather > natural group size, hens are provided with those resources ethology > research have shown they are motivated to use. Also the problems with > fragile bones that Chris pointed out are at least partly overcome in the= > furnished cages, since birds perch and move vertically when getting in a= nd > out of dustbaths. I do not want to advocate furnished cages over > loose-housing systems but I feel the discussion has not given justice to= > the former. Both systems have their advantages and shortcomings and ther= e > is certainly room for discussion on what is best for the hens. > > To me, this all burn down to one burning question: is it really at all > possible to find a system which guarantees reasonable welfare for all > (most) birds if we insist in keeping hens at the density which is now > perceived necessary for profit-making? > > Yours sincerely, > Anna Olsson > > > Anna Olsson > MSc (animal science) PhD (ethology) > > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology (IBMC) > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fuer Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Buenteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Dep. animal welfare, animal hygiene & livestoc= k ethologie Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail:andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use the first one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de andreas.briese@ml.niedersachsen.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com" 26-FEB-2002 11:17:25.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: laying hens and cages Dallas and others: The comments by DE Weaver have brought up a useful discussion. But I am thinking some more basic readings that get to the heart of animal welfare science may be helpful to him at this stage. These are some readings Dallas might check out and maybe others on the list could recommend others: First, because it's free and easily accessible on the web, gives a general background, and has a bibliography related to welfare of laying hens: "Farm Animal Health and Well-Being", Technical working paper for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on animal agriculture, State of Minnesota: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/geis/TWP's/HalversonTWPAnHealth&WB(3).pdf Others should be available at university libraries: Appleby, M. and Hughes, B. (1997). Animal Welfare. NY: CAB International. Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O., and Elson, H.A. (1992). Poultry Production systems: Behaviour, management and welfare. Oxon, UK:CAB International Moberg, G. and Mench, J.A., Biology of animal stress: Basic principles and implications for animal welfare. Rogers, L.J. (1995). Development of brain and behaviour in the chicken. CAB International. Broom, D.M. and Johnson, K.G. (1993). Stress and animal welfare. Chapman & Hall Webster, J. ((1004). Animal welfare. Blackwell Science Fraser, A.F. and Broom, D.M. (1990). Farm animal behaviour and welfare. Bailliere Tindall. .....? Marlene Halverson From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 26-FEB-2002 14:01:20.15 To: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Andreas, I find it interesting that "First step is the cage ban to give other systems a chance". If you have a superior system, you don't need to ban the competition, you just build your system and make some money. If your system can't compete, that means that your design concepts are flawed. As a business man, I would benefit by being able to ban competitive technologies. For example, a ban on all anti-biotic use in ornamental fish production around the world (I have designed and operate recycle aquaculture systems and operational protocols that don't use anti-biotics) would be very profitable. However, the ethics of putting someone else out of business by using the power of law is very questionable. You realize that your ban will result in some farmers being financially impacted and their families impacted and their "psychological welfare" significantly decreased. Which has a greater "ethical value", humans or chickens? What is your ethical responsibility towards other humans relative to your responsibility towards animals? Why don't you just build your superior systems and put the cage producers out of business fairly and ethically. If you do have a superior system, you would be astounded at how fast you get copied by competitors and even government agencies who will then take credit for your ideas. If non-cage systems are not superior, they will not be adopted in countries that are concerned with more basic things like human welfare. The thought of China adopting our views of "animal welfare" and worrying about the ethics of cages will not occur in my lifetime. If you truly want to have an impact and eliminate cages, just design and build a truly superior system, then China and the rest of the world will copy. Dallas -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 26-FEB-2002 14:01:29.86 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Joe, In the academic arena you may encounter real concepts of animal welfare. I agree that decreasing stress (physical or psychological) in any dimension of an N dimensional problem can improve productivity and allow operation with a higher level of stress in a dimension that improves asset utilization (makes you money). For example, in aquaculture, removing water quality stress and pheromones that indicate too high of density ( a psychological impact), you can then operate at higher densities or a wider temperature range, which make more money per unit capital investment and labor cost. However, in the outside world we are dealing with animal welfare nuts. The PETA crowd comes to mind. I have had people tell me that there is not enough volume in those little fish tanks sold at Target. I produce some of the fish stocked in those tanks and these fish were grown at densities (past the larval stages where density is relevant on some of the species) > 100 animals/l , which is ten time higher than the "aquababies". If the little tanks are properly assembled, both experimental data and theoretical calculations indicate a stress free environment. Dr. Fred Conte at UCD is the one who put me on to this list server saying that their were some people in animal welfare who weren't crazy true believers like the PETA crowd that I was dealing with. I have become hyper-sensitive to even a whiff of a true believer. Dallas -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 26-FEB-2002 16:44:57.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ISAE (E-mail)" CC: Subj: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment To cut a long story short, Jesse Helms is championing an ammendement to the farm bill going through congress right now that will remove a lot of the legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the US. This would represent a serious step in the wrong direction for lab animal welfare in the US. However I've been able to find very little information about this. Does anyone (Mike?) know of any organised campaings which we might be able to throw some professional weight behind if so inclined? Thanks Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 26-FEB-2002 17:15:22.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: IN%"MStephens@hsus.org" "Martin Stephens" Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Joe et al Yes, the current situation is that use of rodents and birds doesn't even have to be declared in experimental records, so there is almost no protection for them. After a huge amount of work by those concerned for animal welfare, a provision was included in the Farm Bill that rodents and birds would now have to be listed like other animals. Helms' amendment was accepted in the Senate version of the Bill, and removes that provision. The Bill is now in committee - and Helms is an influential member of the committee. I am copying this to the head of our Research Animal Issues section, Marty Stephens. He will tell me if you can take effective action on this, and I'll pass his reply on to you and the list. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Garner, Joseph P. [mailto:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:48 PM To: ISAE (E-mail) Subject: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment To cut a long story short, Jesse Helms is championing an ammendement to the farm bill going through congress right now that will remove a lot of the legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the US. This would represent a serious step in the wrong direction for lab animal welfare in the US. However I've been able to find very little information about this. Does anyone (Mike?) know of any organised campaings which we might be able to throw some professional weight behind if so inclined? Thanks Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" 26-FEB-2002 17:28:56.47 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: Fw: Laying hens and cages/EU ----- Original Message ----- From: "WHFEEP" To: "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:50 AM Subject: Re: Laying hens and cages/EU > Dallas > > I am beginning to have trouble sorting the logic of some of your statements: > > PETA members are "nuts" or "crazy true believers" as a result of a > passionate, and perhaps, extreme views. > I find the following quite extreme also: "I have become hyper-sensitive to > even a whiff of a true believer." (and no, I am not a member of PETA) > > Where does this hyper-sensitivity fit in the study of animal behavior? > Surely it must act as a block to reasoned approach? > > The list is Applied-Ethology - not welfare, though of course welfare can, > and should, be a consideration. Welfare is not rendered either good or bad > by economics. It might be decided that poor welfare should be tolerated for > the sake of low production costs - or that it is more important to feed the > mass of humanity than it is to concern ourselves with the quality of life > experienced by food animals - but those judgements do not alter the facts - > and are often merely justification from vested interest. > > I take issue with your final paragraph, in which you state: > > > Dr. Fred Conte at UCD is the one who put me on to this list server > > saying that their were some people in animal welfare who weren't crazy > true believers > > like the PETA crowd that I was dealing with. > > > I can only assume that this is intended to be somewhat insulting - the > rather patronising implication being that "here we go again - crazy true > believers", when you had hoped for so much better of list members. > > I don't think it would be fair to suggest that any of the replies on this > subject have taken an extreme, or emotional, stance. In view of this I > strongly endorse the previous call for moderation. > Although I am not myself a member of PETA there may well be some list > members that are, and it seems a shame that they, or indeed members of any > other group, should be made wholesale targets for any form of put-down - to > the detriment of open debate. > > Regards to all > Andy Beck > WHFEEP > Northland > New Zealand > > > > > From: IN%"mel@etix.com" "Melissa Russo" 26-FEB-2002 17:53:53.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: More on Jesse Helms' amendment > RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- In a move that drew outrage from animal welfare > groups, Sen. Jesse Helms inserted language in a major farm bill passed by > the Senate that would derail new protections for rats, mice and birds used > in lab experiments. > > "A rodent could do a lot worse than live out its life span in research > facilities," the Republican argued this week in a speech on the U.S. Senate > floor. > > The regulations, which are being developed by the U.S. Department of > Agriculture, are intended to resolve a legal battle by providing the same > kind of safeguards against abuse that have been afforded for decades to > monkeys, dogs and other larger lab animals. > > But Helms says the new requirements would overwhelm researchers with > paperwork and slow important work on spinal cord injuries, breast cancer and > other human ailments. > > Citing a report that rodents are 10 times more likely to become reptile food > than research subjects, Helms asked his colleagues if they had ever seen a > hungry python eat a mouse. > > "If you have, then you know it's not a pretty picture for the mouse," Helms > said. "Isn't it far better for the mouse to be fed and watered in a clean > laboratory than to end up as a tiny bulge being digested inside an enormous > snake?" > > He continued: "I suspect Mrs. Helms would have a word or two for me if I > forgot to phone the exterminator upon finding evidence that a mouse has > taken up residence in our basement." > > Martin Stephens, vice president of the Humane Society of the United States, > accused Helms of caricaturing an important issue. > > "Just because Senator Helms doesn't care about birds, mice and rats doesn't > mean they shouldn't have legal protections," Stephens said Wednesday. "This > is an issue that concerns millions of animals used in research. No one > doubts that they can feel pain." > > Aides said Helms got involved in the issue at the urging of officials from > North Carolina's major research universities, which employ more than 250,000 > animals in medical research. > > GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical giant with operations in Research > Triangle Park, also uses rodents to test ground breaking drugs. > > The controversy dates to 1970 when Congress adopted new protections for all > warm-blooded animals used in research. The USDA has never applied that > Animal Welfare Act to rats, mice and birds, even though they are > warm-blooded and account for roughly 95 percent of animals used in research. > > The situation drew a lawsuit in 1990 from the Humane Society and other > animal welfare groups. After a series of court rulings, the two sides > reached a settlement in which the department agreed to draft regulations > extending standards of care to mice, rats and birds. > > Among other provisions, the regulations are expected to require scientists > to provide more detailed justification for any pain they put animals through > and to show that their work does not unnecessarily repeat previous > experiments. > > Helms' amendment would effectively scuttle the settlement -- and exempt > rodents and birds from oversight by the agricultural officials in the > future. > > Helms' amendment was adopted late Tuesday without debate. Because no > senators voiced strong objections, it was added to the farm bill without a > recorded vote. > > To become law, Helms' provisions still must be approved by a conference > committee that will work out differences between the House and Senate > versions of the bill. > > The reaction Wednesday was far more favorable from the Triangle's research > universities. > > "We're very grateful for his efforts and his willingness to go to bat on > this issue," said Evelyn Hawthorne, associate vice chancellor for government > relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "The > regulations being pushed were going to be a problem for us." > > > > From: IN%"mel@etix.com" "Melissa Russo" 26-FEB-2002 17:53:53.94 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Too late, it already passed :( I will post it separately, along with a newspaper article that will make you want to barf when you read his quotes...I'm so embarrassed that he is a senator from *my* state... -M ps-Charlotte, I'm still looking to see if I have anything on the other stuff you mentioned... ----- Original Message ----- From: Garner, Joseph P. > To cut a long story short, Jesse Helms is championing an ammendement to the > farm bill going through congress right now that will remove a lot of the > legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the > US. This would represent a serious step in the wrong direction for lab > animal welfare in the US. However I've been able to find very little > information about this. Does anyone (Mike?) know of any organised campaings > which we might be able to throw some professional weight behind if so > inclined? > > Thanks > > Joe From: IN%"mel@etix.com" "Melissa Russo" 26-FEB-2002 17:53:58.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: Congressional Record - Helms Amendment on mice, rats, and birds > The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an amendment numbered > 2822 to amendment No. 2471. > > Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the > amendment be dispensed with. > > The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is > as follows: (Purpose: To exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice > of the genus Mus from the definition of animal under the Animal Welfare Act) > On page 945, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert the following: SEC. 1024. > > DEFINITION OF ANIMAL UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT. Section 2(g) of the > Animal > Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132(g)) is amended by striking ``excludes horses not > used for research purposes and'' and inserting the following: ``excludes > birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in > research, horses not used for research purposes, and''. > > SEC. 1025. PENALTIES AND FOREIGN COMMERCE PROVISIONS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE > ACT. > Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, my amendment will clarify once and for all any > question about rats, mice and birds used for medical research under the > Animal Welfare Act. Approval of this amendment will make sure that none of > the important work taking place in the medical research community will be > delayed, made more expensive, or be otherwise compromised by regulatory > shenanigans on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specifically, > this amendment will follow Congressional intent by excluding rats, mice and > birds from the definition of ``animal'' under the Animal [[Page S617]] > Welfare Act. This has been the established practice of USDA during the more > than 30 years that the Animal Welfare Act has been the law of the land > during which time scientists and researchers have developed extensive > protocols based on current regulatory procedures based on that Act. So, the > medical research community was astonished the U.S. Department of > Agriculture, weary and browbeat into submission by numerous lawsuits and > petitions by the so-called ``animal rights'' crowd, gave notice of its > intent to add rats, mice, and birds under the regulatory umbrella. I hasten > to add that 90 percent of the mice, rats, and birds used in animal research > are already being regulated by the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare > and the Food and Drug Administration. But that is not enough for the > professional > activists who delight in creating mischievous controversies like this. The > problem, however, is that their mischief-making in this case has serious > real-life complications for the life-saving research in laboratories all > over America. The paperwork burden alone is extraordinary: If USDA is > allowed to move forward with their new rules, it is estimated that the > additional reporting requirements and paperwork will cost the researchers up > to $280 million annually. So instead of searching for cures for breast > cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, and diabetes, USDA will force > researchers out of the laboratory to spend their time filling out countless > forms for yet another federal regulator. This unnecessary paperwork will > simply demonstrate what the federal government already knows: that animal > researchers already treat research animals in a professional and humane > manner. A rodent could do a lot worse than live out its life span in > research facilities. I was surprised to learn from the Wall Street Journal > that more than 10 times as many rodents are raised and sold as food for > reptiles than are used by the medical research community. But nobody raises > a point about that. I wonder if anyone in the Chamber has ever seen a hungry > python eat a mouse. If you have, then you know it is not a pretty picture > for the mouse. Isn't it far better for the mouse to be fed and watered in a > clean laboratory than to end up as a tiny bulge being digested inside an > enormous snake? I suspect Mrs. Helms would have a word or two for me if I > forgot to phone the exterminator upon finding evidence that a mouse has > taken up residence in our basement. Alas, extermination remains the fate > every year of hundreds of thousands of rodents that have not found the > relative safety of a research laboratory. It is anything but a joking matter > when regulatory heavy-handedness prevents researchers who are working > diligently to find cures for deadly diseases. > > Consider the following recent medical discoveries in which humane animal > research has played a role: Breast cancer researchers learned recently that > laboratory rats that are fed high-fiber diets develop significantly fewer > breast tumors than rats receiving little or no fiber. Asthma researchers > recently used transgenic mice to isolate a specific gene that plays a key > role in causing human asthma, and have now developed an animal model to test > new asthma treatments. Scientists are aggressively studying rats to learn > more about recovery of motor skills after spinal cord injuries, and are > already reporting advances in knowledge about the relationship between motor > functions and the nerve cells that send signals to motor neurons. There are > dozens of other such examples of the medical advances made as a result of > animal research, and I feel a sense of outrage, personally, that a Federal > agency would now try to make it more difficult to accomplish this important > work that will benefit humanity. So, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will > resist the extremism of activists and deliver a richly deserved rebuke to > the methods of these people who are protesting so mightily. It is time to > definitively settle this matter, to end the debate, and to approve the > pending amendment, thereby allowing scientists to return to the laboratory > without the specter of burdensome new Federal regulations to hamstring their > research. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. > > The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At this time there is > not a sufficient second. > > Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I understand that the request > for the yeas and nays will be made in my absence by the managers of the bill > and others. I have been assured, I assume, we will have a rollcall vote. Mr. > President, I yield the floor. > > The decision: > > Amendment No. 2822 > > Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me ask the distinguished chairman of our > committee for his attention to the Helms amendment No. 2822 dealing with > animal welfare. I wanted to inquire of the Senator with regard to the Helms > amendment No. 2822 on animal welfare. It is my understanding that on both > sides of the aisle we are prepared to accept that amendment. > > Mr. HARKIN. It is a good amendment. > > Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair turn our attention to the Helms amendment > No. 2822 and proceed with the regular order with that amendment? > The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending. The question is on > agreeing to the amendment. > > The amendment (No. 2822) was agreed to. > > Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. > > Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. > The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. > > From: IN%"bevcee@earthlink.net" "Bev Caldwell" 26-FEB-2002 17:54:56.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Replies sought Following are some of Dallas's comments and questions that I am looking forward to those of you involved in this debate addressing and/or answering: > If you have a superior system, you don't need to > ban the competition, you just build your system and make some money. > If your system can't compete, that means that your design concepts > are flawed. > Why don't you just build your superior systems and put the cage > producers out of business fairly and ethically. If you do have a > superior system, you would be astounded at how fast you get copied by > competitors and even government agencies who will then take credit > for your ideas. > the > ethics of putting someone else out of business by using the power of > law is very questionable. > Which has a greater > "ethical value", humans or chickens? What is your ethical > responsibility towards other humans relative to your responsibility > towards animals? > If non-cage systems are not superior, they will not be adopted in > countries that are concerned with more basic things like human > welfare. The thought of China adopting our views of "animal welfare" > and worrying about the ethics of cages will not occur in my lifetime. As for my opinion on this topic, I am not commenting because I have nothing to do with chickens other than eating them, which I guess could be regarded as going against their rights as animals. Oh well. And to the person who asked: > Where does this hyper-sensitivity fit in the study of animal behavior? > > Surely it must act as a block to reasoned approach? Perhaps this would be an excellent question to address to PETA? IMHO, PETA demonstates hyper-sensitivity, and maybe this indeed has blocked a "reasoned approach" on their part. Is this possible? I believe moderation is good as well. However, to stifle folks from expressing their ideas because someone doesn't like them or they aren't politically correct or "moderate" enough seems to me just as detrimental to open debate as "put downs" or "being a wholesale target". I believe Dallas has expressed some worthwhile, thought-provoking ideas and raised some valid questions to which I look forward to seeing responses. Regards, ~~Bev From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 26-FEB-2002 18:56:44.68 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"AMcGETTIGAN@communityhousing.org.uk" "Andrew McGettigan (E-mail)" Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Hi Dallas, thanks for the reply. Watch out, scientists have feelings too! - although like the chickens, they may be hard to detect! ;-) I think part of the issue here is that you are not distinguishing between three distinct groups of people: Applied ethologists: Applied ethologists study many kinds of animal behaviour applied to many different real-world situations, not just welfare-related behaviour. Animal welfare workers: These are people who work WITH industry to improve animal welfare. People like me, and chris, and many of the other scientists on this list use animal behavior to answer practical questions about how housing should be designed, the relationships between particular behaviors and welfare, stress, health, and production. The data which we produce is used by industry and legislators to make rational and informed decsision about welfare issues. In many cases we also work with industry to show them that there is a high-welfare niche market, or that they can make the same or greater profits by improving welfare. Animal rights activists: These are people who take a more radical stance (i'm not using the word 'radical' in a pjorative manner, as it often is in the US, it's fine to be radical in your beliefs as long as you don't hurt people in the process). They usually share certain beliefs with animal welfare types (i.e that certain non-human animals can suffer, and to inflict such suffering is morally wrong), however they also generally believe some very different things too: they usually advocate equal protection for a wider taxonmic range of animals; they usually believe that any form of animal exploitation is wrong, whatever the ends; and more radical individuals may believe that a human life is worth no more or less than an animal life. The difference is essentially one of pragmatism. Animal rights activists tend to be more ethical absolutists, in a way they are far more logically consistent than animal welfare workers (in fact the animal rights position makes far more logical sense than the animal welfare position, even though it often leads to choices that many other people find hard to agree with). Animal welfare workers are prepared to suspend agonising over ethical issues in order to solve a bigger problem - we pragmatically realise that millions of animals will be held catpive and that we cannot prevent it however wrong we think it is, however we can do an awful lot to imporve the lives of those animals. Any animal welfare experiment involves a fundamental dilemma: you must expose animals to condition which you believe will make them suffer in order to demonstrate that those conditions are detrimental to the animal. From the point of view of rights based ethics this is an abhorrent thing to do - it is equivalent to justifying experimenting on a small number of humans to save many others. Animal rights activists often view animal welfare workers as hippocrites (and in a way rightly so) because we claim to believe that animals have rights, yet we ultimately take a utilitarian view, and willfully contravene the rights of individual animals to 'protect' a greater number. Yet, animal welfare workers have been pivotal in changing the lives of animals in many coutnries (notably UK and the rest of europe), whilst we probably couldn't have done this without the political pressure of animal rights groups, it's clear that animal rights groups cannot achieve much change on their own (not least because they are too easily dismissed as 'radicals' or 'true believers' by people who do not want to listen to their perfectly valid point of view). For right or wrong our society seems to believe that you can't argue with science - which is why animal welfare SCIENCE is so important. On a side-note, I've worked throught the basic logic of the statement that animal rights is easier to defend logically than animal welfare in a p.s. below. The issue of animal rights is such a gnarly one in ethics, that a friend of mine who lectures in ethics uses animal rights as his illustration of how ethics is inconsistently applied, and often fits poorly to the real world. As a second side note. You seem to see one value of animal welfare improvements being that you can maintain animals at higher stocking densities. This is a common misunderstanding - the idea of welfare research is to improve welfare at the current industry conditions, EMPHATICALLY NOT to allow industry to stock at higher densities (i.e. to allow industry to maintin a level of welfare consistent with the level seen now at lower densities). Such an application of welfare findings is unethical, and also illogical. Welfare research progresses by showing that existing husbandry practices, undertaken in the best possible belief that they are good for the animals, actually do them some kind of harm. Thus the idea of welfare science is to identify unrecognised forms of suffering and correct them, and to maximise the welfare of animals - NOT to maintain animals at a minimum acceptable level of welfare! hope that helps Joe. p.s. Rights: Our society is one based on the idea of rights - things which individuals possess by virtue of some property. A right is something that cannot be contravened for ANY reason. Our legal system is based on the idea of rights, as is the American constitution. The declaration of human rights spells out what these rights are - it is a declaration of the minimum acceptable rules of conduct towards other humans. There is a huge debate about what rights are and where they come from. Some people believe for instance that if you do particular things (like contravening the rights of others) you give up your own rights. This is the logic behind state sanctioned execution for instance - but this position is clearly untenable once you think about it. At the end of the day it's easiest to figure out where rights come from by looking at who we give rights to, and what happens to us when our rights are contravened: we give rights to all humans, even babies, the mentally ill or retarded, and even people in a coma; and when our rights are contravened we suffer (either in anticipation, or the act). Unless we are prepared to exercise a species-level racism and claim that the thing that gives us rights is the fact that we are human, and that we would therefore not give rights to friendly aliens that landed on the planet, or to neanderthals if we discovered that they had in fact developed a civilisation far more advanced than ours and now lived happily under the swiss alps, or for that matter to human individuals from the distant past or future, or to human babies born mutated after a nuclear accident. Clearly such speciesism is inconsistent with the ethical rules we do apply in the real world, and with many of our rights-based societies ideals. So it must be something else that gives us rights - many people believe that it is the ability to suffer that gives us rights. You can argue this for many reasons, not least that suffering is the thing consistent to the contravention of all rights. However, a brief consideration of Descartes (or behaviourism if you prefer) tells you that as we can never know for certain that someone has the ability to suffer, it must be the POSSIBILITY that an individual can suffer that gives it rights. Can we really claim that chimpanzees - our nearest relatives - lack the ability to suffer? No, so we must attribute them rights, as it is reasonable to assume that they can suffer. Is it reasonable to assume that bacteria do not suffer? Yes, so somewhere along the line their must be the evolution of the ability to suffer. One of the deep issues in the philosophy and science of animal rights then, is deciding which other cognitive components are important for the ethical worth of humans, and which animals out to be provided the according protections, and in particular figuring out which animals are likely to suffer, and which are not. And before we get sidetracked, no , consciousness is not a prerquisite to suffering (a can of worms it's best not to open). To tie up this ramble. The animal rights activist who maintains that animals have rights that cannot be contravened and that the contravention of those rights is just as abhorrent as the contravention of the same rights in humans, is being entirely logically consistent. They are certainly being more consistent than I am when i do the experiments i do in an attempt to advance the case for animal welfare. When animal rights activists become logically inconsistent, is when they are prepared to contravene the rights of others to protect the rights of animals. If animals have rights and it is wrong for me to experiment on a single animal even to save a million, then it is equally wrong for an animal rights activist to contravene the rights of one or more humans to save millions of animals. This kind of logical impasse, which prevents you from doing much in the real world other than getting very cross about how wrong something is a perculiar problem with ethics. I choose to break that impasse by being a welfare scientist, i often have sleepless nights about it, but it is my illogical choice. It is no more or less logically justifiable than the choice made by some extreme-radical animal rights activists. However it is a choice more consistant with the species-level racism inherent in our legal system, and in our day-to-day lives. __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. [mailto:deweaver@gte.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:00 PM > To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU > > > Joe, > > In the academic arena you may encounter real concepts of animal > welfare. I agree that decreasing stress (physical or psychological) > in any dimension of an N dimensional problem can improve productivity > and allow operation with a higher level of stress in a dimension that > improves asset utilization (makes you money). For example, in > aquaculture, removing water quality stress and pheromones that > indicate too high of density ( a psychological impact), you can then > operate at higher densities or a wider temperature range, which make > more money per unit capital investment and labor cost. > > However, in the outside world we are dealing with animal welfare > nuts. The PETA crowd comes to mind. I have had people tell me that > there is not enough volume in those little fish tanks sold at Target. > I produce some of the fish stocked in those tanks and these fish were > grown at densities (past the larval stages where density is relevant > on some of the species) > 100 animals/l , which is ten time higher > than the "aquababies". If the little tanks are properly assembled, > both experimental data and theoretical calculations indicate a stress > free environment. > > Dr. Fred Conte at UCD is the one who put me on to this list server > saying that their were some people in animal welfare who weren't > crazy true believers like the PETA crowd that I was dealing with. I > have become hyper-sensitive to even a whiff of a true believer. > > Dallas > > > -- > > Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries > deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. > 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA > Fax 714-890-3778 92649 > > From: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" 26-FEB-2002 19:18:39.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Replies sought My point was that one extreme is surely likely to be equally as flawed as another if it is the result of hypersensitivity rather than reason. You may well be correct in suggesting that PETA are also hypersensitive. I am not necessarily against extreme views, nor do I think they should be excluded - I merely think it best if name calling is avoided while doing so. If I failed to make this clear I apologise. Regards Andy Beck ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bev Caldwell" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:53 PM Subject: Replies sought > Following are some of Dallas's comments and questions that I am looking > forward to those of you involved in this debate addressing and/or > answering: > > > If you have a superior system, you don't need to > > ban the competition, you just build your system and make some money. > > If your system can't compete, that means that your design concepts > > are flawed. > > > Why don't you just build your superior systems and put the cage > > producers out of business fairly and ethically. If you do have a > > superior system, you would be astounded at how fast you get copied by > > competitors and even government agencies who will then take credit > > for your ideas. > > > the > > ethics of putting someone else out of business by using the power of > > law is very questionable. > > > Which has a greater > > "ethical value", humans or chickens? What is your ethical > > responsibility towards other humans relative to your responsibility > > towards animals? > > > If non-cage systems are not superior, they will not be adopted in > > countries that are concerned with more basic things like human > > welfare. The thought of China adopting our views of "animal welfare" > > and worrying about the ethics of cages will not occur in my lifetime. > > As for my opinion on this topic, I am not commenting because I have > nothing to do with chickens other than eating them, which I guess could > be regarded as going against their rights as animals. Oh well. > > And to the person who asked: > > Where does this hyper-sensitivity fit in the study of animal behavior? > > > Surely it must act as a block to reasoned approach? > > Perhaps this would be an excellent question to address to PETA? IMHO, > PETA demonstates hyper-sensitivity, and maybe this indeed has blocked a > "reasoned approach" on their part. Is this possible? > > I believe moderation is good as well. However, to stifle folks from > expressing their ideas because someone doesn't like them or they aren't > politically correct or "moderate" enough seems to me just as detrimental > to open debate as "put downs" or "being a wholesale target". > > I believe Dallas has expressed some worthwhile, thought-provoking ideas > and raised some valid questions to which I look forward to seeing > responses. > > Regards, > > ~~Bev > From: IN%"FSConte@UCDavis.Edu" "Conte, Fred S." 26-FEB-2002 19:21:59.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dallas - Why me!? Dallas, although I am a member of ISAE I have not participated interactively in the electronic forum, or any other e-forum. However, my name appeared in the credits of your e-mail internationally so I guess I have no other choice. I hope that this is my first and last appearance. I encouraged you to look at ISAE and recommended it to you and I still do. I encouraged you to become familiar with what was being published in ISAE conference proceedings and then review international journal articles by ISAE members. I hope that it will be a positive experience for you. I know that much of the science being conducted by ISAE members will have positive impacts on all animal production. I do want to clarify with you that I do not support activist's objectives of PETA nor would I be comfortable as a member. However, I do have positive relationships with several national PETA representatives. Please do nothing in my name to complicate that. I keep the dialog open with PETA when they contact me and we just agree to disagree on our differing approaches to issues of animal production and animal welfare. Working with NGOs that impact aquaculture in both environmental and animal welfare issues are part of my position within the University. Say nicer things to Joe. Next time you are up here the three of us can calm down with caffeine. Fred Conte Department of Animal Science University of California Davis Davis, CA 95616 From: IN%"deethom@erols.com" "Dee Thompson" 26-FEB-2002 19:24:34.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment unfortunately this bill also had some backing from pet bird breeders and owners who were convinced that this was really just a way to get the government involved in somehow regulating pet bird breeding and ownership. I used to care for birds used for research...many species, usually involved in toxicological studies, but the public generally doesn't think of birds as research subjects, so some of the pet bird lists were in a panic asking for call in campaigns against protective regulation. They even said new regulations would require all birds in homes woiuld have to be kept in stainless steel cages! Dee Thompson Parrot Rescue Maryland From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 26-FEB-2002 20:11:15.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Why do you need the "law" rather that just "good laboratory practice" to protect rats and mice? Please note that I have had customers who had someone limit the number of zebra fish in their tanks on a fish per volume basis without knowing or asking about gas/liquid mass transfer capacity, SS removal capacity or ammonia oxidation capacity of the system. If people have poor lab practices, let them know what they are doing wrong when you review their grants or their publications. Using the "law" to get ones views across indicates a problem with those views. Perhaps we should eliminate the "legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the US". Perhaps animal welfare cops aren't necessary or desirable. Perhaps the animal welfare cops are creating a great deal of human welfare problems and slowing scientific progress by drivel like # of zebra danios/liter (especially when their mandates were a factor of 100 lower than commercial densities with good filtration systems). Dallas >To cut a long story short, Jesse Helms is championing an ammendement to the >farm bill going through congress right now that will remove a lot of the >legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the >US. This would represent a serious step in the wrong direction for lab >animal welfare in the US. However I've been able to find very little >information about this. Does anyone (Mike?) know of any organised campaings >which we might be able to throw some professional weight behind if so >inclined? > >Thanks > >Joe > >__________________________ > >Dr. Joseph Garner, >University of California, >Department of Animal Science, >One Shields Avenue, >Davis, >CA 95616 >USA > >Phone: (530) 752 1253 >Fax: (530) 752 0175 -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" 26-FEB-2002 20:42:15.06 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment "Using the "law" to get ones views across indicates a problem with those views." I disagree totally. There are laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and creed - is there also a problem with the view that to do so is wrong? Reasonable people can perhaps be expected to behave reasonably - sad to say not everyone is prepared to be reasonable. Should there also be no laws regarding polution and the degradation of all natural habitats - is there also a problem with the view that this is essential to the long-term viability of life on earth? Regards Andy From: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com" 26-FEB-2002 22:30:38.84 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fwd: FYI, New edition of Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals Excuse cross-postings, Marlene Halverson Dear Colleagues, the new edition of Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals=20 can now be accessed on the web at: http://www.awionline.org/pubs/cq02/cqindex.html TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword by David B. Morton Introduction by Viktor and Annie Reinhardt The Ill-Effects of Uncomfortable Quarters by William M.S. Russell Comfortable Quarters for Mice in Research Institutions by Chris M. Sherwin Comfortable Quarters for Gerbils in Research Institutions by Eva Waiblinger Comfortable Quarters for Rats in Research Institutions by Monica M. Lawlor Comfortable Quarters for Hamsters in Research Institutions by Gernot Kuhnen Comfortable Quarters for Guinea Pigs in Research Institutions by Viktor Reinhardt Comfortable Quarters for Rabbits in Research Institutions by K. Boers, G. Gray, J. Love, Z. Mahmutovic, S. McCormick, N. Turcotte, Y. Zhang Comfortable Quarters for Cats in Research Institutions by Irene Rochlitz Comfortable Quarters for Dogs in Research Institutions by Robert Hubrecht=20 Comfortable Quarters for Primates in Research Institutions by Viktor=20 Reinhardt Comfortable Quarters for Pigs in Research Institutions by Temple Grandin Comfortable Quarters for Sheep in Research Institutions by Viktor Reinhardt Comfortable Quarters for Cattle in Research Institutions by Viktor and Annie Reinhardt Comfortable Quarters for Horses in Research Institutions by Katherine Houpt and T.S. Ogilvie-Graham Comfortable Quarters for Chickens in Research Institutions by Detlef W. F=F6lsch, Marlene H=F6fner, Marion Staack and Gerriet Trei Comfortable Quarters for Amphibians and Reptiles in Research Institutions by Michael D. Kreger With best regards, Viktor & Annie Reinhardt http://www.awionline.org/lab_animals/newindex.html From: IN%"mel@etix.com" "Melissa Russo" 26-FEB-2002 22:31:23.72 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Unfortunately we do not live in Pleasantville, and there will always be too many ignorant & selfish people in the world to go on an honor system. Andy also makes an excellent point about what a slippery slope that viewpoint is... -M ----- Original Message ----- From: Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. > Why do you need the "law" rather that just "good laboratory practice" > to protect rats and mice? Please note that I have had customers who > had someone limit the number of zebra fish in their tanks on a fish > per volume basis without knowing or asking about gas/liquid mass > transfer capacity, SS removal capacity or ammonia oxidation capacity > of the system. > > If people have poor lab practices, let them know what they are doing > wrong when you review their grants or their publications. Using the > "law" to get ones views across indicates a problem with those views. > Perhaps we should eliminate the "legal manadate for protecting rats > mice and brids used in research in the US". Perhaps animal > welfare cops aren't necessary or desirable. Perhaps the animal > welfare cops are creating a great deal of human welfare problems and > slowing scientific progress by drivel like # of zebra danios/liter > (especially when their mandates were a factor of 100 lower than > commercial densities with good filtration systems). > > > Dallas From: IN%"Disbekatie@aol.com" 26-FEB-2002 23:01:34.82 To: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fw: Laying hens and cages/EU WELL SAID!!! Katie "If a little knowledge is dangerous where is the man who has so much knowledge out to be out of danger?" From: IN%"rudy.demeester@pi.be" "de meester rudy" 27-FEB-2002 01:54:26.26 To: IN%"V.Sandilands@au.sac.ac.uk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: laying hens and cages Hello to all, In the discussion on enriched cages two of the most importand issues are the hight of the cages and the minimal group size. I agree that enriched cages could under well defined conditions give an answer to some physical health problems ( but creates others) and even have a higher bacteriological quality of eggs, not to mention a lower emission of ammonia, but the EU regulation for enriched cages forsees a minimum hight of 45 cm on I think 30 % of the cages and no limits as to the size of the group. If the industry adapts the minimal standards, welfare will probably not raise a lot, is a critic that is often made. Some people indicate an overall minimum hight of 45 cm so the chickens have the possibility to stand up in a normal way everywhere in the cage. Others say that if the minimum individual space is accepted groups should have a minimal size of about 40 to provide some free usuable area to the chickens that are not sitting together... What is the groups opinion on this and...is there any scientific literature available on these dimensions. What about the cages developped for "parents" in smaller group housing? Rudy De Meester -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Victoria Sandilands [mailto:V.Sandilands@au.sac.ac.uk] Verzonden: dinsdag 26 februari 2002 11:20 Aan: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Onderwerp: laying hens and cages Dear All, Joe said: 'It's the issue that comes up in star trek all the time - would you rather be an immortal prisoner of a gilded cage, or a mortal free agent? Bearing in mind that battery cages are hardly gilded, and that free range systems are being constantly redesigned using data to find out what resources the animals value, my own individualist empathic preference would to be a free-range chicken.' I often use a similar analogy when I debate what is best for laying hens. And my gut feeling also is that free range is 'better' (freedom of movement, able to forage, dustbathe, use of nestboxes, etc), but really it is only better for the birds that are high up on the pecking order. Feather pecking and cannibalism, where it occurs, affect many more birds in free range, perchery, and barn systems, because the few birds that do the pecking have access to more birds than they would if they were in cages, and only had access to 3 or 4 cage mates. Good management seems to have a big role in the quality of life that birds in alternative systems have, and where this management is good, then I prefer these systems. But where feather pecking and cannibalism, or aggression (which is totally different) occur, then the birds lower on the pecking order have a rough life. Bald, bullied, often to be found outside on the range to escape the attention of their fellow birds, or unable to access the range at all because more dominant birds guard the pop holes. All this combined with an urge to reduce or erradicate beak trimming, which, while certainly painful at the time of the procedure, and which causes neuroma formation if carried out in mature birds, definitely reduces the effects of bird-to-bird pecking. The ban of the battery cage in the EU by 2012 is encouraging even more research into suitable alternatives. Enriched (or 'furnished') cages bring their own problems - mortality can be quite severe due to cannibalism - but I have faith that we will find a workable system. However: what do we do about egg imports from Australia and USA, where batter cages are still the norm? The banning of the battery cage in Switzerland in 1981 has lead to massive imports of battery eggs, which make up something like 75% (?) of the eggs sold in that country. Food for thought... Vicky Dr. Victoria Sandilands Avian Science Research Centre Scottish Agricultural College Ayr KA6 5HW tel +44 (0)1292 525421 fax +44 (0)1292 525098 The information in this e.mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e.mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this e.mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client engagement letter. From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 27-FEB-2002 03:32:06.60 To: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Hi Dallas, there is no question that intensiv egg production in battery cages results= in the highest individual profits of the egg producer. It does on the costs o= f hen welfare in means of "physiological and psychological" damages - to use you= r definitions. In the bigger picture also ecological damage for the communit= y resulted of this policy. 40 years of experience with leaving this dilemma = to the market resulted in 97% battery cage production, shruggling of the producers "we have no alternatives 'cause economics leave us with no other= system" and the wide spread ignorance of the ecological and ethical implications of battery production by the market members. To me there is no evidence that the business sector "per se" or the so cal= led free markets act on base of ethical or moral nor sustainability motifs. Le= aving anything to the market (You stated "make some money", which i would think is a short term profit optimizing system) as you suggest would lead = to desintegration of our moral based community system. Therefore rules have to be set up and i see no better solution than give it to our elected government. My statement was intended to give others a hint why the german governement chooses to follow the path switzerland is allready on. The actual welfare policy on hen husbandry is the result of a twenty years lon= g public discussion on the issue. A lot of polls show that around 80% of german citizens are not willing to accept animal welfare violation in egg production. The conventional cage design had been subject of the german constitutional court two years ago. I also believe in the competence of ru= le makers to implement ethical conclusions in law settings based on scientifi= c evidence. Governement has the right and duty to form the perspectives of o= ur communtity and take the necessary middle and long term decision to do so. This is of public interest especcially in fields which are marked by loose= of transparence for the public. I don't agree in every decision of german law makers but i believe in our democratic system which includes a broad public discussion. The regulation= text on hens held for egg production had been altered a few times and the majority of the german 16 federal states agreed in this legislation. Think you have no problem with democratic decisions, have you? Andreas Date sent: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:59:01 -0800 From: "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." Subject: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU To: Andreas Briese , applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Andreas, > > I find it interesting that "First step is the cage ban to give other > systems a chance". If you have a superior system, you don't need to > ban the competition, you just build your system and make some money. > If your system can't compete, that means that your design concepts > are flawed. > > As a business man, I would benefit by being able to ban competitive > technologies. For example, a ban on all anti-biotic use in > ornamental fish production around the world (I have designed and > operate recycle aquaculture systems and operational protocols that > don't use anti-biotics) would be very profitable. However, the > ethics of putting someone else out of business by using the power of > law is very questionable. > > You realize that your ban will result in some farmers being > financially impacted and their families impacted and their > "psychological welfare" significantly decreased. Which has a greater > "ethical value", humans or chickens? What is your ethical > responsibility towards other humans relative to your responsibility > towards animals? > > Why don't you just build your superior systems and put the cage > producers out of business fairly and ethically. If you do have a > superior system, you would be astounded at how fast you get copied by > competitors and even government agencies who will then take credit > for your ideas. > > If non-cage systems are not superior, they will not be adopted in > countries that are concerned with more basic things like human > welfare. The thought of China adopting our views of "animal welfare" > and worrying about the ethics of cages will not occur in my lifetime. > > If you truly want to have an impact and eliminate cages, just design > and build a truly superior system, then China and the rest of the > world will copy. > > Dallas > -- > > Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries > deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. > 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA > Fax 714-890-3778 92649 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fuer Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Buenteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Dep. animal welfare, animal hygiene & livestoc= k ethologie Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail:andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use the first one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de andreas.briese@ml.niedersachsen.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 27-FEB-2002 03:55:37.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment I hadn't realised that *all* birds were excluded from protection - I was under the impression that this mainly applied to poultry chicks used for vaccine testing. Is there any information available on the possible numbers of other species being used. On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Dee Thompson wrote: > > unfortunately this bill also had some backing from pet bird breeders and > owners who were convinced that this was really just a way to get the > government involved in somehow regulating pet bird breeding and ownership. > I used to care for birds used for research...many species, usually > involved in toxicological studies, but the public generally doesn't think > of birds as research subjects, so some of the pet bird lists were in a > panic asking for call in campaigns against protective regulation. They even > said new regulations would require all birds in homes woiuld have to be > kept in stainless steel cages! > Dee Thompson > Parrot Rescue Maryland > > ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 27-FEB-2002 04:16:21.52 To: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" Subj: RE: moderation and stocking densities Dear All, I think Andy was very clear in his support of my initial call for a little moderation in expression (not necessarily in stand-point). This bulletin board was originally set up for the professional body of the International Society for Applied Ethology and other people interested in the study of animal behaviour. As such, it was intended to be a medium in which people could express views, opinions, statements of scientific fact, etc, in an informed and curteous manner. So, whilst some might have a tendency to initially view with suspicion (in terms of welfare) the stocking densities of fish stated earlier, I hope they would remain open-minded to this discussion until fully appraised of the facts and other pertinent details - rather than immediately condemning such actions with potentially offensive comments. I suggest other contributers might also like to consider this. Dallas, you said in an earlier statement - "If the little tanks are properly assembled, both experimental data and theoretical calculations indicate a stress free environment." Could you please tell me what '...theoretical calculations...' you refer to? Perhaps we could apply these to other animal groupings such as caged hens? My thanks in advance. Chris Sherwin On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:13:31 +1300 WHFEEP wrote: > My point was that one extreme is surely likely to be equally as flawed as > another if it is the result of hypersensitivity rather than reason. You may > well be correct in suggesting that PETA are also hypersensitive. > > I am not necessarily against extreme views, nor do I think they should be > excluded - I merely think it best if name calling is avoided while doing so. > If I failed to make this clear I apologise. > > Regards > Andy Beck > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bev Caldwell" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:53 PM > Subject: Replies sought > > > > Following are some of Dallas's comments and questions that I am looking > > forward to those of you involved in this debate addressing and/or > > answering: > > > > > If you have a superior system, you don't need to > > > ban the competition, you just build your system and make some money. > > > If your system can't compete, that means that your design concepts > > > are flawed. > > > > > Why don't you just build your superior systems and put the cage > > > producers out of business fairly and ethically. If you do have a > > > superior system, you would be astounded at how fast you get copied by > > > competitors and even government agencies who will then take credit > > > for your ideas. > > > > > the > > > ethics of putting someone else out of business by using the power of > > > law is very questionable. > > > > > Which has a greater > > > "ethical value", humans or chickens? What is your ethical > > > responsibility towards other humans relative to your responsibility > > > towards animals? > > > > > If non-cage systems are not superior, they will not be adopted in > > > countries that are concerned with more basic things like human > > > welfare. The thought of China adopting our views of "animal welfare" > > > and worrying about the ethics of cages will not occur in my lifetime. > > > > As for my opinion on this topic, I am not commenting because I have > > nothing to do with chickens other than eating them, which I guess could > > be regarded as going against their rights as animals. Oh well. > > > > And to the person who asked: > > > Where does this hyper-sensitivity fit in the study of animal behavior? > > > > Surely it must act as a block to reasoned approach? > > > > Perhaps this would be an excellent question to address to PETA? IMHO, > > PETA demonstates hyper-sensitivity, and maybe this indeed has blocked a > > "reasoned approach" on their part. Is this possible? > > > > I believe moderation is good as well. However, to stifle folks from > > expressing their ideas because someone doesn't like them or they aren't > > politically correct or "moderate" enough seems to me just as detrimental > > to open debate as "put downs" or "being a wholesale target". > > > > I believe Dallas has expressed some worthwhile, thought-provoking ideas > > and raised some valid questions to which I look forward to seeing > > responses. > > > > Regards, > > > > ~~Bev > > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"rsilva@cpap.embrapa.br" "Roberto Aguilar M. S. Silva" 27-FEB-2002 05:45:14.16 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Vacalization/Cattle/Field Dear Friends, Please let me know how we could record the cattle vocalization (cows and calves)at extensive pasture conditions? What kind of equipment I need? Sincerely, Roberto http://www.conferencia.uncnet.br/pantanal/organica.en.html Roberto Aguilar M. S. Silva Animal Behaviour, Health and Sustainable Production EMBRAPA-Agricultural Research Center for the Pantanal Rua 21 de Setembro, 1880 CEP:79320-900 Corumba, MS, Brazil From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 27-FEB-2002 05:50:33.26 To: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Dear All, One of the reasons I believe we need more protection of laboratory rodents and birds is the increasing evidence of limited external validity of many research findings. Basically, this means that different laboratories using standard methods, strains, housing, etc., will get highly repeatable results within their own laboratory, but NOT repeatable with other laboratories. This is thought to be due to the highly restricted environments in which we keep laboratory animals and the intense in-breeding causing a fundamental flaw in the animal model. This clearly reduces the ethical nature of such research and undermines the basis of reproducibility in science. In effect, laboratory rodents may be suffering simply to be used in poor quality science with little applicability. Greater protection of these species should allow the possibility of these issues being adressed. Regards, Chris References Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D and Dudek BC 1999. Genetics of mouse behavior: Interactions with laboratory environment. Science 284, 1670-1672 Prior H and Sachser N 1995. Effects of enriched housing environment on the behaviour of young male and female mice in four exploratory tasks. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 37, 57-68 Kuhnen G 1999. The effect of cage size and enrichment on core temperature and febrile response of the golden hamster. Laboratory Animals 33, 221-227 Prusky GT, Reidel C, Douglas RM 2000. Environmental enrichment from birth enhances visual acuity but not place learning in mice. Behavioural Brain Research 114, 11-15 Wurbel H 2001. Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends in Neuroscience 24, 207-211 On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:08:57 -0800 "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." wrote: > Why do you need the "law" rather that just "good laboratory practice" > to protect rats and mice? Please note that I have had customers who > had someone limit the number of zebra fish in their tanks on a fish > per volume basis without knowing or asking about gas/liquid mass > transfer capacity, SS removal capacity or ammonia oxidation capacity > of the system. > > If people have poor lab practices, let them know what they are doing > wrong when you review their grants or their publications. Using the > "law" to get ones views across indicates a problem with those views. > Perhaps we should eliminate the "legal manadate for protecting rats > mice and brids used in research in the US". Perhaps animal > welfare cops aren't necessary or desirable. Perhaps the animal > welfare cops are creating a great deal of human welfare problems and > slowing scientific progress by drivel like # of zebra danios/liter > (especially when their mandates were a factor of 100 lower than > commercial densities with good filtration systems). > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > >To cut a long story short, Jesse Helms is championing an ammendement to the > >farm bill going through congress right now that will remove a lot of the > >legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the > >US. This would represent a serious step in the wrong direction for lab > >animal welfare in the US. However I've been able to find very little > >information about this. Does anyone (Mike?) know of any organised campaings > >which we might be able to throw some professional weight behind if so > >inclined? > > > >Thanks > > > >Joe > > > >__________________________ > > > >Dr. Joseph Garner, > >University of California, > >Department of Animal Science, > >One Shields Avenue, > >Davis, > >CA 95616 > >USA > > > >Phone: (530) 752 1253 > >Fax: (530) 752 0175 > > > -- > > Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries > deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. > 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA > Fax 714-890-3778 92649 > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" 27-FEB-2002 10:27:42.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU i admit to lurking a bit lately.. but, since, as some have pointed out; the list has a few academics on the roster.... so, i got some help..... > there is no question that intensiv egg production in battery > cages results in > the highest individual profits of the egg producer. here's what bill roush has to say! ----------------- It is a complex problem. I found that using decision theory (World Poultry Science Journal 1986 42:26-31), one could point out the fallacy that one more bird/cage would be more profitable. It was found to be the opposite, the extra bird (5 birds in a 4 bird cage (12x20 inches) actually decreased the profit. One caveat though, under certain economic circumstances you can justify the extra bird . For example, if the feed cost is very low and the egg price is very high, higher densities can be justified(in terms of increasing profit alone). To overcome the economic issue, we used fuzzy logic which is a method of evaluating imprecise terms such as stress This provides an approach to answer the question: "At what point does stress begin and end." In the 4 bird cage, we found that 3 birds would be the threshold point for stress (Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1989 23:155-163). It was found that, in addition to area/bird, colony size makes a difference (Poultry Science 1990 69:1480-1484). ------------------- i guess the point is that there is no static 'correct' decision regarding profitability or, for that matter, welfare. we are dealing with phenomena that are described by simultaneous non-linear equations -- influenced by genotype by environment interplay further impacted by economic parameters of the day --- the minima/optima are not always obvious. to some degree the recent hyperbole is just that. guy G. F. Barbato http://gfb.cas.psu.edu From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 27-FEB-2002 14:53:55.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology Applied (E-mail)" CC: Subj: FW: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_S+r4VN8faZl8W9IZr8+4UQ) Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear All Here's Martin Stephens' reply. He also points out that it might help motivate sympathetic scientists to remind them that the National Association for Biomedical Research, the American Physiological Society, and others are busy urging scientists to SUPPORT the Helms amendment. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Martin Stephens Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:27 PM To: Michael Appleby Cc: Lesley King Subject: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Mike, Here is the situation. The USDA was poised to begin the process of regulating birds, mice, and rats under the Animal Welfare Act, prompted by a settlement in a court case. The Farm Bill was silent on the issue, which was fine. However, Sen. Helms was able to get an amendment put into the Senate version of the Farm Bill that would legislatively exclude BM&R from coverage. There is no such amendment in the House version of the Farm Bill. If Helms' amendment survives when the House/Senate conference committee reconciles the two versions of the bill, that would be an enormous loss for those of us that want to see these animals receive the same (albeit modest) legal protection as accorded to other mammals used in research. For anyone who wants more background information, I've attached a document that is a page and a half in length. For anyone wishing to take action, here is the key information from a recent issue of The Humane Society of the United States' electronic action alert: FARM BILL MOVES TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: The passage last week of the Senate Farm Bill includes one major disappointment: the attachment of the Helms amendment to exclude birds, rats and mice from the protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The amendment is a cynical attempt by Senator Helms (R-NC) to undo a recent, hard-won federal court order compelling the USDA to begin granting AWA protections to these long-suffering animals, who comprise more than 95% of all animals used in laboratory research. While the Senate version of the Farm bill included the Helms amendment, the House version did not. This gives us one final opportunity to see the amendment stripped from the Farm bill before it is finished. A House-Senate Conference committee will meet to reconcile the different versions of the bill, at which time we hope to convince them to drop the Helms amendment from the final version. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Contact the following key members of the Senate-House Conference Committee and urge them to "drop the Helms research amendment from the final version of the Farm Bill." 1. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): 202/ 224-2035 2. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202/ 224-2035 (same number as Harkin's) 3. Representative Larry Combest (R-TX): 202/ 225-2171 4. Representative Charles Stenholm (D-TX): 202/ 225-0317 Back to my message: Here is additional contact info on these conferees that Lesley King managed to track down: Harkin: fax 202-224-9369; email: tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov Lugar: fax 202-228-0360; email: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov Combest: fax 202-225-9615 or email address probably is: larry_combest@combest.house.gov Stenholm: fax 202-225-2234; email probably: charles_stenholm@stenholm.house.gov Or charlie_stenholm@stenholm.house.gov If possible, PLEASE phone or fax rather than email, as more notice is taken of faxes and phone calls. If anyone resides in the home state or district of the remaining conferees, ESPECIALLY North Carolina (Sen. Helms' state) it wouldn't hurt to contact that Senator or Representative. The full list of Senate Conferees: Tom Harkin (D-IA); Thad Cochran (R-MS); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Tom Daschle (D-SD); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Richard Lugar (R-IN); and Jesse Helms (R-NC). The House conferees are: John Boehner (R-OH); Larry Combest (R-TX); Saxby Chambliss (R-GA); Gary Condit (D-CA); Calvin Dooley (D-CA); Terry Everett (R-AL); Bob Goodlatte (R-VA); Tim Holden (D-PA); Ken Lucas (D-KY); Jerry Moran (R-KS); Collin Peterson (D-MN); Richard Pombo (R-CA); and Charles Stenholm (D-TX). For contact information, check out www.vote-smart.org Best wishes, Marty -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:14 PM To: 'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca' Cc: Martin Stephens Subject: RE: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment Joe et al Yes, the current situation is that use of rodents and birds doesn't even have to be declared in experimental records, so there is almost no protection for them. After a huge amount of work by those concerned for animal welfare, a provision was included in the Farm Bill that rodents and birds would now have to be listed like other animals. Helms' amendment was accepted in the Senate version of the Bill, and removes that provision. The Bill is now in committee - and Helms is an influential member of the committee. I am copying this to the head of our Research Animal Issues section, Marty Stephens. He will tell me if you can take effective action on this, and I'll pass his reply on to you and the list. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Garner, Joseph P. [mailto:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:48 PM To: ISAE (E-mail) Subject: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment To cut a long story short, Jesse Helms is championing an ammendement to the farm bill going through congress right now that will remove a lot of the legal manadate for protecting rats mice and brids used in research in the US. This would represent a serious step in the wrong direction for lab animal welfare in the US. However I've been able to find very little information about this. Does anyone (Mike?) know of any organised campaings which we might be able to throw some professional weight behind if so inclined? Thanks Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org --Boundary_(ID_S+r4VN8faZl8W9IZr8+4UQ) Content-type: application/msword; name=Conferees.RebuttalV2.doc Content-transfer-encoding: BASE64 Content-disposition: attachment; filename=Conferees.RebuttalV2.doc 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA PwAAAAAAAAAAEAAAQQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAEAAAAD///////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////spcEANUAJBAAA8BK/AAAA AAAAEAAAAAAABgAAIywAAA4AYmpias8yzzIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJBBYA Ki4AAK1YAACtWAAATxgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8A AAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgAAAAAAPQB AAAAAAAA9AEAAPQBAAAAAAAA9AEAAAAAAAD0AQAAAAAAAPQBAAAAAAAA9AEAABQA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAgCAAAAAAAArAkAAAAAAACsCQAAAAAAAKwJAAAAAAAArAkAAAwA AAC4CQAAHAAAAAgCAAAAAAAArg0AAC4BAADgCQAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAA AADgCQAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAAAADgCQAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAAFQ0AAAIA AAAXDQAAAAAAABcNAAAAAAAAFw0AAAAAAAAXDQAAAAAAABcNAAAAAAAAFw0AACQA AADcDgAAUgIAAC4RAAASAQAAOw0AAC0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9AEAAAAA AADgCQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgCQAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAA AADgCQAAAAAAADsNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD0AQAAAAAAAPQBAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAAaA0AABYAAAAcCgAAAAAAABwKAAAAAAAAHAoAAAAA AADgCQAAIgAAAPQBAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAAAAD0AQAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAAFQ0AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABwKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAAAAAVDQAAAAAAABwKAABcAQAAHAoAAAAA AAB4CwAAVgAAAJEMAABAAAAA9AEAAAAAAAD0AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6QwAAAAA AADgCQAAAAAAANQJAAAMAAAAIKAqXqe/wQEAAAAAAAAAAKwJAAAAAAAAAgoAABAA AADRDAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACQ0AAAwAAAB+DQAAMAAAAK4NAAAAAAAA3QwAAAwA AABAEgAAAAAAABIKAAAAAAAAQBIAABgAAADpDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAIAAAAA AAAIAgAAAAAAAPQBAAAAAAAA9AEAAAAAAAD0AQAAAAAAAPQBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEASAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD0AQAAAAAAAOkMAAAgAAAA4AkAAAAA AADgCQAAAAAAABwKAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAAAADgCQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AkAAAAAAADgCQAAAAAAAOAJAAAAAAAAOw0AAAAA AAA7DQAAAAAAAAgCAAAAAAAACAIAAKQHAACsCQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgoAAAoA AAAIAgAAAAAAAAgCAAAAAAAArAkAAAAAAAACAAEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFVSR0lORyBGQVJNIEJJTEwgQ09ORkVSRUVTIFRPIERS T1AgSEVMTVMgQU1FTkRNRU5UIEVYQ0xVRElORyA5NSBQRVJDRU5UIE9GIEFMTCBB TklNQUxTIFVTRUQgSU4gUkVTRUFSQ0ggQU5EIFRFU1RJTkcgRlJPTSBUSEUgQU5J TUFMIFdFTEZBUkUgQUNUklMgQkFTSUMgU1RBTkRBUkRTIEZPUiBIVU1BTkUgQ0FS RQ0NRm9yIDMwIHllYXJzLCB0aGUgVS5TLiBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEFncmljdWx0 dXJlIGhhcyBpZ25vcmVkIHRoZSBsYXcgYW5kIGV4Y2x1ZGVkIGJpcmRzLCBtaWNl LCBhbmQgcmF0c5c5NSBwZXJjZW50IG9mIHRoZSBhbmltYWxzIHVzZWQgaW4gcmVz ZWFyY2gtLWZyb20gdGhlIGJhc2ljIHByb3RlY3Rpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBBbmltYWwg V2VsZmFyZSBBY3QuICBUbyBzZXR0bGUgYSBjb3VydCBjYXNlIGl0IHdhcyBhYm91 dCB0byBsb3NlLCBVU0RBIGFncmVlZCBpbiBTZXB0LiAyMDAwIHRvIGJlZ2luIHRo ZSBwcm9jZXNzIG9mIGV4dGVuZGluZyBpdHMgcmVndWxhdGlvbnMgdG8gdGhlc2Ug c3BlY2llcy4gIE9ubHkgYSBmZXcgbW9udGhzIGFnbywgQ29uZ3Jlc3MgYWdhaW4g YWRkcmVzc2VkIHRoaXMgaXNzdWUgYnkgYWxsb3dpbmcgVVNEQSB0byBnbyBmb3J3 YXJkIHdpdGggdGhlIHJ1bGVtYWtpbmcuICBUaGUgSGVsbXMgYW1lbmRtZW50LCB3 aGljaCBpcyBiYXNlZCBvbiBmYWxzZSBhbmQgbWlzbGVhZGluZyBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biBmcm9tIGEgZmV3IHRyYWRlIGFzc29jaWF0aW9ucywgZGVuaWVzIHRoZXNlIHBy b3RlY3Rpb25zIHRvIG92ZXIgMjAgbWlsbGlvbiBhbmltYWxzIHVzZWQgaW4gZXhw ZXJpbWVudHMgZXZlcnkgeWVhci4gIEhlcmUgYXJlIHRoZSBmYWN0czoNDVRoZSBh c3NlcnRpb24gdGhhdCCTcmF0cywgbWljZSwgYW5kIGJpcmRzIGhhdmUgbmV2ZXIg YmVlbiBpbmNsdWRlZJQgaW4gdGhlIEFuaW1hbCBXZWxmYXJlIEFjdCAgKEFXQSkg aXMgZmFsc2UuICBJbiAxOTcwLCBDb25ncmVzcyBzcGVjaWZpY2FsbHkgYW1lbmRl ZCB0aGUgQVdBIHRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGF0IJNhbGwgd2FybS1ibG9vZGVkIHNwZWNp ZXOUIHVzZWQgaW4gcmVzZWFyY2ggcmVjZWl2ZWQgaHVtYW5lIGNhcmUuIEJpcmRz LCBtaWNlLCBhbmQgcmF0cyBhcmUgY2xlYXJseSB3YXJtLWJsb29kZWQgc3BlY2ll cy4gIEluIDE5OTIsIFUuUy4gRGlzdHJpY3QgSnVkZ2UgQ2hhcmdlcyBSaWNoZXkg Y2FsbGVkIHRoZWlyIGV4Y2x1c2lvbiBhcmJpdHJhcnkgYW5kIGNhcHJpY2lvdXMg YW5kIGEgdmlvbGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBBV0EuICBJbiAyMDAwLCBVLlMuIERpc3Ry aWN0IEp1ZGdlIEVsbGVuIFNlZ2FsIEh1dmVsbGUgY29uY3VycmVkIHRoYXQgdGhl IFNlY3JldGFyeSBkb2VzIG5vdCBoYXZlIJN1bmJyaWRsZWQgZGlzY3JldGlvbiB0 byBjb25jbHVkZSB0aGF0IGFuaW1hbHMgd2hpY2ggYXJlIGJlaW5nIHVzZWQgZm9y IHJlc2VhcmNoIGFyZSBub3QgkmFuaW1hbHOSlCB1bmRlciB0aGUgQWN0OyBzaGUg YWxzbyBncmFudGVkIHRoZSBwbGFpbnRpZmZzIHN0YW5kaW5nLiBVU0RBIHRoZW4g ZW50ZXJlZCB0aGUgc2V0dGxlbWVudCBhZ3JlZW1lbnQuDQ1VU0RBIG92ZXJzaWdo dCBvZiB0aGUgY2FyZSBvZiBiaXJkcywgbWljZSwgYW5kIHJhdHMgdXNlZCBpbiBy ZXNlYXJjaCB3aWxsIG5vdCByZXN1bHQgaW4gY29zdGx5IG5ldyBwYXBlcndvcmsu ICBOSUgtYXBwcm92ZWQgYW5kIEFBQUxBQy1hY2NyZWRpdGVkIGluc3RpdHV0aW9u cyB3aWxsIGhhdmUgdG8gZmlsbCBpbiB0aHJlZSBuZXcgbGluZXMgb24gdGhlIHJl cG9ydCB0aGV5IGFscmVhZHkgZmlsZS4gIChUaGVyZSBpcyBhIHNlcGFyYXRlIHJl cG9ydGluZyBzdGFuZGFyZCBmb3IgZXhwZXJpbWVudHMgdGhhdCBjYXVzZSB1bnJl bGlldmVkIHBhaW4uKQ0NTkFCUiBhbmQgb3RoZXJzIHNheSB0aGF0IFVTREGScyBy ZWd1bGF0aW9ucyB3aWxsIGJlIJNjdW1iZXJzb21lLJQgYW5kIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ug d2lsbCBjb3N0ICQ4MCBtaWxsaW9uIG9yIG1vcmUsIGV2ZW4gdGhvdWdoIG5vdCBv bmUgbmV3IHN0YW5kYXJkIGhhcyB5ZXQgYmVlbiB3cml0dGVuIG9uIHdoaWNoIHRv IGJhc2UgdGhpcyB3aWxkIGFzc2VydGlvbi4gIE1vcmVvdmVyLCB5b3UgYXJlIGFs c28gYmVpbmcgdG9sZCB0aGF0IHJlc2VhcmNoIGluc3RpdHV0aW9ucyBhbHJlYWR5 IGhhdmUgdG8gY29tcGx5IHdpdGggc3RhbmRhcmRzIG9mIGFuaW1hbCBjYXJlIGlt cG9zZWQgYnkgTklIIGFuZCB0aGUgQXNzb2NpYXRpb24gZm9yIHRoZSBBY2NyZWRp dGF0aW9uIGFuZCBBc3Nlc3NtZW50IG9mIExhYm9yYXRvcnkgQW5pbWFsIENhcmUu ICBTbyBjb21wbHlpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGUgQVdBIGxpa2VseSB3aWxsIHBvc2Ugbm8g YWRkZWQgYnVyZGVuLiAgVGhlIEFXQSBtYW5kYXRlcyBiYXNpYyBjYXJlIGZvciBh bmltYWxzIHN1Y2ggYXMgZm9vZCwgd2F0ZXIsIGhvdXNpbmcsIGFuZCBhZGVxdWF0 ZSB2ZXRlcmluYXJ5IGNhcmUgYW5kIG92ZXJzaWdodDsgaWYgdGhlIGNsYWltcyBy ZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhlIGhpZ2ggY29zdCBvZiBjb21wbGlhbmNlIGFyZSB0cnVlLCB1 bmRlciB3aGF0IGtpbmQgb2YgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBjb25kaXRpb25zIGFyZSBtaWNl LCByYXRzLCBhbmQgYmlyZHMgY3VycmVudGx5IGJlaW5nIG1haW50YWluZWQ/ICBB bmQgd2hhdCBraW5kIG9mIGRlbGV0ZXJpb3VzIGVmZmVjdCBpcyB0aGF0IGhhdmlu ZyBvbiB0aGUgcmVzZWFyY2ggYmVpbmcgY29uZHVjdGVkIGF0IHRoZXNlIGZhY2ls aXRpZXM/DQ1BbHRob3VnaCBvdGhlciBlbnRpdGllcyCTb3ZlcnNlZZQgbW9zdCBh bmltYWwgY2FyZSwgbm9uZSBvZiB0aGVpciBzdGFuZGFyZHMgaGFzIHRoZSBmb3Jj ZSBvZiBsYXcsIGFzIGRvZXMgdGhlIEFuaW1hbCBXZWxmYXJlIEFjdC4gIFNvbWUg ZmFjaWxpdGllcyBoYXZlIG5vIG92ZXJzaWdodCB3aGF0c29ldmVyLiBOZWl0aGVy IE5JSCBub3IgQUFBTEFDIGFyZSBlbmZvcmNlbWVudCBhZ2VuY2llc5dhbmQgdGhl eSBkbyBub3Qgd2FudCB0aGF0IGpvYi4gIE5JSJJzIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBhcmUg bWVyZWx5IGd1aWRlbGluZXMuICBBQUFMQUMgYWNjcmVkaXRhdGlvbiBpcyB2b2x1 bnRhcnksIGV4cGVuc2l2ZSwgYW5kIG5vdCBtYW5kYXRlZCBieSBsYXcuICBBQUFM QUMgY29uZHVjdHMgYW5ub3VuY2VkIHNpdGUgdmlzaXRzIG9ubHkgb25jZSBldmVy eSB0aHJlZSB5ZWFycywgYW5kIHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBvZiByZXNlYXJjaCBmYWNp bGl0aWVzIGFyZSBub3QgYWNjcmVkaXRlZC4gIE1vc3QgY2FzZXMgb2Ygc3Vic3Rh bmRhcmQgY2FyZSBhcmUgYnJvdWdodCB0byBOSUiScyBhbmQgQUFBTEFDknMgYXR0 ZW50aW9uIGJ5IFVTREEsIG5vdCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgd2F5IGFyb3VuZC4gIEV4YW1w bGVzOg0NQXQgdGhlIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgSGF3YWlpLCB3aG9zZSBsYWJvcmF0 b3J5IGlzIE5JSC1hcHByb3ZlZCwgYSBVU0RBIHZldGVyaW5hcmlhbiBmb3VuZCBh IG1vcmlidW5kIHJhdCBpbiB0aGUgZnJlZXplciwgd2hlcmUgaXQgYXBwYXJlbnRs eSBoYWQgYmVlbiBmb3IgYSBkYXkgb3IgbW9yZS4gIEhhZCB0aGlzIGJlZW4gYW4g QVdBLXByb3RlY3RlZCBzcGVjaWVzLCB0aGUgdW5pdmVyc2l0eSB3b3VsZCBoYXZl IGJlZW4gk2xpYWJsZSBmb3Igc2VyaW91cyB2aW9sYXRpb25zlCBvZiB0aGUgbGF3 LiAgVGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBpdCB3YXMgbm90IGEgY292ZXJlZCBzcGVjaWVzIJNp biBubyB3YXkgZGltaW5pc2hlcyB0aGUgc2VyaW91c25lc3Mgb2YgdGhpcyBlZ3Jl Z2lvdXMgbGFjayBvZiBodW1hbmUgY2FyZYWUDUF0IEFtZ2VuLCBvbmUgb2YgdGhl IGxhcmdlc3QsIHByaXZhdGUsIGFjY3JlZGl0ZWQgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBjb21w YW5pZXMsIGEgVVNEQSB2ZXRlcmluYXJpYW4gcmVwb3J0ZWQgdGhhdCBhIHJlc2Vh cmNoIGFzc2lzdGFudCBoYWQgYmVlbiBzbGljaW5nIG9wZW4gaW5hZGVxdWF0ZWx5 IGFuZXN0aGV0aXplZCBtaWNlIGFuZCByZW1vdmluZyB0aGVpciBvcmdhbnMuICBU aGUgYXBwcm92ZWQgcmVzZWFyY2ggcHJvdG9jb2wsIHdoaWNoIHdhcyBpZ25vcmVk LCBjYWxsZWQgZm9yIHRoZSBtaWNlIHRvIGJlIGV1dGhhbml6ZWQgYmVmb3JlIHRo ZWlyIG9yZ2FucyB3ZXJlIGhhcnZlc3RlZC4gIFRoaXMgcmVzZWFyY2ggYXNzaXN0 YW50IHNob3VsZCBub3QgZXZlbiBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZXhwZXJpbWVudGluZyBvbiBh bmltYWxzIGFzIHNoZSBoYWQgYmVlbiBjaXRlZCB0d2ljZSBiZWZvcmUgZm9yIGNh dXNpbmcgcGFpbiBhbmQgZGlzdHJlc3MgaW4gYW5pbWFscy4NDUNvbnRyYXJ5IHRv IHRoZSB0cmFkZSBncm91cJJzIGFzc2VydGlvbnMsIHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBvZiBz Y2llbnRpc3RzIHdhbnQgYmlyZHMsIG1pY2UsIGFuZCByYXRzIGNvdmVyZWQgYnkg dGhlIEFXQSByZWd1bGF0aW9ucy4gU3VwcG9ydCBjb21lcyBmcm9tLCBhbW9uZyBv dGhlcnMsIHRoZSBBbWVyaWNhbiBDb2xsZWdlIG9mIExhYm9yYXRvcnkgQW5pbWFs IE1lZGljaW5lLCBUaGUgQW1lcmljYW4gQXNzb2NpYXRpb24gZm9yIExhYm9yYXRv cnkgQW5pbWFsIFNjaWVuY2UsIFByb2N0ZXIgJiBHYW1ibGUsIFNjaWVudGlzdHMg Q2VudGVyIGZvciBBbmltYWwgV2VsZmFyZSwgSm9obnMgSG9wa2lucyBVbml2ZXJz aXR5IENlbnRlciBmb3IgQWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIHRvIEFuaW1hbCBUZXN0aW5nLCBh bmQgRHVQb250IFBoYXJtYWNldXRpY2FsIENvLiAgTW9yZW92ZXIsIGEgk3N1cnZl eSBvZiBJbnN0aXR1dGlvbmFsIEFuaW1hbCBDYXJlIGFuZCBVc2UgQ29tbWl0dGVl IG1lbWJlcnMgcmV2ZWFscyB0aGF0IG1vc3QgcmVzZWFyY2hlcnMgYWN0dWFsbHkg ZmF2b3IgQVdBIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlc2Ugc3BlY2llc4VBIGNsZWFyIG1h am9yaXR5IG9mIGFuaW1hbCByZXNlYXJjaGVycyBhbmQgb3RoZXIgSUFDVUMgbWVt YmVycyBmYXZvcmVkIEFXQSBjb3ZlcmFnZSBmb3IgbWljZSwgcmF0cywgYW5kIGJp cmRzLiAgRXZlbiBhbmltYWwgcmVzZWFyY2hlcnMgaW4gcHN5Y2hvbG9neSwgcHN5 Y2hvcGhhcm1hY29sb2d5LCBhbmQgYmVoYXZpb3JhbCBuZXVyb3NjaWVuY2Ugc3Vw cG9ydCBBV0EgY292ZXJhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlc2UgYW5pbWFscywgZGVzcGl0ZSB0aGUg ZmFjdCB0aGF0IHRoZXNlIGRpc2NpcGxpbmVzIHdvdWxkIGJlIGFtb25nIHRoZSBt b3N0IGFmZmVjdGVkIGJ5IEFXQSByZWd1bGF0aW9uIG9mIG1pY2UsIHJhdHMsIGFu ZCBiaXJkcy6UICBTdXJ2ZXkgY29uZHVjdGVkIGJ5IFNjb3R0IFBsb3VzIChEZXB0 LiBvZiBQc3ljaG9sb2d5LCBXZXNsZXlhbiBVbml2ZXJzaXR5KSBhbmQgSGFyb2xk IEhlcnpvZyAoRGVwdC4gb2YgUHN5Y2hvbG9neSwgV2VzdCBDYXJvbGluYSBVbml2 ZXJzaXR5KSwgU2NpZW5jZSwgdi4yOTAsIDEwLzI3LzIwMDAuDQ1ZT1VSIENPTlNU SVRVRU5UUyBSRUNPR05JWkUgVEhBVCBCSVJEUywgUkFUUywgQU5EIE1JQ0UgQVJF IEFOSU1BTFMsIFRPTy4gIE9WRVIgMTAgTUlMTElPTiBBTUVSSUNBTlMgU1RST05H TFkgU1VQUE9SVCBQUk9WSURJTkcgVEhFTSBXSVRIIFRIRSBNSU5JTVVNIFBST1RF Q1RJT05TIEFGRk9SREVEIEJZIFRIRSBBTklNQUwgV0VMRkFSRSBBQ1QgLiAgVGhl IEhlbG1zkiBleGNsdXNpb24gYW1lbmRtZW50IGNvbnN0aXR1dGVzIGEgd2hvbGVz YWxlIGd1dHRpbmcgb2YgdGhlIEFuaW1hbCBXZWxmYXJlIEFjdCB3aXRob3V0IG9u ZSB3b3JkIG9mIGRlYmF0ZS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IHRoZSB3YXkgdG8gbWFrZSBw b2xpY3kgb3IgdG8gcmVzb2x2ZSBjb250cm92ZXJzaWFsIGlzc3VlcyBvZiB0aGlz IG1hZ25pdHVkZS4gIFRoaXMgYW1lbmRtZW50IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgYWRvcHRl ZCBhcyBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBmYXJtIGJpbGwgY29uZmVyZW5jZSByZXBvcnQuDQ0N DQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDVRoZSBXb3Jr aW5nIEdyb3VwIHRvIFByZXNlcnZlIHRoZSBBbmltYWwgV2VsZmFyZSBBY3QAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAIACgJSAAQQBsAHQAZQByAG4AYQB0AGkAdgBlAHMA IABSAGUAcwBlAGEAcgBjAGgAIABhAG4AZAAgAEQAZQB2AGUAbABvAHAAbQBlAG4A dAAgAEYAbwB1AG4AZABhAHQAaQBvAG4AIAAgACAAoCUgAEEAbQBlAHIAaQBjAGEA bgAgAFMAbwBjAGkAZQB0AHkAIABmAG8AcgAgAHQAaABlACAAUAByAGUAdgBlAG4A dABpAG8AbgAgAG8AZgAgAEMAcgB1AGUAbAB0AHkAIAB0AG8AIABBAG4AaQBtAGEA bABzACAAIAAgAKAlIABEAG8AcgBpAHMAIABEAGEAeQAgAEEAbgBpAG0AYQBsACAA TABlAGEAZwB1AGUAIAAgACAAoCUgAFQAaABlACAASAB1AG0AYQBuAGUAIABTAG8A YwBpAGUAdAB5ACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABVAC4AUwAuACAAIAAgAKAlIABNAGEA cwBzAGEAYwBoAHUAcwBlAHQAdABzACAAUwBvAGMAaQBlAHQAeQAgAGYAbwByACAA dABoAGUAIABQAHIAZQB2AGUAbgB0AGkAbwBuACAAbwBmACAAQwByAHUAZQBsAHQA eQAgAHQAbwAgAEEAbgBpAG0AYQBsAHMAIAAgACAAoCUgAFMAbwBjAGkAZQB0AHkA AAYAALEIAACyCAAAaQkAAHsJAAChCgAAwQoAAEoLAABLCwAAlgsAAKgLAACrCwAA rgsAALMLAAC4CwAA5gsAAOkLAAD5CwAAEwwAAMcOAADWDgAAvw8AAPQPAAAzEQAA NhEAAN8RAAA8EgAAFhMAACgTAADHEwAA0RMAACwUAAA1FAAAlRgAABQZAACWGgAA 1RoAAMkcAADQHAAA5BwAAOUcAACXHQAAqR0AAPMdAAAFHgAAzR4AAM4eAAAaHwAA ACAAAAAiAAAALAAAIywAAPrx59zn0efN59zn3OfR59zn0efR59Hn3OfR59zn3OfR 59Hn0efc583RwNHA0c27tM2yzQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADVQgBDBZoO18kADUIgTYIgQAJFmg7XyQANQiB GBZoO18kADUIgTYIgUNKFABPSgMAUUoDAAAGFmg7XyQAABUWaDtfJAA1CIFDShQA T0oDAFFKAwAVFmg7XyQANgiBQ0oUAE9KAwBRSgMAEhZoO18kAENKFABPSgMAUUoD AAAQFmg7XyQANQiBNgiBQ0oYAAAKFmg7XyQAQ0oYADMABgAAsggAALMIAABKCwAA SwsAABIOAAATDgAATg8AAE8PAACnEgAAqBIAABUVAAAWFQAArBYAAJQYAACVGAAA 5RwAAOYcAADOHgAAzx4AANAeAADRHgAA0h4AANMeAADUHgAA1R4AAP0AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD2AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAN0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADb AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADbAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA2wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAABQAACiYA C0YDAAAFAAAPhDwAXoQ8AA4AAAomAAtGAQANxgcBaAEBpAEGD4SkAV6EpAEFAAAK JgALRgIAAAEAAAABEQAAGQAGAAAjLAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAQAAQEB 1R4AANYeAADXHgAA2B4AANkeAADaHgAA2x4AANweAADdHgAA3h4AAN8eAADgHgAA 4R4AAOIeAADjHgAA5B4AAOUeAADmHgAA5x4AAOgeAADpHgAA6h4AAOseAADsHgAA 7R4AAO4eAADvHgAA8B4AAPEeAADyHgAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA /QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAAAB3yHgAA8x4AAPQeAAD1HgAA 9h4AAPceAAD4HgAAIywAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAABEAAAByBmb3IgQW5pbWFsIFByb3RlY3RpdmUgTGVnaXNsYXRp b24NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KAAmUAEAH7DQLyCw4D0hsBAFIrAQBSOQ8AMkkPADJbAAABewAAAYsAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FAASABIAAQCcAA8AAwAAAAAAAAAAADwAAEDx/wIAPAAMAAAAAAAAAAAABgBOAG8A cgBtAGEAbAAAAAIAAAAUAENKGABfSAEEbUgJBHNICQR0SAkEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAARABBAPL/oQBEAAwBAAAAAAAAAAAWAEQAZQBmAGEAdQBsAHQAIABQAGEA cgBhAGcAcgBhAHAAaAAgAEYAbwBuAHQAAAAAAFYAaUDz/7MAVgAMAQAAAAAAAAAA DABUAGEAYgBsAGUAIABOAG8AcgBtAGEAbAAAACAAOlYLABf2AwAANNYGAAEFAwAA NNYGAAEKA2wAYfYDAAACAAsAAAAoAGtA9P/BACgAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAcATgBvACAA TABpAHMAdAAAAAIADAAAAAAAPABCQAEA8gA8AAwAAAAAAAAAAAAJAEIAbwBkAHkA IABUAGUAeAB0AAAAAgAPAA4ANQiBNgiBT0oEAFFKBAA2AFBAAQACATYADAAAAAAA AAAAAAsAQgBvAGQAeQAgAFQAZQB4AHQAIAAyAAAAAgAQAAQAQ0oQAEoAUUABABIB SgAMAAAAAAAAAAAACwBCAG8AZAB5ACAAVABlAHgAdAAgADMAAAAIABEAAyQBYSQB EgA1CIE2CIFDShQAT0oEAFFKBAAAAAAATxgAAAgAAC4AAAAA/////wAAAACyAAAA swAAAEoDAABLAwAAEgYAABMGAABOBwAATwcAAKcKAACoCgAAFQ0AABYNAACsDgAA lBAAAJUQAADlFAAA5hQAAM4WAADPFgAA0BYAANEWAADSFgAA0xYAANQWAADVFgAA 1hYAANcWAADYFgAA2RYAANoWAADbFgAA3BYAAN0WAADeFgAA3xYAAOAWAADhFgAA 4hYAAOMWAADkFgAA5RYAAOYWAADnFgAA6BYAAOkWAADqFgAA6xYAAOwWAADtFgAA 7hYAAO8WAADwFgAA8RYAAPIWAADzFgAA9BYAAPUWAAD2FgAA9xYAAPgWAABRGAAA mAAAABEwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAA AAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAA AIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAiAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAA ADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAABIAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAA AAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAEgADABAAAAAAAAgAAA AIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAASAAMAIA AAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA mAADIAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAyAAMAEAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAA AAAAAAAAAABNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEw AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIAB TTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEw AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIAB TTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEw AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIAB TTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEw AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AACAAU05ATAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAAAIABTTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAU05ATAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFNOQEwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIAB TTkBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACAAQAGAAAjLAAAEQAAAAAGAADVHgAA 8h4AACMsAAASAAAAFAAAABUAAAAABgAAIywAABMAAAAAAAAAogUAAKwFAACvDgAA tA4AAFEYAAAHAAQABwAcAAcAAAAAAE4YAABRGAAAAwAHAAAAAABRGAAABwD//xQA AAASAFAAcgBlAGYAZQByAHIAZQBkACAAQwB1AHMAdABvAG0AZQByAAAAEgBQAHIA ZQBmAGUAcgByAGUAZAAgAEMAdQBzAHQAbwBtAGUAcgAAABIAUAByAGUAZgBlAHIA cgBlAGQAIABDAHUAcwB0AG8AbQBlAHIAAAASAFAAcgBlAGYAZQByAHIAZQBkACAA QwB1AHMAdABvAG0AZQByAAAAEgBQAHIAZQBmAGUAcgByAGUAZAAgAEMAdQBzAHQA bwBtAGUAcgAAABIAUAByAGUAZgBlAHIAcgBlAGQAIABDAHUAcwB0AG8AbQBlAHIA AAASAFAAcgBlAGYAZQByAHIAZQBkACAAQwB1AHMAdABvAG0AZQByAAAABQBNAGEA cgB0AHkAAAAFAE0AYQByAHQAeQAAAA8ATQBhAHIAdABpAG4AIABTAHQAZQBwAGgA ZQBuAHMAAAADABV+/QwBAAkE/w8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQBwJuMWAQAJBP8P AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAdBjdTyxPsIX/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8BAAEA AAAXAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsYAAAPhGgBEYSY/hXGBQABaAEGXoRoAWCE mP5PSgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/ABAAAAFwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALGAAAD4Ro ARGEmP4VxgUAAWgBBl6EaAFghJj+T0oBAFFKAQBvKAABALfwAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAxgAAA+EDAMRhJj+FcYFAAEMAwZehAwDYISY/m8oAAIAAAAu AAMAAABwJuMWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFX79DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHQY3U8AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD//////////////////wMAAAAAAAAAAAD//wMAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAABAAA AAgAAADlAAAAAAAAAAEAAAA7XyQAEhtOAAAAAABRGAAAAQAAAP9AAIABAAAAAAAA AAAAvFhABQEAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAigAAAAAAAAALBcAACwYAABPGAAA gAAAEABAAACAAAAgAAAAAIAAAFgAQAAA//8BAAAABwBVAG4AawBuAG8AdwBuAP// AQAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//wEAAAAAAP//AAACAP//AAAAAP//AAACAP//AAAAAAUA AABHFpABAAACAgYDBQQFAgMEh3oAIAAAAIAIAAAAAAAAAP8BAAAAAAAAVABpAG0A ZQBzACAATgBlAHcAIABSAG8AbQBhAG4AAAA1FpABAgAFBQECAQcGAgUHAAAAAAAA ABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAUwB5AG0AYgBvAGwAAAAzJpABAAACCwYEAgICAgIE h3oAIAAAAIAIAAAAAAAAAP8BAAAAAAAAQQByAGkAYQBsAAAAQRaQAQAAAgQGAgUD BQMDBIcCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACfAAAAAAAAAEIAbwBvAGsAIABBAG4AdABpAHEA dQBhAAAANSaQAQAAAgsGBAMFBAQCBId6ACEAAACACAAAAAAAAAD/AQEAAAAAAFQA YQBoAG8AbQBhAAAAIgAEAHEIiBgA8NACAABoAQAAAAC42mJmuNpiZgAAAAACAAAA AACgAwAArxQAAAEADAAAAAQAAxAsAAAAoAMAAK8UAAABAAwAAAAsAAAAAAAAACED APAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKUGwAe0ALQAgAASNAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAQxgAAEMYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAA9gAAAAAAADODEQDwEADf3wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAAAAAAo8P8PAQABPwAA5AQAAP// /3////9/////f////3////9/////f////38SG04A//8SAAAAAAAAAFMAQgBlAGYA bwByAGUAIAB5AG8AdQAgAHYAbwB0AGUAIAB0AG8AIABnAHUAdAAgAGEAbgAgAGkA bQBwAG8AcgB0AGEAbgB0ACAAbABhAHcALAAgAHAAbABlAGEAcwBlACAAdABhAGsA ZQAgAGEAIABtAGkAbgB1AHQAZQAgAHQAbwAgAGYAaQBuAGQAIABvAHUAdAAgAHQA aABlACAAdAByAHUAdABoAAAAAAAAABIAUAByAGUAZgBlAHIAcgBlAGQAIABDAHUA cwB0AG8AbQBlAHIADwBNAGEAcgB0AGkAbgAgAFMAdABlAHAAaABlAG4AcwAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAGAAAAAwAAAAAADAABAAwAAgAMAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAABQACAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAA4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAAC0AQAAEAAAAAEAAACIAAAA AgAAAJAAAAADAAAA7AAAAAQAAAD4AAAABQAAABQBAAAHAAAAIAEAAAgAAAAwAQAA CQAAAEgBAAASAAAAVAEAAAoAAABwAQAADAAAAHwBAAANAAAAiAEAAA4AAACUAQAA DwAAAJwBAAAQAAAApAEAABMAAACsAQAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAAVAAAAEJlZm9yZSB5 b3Ugdm90ZSB0byBndXQgYW4gaW1wb3J0YW50IGxhdywgcGxlYXNlIHRha2UgYSBt aW51dGUgdG8gZmluZCBvdXQgdGhlIHRydXRoAB4AAAABAAAAAGVmbx4AAAATAAAA UHJlZmVycmVkIEN1c3RvbWVyAGceAAAAAQAAAAByZWYeAAAABwAAAE5vcm1hbABl HgAAABAAAABNYXJ0aW4gU3RlcGhlbnMAHgAAAAIAAAAyAHJ0HgAAABQAAABNaWNy b3NvZnQgV29yZCAxMC4wAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAqClAp7/BAUAAAAAAqClA p7/BAQMAAAABAAAAAwAAAKADAAADAAAArxQAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA /v8AAAUAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAALVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a4wAAAA VAEAAAwAAAABAAAAaAAAAA8AAABwAAAABQAAAJQAAAAGAAAAnAAAABEAAACkAAAA FwAAAKwAAAALAAAAtAAAABAAAAC8AAAAEwAAAMQAAAAWAAAAzAAAAA0AAADUAAAA DAAAADQBAAACAAAA5AQAAB4AAAAaAAAARGVsbCBDb21wdXRlciBDb3Jwb3JhdGlv bgBvAAMAAAAsAAAAAwAAAAwAAAADAAAAQxgAAAMAAABBCgoACwAAAAAAAAALAAAA AAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAeEAAAAQAAAFQAAABCZWZvcmUgeW91IHZvdGUg dG8gZ3V0IGFuIGltcG9ydGFudCBsYXcsIHBsZWFzZSB0YWtlIGEgbWludXRlIHRv IGZpbmQgb3V0IHRoZSB0cnV0aAAMEAAAAgAAAB4AAAAGAAAAVGl0bGUAAwAAAAEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAA CQAAAAoAAAALAAAADAAAAA0AAAAOAAAADwAAABAAAAARAAAAEgAAABMAAAAUAAAA FQAAABYAAAAXAAAA/v///xkAAAAaAAAAGwAAABwAAAAdAAAAHgAAAB8AAAD+//// IQAAACIAAAAjAAAAJAAAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAACgAAAApAAAA/v///ysAAAAsAAAA LQAAAC4AAAAvAAAAMAAAADEAAAD+////MwAAADQAAAA1AAAANgAAADcAAAA4AAAA OQAAAP7////9////PAAAAP7////+/////v////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQH//////////wMAAAAGCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwCYsXqe/wQE+AAAAgAAAAAAAAABEAGEAdABhAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CgACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAABgAAAAAEAAAAAAAADEAVABhAGIAbABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAIBAQAAAAYAAAD///// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAFgSAAAAAAAA VwBvAHIAZABEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABoAAgECAAAABQAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKi4AAAAAAAAFAFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkA SQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KAACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACoAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAUARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkA SQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAIBBAAAAP////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMgAAAAAQAAAAAAAA AQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAagAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAD+//////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// AQD+/wMKAAD/////BgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARhgAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCBE b2N1bWVudAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAAAABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjgA9DmycQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABSAG8AbwB0ACAARQBuAHQA cgB5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FgAFAf//////////AwAAAAYJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABwwKKB tL/BAUQAAAAABAAAAAAAAEQAYQB0AGEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAAIB//////////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAQAAAAAAAA MQBUAGEAYgBsAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAgEBAAAABgAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAWBIAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUA bQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GgACAQIAAAAFAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAqLgAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAA CQAAAAoAAAALAAAADAAAAA0AAAAOAAAADwAAABAAAAARAAAAEgAAABMAAAAUAAAA FQAAABYAAAAXAAAA/v///xkAAAAaAAAAGwAAABwAAAAdAAAAHgAAAB8AAAD+//// IQAAACIAAAAjAAAAJAAAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAACgAAAApAAAA/v///ysAAAAsAAAA LQAAAC4AAAAvAAAAMAAAADEAAAD+//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////0MAAAD9/////v////7////+//// QgAAAP////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// AQAAAP7///8DAAAABAAAAAUAAAAGAAAABwAAAAgAAAAJAAAACgAAAAsAAAAMAAAA DQAAAA4AAAAPAAAA/v////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////8eAAAABgAAAFRpdGxlAAMA AAABAAAAAACwAQAABwAAAAAAAABAAAAAAQAAAPQAAAAAAACA/AAAAAIAAAAEAQAA AwAAAAwBAAAEAAAAWAEAAAUAAACIAQAABAAAAAIAAAAUAAAAXwBBAGQASABvAGMA UgBlAHYAaQBlAHcAQwB5AGMAbABlAEkARAAAAAMAAAAOAAAAXwBFAG0AYQBpAGwA UwB1AGIAagBlAGMAdAAAAAQAAAANAAAAXwBBAHUAdABoAG8AcgBFAG0AYQBpAGwA AAAAAAUAAAAYAAAAXwBBAHUAdABoAG8AcgBFAG0AYQBpAGwARABpAHMAcABsAGEA eQBOAGEAbQBlAAAAAgAAALAEAAATAAAACQQAAAMAAACiKvjtHwAAACEAAABKAGUA cwBzAGUAIABIAGUAbABtAHMAIABmAGEAcgBtACAAYgBpAGwAbAAgAGEAbQBtAGUA bgBkAG0AZQBuAHQAAAAAAB8AAAATAAAATQBTAHQAZQBwAGgAZQBuAHMAQABoAHMA dQBzAC4AbwByAGcAAAAAAB8AAAAQAAAATQBhAHIAdABpAG4AIABTAHQAZQBwAGgA ZQBuAHMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQA aQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAIB//////////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKgAAAAAQAAAAAAAA BQBEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQA aQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgEEAAAA//////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAASAMAAAAAAAABAEMAbwBtAHAATwBiAGoA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA EgACAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA//////////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQD+/wMKAAD/////BgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARhgAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCBE b2N1bWVudAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAAAABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjgA9DmycQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAABQACAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAtXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rkQAAAAF1c3VnC4bEJOXCAArLPmu mAEAAFQBAAAMAAAAAQAAAGgAAAAPAAAAcAAAAAUAAACUAAAABgAAAJwAAAARAAAA pAAAABcAAACsAAAACwAAALQAAAAQAAAAvAAAABMAAADEAAAAFgAAAMwAAAANAAAA 1AAAAAwAAAA0AQAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAAGgAAAERlbGwgQ29tcHV0ZXIgQ29ycG9y YXRpb24AbwADAAAALAAAAAMAAAAMAAAAAwAAAEMYAAADAAAAQQoKAAsAAAAAAAAA CwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAAHhAAAAEAAABUAAAAQmVmb3JlIHlvdSB2 b3RlIHRvIGd1dCBhbiBpbXBvcnRhbnQgbGF3LCBwbGVhc2UgdGFrZSBhIG1pbnV0 ZSB0byBmaW5kIG91dCB0aGUgdHJ1dGgADBAAAAIAAAA= --Boundary_(ID_S+r4VN8faZl8W9IZr8+4UQ)-- From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 27-FEB-2002 17:02:53.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Sensitive vs. Critical Bev Caldwell wrote: > Dear John "An Open Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste" Wade, > > That's one great middle name you have there ..... > > >From The Domestic Cat" by Turner & Bateson, 2000, p. 12: > > "Socilisation and other long-term influences on behaviour are often > restricted to early stages in the life-cycle, usually referred to as > 'sensitive periods'. Within a limited age range during which particlar > events are especially likely to have long-term effects on the > individual's development [sic]. An older term, 'critical period', was > abandoned because it implied a sharply defined phase of susceptibility > preceded and followed by a complete lack of susceptibility. The > supposition was that if the relevant experiences were provided before or > after the period, no long-term effects would be detectable. > Experimental studies of imprinting in birds showed that the period was > not so sharply defined and the term 'sensitive period' or 'sensitive > phase' is therefore preferred by most behavioural biologists." That seems to me a rather sweeping statement, and prompts me to ask, what experimental studies in which birds? My understanding is that depending on species and on what particular behavior functions you are looking at, you may find anything from a "sensitive period" grading gradually into times of lesser sensitivity, to a sharply defined "critical period" after which the particular imprinting phenomena do not occur in any meaningful sense. Having lived for many years amid the results of various kinds of mis-imprinting I think the expression "critical period" is quite appropriate for some but of course not for all of these phenomena. One must of course also beware of the "belt and suspenders" phenomenon: many animals in many situations have a "fall-back" ability to acquire the necessary information by slower (and therefore riskier) learning methods if they have for whatever reason missed out on the imprinting - or even on genetically programmed information about their environment. It's almost trivial to say that while experience is the best teacher, acquiring experience is usually more or less dangerous, which is why the short-cut methods such as imprinting and genetic coding have evolved. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"deweaver@gte.net" "Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D." 27-FEB-2002 17:45:50.76 To: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P.", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laying hens and cages/EU Joe, It's interesting that you state " the idea of welfare research is to improve welfare at the current industry conditions, EMPHATICALLY NOT to allow industry to stock at higher densities (i.e. to allow industry to maintin a level of welfare consistent with the level seen now at lower densities). That seems like a strong blanket statement with limited validity. As an example, visualize a medium density aquaculture production where the water might be changed less than 2 times per day but at a heavy enough load that it will crash if you don't change water. Lets assume a schooling species which is sometimes schooling and non-schooling at low water velocities and becomes a strong schooling fish at higher water velocities (very common behavior). Lets also assume it is one of the more cannibalistic species. By decreasing the system volume and increasing the density, you can now control the water velocity profile of the system. With water velocity control, you can now get the fish to school and have all the fish going in the same direction (around in a circle for example). When they are going in the same direction, they are not as aggressive and the welfare of the smaller half of the tank is much improved (for example, white bass usually hit head on or side on, not the tail in front of you). When you get the fish at higher densities and schooling, it's also easier to separate and remove sick animal before they spread the pathogen. Also, high densities require faster water exchange (same fish, same flow rate, less volume) and when the water exchange rate becomes faster that the bacterial doubling time, you can eliminate the possibility of a bacterial explosion. In the above case, going to high densities can improve the "welfare" of the animals by taking advantage of the group nature of their behavior. These games are played all the time in the real world. If some species don't join a high density group by a certain age, they will die ( not good for their welfare). You have to look at the specific problem and particular species to make any statements about density. Dallas -- Dallas E. Weaver, Ph.D. Scientific Hatcheries deweaver@gte.net 5542 Engineer Dr. 714-890-0138 Huntington Beach, CA Fax 714-890-3778 92649 From: IN%"deethom@erols.com" "Dee Thompson" 27-FEB-2002 19:16:01.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Jesse Helms farm bill ammendment =0D=0AAt 03:51 PM 2/27/02 -0500, Michael Appleby wrote:
= =0D=0A>Dear All
=0D=0A>Here's Martin Stephens' reply. He als= o points out that it might help=0D=0Amotivate sympathetic scientists = to remind them that the National=0D=0AAssociation for Biomedical Rese= arch, the American Physiological Society,=0D=0Aand others are busy ur= ging scientists to SUPPORT the Helms=0D=0Aamendment.
=0D=0A
= =0D=0AI have seen cranes, quail, turkeys, swan, ducks, kestrels, scre= ech owls,=0D=0Ared wing blackbirds, white throated sparrows all used = in tox=20 studies, as=0D=0Awell as the chicken..  . If nothing else, the c= aretakers benefit=0D=0Afrom humane standards...keeps the humanity in = us.
=0D=0A
=0D=0Athis just came in my box...they seems to be ot= her points of view from the=0D=0Aresearch community in favor of maint= aining high animal welfare standards,=0D=0AAGANST the Helms amandment= .
=0D=0ADee
=0D=0A
=0D=0A> To cut a very long story sho= rt, Sen. Jesse Helms is one move away=0D=0Afrom curtailing the animal= welfare act (AWA). By adding an ammendment to=0D=0Athe farm bill cur= rent ly passing through congress, he will effectively=0D=0Aremove almost a= ll legal protection for birds, rats and mice used in=0D=0Ascience. Th= is major change of policy and legislation will have been=0D=0Awhisked= in through the back door, without any manadate or review. The=0D= =0Aprocess has happened so fast that there has been no time for inter= ested=0D=0Aparties to organise any kind of  protest.  It is= widely=0D=0Arecognised that good welfare is good science. And so amo= ng  others,=0D=0Athe American College of Laboratory Anim al Medicine, The American Animal=0D=0AWelfare, Johns Hopkins Universi= ty Center for  Alternatives  to=0D=0AAnimal Testing, and Du= Pont Pharmaceutical Co ALL FAVOUR THE AWA. =0D=0AMoreover, a &qu= ot;survey of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee=0D=0Amembers=   reveals that most researchers actually favor AWA regulation= =0D=0Aof these  species.A clear majority of animal researchers a= nd other=0D=0AIACUC members  favored AWA coverage for mice, rats= , and birds. Even=0D=0Aanimal researchers  in  psy chology, psychopharmacology, and=0D=0Abehavioral neuroscience support= AWA coverage of these animals, despite=0D=0Athe fact that these disc= iplines would be among the most affected by AWA=0D=0Aregulation of mi= ce, rats, and birds."  Survey conducted by=0D=0AScott Plous= (Dept. of Psychology, Wesleyan University) and  Harold=0D=0AHer= zog (Dept. of Psychology, West Carolina University), Science,v.290,= =0D=0A10/27/2000.  The only chance to prevent this change taking= place is=0D=0Ain congressional  committee. Many of th ese committees are meeting=0D=0ATOMORROW. Please read the  attac= hed document from HSUS, and if you=0D=0Aagree, please take the time t= o > sign your name to a copy and fax it=0D=0Ato the senators liste= d below.  Thank you very much for your=0D=0Atime  WHAT YOU = CAN DO:  Contact the following key members of=0D=0Athe Senate-Ho= use Conference Committee  and urge them to "drop=0D=0Athe H= elms research amendment from the final version  of the Farm=0D= =0ABill."  1. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): 202/ 224 -2035  2.=0D=0ASenator Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202/ 224-2035 (same= number as =0D=0AHarkin's)  3. Representative Larry Combest= (R-TX): 202/=0D=0A225-2171  4. Representative Charles Stenholm = (D-TX): 202/=0D=0A225-0317  Here is additional contact info on t= hese conferees that=0D=0A> > Lesley King managed to track down:=   Harkin: fax=0D=0A202-224-9369; email:=0D=0Atom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov=0D=0A> > Lugar: fax 202-228-0360; email: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov > > Combest: fax 202-225-9615 or email address = probably is: > > larry_combes= t@combest.house.gov > > Sten= holm: fax 202-225-2234; email probably: > > charles_stenholm@stenholm.house.gov > > Or char= lie_stenholm@stenholm.house.gov > > > > If possible, PLEASE phone = or fax rather than email, as more notice is > taken > > of f= axes and phone calls. > > > > If anyone resides in the ho= me state or district of the remaining > conferees, > > ESPEC= IALLY North Carolina (Sen. Helms' state) it wouldn't hurt to contact = > > that Senator or Representative. The full list of Senate Con= ferees: Tom > > Harkin (D-IA); Thad Cochran (R-MS); Kent Conrad= (D-ND); Tom Daschle > (D-SD ); > > Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Richard Lugar (R-IN); and Jesse He= lms (R-NC). The > > House conferees are: John Boehner (R-OH); L= arry Combest (R-TX); Saxby > > Chambliss (R-GA); Gary Condit (D= -CA); Calvin Dooley (D-CA); Terry Everett > > (R-AL); Bob Goodl= atte (R-VA); Tim Holden (D-PA); Ken Lucas (D-KY); Jerry > > Mor= an (R-KS); Collin Peterson (D-MN); Richard Pombo (R-CA); and Charles = > > Stenholm (D-TX). For contact information, check out www.vote-smart.org > > > >
= =0D=0A> > > > Thank you very much for your time > >= > > WHAT YOU CAN DO: > > Contact the following key membe= rs of the Senate-House Conference Committee > > and urge them t= o "drop the Helms research amendment from the final version >= > of the Farm Bill." > > 1. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA):= 202/ 224-2035 > > 2. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202/ 224-20= 35 (same number as > > Harkin's ) > > 3. Representati
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A= =0D=0A=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00= =00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00=00 From: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" 27-FEB-2002 19:19:50.52 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D. B. Cameron" Subj: RE: Fw: Laying hens and cages/EU D. B. Cameron wrote > Even though it is obvious that Dallas needs no assistance with his stance > in the current discussion, I cannot resist commenting on the above PETA > discourse. > > I find it difficult to equate an endorsement of moderation with an > apparent support for PETA, an organization which, among many other > outrages: releases mink to starve in the wild, burns buildings and > records of years of research that would have direct benefit for animals, > and equates a rat, a dog, and a boy. Clearly, anyone who associates with > a group like this is, prima facie, an extreme extremist. I did not intend support for PETA. I did, however, make it clear that I am not a member - I may also say that I do not know any members of PETA - but do freely admit to having, at times, been labelled a radical. When everything is just hunky dory there will be no need for radical alteration to the status quo - but I don't think we are there yet! I was unaware that PETA was even in existence when the first raids were made on Mink farms in the UK - certainly I don't remember them ever being named. I seem to recall ALF being claiming responsibility (sic) for those attacks. I do not now, and never have, endorsed such ill-considered and irresponsible behavior - to do so would be to endorse a catastrophic attack on native British eco-systems. Dialogue has to be maintained for there to be any hope of progress - name calling interferes with this process and merely reduces the dignity of all concerned. Extreme regards for a radically pleasant day to all. Andy From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" 27-FEB-2002 19:52:24.03 To: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "'WHFEEP'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D. B. Cameron" Subj: RE: Fw: Laying hens and cages/EU I have to support Andy on this one. There will always be extremists, but we have to try to build bridges and work with the more moderate members of such organisations. I am an employee of an organisation that promotes and supports animal use (people making a living out of them). I am also an animal-user myself (I do research on them and I eat them!). This organisation for which I work has a very good relationship with members of an animal welfare and rights umbrella organisation. Whilst we may hold very different philosophical viewpoints we all have improving the welfare of animals as common goal, and we will (and do) work together to try to achieve this. The radical members of organisations frequently do not, I believe, consider the welfare of animals (human and non-human). Carol > -----Original Message----- > From: WHFEEP [SMTP:whfeep@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2002 11:13 > To: Applied Ethology > Cc: D. B. Cameron > Subject: Re: Fw: Laying hens and cages/EU > > > D. B. Cameron wrote > > > Even though it is obvious that Dallas needs no assistance with his > stance > > in the current discussion, I cannot resist commenting on the above PETA > > discourse. > > > > I find it difficult to equate an endorsement of moderation with an > > apparent support for PETA, an organization which, among many other > > outrages: releases mink to starve in the wild, burns buildings and > > records of years of research that would have direct benefit for animals, > > and equates a rat, a dog, and a boy. Clearly, anyone who associates with > > a group like this is, prima facie, an extreme extremist. > > > I did not intend support for PETA. I did, however, make it clear that I am > not a member - I may also say that I do not know any members of PETA - but > do freely admit to having, at times, been labelled a radical. When > everything is just hunky dory there will be no need for radical alteration > to the status quo - but I don't think we are there yet! > > I was unaware that PETA was even in existence when the first raids were > made > on Mink farms in the UK - certainly I don't remember them ever being > named. > I seem to recall ALF being claiming responsibility (sic) for those > attacks. > I do not now, and never have, endorsed such ill-considered and > irresponsible > behavior - to do so would be to endorse a catastrophic attack on native > British eco-systems. > > Dialogue has to be maintained for there to be any hope of progress - name > calling interferes with this process and merely reduces the dignity of all > concerned. > > Extreme regards for a radically pleasant day to all. > Andy > > > > > ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"pete@wildlifedecisionsupport.com" 28-FEB-2002 04:17:09.67 To: IN%"pete@wildlifedecisionsupport.com" "Wildlife professionals" CC: Subj: Latest courses for wildlife professionals Hi WildlifeDecisionSupport.com, online information for the wildlife professional, would like to introduce you to three new courses being offered. For more information visit: http://wildlifedecisionsupport.com ============================================================ The Game Capture School. The Game Capture School offers a series of comprehensive, hands-on and practically orientated programs, focusing on every aspect of game capture. The objective is to teach the safe, humane and legal methods of wildlife capture and translocation, so as to minimize animal stress and mortalities. For more information visit: http://wildlifedecisionsupport.com ============================================================ Wildlife Veterinary Medicine Courses … The main aim of these courses is to train veterinarians, para-veterinary personnel and students in the ethical procedures involved in the veterinary aspects of conservation. The well-known veterinarian, Cobus Raath of Afrivet presents the courses For more information visit: http://wildlifedecisionsupport.com ============================================================ Nkwe Nature Experience. Nkwe Nature Experience offers a hands-on African wildlife experience at the Hoedspruit Research and Breeding Centre for Endangered Species in South Africa. Work with cheetahs, lions and wild dogs; experience the African bush; do an anti-poaching course, learn basic bush survival skills and much more. For more information visit: http://wildlifedecisionsupport.com ============================================================ WildlifeDecisionSupport.com, online information for the wildlife professional Share your observations, ask questions and read the latest information and related news. For more information visit: http://wildlifedecisionsupport.com ============================================================ Books available through WildlifeDecisionSupport.com. To order email: ranger@wildlifedecisionsupport.com Capture and Care Manual R360.00/US$32.00 Enviropaedia R115.00/ US$10.20 Proceedings of the 3rd International Wildlife Ranching Symposium R310.00 / US$27.40 Ostrich Bibliography R190.00 / US$16.80 Managing African Elephants (Guidelines) R130.00/ US$11.50 Rhinos as Game Ranch Animals R140.00 / US$12.35 Rhino Ranching R90.00 / US$8.00 The African Elephant as a Game Ranch Animal R140.00/US$12.35 The African Buffalo as a Game Ranch Animal R140.00 / US$12.35 Lions and Leopards as a Game Ranch Animals R175.00/ US$15.50 Cheetahs as a Game Ranch Animals R140.00 / US$12.35 The Sable Antelope as a Game Ranch Animal R140.00/US$12.35 The SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation R120.00 / US$10.60 Capture, Care and Management of Threatened Mammals R90.00/ US$8.00 The Use of Tranquillizers in Wildlife R40.00 / US$3.52 The Future Role of Conservancies in Africa R40.00 / US$3.52 SABS: Translocation of certain species of wild herbivore R160.00 / US$14.00 Please note: 1. These prices are inclusive of VAT and are subject to change. 2. The South African Rand value is the quoted figure. 3. The prices do not include postage. Quoted on size of order Peter Morrison Member: Communications http://wildlifedecisionsupport.com ================================================= WildlifeDecisionSupport.com A website for the wildlife professional. ================================================= From: IN%"whfeep@equine-behavior.com" "WHFEEP" 28-FEB-2002 05:44:22.38 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Fw: Laying hens and cages/EU DB Cameron wrote: "I find it difficult to equate an endorsement of moderation with an apparent support for PETA, an organization which, among many other outrages: releases mink to starve in the wild, burns buildings and records of years of research that would have direct benefit for animals, and equates a rat, a dog, and a boy. Clearly, anyone who associates with a group like this is, prima facie, an extreme extremist." Having initially replied in the few minutes I had available before leaving to keep an appointment I was curious as to the facts of the charges levelled against PETA, and whether my memory had served me reliably as to just who had claimed responsibility - so I did some research. I found a large number of references to Mink releases carried out by the ALF, also to arrests made and ALF material found. I found no reference at all to PETA having either advocated these actions, or to PETA members having carried them out. As part of my research I also visited the PETA web-site. Again I found no advocacy for terrorist attacks against animal facilities. When animal welfare 'extremists' make statements, without first carrying out research in order to ensure that they have their facts right, they are, quite rightly, dismissed as either ignorant or biased. What then should be the reaction when a scientist makes accusations that appear, on research, to be ill-founded? Mention has been made earlier in this string that the word radical has acquired quite a negative aura. So. Radical: Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. My personal stance is that some fundamental change is needed in order to bring an end to misery, pain and degradation - in all animals, including human. While I may be content, philosophically, to be labelled a radical, I certainly do not agree that this implies acceptance of the notion of collateral damage in order to achieve this change. I cherish my ability to experience empathy and feel compassion - for me this is the soul of ethology. Regards to all Andy - still not a member of PETA - Beck