From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 16-OCT-2003 02:50:03.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: devils advocate (ethology is not training) The following web page http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/millikan6.html has an interesting quote about life and behavioral sciences. According to this quote, if animal training is not behavioral sciences then neither is the study of how to keep pigs from rooting or growing turkeys with more white meat (agri-business behavioral work). I guess that there are a lot of different views on these issues. "The behavioral scientist begins with a device that has already been designed to perform certain functions, then figures out what these functions are and how the device is built so as to perform them. It is not her job to notice or to figure out any other things the device might do--like supplying one a good dinner (hens), or making a good alarm clock (roosters). Nor is it her job to notice any other dispositions it might have--like one's knee jerks and one's skin turning red in the sun. So understood, the life sciences do not include the study of how best to exterminate roaches, or the study of breeding techniques, or of how to grow turkeys with more white meat. Nor do the behavioral sciences as life sciences include the study of animal training techniques, or of how to get chickens to lay more eggs, or of how best to keep pigs from rooting. That's not to hurt anyone's feelings, but just to make what I think is a needed distinction. The heart of the life sciences is to understand life, not what can be done with or to life." http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/millikan6.html For Dr. Millikan's vitae, see http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwphil/vrgm.pdf From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 16-OCT-2003 03:08:45.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Although there have been most enlightening moments in the discussion = over animal welfare etc etc, I'm beginning to worry. Because I know that = every discussion going astray, and especially when people start shouting = at each other, makes a handful of people signing off the list. Some of = these people are very knowledgeable and very valuable to the list, no = matter their profession. I know this because I've been on this list for = 10 years, I believe since it started, and I know many scientists who = were on the list then and whom I would greatly appreciate to see = involved in discussions like the previous one, but who are no longer = subscribing because they got fed up of having their mailboxes = overflowing at one time or another. Each time this happens, the list is = getting poorer, for all of us. In the process of thinking twice before = hitting the 'send' icon, this is worthwhile reflecting over! While I appreciate the varied background of the different participants, = and certainly think that animal trainers are just as valid subscribers = and participants in discussions as are scientists (and any other person = engaged in careful studies of animal behaviour), I think that lengthy = discussions about animal training belong elsewhere. It is clear to me = from several messages that there are various lists focusing on this = topic, so there are alternative arenas for those discussions. This is = NOT the case for animal welfare discussions. Because, as Ray has pointed = out previously, ISAE (International Society for Applied Ethology) by = tradition organises a large portion of the scientists engaging in animal = welfare- related research and discussions, this list which was = originally an ISAE initiative has become the forum for discussions of = animal welfare. It is possible that this is not correct, and that a = separate list for discussing animal welfare topics should be started (I = believe it already exists by initiative of Anabela Pinto, although it = never caught on because applied-ethology was already established as a = platform for discussion); however for the time being and through the = power of tradition, that is how things are. Anna Olsson =20 Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate" 16-OCT-2003 06:11:36.27 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology vs Training Hmmmm, excuse me ... I don't want to seem a bit naive here but in order to be a positive, effective and humane "trainer" of animals is it not imperative to understand the etiology behind it all? I prefer to call myself a "teacher" of horses although the accepted term is "trainer". I don't teach or train a horse to DO anything that it cannot already do -- I teach the horse MY cues and form of communications and request willing compliance to my cues/requests. Even with Positive Reinforcement (Clicker Training) one teaches cues - not behaviors. However, without a strong understanding of the behavior of horses (aka etiology) then I would NOT be able to effectively and excellently "teach" the horses, correct? Visa versa ... the horses would not be able to teach ME, either! *S* Gwen Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 http://www.thepenzancehorse.com http://www.barefoottrim.com http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_horsemanship From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 16-OCT-2003 06:38:17.88 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training << In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training.>> That's one view, there certainly are others. For instance: "Applied ethology is the study of the behaviour of animals that are under some form of human management and is a growing scientific field that is helping to improve welfare of animals kept in homes, on farms and in zoos." http://animalbehaviour.net/ Or this: "Welcome to Applied Ethology on the world wide web! This web page is dedicated to the field of applied animal behaviour, which deals with the behaviour of domestic animals or other animals kept in captivity. Our intention with this site is to bring together a diverse set of resources students and scientists may find useful and which may also be of interest to anyone wanting to learn a bit more about animal behaviour. We have provided original information as well as links to other related material already on the internet." http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ There certainly are others but this should get you started. You may also want to read the introduction to Karen Pryor's book "Lads before the Wind"; it was written by Konrad Lorenz, an ethologist you may have heard of who found applications for ethology in animal training. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 16-OCT-2003 07:03:24.01 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: 'Ethograms' for Our Times (was Re: Ethology is NOT about Training) My research aide between 1987-2000 was a part-time companion-animal-breeder and trainer, who ran a training school on the side -- which was her lifelong dream. She was the 2nd best observer of animal behavior i have ever encountered (and, in this case, i am NOT number 1). She was a good friend and colleague, and left my lab to follow her dream. Along the way, after managing my breeding program for 5or6 years, she stopped breeding animals. She did this, because she was able to observe, firsthand, the problems that can (and do) occur in a properly designed breeding program with an appropriate number of families and population size to last 20 generations (that she could never match), and could not bear to do incur similar issues with her 'family', albeit unintentionally. Four years later; she is also back in the breeding business. so it goes. Several years ago there was a wonderful little discussion group started by a small group of academics that focused on evolutionary perspectives in quantitative/population genetics. It was not hyperactive, but lively and collegial nonetheless. As the internet grew, more and more people joined. Suddenly, every set of assumptions made (and agreed upon) by the originating members was challenged by newly joined members, causing the creation of an archive and FAQ... with the unwritten rule -- that all nasty, inflammatory, (c)rude, or downright ignorant posts would be referred to the library (or the archives) -- and then summarily ignored. Until, that is, enough of the new members began to interact with each other and jointly deciding that their challenges, being unaddressed directly, were indeed correct. This usually resulted in one of the founding members taking a deep breath and jumping in with both feet. It was not a pretty sight. Eventually, many list members (myself included) found ourselves putting the list address in our kill files, only checking back periodically to see if the smoke had cleared and wondering when we could get back to business. At any rate, that small list became a huge list in which creation/evolution arguments are endlessly chewed and regurgitated by folks for whom argument is a way of life. there are no longer any active geneticists/evolutionary biologists who participate. so it goes. to tell you the truth, i am once again at the 'kill file' stage of this list. i wonder who will be here when i return in a few months. i wonder if i will return. so it goes. -- G. F. Barbato http://gfb.cas.psu.edu From: IN%"csermely@biol.unipr.it" "Davide Csermely" 16-OCT-2003 07:04:57.06 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:=A0Ethology=A0vs=A0Training?= > Hmmmm, excuse me ... I don't want to seem a bit naive here but in order to > be a positive, effective and humane "trainer" of animals is it not > imperative to understand the etiology behind it all? I prefer to call > myself > a "teacher" of horses although the accepted term is "trainer". I don't > teach > or train a horse to DO anything that it cannot already do -- I teach the > horse MY cues and form of communications and request willing compliance to > my cues/requests. Even with Positive Reinforcement (Clicker Training) one > teaches cues - not behaviors. However, without a strong understanding of > the > behavior of horses (aka etiology) then I would NOT be able to effectively > and excellently "teach" the horses, correct? Visa versa ... the horses > would > not be able to teach ME, either! > > *S* Gwen > > Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate > MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist > PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 > http://www.thepenzancehorse.com > http://www.barefoottrim.com > http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_horsemanship > Dear Gwenyth, I suspect you make a confusion between ETHOLOGY and Etiology. They concern rather different fields and are not synonyms. Davide Csermely ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Museo di Storia Naturale, Dip. Biol. Evol. Funz., Universita` di Parma, Via Farini 90, 43100 Parma, Italy Tel.: (+39)0521 236 465 Fax: (+39)0521 533 673 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 16-OCT-2003 08:17:48.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Ray wrote: In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training. Tony comments: "In the strictest sense" (the qualifier) ... Ray is right. If I've got this correct, the Ethologist studies the behaviour of animals in their natural environment. Which is why earlier in the month I challenged the validity of a 'study' using coyotes that have been captured, caged, and kept. I just can't see how that arrangement allows one to observe behaviour in their natural environment. It seems to me that observing captive animals is as contrary (in the strictest sense) to etological study as the training of wild animals to accept being held captive. (I might also argue that for many, the later is a gross injustice - both to the animal and to the sincere ethologist.) The Trainers job is to find a way to either exploit (i.e. tracking ability in dogs) the natural behaviour of the animal or to cause a predictable and reliable change in the manner of the animal so that he can be more easily kept captive (teaching a dog to heel dispite his want to track). BUT - the dog is not a wild animal. The discussion of how we (dog trainers) pursue a training outcome with a pet dog has nothing at all to do with Ethology. Regards, Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 16-OCT-2003 08:24:10.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training << In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training.>> That's one view, there certainly are others. ---------------------------------- Of course if one always takes the approach that contradicting what someone else has said, then yes, it is certainly possible to find other views - to basically any statement made regarding ethology or any topic of science for that matter. In fact today on the internet, you can find just about anything one wants. But digging up and spreading around all this clutter does not advance the understanding of any topic. Nor in this case, does it invalidate the central meaning of my statement above - which itself included a limiting phrase, i.e., "in the strictest sense". Any serious follower of Lorenz (and Ethology), knows that because his education was rooted in the German philosophy of science, that his views were almost totally ones of Perfectionism - i.e., the animal in the natural state. Now, instead of trying to dig up some nit-picky detail that is in contradiction to what I have said, how about expanding this point in a positive sense. If persons remember, the goal of science is find where there is agreement, and this is a not matter of finding agreement in personal opinion, but rather it has to do with developing statements that have or included broad agreement or truth and completeness in their meaning. And for all the people who have invested their time speculating, preaching to others, and searching for information to prove me WRONG (instead of actually trying to learn about what I have done and what my beliefs are regarding the use of training in applied ethology research) take a look at the methodology section in the following recent publication (A note on visual, olfactory and spatial cue use in foraging behavior of pigs: indirectly assessing cognitive abilities by C.C. Croney, K.M. Adams, C.G. Washington and W.R. Stricklin): http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S016815910300128X This research involved a training procedure! I have no objection to using a training related technique - if it facilitates what I am trying to accomplish. But it was not necessary that we yell out to the world "the enormous magnitude of this almighty topic of earth shattering importance and that we have found we have determined is the holy grail of animal behavior, and it is in fact animal training, which we can now say is the best thing since underwear." It was only necessary that we use a very few words and convey the fact that a technique was employed that facilitated the gathering of data important to the research question - and I don't think that the term training is even used in the manuscript. But this research was NOT about ANIMAL TRAINING. It involved a training technique. This research was, in my opinion, about applied ethology (even though in this case, the work is in fact more about cognition - and thus not truly ethological.) Let me try to quickly to summarize: 1) In the above study, animal training procedures were employed by Candace as a MEANS. 2) Using such techniques are an altogether common practice today among persons working on behavior. 3) The animal training that is NOT relevant to APPLIED ETHOLOGY is that which is done strictly as an ENDS - (unless it somehow contributes to an understanding of applied ethology, as I have already said several times). I again doubt very seriously that my statements will be either understood or even considered by some on this list. But this is an Applied Ethology list! And for those of you who are now investing your time trying to educate me regarding the meaning of Applied Ethology, you maybe would be better served taking a look at the abstract from January 2003 that I have clipped and pasted in below: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ISAE Nordic Winter Symposium 23-25 January 2003, Sigtuna, Sweden Basic and Applied Ethology W. Ray Stricklin Depart. of Animal & Avian Sciences, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA The terms "basic" and "applied" have multiple meanings when used in reference to science and research in general. Similarly, the terms "basic ethology" and "applied ethology" can have different meanings. Of course today the term ethology itself is used almost as a synonym for behaviour. Therefore, both basic and applied ethology have to do with the study of animal behaviour. As a general rule, however, basic ethology is a term used in reference to the study of animals under "natural" conditions, meaning the animals are neither subjected to confinement nor to artificial selection. Whereas, studies of domesticated, feral, or confined wild animals are commonly considered to be of applied ethology. Accordingly, the journals Ethology and Applied Animal Behavioural Science differ greatly in the animal subjects studied. An on-line search of Ethology resulted in a relatively high number of "hits" for the key words; spiders, birds, crabs, bees and low numbers for the terms; pigs, chickens, cattle. A similar search of AABS yielded essentially opposite results. Basic ethologists usually claim that their goal is to develop new knowledge that may or may not have importance beyond understanding behaviour. Whereas, applied ethologists usually have one of two primary goals: 1) to improve animal-based food product quantity or quality or 2) to enhance animal welfare. Of course these are not mutually exclusive objectives and are often complimentary. The number of animal welfare studies is increasing. Accordingly, some persons now view applied ethology to be synonymous with animal welfare. But a complete understanding of animal welfare is inseparable from the disciplines of physiology, medicine, genetics, etc. Thus, no one discipline can expect to fully address animal welfare. However, animal behaviour, especially when inclusive of cognition, is in need of more research relative to well-being of individuals. Therefore, attempting to deal with welfare in total to the exclusion of focusing on the key behavior-related questions important to welfare could result in less progress in both areas. Thus, I will contend that applied ethology can make the greatest contribution by focusing strictly on behaviour - in a sense tending more toward basic ethology. Historically, basic ethology, at least at the time of Lorenz and Tinbergen, was considered to be "the investigation of behaviour - as an adaptive trait." Behaviour was viewed to be a product of evolution in the same sense that morphology and physiology are adaptive. This lead to a major clash between European-based Ethology and North American Behaviorism that focused on learning to the exclusion of considering behavior to have a genetic component. The nature versus nurture controversy that ensued was fueled in part by Lorenz having been a member of the National Socialists and controversy about the role of genes exists today, but few scientists now deny that genes influence behaviour. Basic ethology spun off the discipline of behavioural ecology after Hamilton's 1964 papers on kin selection. Consequentially, the somewhat diminished basic ethology today includes physiological studies and somewhat paradoxically even employs techniques from behaviourism. Applied ethology has no unifying theoretical basis and employs an even wider range of methodologies, with the study of behaviour as an adaptation being almost none existent. I contend this also does not best serve animal welfare. It can be argued that there should be no distinction between basic and applied science. Instead, we should all attempt to conduct only studies that enhance our knowledge, which then may or may not have application. From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 16-OCT-2003 09:54:15.56 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Ray wrote: In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training. Tony comments: "In the strictest sense" (the qualifier) ... Ray is right. If I've got this correct, the Ethologist studies the behaviour of animals in their natural environment. Which is why earlier in the month I challenged the validity of a 'study' using coyotes that have been captured, caged, and kept. I just can't see how that arrangement allows one to observe behaviour in their natural environment. It seems to me that observing captive animals is as contrary (in the strictest sense) to etological study as the training of wild animals to accept being held captive. (I might also argue that for many, the later is a gross injustice - both to the animal and to the sincere ethologist.) The Trainer's job is to find a way to either exploit (i.e. tracking ability in dogs) the natural behaviour of the animal or to cause a predictable and reliable change in the manner of the animal so that he can be more easily kept captive (teaching a dog to heel dispite his want to track). BUT - the dog is not a wild animal. The discussion of how we (dog trainers) pursue a training outcome with a pet dog has nothing at all to do with Ethology. Regards, Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 16-OCT-2003 10:12:52.10 To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Anna, I know that this conflict on the list is no doubt upsetting and unpleasant for you. If everyone in this group was Swedish, like you, then I have no doubt that what has occurred recently would never have developed. In fact I can very confidently state that had this list only included Swedes, or mostly Europeans for that matter, then I very much doubt that I would have ever found it necessary to say and do as I done recently. I remember the first faculty and staff meeting that I attended in Sweden. Of course I could not follow all the discussion, but I could tell that it dealt with dogs and children (huns and barn). There was never a raised voice. The tone was one no different from that of a coffee break - or at least not different that I could detect. Yet, after the meeting a number of persons asked what I thought of the huge controversy that had been so heatedly discussed at the meeting ( which I later found out involved the secretaries protesting being asked to watch over the children and dogs while other persons were collecting data, etc.). That meeting has left a lasting impression on me. Swedes are taught from infancy regarding how to compromise and work toward a solution that strives to take into account the view of all persons. I wish that this behavior could be spread around the world. I have many times spoken of this trait of persons from Sweden here in the States and have stated that we should strive for this behavior as well. Therefore, I hope that you do not mind my pointing out to some of the Americans that your statement, while very diplomatic and appropriate, I think is a rather strong message for a Swede to make. And I most certainly do not mean this in a disrespectful manner, and I hope you do not mind my drawing such attention to your message. Again, I wish we could all take the Swedish approach in this situation. Unfortunately, because Americans are not raised to be like the children of Sweden, I think that we will likely continue to have some of the behavior of the past continue on this group. Children in the States are taught from infancy to "do your own thing" - "be an individual" - "stand up for yourself" - etc. Thus, some learn to be bullies or else do not seem to understand when they have been told politely that they are out of place. Sure, we advocate tolerance and diversity in this country - but too frequently we have no tolerance - or even respect - in many, many instances for differences when it comes to thoughts, opinions, and ideas - and this has been in great evidence recently. My overall purpose has been to attempt to salvage this group as a place for Applied Ethologists to discuss their work as you have suggested. And maybe because I am American, I will not hesitate to act in a manner that I feel necessary in order to bring about proper respect for the discipline. I do not mind insulting the necessary Americans if my purpose can be accomplished. In doing so, I hope that my actions are not too unpleasant for persons mostly unaccustomed to this approach. Ray -----Original Message----- From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:08 AM To: applied ethology Subject: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Although there have been most enlightening moments in the discussion over animal welfare etc etc, I'm beginning to worry. Because I know that every discussion going astray, and especially when people start shouting at each other, makes a handful of people signing off the list. Some of these people are very knowledgeable and very valuable to the list, no matter their profession. I know this because I've been on this list for 10 years, I believe since it started, and I know many scientists who were on the list then and whom I would greatly appreciate to see involved in discussions like the previous one, but who are no longer subscribing because they got fed up of having their mailboxes overflowing at one time or another. Each time this happens, the list is getting poorer, for all of us. In the process of thinking twice before hitting the 'send' icon, this is worthwhile reflecting over! While I appreciate the varied background of the different participants, and certainly think that animal trainers are just as valid subscribers and participants in discussions as are scientists (and any other person engaged in careful studies of animal behaviour), I think that lengthy discussions about animal training belong elsewhere. It is clear to me from several messages that there are various lists focusing on this topic, so there are alternative arenas for those discussions. This is NOT the case for animal welfare discussions. Because, as Ray has pointed out previously, ISAE (International Society for Applied Ethology) by tradition organises a large portion of the scientists engaging in animal welfare- related research and discussions, this list which was originally an ISAE initiative has become the forum for discussions of animal welfare. It is possible that this is not correct, and that a separate list for discussing animal welfare topics should be started (I believe it already exists by initiative of Anabela Pinto, although it never caught on because applied-ethology was already established as a platform for discussion); however for the time being and through the power of tradition, that is how things are. Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 16-OCT-2003 10:43:42.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: multi-cat housing The current view on the welfare benefits (or otherwise) of rehoming cats singly or in pairs seems to be swinging back towards single-housing, at least here in the UK. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? The most recent large scale study that I know of was Ottway and Hawkins "Cat Housing in Rescue Shelters" (Animal Welfare 2003, 12:173-189) which showed higher stress in communal units but wouldn't really have been representative of cats in stable communities. It also seems to suggest that "best practice" depends very much on the individual cat and that very sociable cats are actually more stressed by the presence of an unsociable individual than the unsociable one is by the presence of other cats. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 16-OCT-2003 10:49:03.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Laura wrote: If studying the behavior of domestic pigs or calves in small vs even smaller stalls is applied ethology, then why isn't studying the means that we use in training to learn about the domestic dog's behavioral ethogram also applied ethology? I agree that cookbook dog training discussions which yield little insight about dog behavior have no merit on an AE list. Yet that's really not what's been done, as far as I can tell. Tony comments: I think that if you cut pigs loose in the wild where there are ample resourses ... they will survive. As will a cows, horses, sheep, chickens, and all the other animals we keep around the farm. BUT ... cut a Papillon loose in the wilds of the forest or wide open plains of Montana and it'll starve to death. Why? Because the dog is not an animal bred to survive without the management and care of the human host. Ah- now you will argue that there are feral dog packs that manage themselves just fine in the wild. Okay ... that's where the Ethologist comes into the picture; to study the adaptive traits of the once domestic dog as it survives long enough to produce off-spring that are [themselve's] capable of reproducing. My job, as a professional dog-trainer, is to change (not wait for adaptation) that Papillon's behaviour so that it can keep its home. My job is interactive (if not intrusive - where nature is concerned). The Ethologist's job is as an objective observer. To watch, record, form opinion and challenge same. The Ethologist is never intrusive on nature. This one is way too deep for me, so I'm out now. Ray, for what its worth, I think you make a very valid point. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 16-OCT-2003 12:17:47.54 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training <> As you wrote above, "it can be argued". Your preference for pure science is grounded in your philosophical leanings rather than consisting of an objective measure which can be tested or replicated. I can appreciate that you dislike reading about animal training, even as a note in your own studies, perhaps you could delete the posts with "training" in the subject line and thus avoid the trauma such posts induce in you. It does not logically follow that because you don't like something or would do it differently then anyone who has an alternate view is wrong, and not just wrong but stupid. Apparently you hold your views to be so obviously correct that when you wrote "it can be argued" obviously you did not mean "men of reason can disagree" but something more along the lines of "fools may be too dim to understand the utter truth of my views". That is political talk show "argument", not at all reflective of the role of argument in science. I have noted a dangerous trend among some academics, who very much believe their views are "correct" and have thus decided that no other view should be allowed expression. I do not agree that those who believe their truths have been revealed to them by some sort of divine or scientific revelation are always in fact the sole possessors of Truth, so I am willing to learn from many sources and would rather not cut off speech from those who hold other views. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate" 16-OCT-2003 12:54:20.35 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Twice I've tried to send a reply to all notice and twice its come back to me as undeliverable. ?????????? *S* Gwen Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 http://www.thepenzancehorse.com http://www.barefoottrim.com http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_horsemanship -----Original Message----- From: Vicki Magnus [mailto:vickim@csmd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:18 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training <> As you wrote above, "it can be argued". Your preference for pure science is grounded in your philosophical leanings rather than consisting of an objective measure which can be tested or replicated. I can appreciate that you dislike reading about animal training, even as a note in your own studies, perhaps you could delete the posts with "training" in the subject line and thus avoid the trauma such posts induce in you. It does not logically follow that because you don't like something or would do it differently then anyone who has an alternate view is wrong, and not just wrong but stupid. Apparently you hold your views to be so obviously correct that when you wrote "it can be argued" obviously you did not mean "men of reason can disagree" but something more along the lines of "fools may be too dim to understand the utter truth of my views". That is political talk show "argument", not at all reflective of the role of argument in science. I have noted a dangerous trend among some academics, who very much believe their views are "correct" and have thus decided that no other view should be allowed expression. I do not agree that those who believe their truths have been revealed to them by some sort of divine or scientific revelation are always in fact the sole possessors of Truth, so I am willing to learn from many sources and would rather not cut off speech from those who hold other views. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 16-OCT-2003 13:02:14.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Dear Dr. Stricklin, It is obvious that you did not read *any* of the references that I supplied, so I am taking the liberty of forwarding the content of your inflammatory messages to the three people maintaining the h ttp://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ site. H. Mcmurray -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:13 AM To: Anna Olsson; applied ethology Subject: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Anna, I know that this conflict on the list is no doubt upsetting and unpleasant for you. If everyone in this group was Swedish, like you, then I have no doubt that what has occurred recently would never have developed. In fact I can very confidently state that had this list only included Swedes, or mostly Europeans for that matter, then I very much doubt that I would have ever found it necessary to say and do as I done recently. I remember the first faculty and staff meeting that I attended in Sweden. Of course I could not follow all the discussion, but I could tell that it dealt with dogs and children (huns and barn). There was never a raised voice. The tone was one no different from that of a coffee break - or at least not different that I could detect. Yet, after the meeting a number of persons asked what I thought of the huge controversy that had been so heatedly discussed at the meeting ( which I later found out involved the secretaries protesting being asked to watch over the children and dogs while other persons were collecting data, etc.). That meeting has left a lasting impression on me. Swedes are taught from infancy regarding how to compromise and work toward a solution that strives to take into account the view of all persons. I wish that this behavior could be spread around the world. I have many times spoken of this trait of persons from Sweden here in the States and have stated that we should strive for this behavior as well. Therefore, I hope that you do not mind my pointing out to some of the Americans that your statement, while very diplomatic and appropriate, I think is a rather strong message for a Swede to make. And I most certainly do not mean this in a disrespectful manner, and I hope you do not mind my drawing such attention to your message. Again, I wish we could all take the Swedish approach in this situation. Unfortunately, because Americans are not raised to be like the children of Sweden, I think that we will likely continue to have some of the behavior of the past continue on this group. Children in the States are taught from infancy to "do your own thing" - "be an individual" - "stand up for yourself" - etc. Thus, some learn to be bullies or else do not seem to understand when they have been told politely that they are out of place. Sure, we advocate tolerance and diversity in this country - but too frequently we have no tolerance - or even respect - in many, many instances for differences when it comes to thoughts, opinions, and ideas - and this has been in great evidence recently. My overall purpose has been to attempt to salvage this group as a place for Applied Ethologists to discuss their work as you have suggested. And maybe because I am American, I will not hesitate to act in a manner that I feel necessary in order to bring about proper respect for the discipline. I do not mind insulting the necessary Americans if my purpose can be accomplished. In doing so, I hope that my actions are not too unpleasant for persons mostly unaccustomed to this approach. Ray -----Original Message----- From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:08 AM To: applied ethology Subject: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Although there have been most enlightening moments in the discussion over animal welfare etc etc, I'm beginning to worry. Because I know that every discussion going astray, and especially when people start shouting at each other, makes a handful of people signing off the list. Some of these people are very knowledgeable and very valuable to the list, no matter their profession. I know this because I've been on this list for 10 years, I believe since it started, and I know many scientists who were on the list then and whom I would greatly appreciate to see involved in discussions like the previous one, but who are no longer subscribing because they got fed up of having their mailboxes overflowing at one time or another. Each time this happens, the list is getting poorer, for all of us. In the process of thinking twice before hitting the 'send' icon, this is worthwhile reflecting over! While I appreciate the varied background of the different participants, and certainly think that animal trainers are just as valid subscribers and participants in discussions as are scientists (and any other person engaged in careful studies of animal behaviour), I think that lengthy discussions about animal training belong elsewhere. It is clear to me from several messages that there are various lists focusing on this topic, so there are alternative arenas for those discussions. This is NOT the case for animal welfare discussions. Because, as Ray has pointed out previously, ISAE (International Society for Applied Ethology) by tradition organises a large portion of the scientists engaging in animal welfare- related research and discussions, this list which was originally an ISAE initiative has become the forum for discussions of animal welfare. It is possible that this is not correct, and that a separate list for discussing animal welfare topics should be started (I believe it already exists by initiative of Anabela Pinto, although it never caught on because applied-ethology was already established as a platform for discussion); however for the time being and through the power of tradition, that is how things are. Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"cchadwick@spca.bc.ca" "Christa Chadwick" 16-OCT-2003 13:34:50.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Use of muzzle to control barking & welfare implications Hello Group! Can anyone out there provide me with any references to research done on the welfare implications of using a muzzle to control barking in dogs? We, of course, are aware that there are MANY problems with this kind-of management, but want actual research references (if there are any) to support our argument. Obviously, for instance, muzzling does not get at the underlying cause of the barking and is merely a way of keeping the neighbours happy. We would also welcome any expert opinion on the matter, should anyone want to offer some... Thanks all! Christa _____ Christa Chadwick, Animal Management Coordinator BC SPCA 1245 East 7th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5T 1R1 Fax. 604.709.6715 Mobile. 604.230.1611 www.spca.bc.ca cchadwick@spca.bc.ca BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals "Speaking For Animals" Love is a four-legged word From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 16-OCT-2003 13:52:24.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training - Tony's post "The Ethologist's job is as an objective observer. To watch, record, form opinion and challenge same. The Ethologist is never intrusive on nature." -- This is inaccurate. Please check your sources and cite a reference. A good point to start is with Dr. Niko Tinbergen's field research with wasps. " Ray, for what its worth, I think you make a very valid point." --- Yes, Dr. Stricklin holds a view on what is ethology, what is applied ethology, what is training, and what is allowed to be posted on this list. For clarification of the charter/direction of the list, which differs from Dr. Stricklin's views, please see the home page: http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 16-OCT-2003 13:55:24.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Adopting the use of Manual Topic headers for subject lines in applied ethology list I realize that the software is old and we cannot use computer "topic" headings; but perhaps the list membership might like to adopt manual Topic Headings. Suggested headings are: "OT:" for Off Topic (like arguments) "TR:" for training/behavior "VE:" veterinary applied ethology topics "AB:" for applied behavior used in agribusiness "CE:" for classic ethology that pertains to the list charter and so on. I intend to start using these. It is possible to rapidly sort through an email folder for applied ethology by topic header. If someone starts an argument or insults someone, they should place it under "OT:" . Topics can be combined (OT: VE: for threads taken initially from the VE threads, for example but which have moved to Off Topic). From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 16-OCT-2003 14:18:35.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: An additional topic header "OT:" for Off Topic (like arguments) "TR:" for training/behavior "VE:" veterinary applied ethology topics "AB:" for applied behavior used in agribusiness "CE:" for classic ethology that pertains to the list charter Please add one more: "AW:" for animal welfare topics as relate to applied anim. Behav. All other posts would be "general" and not fall under a topic. From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 16-OCT-2003 14:59:54.96 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training -----Original Message----- From: Vicki Magnus [mailto:vickim@csmd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:18 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training and not just wrong but stupid. Apparently you hold your views to be so obviously correct that when you wrote "it can be argued" obviously you did not mean "men of reason can disagree" but something more along the lines of "fools may be too dim to understand the utter truth of my views". That is political talk show "argument", not at all reflective of the role of argument in science. Vicki Magnus ---------------------------- Wow! Absolutely incredible. In fact I would have to say bizarre! Indeed, I would even have to say that it is scary to find someone who believes that they can divine what someone else "obviously means" from someone's work - as is stated above - especially when the proposed reinterpretation requires one to totally twist what was actually written and even project into a completely new meaning. I note from the email address that this message was sent from a school in Maryland. I would hope that the person sending this message is not a faculty member there! How can anyone pretend to know that someone means something other than what they actually wrote! I just can't believe it. The phrase "it can be argued" is very, very commonly used in technical writing. I am amazed that anyone who is beyond the 12th grade would question the meaning of the phrase. It is simply a synonym for the word "arguably." Take a look at the example usage below from Webster's Online Dictionary. According to the view of the English language as presented above, to say that "Atlanta is arguably the busiest airport in the world," the writer actually means, "Fools are too dim to understand that Atlanta..." Unbelievable! But I better make sure and spell out that when one says "arguably," it means that there can be different views. ---------------------- Main Entry: ar.gu.ably Pronunciation: 'ar-gyu-(&-)blE Function: adverb Date: 1890 : it can be argued ------------------ From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 16-OCT-2003 15:19:22.09 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training At 07:56 PM Wednesday 10/15/2003, Ray Stricklin wrote: >Wow. I am beginning to believe that a large percentage of the slow learners >in the USA have chosen to become animal trainers. >Let me be straightforward with you; it is my personal opinion that people >who spend their time training animals as their means to attaining personal >gratification would be better served trying to "GET A LIFE." Can I make it >any more clear? Oh, it's very clear. Above are two additional data points that clearly illustrate a paradox that others have pointed out before: some of those who *profess* to be among the strongest advocates of animal welfare can be extremely abusive toward their fellow human beings. From an ethological perspective, this paradox is simultaneously fascinating and sad. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 16-OCT-2003 15:50:06.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Vicki wrote: I have noted a dangerous trend among some academics, who very much believe their views are "correct" and have thus decided that no other view should be allowed expression. I do not agree that those who believe their truths have been revealed to them by some sort of divine or scientific revelation are always in fact the sole possessors of Truth, so I am willing to learn from many sources and would rather not cut off speech from those who hold other views. =======If you reflect on the history of science, you are reminded that such academics as described above have *always* existed--and I am not saying that anyone like that belongs to this list. But both the outright and the subtle sarcasm on both sides of the current thread is getting tedious beyond my tolerance. We all want ourselves and our views to be accepted, the trick is to remember that about each other and respond to each other in that frame of mind. _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service. Try it FREE for one month! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 16-OCT-2003 15:59:22.71 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: "The Ethologist's job is as an objective observer. To watch, record, form opinion and challenge same. The Ethologist is never intrusive on nature." Maybe that was the case when this field was at its begining - today - most ethology studies are done in the lab, while this euphoric ethology you are talking about is called "nature conservation". Hilit -----Original Message----- From: Tony Ancheta [mailto:tony@koehlerdogtraining.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:48 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Ethology is NOT about Training Importance: High Laura wrote: If studying the behavior of domestic pigs or calves in small vs even smaller stalls is applied ethology, then why isn't studying the means that we use in training to learn about the domestic dog's behavioral ethogram also applied ethology? I agree that cookbook dog training discussions which yield little insight about dog behavior have no merit on an AE list. Yet that's really not what's been done, as far as I can tell. Tony comments: I think that if you cut pigs loose in the wild where there are ample resourses ... they will survive. As will a cows, horses, sheep, chickens, and all the other animals we keep around the farm. BUT ... cut a Papillon loose in the wilds of the forest or wide open plains of Montana and it'll starve to death. Why? Because the dog is not an animal bred to survive without the management and care of the human host. Ah- now you will argue that there are feral dog packs that manage themselves just fine in the wild. Okay ... that's where the Ethologist comes into the picture; to study the adaptive traits of the once domestic dog as it survives long enough to produce off-spring that are [themselve's] capable of reproducing. My job, as a professional dog-trainer, is to change (not wait for adaptation) that Papillon's behaviour so that it can keep its home. My job is interactive (if not intrusive - where nature is concerned). The Ethologist's job is as an objective observer. To watch, record, form opinion and challenge same. The Ethologist is never intrusive on nature. This one is way too deep for me, so I'm out now. Ray, for what its worth, I think you make a very valid point. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 16-OCT-2003 16:02:50.77 To: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what -----Original Message----- From: hmcmurra [mailto:hmcmurra@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:02 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Dear Dr. Stricklin, It is obvious that you did not read *any* of the references that I supplied, so I am taking the liberty of forwarding the content of your inflammatory messages to the three people maintaining the http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ site. H. Mcmurray -------------------------------------- What exactly do you think you are doing - tattling on me? Do you seriously believe that Dr. Stookey does not already know? Do you believe that I did not intend that he read my messages? You have no idea how foolish your behavior looks to people who are knowledgeable about me, the discipline of Applied Ethology, and my relationship to the University of Saskatchewan. But just to give you a brief hint, I have used the links that you so categorically state I obviously did not read, in some of classes for the last 2 to 3 years. Therefore, this is a completely bogus contention on your part and is transparent to anyone knowledgeable about Applied Ethology. Do you, in fact, not actually know when you are making a potentially false charge against someone by basing an attack on them using only your own supposition? From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 16-OCT-2003 16:16:26.60 To: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training - Tony's post --- Yes, Dr. Stricklin holds a view on what is ethology, what is applied ethology, what is training, and what is allowed to be posted on this list. For clarification of the charter/direction of the list, which differs from Dr. Stricklin's views, please see the home page: http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ Above there again is another accusation regarding where my opinion has been divined by someone. Kindly provide specifics as to where my position deviates in any way from the stated purpose of this APPLIED ETHOLOGY as stated in info at the above named link. From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 16-OCT-2003 16:27:00.00 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training--what are we trying to accomplish here? Dear Vicki and All, It is disheartening to see the extent to which this discussion has degenerated. Ray Stricklin voiced a concern that many who work in applied ethology feel--that this list, once used, and intended, as a forum for discussion among applied ethologists has been co-opted for discussion of topics that are often unrelated or at best marginally related to applied ethology. Because of this, and the general disregard shown for many of us who at some point or other have suggested that we return to the original topic, far too many participants, several of whom are ethologists have left, and as this pattern continues, the quality and value of exchanges suffers. Perhaps this doesn't matter to the group? I cannot see the usefulness of alienating internationally renowned ethologists, such as Ray, by treating them with outright contempt, even when their tone is harsh or we disagree with their views. Likewise, those who are not ethologists should also be accorded due respect. But sometimes it is difficult to do this when newcomers and those outside the field of applied ethology do not appear to have respect for the list topic or its more established participants, even those encumbered with academic titles or degrees. Perhaps this is what has brought us to the rather pathetic point we've come to. I look forward to the next applied ethology topic. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: Vicki Magnus [mailto:vickim@csmd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:18 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training <> As you wrote above, "it can be argued". Your preference for pure science is grounded in your philosophical leanings rather than consisting of an objective measure which can be tested or replicated. I can appreciate that you dislike reading about animal training, even as a note in your own studies, perhaps you could delete the posts with "training" in the subject line and thus avoid the trauma such posts induce in you. It does not logically follow that because you don't like something or would do it differently then anyone who has an alternate view is wrong, and not just wrong but stupid. Apparently you hold your views to be so obviously correct that when you wrote "it can be argued" obviously you did not mean "men of reason can disagree" but something more along the lines of "fools may be too dim to understand the utter truth of my views". That is political talk show "argument", not at all reflective of the role of argument in science. I have noted a dangerous trend among some academics, who very much believe their views are "correct" and have thus decided that no other view should be allowed expression. I do not agree that those who believe their truths have been revealed to them by some sort of divine or scientific revelation are always in fact the sole possessors of Truth, so I am willing to learn from many sources and would rather not cut off speech from those who hold other views. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 16-OCT-2003 17:05:50.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: global warming effects on behavior Hi everybody, Can anyone provide citations for peer-reviewed articles discussing the effects of global warming trends/changing rainfall patterns on the behavior of animals, e.g., bird or butterfly migrations, polar bear hunting, for example? Thanks, Jo _________________________________________________________________ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 16-OCT-2003 18:07:28.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: laudable human behavior Hi again, I had the great fortune years ago to meet and live in the same town--Blacksburg, VA--as a scientist whom I consider to be a paramount example of human endeavor, reasoning, leadership, and behavior. Dr. John Cairns has been for many years a Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech, is known, sought, and awarded worldwide for his restoration work with wetlands. This man was, in fact, the main reason I moved to that town to continue my education. I met him and his wife at meetings of the local bird club and was then impressed by his expansive and down-to-earth personality. Below is an excerpt of his writing, which reflects an attitude and norm of behavior I take as a model for my much-flawed self, and which represents the pinnacle of behavior exhibited by my father. I post this because of its relevance to lister behavior regarding the current thread. I post this because it is such fresh air! Jo "As a student, I was occasionally told about the creative process, but I only believed I could participate after observing it for many months. Many years after acquiring the Ph.D., I was intensely interested in individual approaches to creativity and am still fascinated by the variety used. No matter how much one does, something new will always be waiting. Exploring the unknown with highly motivated people is exciting. I have been blessed throughout my career with students, technicians, colleagues, and staff who share my enthusiasm for solving scientific problems -- we are sharing the excitement of discovery, the risk of criticism, the search for weaknesses in our reasoning, the attempt to connect our contribution to mainstream science, and the effort to communicate our findings to others. All parts of the creative process should be shared by students and mentors and can greatly benefit this relationship." _________________________________________________________________ Never get a busy signal because you are always connected with high-speed Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers. https://broadband.msn.com From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 16-OCT-2003 18:07:54.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Please - a ceasefire? I feel it is only fair for us all to concede that Ray is correct in the conditional statement he made with regard to ethology and training. However, while training is not an implicit part of ethology, ethology might well be considered a very useful field of knowledge for trainers of any animal. It might be considered a reasonable assumption that the better innate behaviors are understood the better able a person will be to work with that animal - whatever the environment or desired outcome. Were this not the case why would so many trainers be drawn to the list? And if this indeed is the case then why on earth would trainers wish the list to be devoid of ethologists, and this is bound to happen if the present wrangling continues - but if the central pillar of applied ethology is to be pulled down what will be left to hold up the roof? I would be very sorry to see the list degenerate any further - surely there have been enough casualties over the last few months. It must be possible to have a ceasefire at this point - and then to leave all personal attacks, sarcasm and rudeness out of all postings - whatever the temptation. As things stand I totally understand why students would no longer be advised to join - which seems a rather sad indictment - does it not? If we are not able to discuss things amicably intra-species why should we expect to have any great success inter-species? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 16-OCT-2003 18:55:48.66 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training <> A bit of common ground, I had a similar concern when reading your posts. Student questions or comments should meet with reasoned discussion and be seen an opportunity for exploration. Those who see questions or comments as personal attacks on their own dearly held beliefs may indoctrinate but will never educate, and those who wish to silence others truly missed their opportunity to appreciate all the inspiration and points of inquiry that come from considering alternate views. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 16-OCT-2003 19:08:06.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training - Tony's post Dear Dr. Stricklin, I have. Please read my posts. H.mcmurray -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:15 PM To: hmcmurra; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training - Tony's post --- Yes, Dr. Stricklin holds a view on what is ethology, what is applied ethology, what is training, and what is allowed to be posted on this list. For clarification of the charter/direction of the list, which differs from Dr. Stricklin's views, please see the home page: http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ Above there again is another accusation regarding where my opinion has been divined by someone. Kindly provide specifics as to where my position deviates in any way from the stated purpose of this APPLIED ETHOLOGY as stated in info at the above named link. From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 16-OCT-2003 19:25:22.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology (E-mail)" CC: Subj: Stop, refrain, cease, desist!! Please - enough is enough! Stop the bickering, sarcasm and snide comments - or if you feel you must continue (but what a waste of time and energy!) then send the messages privately and not to the whole group. Life is about making compromises - try to see and respect others' views/ideas/ethics - if you can't do that, then just accept that people have different viewpoints, are entitled to hold their views; agree to disagree and move on. You only have to look at what is happening around you in the world to see the result of people stubbornly refusing to compromise - constant conflict. I really don't need more of that - and I'm certain I'm not alone in feeling that way. Carol "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Gandhi Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries PO Box 6014, Central Qld Mail Centre N. Rockhampton Queensland 4702 Australia Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au Website www.dpi.qld.gov.au Call Centre 13 25 23 ********************************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%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate" 16-OCT-2003 19:27:59.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Sheesh -- its too bad that we humans do not learn more from the animals. How do I unsubscribe? :( Gwen Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 http://www.thepenzancehorse.com http://www.barefoottrim.com http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_horsemanship From: IN%"slindsay@ix.netcom.com" "Steve Lindsay" 16-OCT-2003 20:29:01.63 To: IN%"cchadwick@spca.bc.ca" "Christa Chadwick", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Use of muzzle to control barking & welfare implications on 10/16/03 3:32 PM, Christa Chadwick at cchadwick@spca.bc.ca wrote: > Hello Group! >=20 > Can anyone out there provide me with any references to research done on t= he > welfare implications of using a muzzle to control barking in dogs? > We, of course, are aware that there are MANY problems with this kind-of > management, but want actual research references (if there are any) to sup= port > our argument. Obviously, for instance, muzzling does not get at the > underlying cause of the barking and is merely a way of keeping the neighb= ours > happy. > We would also welcome any expert opinion on the matter, should anyone wan= t to > offer some... > Thanks all! > Christa >=20 > _____ =20 >=20 > Christa Chadwick, Animal Management Coordinator > BC SPCA > 1245 East 7th Avenue > Vancouver, BC V5T 1R1 > Fax. 604.709.6715 Mobile. 604.230.1611 > www.spca.bc.ca cchadwick@spca.bc.ca > > BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals > "Speaking For Animals" >=20 > Love is a four-legged word Hi Christa, I thought that this might be of interest to you: Cronin GM, Hemsworth, PH Barnett JL, Jongman EC, Newman EA and McCauley I (2003). An anti-barking muzzle for dogs and its short-term effects on behaviour and saliva cortisol concentrations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(3):215-226 Abstract A commercial anti-barking muzzle for dogs was tested during winter on Australian Kelpies at a commercial breeding kennel, to examine the effects of the device on dog behaviour and welfare. The trial involved 16 dogs (paired on sex and age); one dog per pair was allocated at random to the Muzzle Treatment (MT) and the other to the Control Treatment (CT) (not muzzled). The dogs were penned individually with pairs housed in adjacent pens. Muzzle Treatment dogs wore the anti-barking device for about 43=A0h. Muzzles were removed for about 30=A0min on day 2 of the treatment period whil= e dogs were fed. The behavioural responses of dogs were recorded over 4 days, from before application of muzzles (pre-treatment) to 2 days after removal of the muzzles (post-treatment period). Saliva samples were collected at 2, 21 and 24=A0h post-muzzling to measure saliva cortisol concentrations. The initial response of dogs to wearing muzzles was to display submissive behaviour: tail held between the hind legs or down for the first few minute= s only and head and tail down for the majority of time while wearing the muzzles, especially in the absence of humans. Activity level (2.3 versus 15.7% of observations), barking (0.1 versus 7.8%) and standing posture (8.3 versus 29.5%) by dogs were significantly reduced (P<0.05) while wearing the muzzles compared to non-muzzled controls. Even in response to stimulation from humans, dogs barked significantly less when muzzled compared to non-muzzled controls (0.5 versus 23.4% of observations, P<0.01). However, based on saliva cortisol concentrations there was no evidence of a physiological stress response to wearing the muzzles. After removal of the muzzles after 43=A0h of treatment, the dogs in the Muzzle compared to Control Treatment tended to stand more (P<0.06) during observation sessions over th= e next 2 days (48.3 versus 32.5% of observations). It was concluded that although dogs responded to wearing the muzzle by modifying their behaviour, including the display of submissive behaviour, and vocalisation, there was no indication that the dogs showed a stress response when wearing the muzzle. Further evaluation of anti-barking muzzles for dogs is recommended to test the ability of dogs to drink and pant while wearing the device during hot weather, to ensure they can effectively thermoregulate. ________________________________________________ Steven R. Lindsay HANDBOOK OF APPLIED DOG BEHAVIOR & TRAINING V.1, Adaptation and Learning (2000) V.2, Etiology and Assessment (2001) V.3, Procedures and Protocols (late 2003) Iowa State University Press From: IN%"apewelfare@yahoo.co.in" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Dr.=20G.=20Agoramoorthy?=" 16-OCT-2003 22:50:52.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: global warming effects on behavior Hi! One interesting paper that I read some time ago was on the British birds extending their ranges northwards during a period of climate warming. The paper was published by Chris D Thomas & Jack J Lennon in Nature (vol. 399, 20 May 1999, p. 213). Regards. Moorthy --- Jo Angleberger wrote: > >Hi everybody, > Can anyone provide citations for peer-reviewed > articles discussing the > effects of global warming trends/changing rainfall > patterns on the behavior > of animals, e.g., bird or butterfly migrations, > polar bear hunting, for > example? > Thanks, > Jo > > _______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com From: IN%"slindsay@ix.netcom.com" "Steve Lindsay" 17-OCT-2003 01:25:27.38 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: global warming effects on behavior on 10/16/03 7:05 PM, Jo Angleberger at warblerneck@hotmail.com wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Can anyone provide citations for peer-reviewed articles discussing the > effects of global warming trends/changing rainfall patterns on the behavior > of animals, e.g., bird or butterfly migrations, polar bear hunting, for > example? > Thanks, > Jo Evidence for an allostatic switch controlling the activation of complex survival modes in response to annual weather conditions has been found to affect the migratory behavior of male nonterritorial tree lizards (Knapp et al., 2003). Unlike more aggressive and territorial tree lizards, nonterritorial males variably stay put or rove depending on environmental conditions. Both variations show increased corticosterone levels during harsh years, but only roving nonterritorial males exhibit reduced testosterone levels. A very interesting study! Knapp R, Hews DK, Thompson CW, et al. (2003). Environmental and endocrine correlates of tactic switching by nonterritorial male tree lizards (Urosaurus ornatus). Horm Behav, 43:83-92. ________________________________________________ Steven R. Lindsay HANDBOOK OF APPLIED DOG BEHAVIOR & TRAINING V.1, Adaptation and Learning (2000) V.2, Etiology and Assessment (2001) V.3, Procedures and Protocols (early 2003) Iowa State University Press From: IN%"d.lee@mcri.ac.uk" "Diane Lee" 17-OCT-2003 03:07:28.84 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: multi-cat housing Hi Rosemary, I recently read a paper (can't remember the ref, but it wasn't 2003 so I'm confident it's not the same) where cats were also studied in animal shelters. The discovery was that stress was proportional to the (lack of) space per cat. Certainly in my experience I have found this. I have a brother and sister who always displayed affection, mutual grooming etc towards each other. Last year we had to put them into a cattery for our holiday. They were so close we traveled them in the same cage (small cats!). Upon our return a week later we were forced to travel the brother (Sweep) loose in the car as there was no way his sister (Willow) would let him in the large cat carrier. Back home they fought fiercely for a couple of weeks and we vowed never to use a cattery again. The facilities were fine and the cats all looked happy, but taking away the personal space i.e. communal housing in such close quarters devastated their relationship. Thankfully their relationship improved again. IMHO cats are actually sociable. Go to Rome if you don't believe me! Near the coliseum is a feral community that thrives. The difference in such as animal shelters is that there is no escape - in communities such as Rome each cat has a couple of metres around him unoccupied. It's anthropomorphic, but I wouldn't want to spend 24 hours with a human. However, my own cats (and I'm led to believe others find this too) spend at least 3/4 of the day together. I therefore find it quite worrying that single-housing is becoming a trend. As you say, the reference is not representative of stable communities but most importantly the cats are confined!! Even strange cats (to each other) co-exist quite happily, using social 'etiquette'. I agree with the suggestion that it depends on the individual cat, not to mention the upbringing of that cat. Diane on 16.10.2003 17:42, R. Rodd at rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote: > The current view on the welfare benefits (or otherwise) of rehoming cats > singly or in pairs seems to be swinging back towards single-housing, at > least here in the UK. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? > > The most recent large scale study that I know of was Ottway and Hawkins > "Cat Housing in Rescue Shelters" (Animal Welfare 2003, 12:173-189) which > showed higher stress in communal units but wouldn't really have been > representative of cats in stable communities. It also seems to suggest > that "best practice" depends very much on the individual cat and that very > sociable cats are actually more stressed by the presence of an unsociable > individual than the unsociable one is by the presence of other cats. > > ---------------------------------------- > Rosemary Rodd > Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre > Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 > From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 17-OCT-2003 04:29:46.94 To: IN%"hilde@andenaes.com" "Hilde =?UNKNOWN?Q?Anden=E6s?=", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Animal welfare / cow trainer Hi Hilde and stine, hi all, like Stine and Ray i wouild underline, that you cannot devide ethical attitude of researchers and research by means of deciding what kind of natural science a person chooses to be involved in, by setting up research aims, designing the research project, by the attitude and awareness of the animal welfare while doing the actual research work and so on. In any publication of results i think, it is important to mark up my intention to do the research (".. to improve welfare in ..." or " ... in order to reduce production costs we .." ) and nonetheless to be be as exact as possible in showing the results and in choosing statistical measures. I have no problem with scientists bringing in their personal believings if it is made clear to the audience, what these believings are. By the way, i would be interested in the references about studies showing no negative effects of the cow trainer. I personally believe it to be a serious thread to cow welfare because of many electric shocks without the cow having intention to defecate and urinate for instance while social contact with her neighbors. It should be at minimum used only under strict monitoring and i personally would like to ban it. The following studies showed remarkable animal welfare implications of the cow trainer through chronic stress, including decreased fertility. Metzner C.(1978): Die Wirkung des Kuhtrainers auf physiologische Reaktionen und Verhalten der Kuh, Diss., FB Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau der Universität München Eyrich, H. (1988): Untersuchungen ü. d. Einfluuss des Kuhtrainers auf die Brunst von Milchkühen. Diss. Tierärztl. Fakultät der LMU München Kohli, E. (1985): Auswirkungen des Kuhtrainers auf das Verhalten von Milchvieh. Schlußbericht Tierschutzprojekt, Universität Bern In consequence switzerland and afterwards also lower saxony (germany) had strickly reglemented the use of cow trainers in the early ninetees. If you contact the swiss BVET (www.bvet.ch) there might be more information available about more recent work on the cow trainer done by the fat. Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:45:22 +0200 From: Hilde Andenæs Subject: Re: Animal welfare To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, Ray Stricklin > Hi all, > > I'm following this discussion on the use of results from ethological experiments > and ethics with great interest. > > I think the use of cow trainers, which is frequently used on tethered cows in > Norway, is an interesting example. Experiments have so far not measured that it > has negative effects on the cows, actually it results in a cleaner area for the > cow, which again results in better health for the animal. How does one interpret > these results and apply them? The scientist performing these experiments can > conclude that from this experimental set-up, the cow trainer has not proven to > have any negative result on the cow, and that it is positive for the health of > the animal. Still the reader has to remember that the conclusions are based on > this specific experient. The scientist can personally believe that there is > something fundamentally wrong this housing system, since it is necessary to use > a cow trainer in order for the animal to have good health. > > So, my question is, do scientists have a responsibility to communicate their > personal ethical views? After all, they are more informed on their research area > that many others, fex the consumers. And if so, how can that be done without it > being confounded into their results from experiments? Or do scientists have less > of an opportunity to express their personal views, because they can be suspected > of not being objective in their scientific work. > > Best regards, > > Hilde Andenæs > > P.S. A cow trainer is a device that trains cows to step back to the rear of > their stalls to defecate and urinate by administraing electric shocks. > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 17-OCT-2003 06:23:18.22 To: IN%"d.lee@mcri.ac.uk" "Diane Lee" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" Subj: RE: multi-cat housing Hi Diane and Rosemary, I don't know if any of these references are helpful to your multi-cat housing discussion but all touch on the topic a bit. Janice Barry KL, Crowell-Davis SL. "Gender differences in the social behavior of the neutered indoor-only domestic cat." Appl Anim Behav Sci 64 (1999): 193-211. Bradshaw JWS, Hall SL. "Affiliative behaviour of related and unrelated pairs of cats in catteries: a preliminary report." Appl Anim Behav Sci 63 (1999): 251-255. Durr R, Smith C. "Individual differnces and their relation to social structure in domestic cats." J Comp Psych 111 (1997): 412-418. van den Bos R. "Post-conflict stress-response in confined group-living cats (Felis silvestris catus)." Appl Anim Behav Sci 59 (1998): 323-330. Diane Lee writes: > Hi Rosemary, > > I recently read a paper (can't remember the ref, but it wasn't 2003 so I'm > confident it's not the same) where cats were also studied in animal > shelters. The discovery was that stress was proportional to the (lack of) > space per cat. Certainly in my experience I have found this. I have a > brother and sister who always displayed affection, mutual grooming etc > towards each other. > > Last year we had to put them into a cattery for our holiday. They were so > close we traveled them in the same cage (small cats!). Upon our return a > week later we were forced to travel the brother (Sweep) loose in the car as > there was no way his sister (Willow) would let him in the large cat carrier. > Back home they fought fiercely for a couple of weeks and we vowed never to > use a cattery again. The facilities were fine and the cats all looked happy, > but taking away the personal space i.e. communal housing in such close > quarters devastated their relationship. Thankfully their relationship > improved again. > > IMHO cats are actually sociable. Go to Rome if you don't believe me! Near > the coliseum is a feral community that thrives. The difference in such as > animal shelters is that there is no escape - in communities such as Rome > each cat has a couple of metres around him unoccupied. > > It's anthropomorphic, but I wouldn't want to spend 24 hours with a human. > However, my own cats (and I'm led to believe others find this too) spend at > least 3/4 of the day together. I therefore find it quite worrying that > single-housing is becoming a trend. As you say, the reference is not > representative of stable communities but most importantly the cats are > confined!! Even strange cats (to each other) co-exist quite happily, using > social 'etiquette'. I agree with the suggestion that it depends on the > individual cat, not to mention the upbringing of that cat. > > Diane > > on 16.10.2003 17:42, R. Rodd at rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote: > >> The current view on the welfare benefits (or otherwise) of rehoming cats >> singly or in pairs seems to be swinging back towards single-housing, at >> least here in the UK. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? >> >> The most recent large scale study that I know of was Ottway and Hawkins >> "Cat Housing in Rescue Shelters" (Animal Welfare 2003, 12:173-189) which >> showed higher stress in communal units but wouldn't really have been >> representative of cats in stable communities. It also seems to suggest >> that "best practice" depends very much on the individual cat and that very >> sociable cats are actually more stressed by the presence of an unsociable >> individual than the unsociable one is by the presence of other cats. >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> Rosemary Rodd >> Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre >> Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 >> Janice Siegford, PhD Animal Behavior and Welfare Group Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 17-OCT-2003 09:17:48.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Tony Ancheta wrote: > Ray wrote: > In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline > of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training. > > Tony comments: > "In the strictest sense" (the qualifier) ... Ray is right. > > If I've got this correct, the Ethologist studies the behaviour of animals in > their natural environment. Which is why earlier in the month I challenged > the validity of a 'study' using coyotes that have been captured, caged, and > kept. I just can't see how that arrangement allows one to observe behaviour > in their natural environment. It seems to me that observing captive > animals is as contrary (in the strictest sense) to etological study as the > training of wild animals to accept being held captive. (I might also argue > that for many, the later is a gross injustice - both to the animal and to > the sincere ethologist.) > > The Trainer's job is to find a way to either exploit (i.e. tracking ability > in dogs) the natural behaviour of the animal or to cause a predictable and > reliable change in the manner of the animal so that he can be more easily > kept captive (teaching a dog to heel dispite his want to track). BUT - the > dog is not a wild animal. The discussion of how we (dog trainers) pursue a > training outcome with a pet dog has nothing at all to do with Ethology. Tony, this time I must disagree a bit. Ethologists study the behavior of animals in their natural environment, but also in more or less "unnatural" situations. The "mistakes" which happen under non-natural circumstances - for instance, the imprinting of a young bird on a human instead of on its natural parents - have been one of the most powerful tools of experimental ethology and have revealed many things about behavior which could never have been discovered by field observation. The focus of ethology is, to be sure, on the behavioral "equipment" with which the animal comes provided, rather than on the ways behavior can be modified in a more or less artificial context. Ethology has its roots in zoology and early ethologists were interested in comparing species, drawing conclusions about their relationships and about the evolution of specific behavior patterns. Ethology developed as a "comparative anatomy" of behavior. Comparative psychology, by contrast, tended to emphasize the universality of basic processes such as learning, and to focus on those almost as if species differences did not exist. Some very powerful tools, which animal trainers use on a daily basis, have come out of that approach, but the classical 1961 Breland paper on "The misbehavior of organisms" should serve as a reminder to even the most dedicated "universalist" that inherited behavioral systems - which were always the primary interest of ethologists - are very real and very important. Ethology thus has a great deal to contribute to the study of learning - of how organisms acquire information - and of course also to practical applications - such as animal training - of our understanding of behavior. It is surely useful to understand the ethology of any species (wild or domestic) if you intend to train it efficiently. The "drive system" (or whatever you want to call it) is the main motor for whatever you are setting out to do, and unless you have some understanding of it you are flailing in the dark (which might be a fair description of some training efforts one sometimes encounters among the lay public). I submit that "to exploit the natural behavior of the animal" it is helpful to understand how that natural behavior works . I am an academic ethologist, not an animal trainer, and claim no expertise in animal training. I have, however, lived with dogs for much of my life, and as a practical matter have trained them to that minimal extent necessary to allow them to be happy and efficient workers in the hunting field, and pleasant companions in the home. I have also been a practicing falconer for many years, and have incidentally rehabilitated a wide assortment of damaged raptors. Falconry is, of course, a specialized branch of animal training, designed to allow a raptor to unfold its natural predatory behavior in close association and collaboration with a human (and sometimes with a dog). Much of that is presaged in the behavior of wild raptors, who frequently use humans or other large animals (usually unaware of the role they are playing) as "beaters" to find and flush game. Good falconry practice depends on an intimate understanding of the raptor's natural behavior, of its sensory and behavioral capabilities and not least of its desires. It is also, as I have discovered over the years, an excellent avenue to understanding the ethology of those raptors at a more intimate level than is possible with field observation alone. It affords a marvelous closeup view of the "nuts and bolts" of behavior as adaptation. You can learn how a raptor constructs what von Uexküll would have called its "Merkwelt" out of individual events - remembering that rabbits are to be found in that corner of that field at 4 pm, remembering the branch from which it launched a successful attack, and reminding you (the forgetful observer ) of that fact when you pass by that tree weeks or months later ... and so on. That too is ethology, and it allows you to see clearly things you could only guess at without the intimacy of the association. It seems to me in fact that falconry fits the definition of "applied ethology" rather well . It's worth noting, BTW, that you cannot force a raptor to do anything it doesn't want to do. The hierarchical aspects which sometimes come into play with a social animal such as a dog are not applicable. The first thing hawks teach you is humility. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-OCT-2003 10:12:57.84 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training John wrote: Tony, this time I must disagree a bit. Ethologists study the behavior of animals in their natural environment, but also in more or less "unnatural" situations. Tony comments: Perhaps the study of animal behaviour in an "unnatural" situation ... is something different; applied ethology(?). Remember that Ray restricted his commentary (re: ethology) with the use of the phrase "In the strictest sense." I believe that, in the strictest sense, ethology is the study of animal behaviour in a natural environment. But I yeild to those of you more familiar with the vernacular of your profession. As to Breland's paper ... I keep a copy of that paper (direct from the American Psychologist, 61) within arm's reach of my desktop and refer to it often. Everyone training "not-to" in dogs, as opposed to 'leave-it' or 'do-this-instead' (counter-conditioning), needs to become very familiar with that particular paper. Out for the weekend, Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 17-OCT-2003 10:33:57.93 To: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare Andreas, I must state at the start that questions about somatic cell count are, in fact, well outside my area. But I think that, in fact, drinking milk that contains somatic cells would _not_ cause anyone harm. I would think that ingesting the white blood cells themselves should not be a problem. Thus, my statement about it "not being good for the persons who would drink the milk" is incorrect. I remember when I wrote the original statement wondering how to simplify the wording to make the point - and went too far. But I also remember wondering briefly at that time why, in fact, the milk is discarded? The individual producer (at least in the USA) discards it because adding this milk to the bulk milk would increase the overall count, and thus would affect his market price. But I suppose, ultimately, it is discarded on the basis of precaution? - that the discarding of milk with high somatic cell count is done in order to error on the side of food safety? Regarding, the question as to whether or not there is, indeed, any documented research benefit from tail-docking cows - I also would like to know the answer to this question. I know of none - but I have not searched the literature on the topic. There was an earlier message that implied that tail-docking had been found to lead to a decrease in milk production (because of fly problems) and that the practice is being abandoned in New Zealand. There was a request posted later asking for details in support of the original post - but if one was listed, I did not see it. I would like to know, in fact, whether or not the original posting was based on published information, a development in New Zealand (or elsewhere) that has come about because of producer-based experience, or what. Also, I would like to know whether or not the practice in New Zealand has deceased as was stated, and if so, what were the bases, or causes, that led to the change. Andreas, I am going to take the liberty of posting your message directed to me to the group - and hope that you do not object, but I feel that I should post a correction/retraction on the statement about somatic cell count. Best regards, Ray Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Briese [mailto:Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 4:04 AM To: Ray Stricklin Subject: RE: animal welfare You wrote about tail docking in cows. Date sent: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:51:03 -0700 From: Farm Animal Welfare Insights Subject: RE: animal welfare To: Ray Stricklin , adopta bunny , applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > infection increases the somatic cell > count in the milk. This is not good for the persons who would drink the > milk. .. Now, I will challenge anyone to give me a strictly science basis (argument, data, etc.) for opposing tail-docking in dairy cows! Hi Ray, why should somatic cells not be good for the person drinking the milk. I understood that somatic cell count is simply are used as an indicator for the likelyness of subclinical microbiological infections. Andreas p.s. By the way, Is there scientific evidence for any benefit of tail docking in dairy cows if not therapeutical? We found nothing and therefor it is strickly forbidden by vet authorities in germany. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 17-OCT-2003 13:47:43.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Muscovy ducks Dear colleagues Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy ducks? When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less adaptable to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized the fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them gooks. Mike 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%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 17-OCT-2003 14:04:40.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tolerance and communication and where to discuss what Sheesh -- its too bad that we humans do not learn more from the animals. How do I unsubscribe? :( Gwen Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 =====Why unsubscribe? Why no longer advise ethology students to join the list? Really these are not rhetorical questions and I am not being sarcastic. If you consider humans to be animals, which I do, then why not accept that on this list we are contributing to and witnessing conspecific behavior. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Send instant messages to anyone on your contact list with MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 17-OCT-2003 18:46:15.87 To: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Muscovy ducks Hi Fred, I am not a duck expert by any means but our wolf centre has quite a number of free-ranging ducks and geese wandering the property, including both brown and white muscovies. I have been told by numerous farmers who raise them that young muscovies are prone to cannibalism but only when they are getting their pin feathers and losing their "down." I believe that it is at this stage, if the ducks are over-crowded, that they tend to get nasty. We've never had this problem ourselves, perhaps because our ducks are not confined in any way. They do have large shelter areas but can come and go at will. Vivian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Appleby" To: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Muscovy ducks > Dear colleagues > > Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy ducks? > > When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone > to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory > factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't > know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural > social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less adaptable > to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. > > Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized the > fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them gooks. > > Mike > > 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%"rsilva@cpap.embrapa.br" "Roberto Aguilar M. S. Silva" 18-OCT-2003 08:27:01.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: beef cattle welfare Dear Colleague, The Internet Discussion List on beef welfare and behaviour called BEEFCATTLEWELFARE-L. It is the main goal is to facilate the information exchanges between all researchers working on welfare and behaviour of beefcattle.=20 English is the official language.=20 We would be very happy to have you as a new BEEFCATTLEWELFARE-L member.=20 For subscribing in BEEFCATTLEGWELFARE-L . Send an e-mail to listproc@cpap.embrapa.br . No subject . Write on the first line of message: subscribe beefcattlewelfare-l first name and lastname=20 To know the e-mail and name of BEEFCATTLEWELFARE-L recipients: . Send an e-mail to: listproc@cpap.embrapa.br . Write on the first line of message: recipients beefcattlewelfare-l For cancelling your BEEFCATTLEWELFARE-L subscription=20 Send an e-mail to: listproc@cpap.embrapa.br . No subject . Write on the first line of message: unsubscribe beefcattlewelfare-l Additional informations : Roberto Aguilar M. S. Silva EMBRAPA/ Pantanal Research Centre Rua 21 de Setembro, 1880=20 CEP: 79320-900 Corumb=E1, MS=20 Phone:+55 67 233-2430 Fax:+55 67 233-1011=20 E-mail (Lab): rsilva@cpap.embrapa.br Roberto Aguilar M. S. Silva EMBRAPA-Research Center for the Pantanal Rua 21 de Setembro, 1880 CEP:79320-900 Phone::+55 67 233-2430 - Fax:+55 67 233-1011=20 Corumba, MS, Brazil From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 18-OCT-2003 18:45:10.95 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it I too have several "bits of paper" (though not a PhD) and a lifetimes experience with various animals having been literally raised with them. Certain local "trainers" have had the audacity to question my qualifications when I would have more hands on experience than them PLUS the relevant bits of paper! Some people have BOTH practical and theoretical qualifications, what an ideal combination. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Moira Harris [mailto:Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:48 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it Dear Kayce and dear all, Does anybody know why a repeated sentiment appearing on this list of late has been that possession of a Ph.D. is incompatible with a) any practical experience of working with animals; and b) any commonsense whatever? It has appeared as a very strong implication in the past, and now again has been expressed by Kayce in reference to Ray Stricklin's comments. I happen to have around my house several bits of paper attesting to the fact that I have earned several degrees, yet I have also worked with animals a fair bit and do also have a modicum (a small amount) of commonsense. I've heard a rumour (Ray, can you confirm this?) that even Professor Stricklin has on occasion interacted with the odd animal or two. I am very, very happy to listen to the viewpoints of, and learn from, people who have 'real life' experience and no paper qualifications. All I would ask is for I and others with those annoying letters after our names to be accorded the same respect in return. Could we perhaps start from the assumption that we are all reasonably informed and have something to share? Best wishes, - Moira ------------------------------------- Dr. Moira Harris Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 19-OCT-2003 01:30:49.17 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "'Geiger'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it Dear All, I must say that I deplore the vicious outbursts of a small number of our "dog training" sorority. (I have kept all of their posts for future analysis!) The recurrent insults to our academic members are particularly reprehensible. I would like to make two points in particular. 1. Highly qualified folk are an easy target for the journalistic hooligans. The epithet "unpractical egghead", formed a thread in the letters pages of the Veterinary Record a decade ago. Closer examination of the interests and aptitudes of persons recruited on the basis of academic excellence would have revealed that a very high order of musical, carpentry, artistic and physical skills existed. I warn our students of "dog and cat training" not to allow their skills to lead to contempt for academic folk. They (the "trainers and behaviour modifiers) will be accorded more respect than they necessarily deserve! It is a trait among specialized folk to imagine and accord to other disciplines, immense knowledge and ability. It is a form of humility in a sense, and it handicaps them in dealing with the rude, straw-bale philosophers and their contempt for "book-learning". My warning to any "overly-uppity" layperson is to fill the gap left by busy (more qualified) folk and to forbear to annoy them. If obliged to turn aside and address the important trivialities of "training" they will (by virtue of their abilities) run faster and further with the subject that you might imagine! Robin Walker, Veterinarian and Honorary Egghead. -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: 19 October 2003 01:44 To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it I too have several "bits of paper" (though not a PhD) and a lifetimes experience with various animals having been literally raised with them. Certain local "trainers" have had the audacity to question my qualifications when I would have more hands on experience than them PLUS the relevant bits of paper! Some people have BOTH practical and theoretical qualifications, what an ideal combination. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Moira Harris [mailto:Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:48 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it Dear Kayce and dear all, Does anybody know why a repeated sentiment appearing on this list of late has been that possession of a Ph.D. is incompatible with a) any practical experience of working with animals; and b) any commonsense whatever? It has appeared as a very strong implication in the past, and now again has been expressed by Kayce in reference to Ray Stricklin's comments. I happen to have around my house several bits of paper attesting to the fact that I have earned several degrees, yet I have also worked with animals a fair bit and do also have a modicum (a small amount) of commonsense. I've heard a rumour (Ray, can you confirm this?) that even Professor Stricklin has on occasion interacted with the odd animal or two. I am very, very happy to listen to the viewpoints of, and learn from, people who have 'real life' experience and no paper qualifications. All I would ask is for I and others with those annoying letters after our names to be accorded the same respect in return. Could we perhaps start from the assumption that we are all reasonably informed and have something to share? Best wishes, - Moira ------------------------------------- Dr. Moira Harris Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"minna.vuolle@datazug.ch" "Minna Vuolle" 19-OCT-2003 11:44:31.30 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minna Vuolle" To: "Robin Walker" Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 6:11 PM Subject: Re: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it > Dear All, > > I have been following these discussions between dog trainers and academics. > And I have to say that not only the dog trainers have been "vicious". I my > self don't fit in in either category. I have shared my whole life with dogs > and I have been a dog trainer. However, I have also studied canine behavior, > I have a dog psychlogist education (that was ethology) but I have no PhDs or > other letters behind my name. I am continually visiting > seminars, reading books, consulting professionals and trying to learn as > much as I can. I own three dogs and in my work I am constantly solving "dog > problems" together with the dog owners. > And there are many others like me. > > Education is good, but not all educated people are equally good and > professional. Some can read, but doesn't seem to > understand or do understand but can't apply in practice. There are so many > of us in different professions and different levels of education. > > Fortunately information is available for all of us now via internet,books, > libraries,etc. So, we can't categorize. > > For all of you academics who have been studying canine ethology. What do you > think who are the people who are learning from your studies? Who you think > benefits of your knowledge. Only you and your academic colleaques or perhaps > general public, dogs, dog owners or dog trainers? My opinion is that all of > them should. I also think that we should show a little bit more respect to > each other, keep an open mind, learn from each other and co-operate. > > Minna Vuolle, Switzerland > > minna.vuolle@datazug.ch > www.wolfsspirit.org > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robin Walker" > To: "'Geiger'" ; > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:30 AM > Subject: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it > > > > Dear All, > > > > I must say that I deplore the vicious outbursts of a small number of our > > "dog training" sorority. > > > > (I have kept all of their posts for future analysis!) > > > > The recurrent insults to our academic members are particularly > > reprehensible. > > > > I would like to make two points in particular. > > > > 1. Highly qualified folk are an easy target for the journalistic > > hooligans. The epithet "unpractical egghead", formed a thread in the > > letters pages of the Veterinary Record a decade ago. Closer examination > > of the interests and aptitudes of persons recruited on the basis of > > academic excellence would have revealed that a very high order of > > musical, carpentry, artistic and physical skills existed. > > > > I warn our students of "dog and cat training" not to allow their skills > > to lead to contempt for academic folk. They (the "trainers and behavior > > modifiers) will be accorded more respect than they necessarily deserve! > > > > It is a trait among specialized folk to imagine and accord to other > > disciplines, immense knowledge and ability. It is a form of humility in > > a sense, and it handicaps them in dealing with the rude, straw-bale > > philosophers and their contempt for "book-learning". > > > > My warning to any "overly-uppity" layperson is to fill the gap left by > > busy (more qualified) folk and to forbear to annoy them. If obliged to > > turn aside and address the important trivialities of "training" they > > will (by virtue of their abilities) run faster and further with the > > subject that you might imagine! > > > > Robin Walker, > > Veterinarian and Honorary Egghead. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] > > Sent: 19 October 2003 01:44 > > To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > Subject: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it > > > > I too have several "bits of paper" (though not a PhD) and a lifetimes > > experience with various animals having been literally raised with them. > > Certain local "trainers" have had the audacity to question my > > qualifications when I would have more hands on experience than them PLUS > > the relevant bits of paper! Some people have BOTH practical and > > theoretical qualifications, what an ideal combination. > > Jackie Perkins > > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > > Australia > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moira Harris [mailto:Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk] > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:48 AM > > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > Subject: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it > > > > Dear Kayce and dear all, > > > > Does anybody know why a repeated sentiment appearing on this list of > > late > > has been that possession of a Ph.D. is incompatible with a) any > > practical > > experience of working with animals; and b) any commonsense whatever? > > It has appeared as a very strong implication in the past, and now again > > has > > been expressed by Kayce in reference to Ray Stricklin's comments. > > > > I happen to have around my house several bits of paper attesting to the > > fact that I have earned several degrees, yet I have also worked with > > animals a fair bit and do also have a modicum (a small amount) of > > commonsense. I've heard a rumour (Ray, can you confirm this?) that even > > > > Professor Stricklin has on occasion interacted with the odd animal or > > two. > > > > I am very, very happy to listen to the viewpoints of, and learn from, > > people who have 'real life' experience and no paper qualifications. All > > I > > would ask is for I and others with those annoying letters after our > > names > > to be accorded the same respect in return. Could we perhaps start from > > the > > assumption that we are all reasonably informed and have something to > > share? > > > > Best wishes, > > - Moira > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > Dr. Moira Harris > > > > Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol > > Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk > > > > Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick > > Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 19-OCT-2003 13:32:29.65 To: IN%"j.talling@csl.gov.uk" "'Janet Talling'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied ethology'" CC: Subj: RE: Wild animal shows Janet makes the important point that human exploitation can (in certain cases) employ or exercise a specie's abilities above and beyond the opportunities offered by a natural environment. I would hazard that the "free" organism will fulfill or entertain, itself at a level that may be somewhat below that achievable by the energy and ingenuity of homo sapiens. By that, I mean excessive levels of fear, pain or addictive exploitation in obsessive competition. (I think it was Deborah Marsden who told us on this forum, that the cavalry and artillery horses of Her Majesty's Household Division were the happiest and best employed of any horses, anywhere! The measurable criterion was the virtual absence of adjunctive or "vicious" behaviours. I have no problem with that. The humdrum minimal routines will often fall short of the natural drives of a given creature. The I intelligent carer will look for a balance. (A useful paradigm could be the excessive stimulation of cats in pursuit of a laser light beam. There have been reports of cats becoming unhinged by such addictive over stimulation! [In the West-end of London, it was possible to buy any creature that a customer might fancy. It was here in 1968-70 that I met the high end of the exotic "pet" trade. Part of my duties was the veterinary care of a large West End store whose proud boast was the procurement of any animal the customer might desire. The "market" for pets had certainly developed faster than the available expertise. The procurement of puppies drew on the puppy farms of Wales and the surplus of home bred puppies and kittens. Distemper and chronic cat flu' flowed into the store. The roof top sheds seemed to be packed with sick birds. The buyers scoured the African pet trade for stock. There seemed to be 'specialist' at the London Zoo and the curators did their best to advise. Cat and dog vaccines had a long way to go before they could form a barrier for un-protected stock. Antisera and experiments with Human Measles vaccines were the pitiful defenses available.] I was attacked by a Puma kitten. The staff forgot to tell me as I entered the 'zoo' rooms. I saw a fawn coloured blur arriving at speed from the corner of my eye. I froze. Judo training kept me upright as the full complement of teeth and claws gripped and held. It was playing! Luckily, no one attacked the kitten in a rescue bid nor was there any shouting. After protracted vocalizations the kitten stepped down and was lured away to attack a brown overall in the back room. I was not amused. Some within few weeks the pair of pumas was purchased by two young men who proposed to keep them in a demi-basement apartment in Chelsea. Meantime I met a client, a former model, whose career was ended by a tiger, which savaged her on a modeling assignment. The son of the owner's partner was very badly mauled and permanently injured by a tiger. If you care to do a web search on Howlets and Public Health you can learn of the death of three staff members at this same zoo. I left the West-End of London and removed to Worcester where part of my duties included inspection of premises for implementation of the Wild Animal Legislation. I have to tell you that I was going to be difficult to get past. The ethos of Health and Safety at Work must be that employers do not exploit people to the detriment of their health and safety EVEN if they are willing. (Ditto for audiences). I must say the blatant denial and self-deception of the accounts of the lethal attack on "Roy" by "Montefiore" beggar belief. Oh, yes! I told the young men earnestly, NOT to buy the pumas. I declined to be responsible for the animals. In October 1970, the national newspapers carried an account of a very serious attack on two men by two pumas in a basement in Chelsea. The men escaped with their lives but badly injured. A British version of a SWAT team shot the pumas. I sometimes wonder if the modern craving for entertainment is not reminiscent of the excesses of the Roman arena. -----Original Message----- From: Janet Talling [mailto:j.talling@csl.gov.uk] Sent: 13 October 2003 17:52 To: Applied ethology Subject: Wild animal shows There has been much debate recently about the welfare of wild animals performing shows and the need for scientific studies. I welcome this discussion and have some data to add. A student under my supervision recently looked at the behaviour and corticosteroid levels of macaws within a zoo. Half of the birds were trained to perform tasks for a show, and performed several shows a day. The other half of the birds were kept in large aviaries on display to the public. We observed the birds during three times, low, mid and high season, categorized due to numbers of visitors and therefore number of shows performed. What we found was that the behaviour of the performing birds was more varied than the display birds, and that they performed a lower proportion of inactive behaviour. Additionally the corticosteroid levels of the performing birds were approximately half that of the display birds. These results suggest to us that in this zoo at least, the animals which were performing for the shows had the best welfare. - how this relates to macaws in the wild, is another question? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Janet Talling Phone: +44 (0)1904 462208 Animal Welfare Team GTN: 5129 Central Science Laboratory Fax: +44 (0)1904 462111 Sand Hutton Email: j.talling@csl.gov.uk York YO41 1LZ Web: http://www.csl.gov.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer The information contained in this message may include privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Please treat it with the same respect that you would expect for your own information. If you have received it in error, we apologise, and ask that you contact the CSL sender immediately and erase it from your computer. Thank you for your co-operation. Further information on confidentiality of our communications, can be found at http://www.csl.gov.uk/email.htm ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 19-OCT-2003 14:05:32.09 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology", IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" CC: Subj: RE: Wild animal shows "I sometimes wonder if the modern craving for entertainment is not reminiscent of the excesses of the Roman arena" Of course it is!! But so is verbal quarraling... -----Original Message----- From: Robin Walker [mailto:coape@nildram.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:32 PM To: 'Janet Talling'; 'Applied ethology' Subject: RE: Wild animal shows Janet makes the important point that human exploitation can (in certain cases) employ or exercise a specie's abilities above and beyond the opportunities offered by a natural environment. I would hazard that the "free" organism will fulfill or entertain, itself at a level that may be somewhat below that achievable by the energy and ingenuity of homo sapiens. By that, I mean excessive levels of fear, pain or addictive exploitation in obsessive competition. (I think it was Deborah Marsden who told us on this forum, that the cavalry and artillery horses of Her Majesty's Household Division were the happiest and best employed of any horses, anywhere! The measurable criterion was the virtual absence of adjunctive or "vicious" behaviours. I have no problem with that. The humdrum minimal routines will often fall short of the natural drives of a given creature. The I intelligent carer will look for a balance. (A useful paradigm could be the excessive stimulation of cats in pursuit of a laser light beam. There have been reports of cats becoming unhinged by such addictive over stimulation! [In the West-end of London, it was possible to buy any creature that a customer might fancy. It was here in 1968-70 that I met the high end of the exotic "pet" trade. Part of my duties was the veterinary care of a large West End store whose proud boast was the procurement of any animal the customer might desire. The "market" for pets had certainly developed faster than the available expertise. The procurement of puppies drew on the puppy farms of Wales and the surplus of home bred puppies and kittens. Distemper and chronic cat flu' flowed into the store. The roof top sheds seemed to be packed with sick birds. The buyers scoured the African pet trade for stock. There seemed to be 'specialist' at the London Zoo and the curators did their best to advise. Cat and dog vaccines had a long way to go before they could form a barrier for un-protected stock. Antisera and experiments with Human Measles vaccines were the pitiful defenses available.] I was attacked by a Puma kitten. The staff forgot to tell me as I entered the 'zoo' rooms. I saw a fawn coloured blur arriving at speed from the corner of my eye. I froze. Judo training kept me upright as the full complement of teeth and claws gripped and held. It was playing! Luckily, no one attacked the kitten in a rescue bid nor was there any shouting. After protracted vocalizations the kitten stepped down and was lured away to attack a brown overall in the back room. I was not amused. Some within few weeks the pair of pumas was purchased by two young men who proposed to keep them in a demi-basement apartment in Chelsea. Meantime I met a client, a former model, whose career was ended by a tiger, which savaged her on a modeling assignment. The son of the owner's partner was very badly mauled and permanently injured by a tiger. If you care to do a web search on Howlets and Public Health you can learn of the death of three staff members at this same zoo. I left the West-End of London and removed to Worcester where part of my duties included inspection of premises for implementation of the Wild Animal Legislation. I have to tell you that I was going to be difficult to get past. The ethos of Health and Safety at Work must be that employers do not exploit people to the detriment of their health and safety EVEN if they are willing. (Ditto for audiences). I must say the blatant denial and self-deception of the accounts of the lethal attack on "Roy" by "Montefiore" beggar belief. Oh, yes! I told the young men earnestly, NOT to buy the pumas. I declined to be responsible for the animals. In October 1970, the national newspapers carried an account of a very serious attack on two men by two pumas in a basement in Chelsea. The men escaped with their lives but badly injured. A British version of a SWAT team shot the pumas. I sometimes wonder if the modern craving for entertainment is not reminiscent of the excesses of the Roman arena. -----Original Message----- From: Janet Talling [mailto:j.talling@csl.gov.uk] Sent: 13 October 2003 17:52 To: Applied ethology Subject: Wild animal shows There has been much debate recently about the welfare of wild animals performing shows and the need for scientific studies. I welcome this discussion and have some data to add. A student under my supervision recently looked at the behaviour and corticosteroid levels of macaws within a zoo. Half of the birds were trained to perform tasks for a show, and performed several shows a day. The other half of the birds were kept in large aviaries on display to the public. We observed the birds during three times, low, mid and high season, categorized due to numbers of visitors and therefore number of shows performed. What we found was that the behaviour of the performing birds was more varied than the display birds, and that they performed a lower proportion of inactive behaviour. Additionally the corticosteroid levels of the performing birds were approximately half that of the display birds. These results suggest to us that in this zoo at least, the animals which were performing for the shows had the best welfare. - how this relates to macaws in the wild, is another question? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Janet Talling Phone: +44 (0)1904 462208 Animal Welfare Team GTN: 5129 Central Science Laboratory Fax: +44 (0)1904 462111 Sand Hutton Email: j.talling@csl.gov.uk York YO41 1LZ Web: http://www.csl.gov.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer The information contained in this message may include privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Please treat it with the same respect that you would expect for your own information. If you have received it in error, we apologise, and ask that you contact the CSL sender immediately and erase it from your computer. Thank you for your co-operation. Further information on confidentiality of our communications, can be found at http://www.csl.gov.uk/email.htm ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 19-OCT-2003 14:11:15.54 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology" CC: Subj: cat vocalizations Hello all, Does anyone know of a web site with cat vocalizations? I need the audio of tomcats fighting. Thanks, Hilit From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 19-OCT-2003 15:32:56.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: Illegal Wounding. (Quick post( I have just renewed my dog's contract. 1 He is not required to guard the house. That is my job. 2 He is not to bite intruders. He may draw my attention to them if it is safe to do so. He should then hide under the bed and keep quiet. He is a Labrador so I have kept it simple. From: IN%"M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl" "Matthijs Schilder" 20-OCT-2003 03:23:08.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ethology, not training Sorry, Tony, I disagree with a number of statements. Ethology is certainly not limited to the study in natural environments anymore. There are scores of ethologists that study animal behavioiur in captivity. Even sociobiologist resort to the lab to resolve some scientific problems. The characteristic point of ethology still is, that ethologists are concerned with answering Tinbergen's Four Whys, and that they have developed a set of methods to do so. There is also a set of theories, which guides ethological work. Recent development include exploits into the fields of for example, behavioural genetics. Communication between you and the dog you train, effects of that training with regards to welfare of the dog, the way the dog follows your gaze etc could well be subjects of ethological study. I also wish to point to studies that investigate the nature of imprinting, a real ethological phenomonen, which has proven to be a form of classical conditioning. Thus, there is a lot of intermingling. In short, my message is, that it is not fruitfull to discriminate, but it seems better to me to remain focussed on training issues in discussion forums that are ment to do just that, and that in a forum meant to discuss applied animal behaviour business the main theme shoud remain: applied animal behaviour. Recent discussions show clearly, how difficult communications between people with different backgrounds are. Plenty of misunderstandings!!. Fruitfull communication between people of different backgrouds demands clear explanations and definitions of terms. Conciousness of this aspect his has been missing sometimes, including in some of my own communications. regards, Matthijs Schilder. regards, Matthijs Schilder dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 20-OCT-2003 11:58:17.84 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Muscovy ducks Michael Appleby wrote: > Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy ducks? > > When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone > to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory > factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't > know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural > social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less adaptable > to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. > > Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized the > fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them gooks. The Muscovy duck is the domesticated form of a species (Cairina moschata) native to South America. How they got the names "Muscovy" or "Barbary" eludes me now, if indeed I ever knew it ... perhaps the same way our quintessentially American fowl, Meleagris gallopavo, got the name "Turkey" . Benjamin Franklin thought, as most people know, that the wary Turkey rather than the scavenging Bald Eagle should have become our national bird. Anyway, the Muscovy belongs to a different tribe (Cairinini) from the domestic duck, its wild parent the mallard, and the many related species of "puddle ducks" (tribe Anatini). I have no experience of them under confinement, but in the Institute at Seewiesen were several free flying ones, along with hundreds of puddle ducks of many species, and of course the famous greylag geese. One rather conspicuous feature of Muscovy behavior is that in spring the males will mate with anything they can catch - with minimal courtship, and by forcible rape if the chosen female does not submit. A good many goose clutches were destroyed by one Muscovy drake who developed the habit of forcing his way into a nesting box (on pilings in the middle of a lake) regardless of vigorous defense by the gander, raping the incubating goose and in the process smashing some or all of the eggs. Ducks, unlike most birds, have an actual intromittent organ and can therefore copulate with even an unwilling female. That particular, much hated Muscovy drake got his comeuppance, however, when a free flying tame raven snipped off and carried away his equipment, just as he was dismounting from a duck he had raped, in full view of half a dozen members of the Institute staff. Not to be deterred, he grew a replacement during the ensuing months, and the following spring tried to resume his former sexual exploits. The raven was watching, however, and as the Muscovy drake dismounted from his very first rape of the season, the raven sprang in and once again carried off his pride and joy. The watching Institute staff members howled with glee, and the Muscovy drake was, er, depressed . History doesn't record whether he tried again the next year ... And that is a true story. The Wood Duck of North America, and the Mandarin Duck of eastern Asia, commonly kept as ornamental waterfowl in Europe and America, are other members of the Cairinini. AFAIK they are all - including the Muscovy - hole nesters and woodland inhabitants, and are solitary, rather than gregarious in the manner of puddle ducks. I would think it very likely that they are indeed, in Michael's words, "less adaptable to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins." I don't know why they have that enlarged nail on the tip of their bill. Most likely it has to do with their feeding behavior in the wild. It's not unique to them. A "nail" at the tip of the bill is a basic feature of anatid structure, though it varies greatly in size and consistency in different species. A well developed hard nail is found also (for example) on a good many sea ducks. I have painful memories of a shot-up White-winged Scoter I rehabilitated very long ago (as a schoolboy in fact), who bit me at every opportunity while I was hand feeding him, a process which lasted several weeks while his smashed wing healed. Paul Johnsgard would likely know about the function of the nail. He has forgotten more about ducks than I will ever know . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 20-OCT-2003 14:00:49.08 To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Muscovy ducks Hi John, Great story! Drakes of the duck varieties descended from the mallard also rape ducks and geese. As an example, I had a gang of them harass my daughter's favorite duck, a pretty Cayuga, to death two spring's ago. She was nesting and every time she came off the nest to eat, the hoard of drakes (I think there were 5 of them) would chase her around raping her and prevented her from eating. I noticed the harassment and I guess I should have interfered, because they succeeded in wearing her down until she collapsed --and died in my daughter's arms. The saddest part was that my daughter had (at 8 years old, as she was at the time) raised those drakes from eggs, pleaded with me to not butcher the excess males and then next spring had them kill her pet....... (and it was not the handrearing that lead to the raping behavior; I have seen duck-reared ones behave the same). Mike, you mentioned some friends who said that Muskovies are as much like geese as ducks--I wouldn't make that characterization. Geese have much more decorum. Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Burchard" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Muscovy ducks > Michael Appleby wrote: > > > Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy ducks? > > > > When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone > > to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory > > factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't > > know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural > > social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less adaptable > > to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. > > > > Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized the > > fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them gooks. > > The Muscovy duck is the domesticated form of a species (Cairina moschata) native > to South America. How they got the names "Muscovy" or "Barbary" eludes me now, > if indeed I ever knew it ... perhaps the same way our quintessentially American > fowl, Meleagris gallopavo, got the name "Turkey" . Benjamin Franklin > thought, as most people know, that the wary Turkey rather than the scavenging > Bald Eagle should have become our national bird. > > Anyway, the Muscovy belongs to a different tribe (Cairinini) from the domestic > duck, its wild parent the mallard, and the many related species of "puddle > ducks" (tribe Anatini). I have no experience of them under confinement, but in > the Institute at Seewiesen were several free flying ones, along with hundreds of > puddle ducks of many species, and of course the famous greylag geese. One > rather conspicuous feature of Muscovy behavior is that in spring the males will > mate with anything they can catch - with minimal courtship, and by forcible rape > if the chosen female does not submit. A good many goose clutches were destroyed > by one Muscovy drake who developed the habit of forcing his way into a nesting > box (on pilings in the middle of a lake) regardless of vigorous defense by the > gander, raping the incubating goose and in the process smashing some or all of > the eggs. Ducks, unlike most birds, have an actual intromittent organ and can > therefore copulate with even an unwilling female. That particular, much hated > Muscovy drake got his comeuppance, however, when a free flying tame raven > snipped off and carried away his equipment, just as he was dismounting from a > duck he had raped, in full view of half a dozen members of the Institute staff. > Not to be deterred, he grew a replacement during the ensuing months, and the > following spring tried to resume his former sexual exploits. The raven was > watching, however, and as the Muscovy drake dismounted from his very first rape > of the season, the raven sprang in and once again carried off his pride and > joy. The watching Institute staff members howled with glee, and the Muscovy > drake was, er, depressed . History doesn't record whether he tried again the > next year ... > > And that is a true story. > > The Wood Duck of North America, and the Mandarin Duck of eastern Asia, commonly > kept as ornamental waterfowl in Europe and America, are other members of the > Cairinini. AFAIK they are all - including the Muscovy - hole nesters and > woodland inhabitants, and are solitary, rather than gregarious in the manner of > puddle ducks. I would think it very likely that they are indeed, in Michael's > words, "less adaptable to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins." > > I don't know why they have that enlarged nail on the tip of their bill. Most > likely it has to do with their feeding behavior in the wild. It's not unique to > them. A "nail" at the tip of the bill is a basic feature of anatid structure, > though it varies greatly in size and consistency in different species. A well > developed hard nail is found also (for example) on a good many sea ducks. I > have painful memories of a shot-up White-winged Scoter I rehabilitated very long > ago (as a schoolboy in fact), who bit me at every opportunity while I was hand > feeding him, a process which lasted several weeks while his smashed wing healed. > > Paul Johnsgard would likely know about the function of the nail. He has > forgotten more about ducks than I will ever know . > > John > -- > Dr. John Burchard > Tepe Gawra Salukis > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > > From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 21-OCT-2003 17:31:46.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: parrot people Are there any parrot specialists out there? From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 21-OCT-2003 19:24:48.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: mainly to Ray re performing animals Hmmm This is very interesting. Ray you said... <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> Has not EVERY living THING been controlled in SOME manner. Ray, You seem to be arguing that certain performance animals are dominated into performing and that this is why you take unction with some dog trainers and go so far as to say.. <"Maybe Ole Rover, in fact, comes home when I turn him out because his whole concept of self was changed as a result of the total control and domination that I expressed over him when I took him from his dam and littermates, moved him to a strange new isolated location, smacked him with a newspaper every time he wanted to pee in spot not chosen by me, and made totally dependent on me for food, water, and access to the outside world... Firstly, you cannot assume that all dog trainers train their dogs NOT to go to the loo in a particular spot by smacking them on the nose.Its a great generalisation and assumption. I train my dogs by being one step ahead of them, knowing when they are likely to want to go....letting them outside to a preferred area of my choosing to releive themselves and then praising highly when they acheive this simple task. Through repetition the dog learns and there is no cruelty, abuse or anythign unpleasant for the dog at all.If the dog has an accident it is ignored as it is MY fault I did not provide the correct environment or act quickly enough for the dog to go where I wanted him to. I find it interesting that you seem to condemn animal performance (and also seem to be being negative about people controlling their animals) as surely ALL living animals are constricted by dominance and conditioning factors....for example yourself.Or would you argue you are totally free? Why is it preferable that an animals be FREE or free from all controlling conditioning.In fact every human being alive is subjected to VERY heavy conditioning and controlling from birth. ie you must go to school..you must wear clothes...you must learn..so you can become a professor and earn money to buy a house and a car... Has your life been such that it should be discontinued? Of course not. My point is that yes...most performance animals HAVE been given choices and when they CHOOSE the response wanted by the trainer then it is rewarded.Is that not what happened when you were a toddler..and tried to run into the middle of the road and got a littlle smack?...or when you threw your dinner on the floor and were told off...or when you got good results in an exam and were rewarded with extra pocketmoney? Just some common sense in my opinion.Life is filled with choices and rewards for everyone.Hopefully the trainer/parent ...whoever...uses positive rewards to gain the behaviour required...and ideally the behaviour will be enjoyed by the animal/person, and help them in having a fulfilling successful life. Thanks Ray for your interesting posts. Everything I say is in good humour and if I have misunderstood anything I apologise. I am always open to good honest discussion. From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 22-OCT-2003 09:25:12.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Muscovy ducks Janice Willard wrote: > Drakes of the duck varieties descended from the mallard also rape ducks and > geese. As an example, I had a gang of them harass my daughter's favorite > duck, a pretty Cayuga, to death two spring's ago. She was nesting and every > time she came off the nest to eat, the hoard of drakes (I think there were 5 > of them) would chase her around raping her and prevented her from eating. > I noticed the harassment and I guess I should have interfered, because they > succeeded in wearing her down until she collapsed --and died in my > daughter's arms. The saddest part was that my daughter had (at 8 years old, > as she was at the time) raised those drakes from eggs, pleaded with me to > not butcher the excess males and then next spring had them kill her > pet....... (and it was not the handrearing that lead to the raping > behavior; I have seen duck-reared ones behave the same). Wild mallard drakes pursue and if possible rape strange females (not their own). Long aerial chases are a common sight in Spring when mallards are seeking nest sites. The drake leads his duck to a nest site (often far from water) but doesn't hang around once she starts incubating - he would be much too conspicuous and would attract predators to the nest. It's commonly thought the raping is a form of territorial behavior, serving as it does to chase other nest-seeking pairs out of the vicinity of the drake's own mate. I don't know, however, what the serious duck ethologists have to say about it nowadays. I'm not in that loop . I suppose the raping also has the possible benefit of propagating the raper's genes beyond the confines of his own pair bond - there's more of that sort of thing among birds than most people realize. > Mike, you mentioned some friends who said that Muskovies are as much like > geese as ducks--I wouldn't make that characterization. Geese have much more > decorum. Geese go through a long and complex pair formation process which results, normally, in a more or less lifelong pair bond. I say "more or less" because goose societies have some of the same forms of domestic drama as human ones. Just not so often, proportionally speaking . In geese, both parents share in defense of the young, and an anserine "single mother" would have (in contrast to most ducks) little chance of rearing her brood successfully without a consort. A strong pair bond is therefore an essential feature of goose society. Muscovy drakes (domestic) do have some courtship behavior but it is fairly minimal (consisting mostly of head pumping, which is the most basic and "primitive" anatid courtship gesture) and not necessarily understood by puddle duck species (wild or domestic) which as noted belong to a different taxonomic group. I don't, however, know anything about the behavior of wild Cairina moschata. Wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and Mandarin ducks (Aix galericulata) do both have elaborate courtship sequences, including ritualized preening movements, and the Mandarin has an enormously enlarged, fan-shaped feather which provides an optical accent to the movement. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 22-OCT-2003 10:19:44.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: parrot people Mary wrote: Are there any parrot specialists out there? ====depending on what you need specifically, in my tiny hometown are two men who have raised birds for years, have traveled the country on bird business and have a website at www.foryourbird.com. If you have behavorial questions, I believe they are worth a try. Their name is Beaver Creek Aviary and you can write them at bcaviary@intrepid.net Tell them that one of their Funkstown neighbors directed you :) Jo _________________________________________________________________ Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings! Go to http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134 From: IN%"pajor@purdue.edu" "Pajor, Edmond A." 22-OCT-2003 11:05:56.50 To: IN%"ISAEnet-l@usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Job Announcement Animal Ethologist Position Announcement Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University POSITION: Tenure-track faculty position in farm animal ethology. The appointment will include research (majority) and teaching. RESPONSIBILITIES: The successful applicant will establish a vigorous externally funded research program in animal ethology that is relevant to livestock and (or) poultry production. The faculty member will be a member of the Department's core program in animal well-being and will participate in teaching and advising of both undergraduate and graduate students. Collaboration is expected with scientists studying the genetic, physiological, or neuroendocrine aspects of livestock and (or) poultry behavior. Development of productive interdepartmental collaborations is also essential. Opportunities for interdisciplinary research exist with faculty in other departments and schools, the Center for Food Animal Productivity and Well-Being (http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/CAWB/), and the USDA-ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit at Purdue University (http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/usda/). RANK AND SALARY: Assistant or Associate Professor (academic year appointment). Rank and salary are commensurate with qualifications. QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. in animal sciences, life sciences, or a related area. Postdoctoral experience and an understanding of livestock and (or) poultry production are preferred. Evidence of teaching success is important. The ability to work as part of a team and the ability to interact with students, government agencies, livestock industry, commodity groups, media and the general public are essential. Candidates with experience or the desire to develop international dimensions of the discipline are preferred. APPLICATIONS: Review of applications will begin December 15, 2003 and will continue until the position is filled. Candidates should submit a letter of application, statements describing their research and teaching interests, official transcripts, names of three individuals that can serve as references, and a detailed curriculum vita that includes education, experience, additional qualifications, and publications to: Alan L. Grant, Professor & Head Department of Animal Sciences Purdue University 915 W. State St. West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054 Phone: (765) 494-4808 Fax (765) 494-9346 Email: agrant@purdue.edu URL: http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/ Purdue University is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access/Affirmative Action Employer Dr. Ed Pajor. Ph.D. Animal welfare and behavior Dept. of Animal Sciences Purdue University Poultry Science Building 125 S.Russell Street West Lafayette, IN 47904-2042 PH: 765-496-6665 Fax 765-494-9347 Email: pajor@purdue.edu From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 22-OCT-2003 12:33:35.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: humans controlling animals Mary wrote: Hmmm This is very interesting. Ray you said... <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> =====Mary's remarks reminded me of comments I want to make on this paragraph. I feel the paragraph shows antipathy to situations only where humans are in control of animals, whereas all social animals have control exerted over them by the dominants in their group, and even the dominants have their turn depending on the social situation, e.g., hunting, eating, breeding, babysitting (dominant wolves, for ex., do not take charge of all interactions). In a wolf pack, subordinates constantly exhibit behaviors to placate or gain acceptance by hierarchy higher-ups, and physiological tests have shown that they also have high levels of stress associated with their subordinate positions. I do not have data to cite, but my statement is result of extensive reading. In social and non-social species, an individual signals and an individual(s) responds. Because humans also do this is no reason, IMO, to malign training for wild animal shows. There may be strong reasons to oppose it, but the reason implied by the paragraph above is not one of them. Jo _________________________________________________________________ See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 22-OCT-2003 14:18:05.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Muscovy ducks I'm not sure who Fred is, but Vivian asked me to forward this to the list. Mike 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 -----Original Message----- From: Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. [mailto:info@kerwoodwolf.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 7:30 PM To: Michael Appleby Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Muscovy ducks Hi Fred, I am not a duck expert by any means but our wolf centre has quite a number of free-ranging ducks and geese wandering the property, including both brown and white muscovies. I have been told by numerous farmers who raise them that young muscovies are prone to cannibalism but only when they are getting their pin feathers and losing their "down." I believe that it is at this stage, if the ducks are over-crowded, that they tend to get nasty. We've never had this problem ourselves, perhaps because our ducks are not confined in any way. They do have large shelter areas but can come and go at will. Vivian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Appleby" To: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Muscovy ducks > Dear colleagues > > Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy > ducks? > > When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone > to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory > factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't > know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural > social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less > adaptable to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. > > Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized > the fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them > gooks. > > Mike > > 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%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 22-OCT-2003 15:18:21.04 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans controlling animals <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> =====Mary's remarks reminded me of comments I want to make on this paragraph. I feel the paragraph shows antipathy to situations only where humans are in control of animals, whereas all social animals have control exerted over them by the dominants in their group, and even the dominants have their turn depending on the social situation, e.g., hunting, eating, breeding, babysitting (dominant wolves, for ex., do not take charge of all interactions). In a wolf pack, subordinates constantly exhibit behaviors to placate or gain acceptance by hierarchy higher-ups, and physiological tests --------------------------- Richard Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ and elsewhere, (and numerous other persons) have addressed the problem, indeed the fallacy, associated with trying to build an argument intended to justify human behavior using the behavior of animals as a basis. Quite simply, if one accepts an argument that human domination of animals is defensible on the basis that such behavior occurs among wolves, then if one is consistent in their reasoning, they must then accept that rape is acceptable among humans because it commonly occurs among ducks. (Or at least "forced copulation" occurs in animals - which is probably best not referred to as rape.) We humans are moral agents. We can choose between what is right and what is wrong - an ability that some other animals may have in part, but certainly possess to a much, much lesser extent in total. Because we have the ability to reason and make moral and ethical choices, most reasonable persons would argue that we carry the additional burden of so acting. As I recall, Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ said that he would not want to live in a society that was designed or structured with animal behavior as its model. I strongly concur. Certainly we do not have a perfect world, but the progress that has been made came about through our "menes" - not from our selfish genes, to paraphrase Dawkins. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 22-OCT-2003 17:03:09.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: humans living with performing animals as a balanced healthy partnership Ray you saw fit to reply to Jo's repsonse but not to mine (which was directly addressed to yourself.) Why not use your own reasoning power rather than Dawkins or anyone elses studies just for a moment. Yes we have all read many studies and publications on other peoples opinions based on their studies. I would love you to be objective for a moment and consider whether you are making a valid point or not when you say <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> Surely it depends on the individual circumstances of the animals performing.You say that humans have moral awareness and so moral responsibility, Iagree. I also beleive that each animals situation must be weighed up before the 'morally correct' action be taken. For example..if a parrot was wild caught taken to captivity and made to perform tricks (no matter how humanely or positively done) then I would say this is immoral. On the other hand if an ex pet parrot was rescued from a cruel existence and taken into a wildlife park where it had more freedom, more social interaction , stimulation and a better quality of life I would say that it was morally the right thing to do for this particular parrot.(I have rehomed a number of parrots in this way that I am happy to say have gone on to take part in breeding programs) I know of many wildlife parks in the UK that rehabilitate pet birds and give them a life MUCH closer to what their natural lifestyle would have been .Sometiems this will involve learning tricks so that the bird can partake in a 'routine'. I also know of many border collies who have been bred to herd sheep for a living and been dumped to be picked up by animal rehoming centres where rather than being put down they have been given new chances in a home competing in flyball, agility and obedience.Many of these dogs have very satisfying lifes as members of a family pack and still have a type of 'work' to keep their minds active. SO would you not agree that in some cases it is morally correct to allow animals to perform if it is done in a 100% positive co-operative manner ? *hoping to get a response this time* Mary From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 22-OCT-2003 21:49:00.61 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans controlling animals Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in his text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially from generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it is powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with tail docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair and unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making an academic comment! Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:16 AM To: Jo Angleberger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans controlling animals <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> =====Mary's remarks reminded me of comments I want to make on this paragraph. I feel the paragraph shows antipathy to situations only where humans are in control of animals, whereas all social animals have control exerted over them by the dominants in their group, and even the dominants have their turn depending on the social situation, e.g., hunting, eating, breeding, babysitting (dominant wolves, for ex., do not take charge of all interactions). In a wolf pack, subordinates constantly exhibit behaviors to placate or gain acceptance by hierarchy higher-ups, and physiological tests --------------------------- Richard Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ and elsewhere, (and numerous other persons) have addressed the problem, indeed the fallacy, associated with trying to build an argument intended to justify human behavior using the behavior of animals as a basis. Quite simply, if one accepts an argument that human domination of animals is defensible on the basis that such behavior occurs among wolves, then if one is consistent in their reasoning, they must then accept that rape is acceptable among humans because it commonly occurs among ducks. (Or at least "forced copulation" occurs in animals - which is probably best not referred to as rape.) We humans are moral agents. We can choose between what is right and what is wrong - an ability that some other animals may have in part, but certainly possess to a much, much lesser extent in total. Because we have the ability to reason and make moral and ethical choices, most reasonable persons would argue that we carry the additional burden of so acting. As I recall, Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ said that he would not want to live in a society that was designed or structured with animal behavior as its model. I strongly concur. Certainly we do not have a perfect world, but the progress that has been made came about through our "menes" - not from our selfish genes, to paraphrase Dawkins. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 23-OCT-2003 07:34:35.70 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans controlling animals Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in his text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially from generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it is powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with tail docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair and unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making an academic comment! ------------------------------------- R. Dawkins, of course, was the person who coined the term meme. Memes have become the subject of a number of books and at least one journal. I, for one, am pleased that the concept has even made its way into dog training info - even if Dawkins' ideas (memes) may have mutated into a form not completely representative of what he originally intended. Dawkins indeed has argued that there are "good" memes and "bad" memes - maybe not with the terms good and bad. But certainly he has argued that "false replicators" can have enormous negative consequences - and thus, should be eliminated. (He often attacks the major religions of the world as sources of "bad" memes. And he most certainly would argue that these traditions such be eliminated - regardless of the number of generations that have continued their replication.) But let's take the contention above that the human practice of "cutting off the tails of animals" can be considered to be a meme. Simply labeling such a practice as a meme is not a supportable basis for arguing that it should be continued. And certainly arguing that it is a "tradition" is not a basis, for if we had used this criterion alone, we would never have acted to eliminate slavery, implement women's suffrage, etc. So yes, maybe it can be argued that "cutting off the tails of animals" is a meme. But it is a deleterious meme. And just as selection pressure can be brought upon deleterious genes, so must (or should) cultural and educational pressures be brought to bear upon the deleterious memes in order to stop their replication. Otherwise, the peoples (and animals) of the world will continue to have all the problems of our current existence. Thus, indeed I would argue that societal selection pressures must/should/will act on this deleterious meme such that the traditional practice of cutting off the tails of animals be eliminated. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de" "Umstaetter, Christina" 23-OCT-2003 08:23:50.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: with or without calf Hallo, I am looking for information about cow-calf relationship during milking. In some breeds, for example saler or aubrac, some people say that cows need to see there calves otherwise they would not let their milk down. Moreover I have heard that there is a discussion about this subject in Cuba at the moment. We know that in Egypt in 3.100 b.c. the calf stand in front of the cow during milking. When has this system changed? Any information would be helpful. Christina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Dr. Christina Umstätter Technische Universität München Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan Department für Biogene Rohstoffe und Technologie der Landnutzung Lehrstuhl fuer Landtechnik Am Staudengarten 2 D-85354 Freising-Weihenstephan Tel: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3884 Fax: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3895 christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de http://www.tec.wzw.tum.de/landtech/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 23-OCT-2003 08:56:52.27 To: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans living with performing animals as a balanced healthy partnership Please do not take it personally that I have not answered your individual message to me - for I have not answered and will not answer some 30 to 40 messages from friends and colleagues who have sent to me recently. And I must admit that they rank higher on my list of priorities than someone asking for personal dialogue for purposes of debate. My apologies to each of them for not providing an acknowledgement or response. And I cannot take the time to sort out all the details associated with the topic of human dominionism in a forum of this type. But I will take the time to list a few points: 1) I have repeatedly been addressing primarily the issue of wild animal (as in mammal) shows, mostly in the USA (especially the big cats, elephants, bears, etc.). 2) However, I do believe - and have said - that the question of dominionism is critical to all human-animal relationships including that of food animals, and thus is in need of constant review and discourse. 3) But specifically, training of animals that has as its sole purpose the demonstration of human domination over the animal, I argue, has no ethical basis for its continuation - regardless of whether or not the animal experiences "a better life" - and I did address this in some detail in previous messages. 4) The Stockholm Syndrome was raised by me to demonstrate that the concept of "self" can become so distorted in an individual that its behavior is not a good measure of what is best for that individual - because when the resources necessary to sustain life are overtly controlled by an exploiting individual, the survival mechanisms of the subordinated individual can be controlled to the degree that the subordinate will identify with and act in support of its oppressor. 5) I have not specifically presented a complete moral argument on the topic of dominionism, and will not do so here. However, taken collectively the messages I have presented do at least consist of an outline for such an argument. Additionally, the presentation of the Stockholm Syndrome was intended more as a premise - not a conclusion. And, even if a premise presented in support of a moral argument is incorrect, the argument in total is not necessarily invalid. Now let me present a challenge. If persons disagree with me in my basic argument, then instead of trying to find exceptions and areas of disagreement over what I consider to be minor details, then why not spend some time developing a valid argument that presents the basis for continuing human domination of animals that is an inclusive of all the conditions wherein animals today experience such dominionism? One final point. I cannot take the time to address every message. I may or may not respond to a specific message. Silence by me does not necessarily mean anything (i.e., it could mean either agreement or disagreement - or maybe no comment) in this electronic discussion format. W.R. Stricklin ---Original Message----- From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:52 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: humans living with performing animals as a balanced healthy partnership Ray you saw fit to reply to Jo's repsonse but not to mine (which was directly addressed to yourself.) Why not use your own reasoning power rather than Dawkins or anyone elses studies just for a moment. Yes we have all read many studies and publications on other peoples opinions based on their studies. I would love you to be objective for a moment and consider whether you are making a valid point or not when you say <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> Surely it depends on the individual circumstances of the animals performing.You say that humans have moral awareness and so moral responsibility, Iagree. I also beleive that each animals situation must be weighed up before the 'morally correct' action be taken. For example..if a parrot was wild caught taken to captivity and made to perform tricks (no matter how humanely or positively done) then I would say this is immoral. On the other hand if an ex pet parrot was rescued from a cruel existence and taken into a wildlife park where it had more freedom, more social interaction , stimulation and a better quality of life I would say that it was morally the right thing to do for this particular parrot.(I have rehomed a number of parrots in this way that I am happy to say have gone on to take part in breeding programs) I know of many wildlife parks in the UK that rehabilitate pet birds and give them a life MUCH closer to what their natural lifestyle would have been .Sometiems this will involve learning tricks so that the bird can partake in a 'routine'. I also know of many border collies who have been bred to herd sheep for a living and been dumped to be picked up by animal rehoming centres where rather than being put down they have been given new chances in a home competing in flyball, agility and obedience.Many of these dogs have very satisfying lifes as members of a family pack and still have a type of 'work' to keep their minds active. SO would you not agree that in some cases it is morally correct to allow animals to perform if it is done in a 100% positive co-operative manner ? *hoping to get a response this time* Mary From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" 23-OCT-2003 09:48:09.38 To: IN%"christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de" "Umstaetter, Christina", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: with or without calf Christina, The innate response of letting down milk may indeed depend on visual (or = olfactory) stimulation. I would, however, bring to your attention the fact that cattle have a = range of vision extending an average of 330 to 345 degrees around the = body. The "blind" area, or the area in which a calf would not be seen, = is limited to the 15-30 degrees directly to the rear, and is usually = covered with only a slight turn of head. A change in milking position may not necessarily remove the calf from = visual range. OBi Fox ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Umstaetter, Christina=20 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:23 AM Subject: with or without calf Hallo, I am looking for information about cow-calf relationship during = milking. In some breeds, for example saler or aubrac, some people say = that cows need to see there calves otherwise they would not let their = milk down. Moreover I have heard that there is a discussion about this = subject in Cuba at the moment. We know that in Egypt in 3.100 b.c. the = calf stand in front of the cow during milking. When has this system = changed? Any information would be helpful. Christina=20 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- Dr. Christina Umst=E4tter Technische Universit=E4t M=FCnchen Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan Department f=FCr Biogene Rohstoffe und Technologie der Landnutzung Lehrstuhl fuer Landtechnik Am Staudengarten 2 D-85354 Freising-Weihenstephan Tel: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3884 Fax: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3895 christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de http://www.tec.wzw.tum.de/landtech/ = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 23-OCT-2003 11:46:03.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: With or without calf Hi, The idea that some breeds of cattle require the presence of their calf during milking, I believe may not be a characteristic of the breed so much as a function of trying to milk a cow that is also raising her calf. I believe where cattle are allowed to raise their calf and double as a milk cow then at the time of human milking the presence of the calf maybe required. My reason for this hypothesis is based on some observations from a study Derek Haley, Dan Weary and I were involved in this past year. I won't go into all the details of the study, but one of the side issues we were interested in answering was the question of whether the behavioural distress displayed by calves post weaning is due to the quantity of milk being produced by the cow at weaning time. One good way to evaluate that question is to use dairy cows (Holsteins) that are producing a tremendous volume of milk. Through some great cooperation with the dairy manager at the UBC dairy farm we were able to allow some calves to stay with their mother for 30 days. It was very interesting to learn from the farm manager and milkers that these particular Holsteins did not have good milk letdown during milking. I am certain that many of these cows had previous lactations where this was not a problem. Therefore, their change from having good milk letdown during previous lactations and then having poor milk letdown during our experiment was not related to the breed of the animal, since obviously it doesn't change from one lactation to the next. The only difference for these cows was whether they were raising their calves. I think it makes good biological sense on the cow's part to "reserve" their resources for the calf and not give it up so freely. Perhaps when dairy calves are removed within 24 hrs after birth the propensity of holding milk is much reduced and extinguished during the lactation period. My question is whether Zebu type cattle, that are traditionally milked in the presence of their calf would respond just like Holsteins on typical dairy farms here in North America if their calves were removed shortly after birth? One paper that describes milking cows in the presence of their calves comes from work done in Brazil: Murphey, R. M., Ruiz-Miranda, C. R., Duarte, F. A. M. 1990. Maternal recognition in Gyr (Bos indicus) calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 27,183-191. Anyway, I am not convinced anymore that milk letdown with or without the calf is breed related. What do other think? Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine 52 Campus Drive University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4 From: IN%"storrey@uoguelph.ca" "Stephanie Torrey" 23-OCT-2003 13:38:29.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dull emitter heat lamps Hello- Has anyone used dull emitter or ceramic heat lamps in conjuction with video taping? I would like to change from using regular heat lamps (which give off a fair bit of light) to dull emitter ones for my early weaned piglet experiments but don't know much about these heat lamps. Can anyone make any recommendations that work well with piglets and videotaping? Thanks! Stephanie -- ******************************************* Stephanie Torrey Ph.D. Candidate, Animal Behaviour Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences University of Guelph Guelph, ON, N1G2W1 Canada (519) 824 4120 x56226 ******************************************* From: IN%"fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu" "Francois Martin" 23-OCT-2003 15:54:24.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Animal Care Curriculum This might be of interest to those of you involved in education. =================== The People-Pet Partnership (PPP) of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University is proud to launch its new online educational web site. Learning and Living Together: Building the Human-Animal Bond Online Curriculum educates youth by promoting science and general education, encouraging the proper treatment of companion animals, and building leadership skills through relationships with companion animals. The project is composed of educational modules that organize learning around projects. The different modules involve complex tasks based on challenging problems. The activities of the website are aligned with the National Science Education Standards (NSES). The curriculum can be found at You will need Flash 6 in order to see the curriculum. The goal of this project is to provide innovative and quality educational content for school age children. This project addresses the need for a comprehensive and coordinated science experience across grade levels in a way that is fun and motivating. We invite you to share this information with anybody you think might benefit from the lessons found in Learning and Living Together: Building the Human-Animal Bond Online Curriculum. If you wish to link our web site to your web site, please use the http address provided below. If you would like us to return the favor or if you have questions, contact us at ppp@vetmed.wsu.edu . Enjoy! Francois Martin, Ph.D. Associate Director of the Center for the Study of Animal Well-Being and Head of People-Pet Partnership College of Veterinary Medicine Washington State University Tel. 509 335.4569 Fax 509 335.6094 fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 23-OCT-2003 17:41:46.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de" "Umstaetter, Christina" CC: IN%"varner@umd5.umd.edu" "Mark Varner" Subj: RE: with or without calf Very interesting post by Joe Stookey indicating that breed effects might be as important as previously believed. You might also wish to post this question (below) to the DAIRY-L group which has subscription info at: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~markv/dairy-l.txt If you do not wish to subscribe and only would like to present the question, then you could maybe do so by contacting: Dr. Mark Varner at varner@umd5.umd.edu -----Original Message----- From: Umstaetter, Christina [mailto:christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:24 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: with or without calf Hallo, I am looking for information about cow-calf relationship during milking. In some breeds, for example saler or aubrac, some people say that cows need to see there calves otherwise they would not let their milk down. Moreover I have heard that there is a discussion about this subject in Cuba at the moment. We know that in Egypt in 3.100 b.c. the calf stand in front of the cow during milking. When has this system changed? Any information would be helpful. Christina -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Dr. Christina Umstätter Technische Universität München Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan Department für Biogene Rohstoffe und Technologie der Landnutzung Lehrstuhl fuer Landtechnik Am Staudengarten 2 D-85354 Freising-Weihenstephan Tel: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3884 Fax: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3895 christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de http://www.tec.wzw.tum.de/landtech/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 23-OCT-2003 20:13:23.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: The sharper Image Bow-Lingual "The dog" Translator Developed by Dr. Norio Kogure, PhD in vet med at Tokyo's Kogue Animal Hospital is the sharper Image Bow-Lingual "The dog" Translator. Talk about applied animal behavior! The translator is based on the AEAS (anim. Emotion analysis system) based on thousands of dog bark/voice-prints. Has anyone used this? It maps to 200 appropriate english expressions. $99.95 h.m. (o.k., applied ethologists, slam me on posting this one since its development, science and sales are outside the scope of what I have been told is "applied ethology"). From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 23-OCT-2003 22:09:41.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans living with performing animals as a balanced healthy partnership Seems to me that this discussion would best be conducted with professional animal trainers, but since they have been insulted/denegrated in the past (or maybe just not on the list/away) I won't be surprised if this discussion remains in the domain of "applied ethology" as the applied ethologists define it. In a sense you might call this begging the question as no one will argue the points to the extent suggested (inclusive of all forms of dominion) and the conclusion is simply restated. Many people on the list who remember the list from the early ninties, and/or are practicing in "applied ethology", have told me that the list ought to remain as it was intended originally - discussion of points and issues unique to practicing applied ethologists. A couple have even accused me of having "cronies" on the list (I don't have "cronies" on the list); and, have said that my posts are disrespectful and meant to drive away seasoned scientists. This has never been my intent. These same people, however, want the input now and then from people in other areas of applied animal behavior (not "applied ethology") - but apparently in a controlled, metered fashion. Seems to me that if the list wants the latter, that the members - ALL the members, no matter how learned, titled or their senority on the list - must remain respectful of people interacting with animals in other professions. They must remain tolerant of peoples' theories and skill levels in logic, biological sciences, philosophy etc. who participate on the list so that the participants can glean new pieces of information and outlook from each other. This means that people are going to be "educating" other people on the list all the time, as it is interdisciplinary. This hasn't happened in the last month, and so we have this discussion of animal dominion without the input of some professionals who might otherwise speak. I consider that sad, and a waste. But, I don't expect anyone to change, because the ire, bad mouthing, convoluted logic and outright demeaning text in the recent past seems to have accomplished just what was wanted - a list whose dominion is "applied ethology" and that really doesn't appear to want to question its own memes. H.M. p.s. if anyone is interested in the subject of ethics/dominion in animal ethology it is addressed by Jane Goodall in an ethics web site, along with professional biologists/ethologist Dr. Beckoff and others. (who succeeded in unsubscribing from applied ethology with one email address and now has to try the other.) From: IN%"Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk" "Moira Harris" 24-OCT-2003 03:16:15.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE members please respond Dear all, This list was originally set up as a discussion forum for applied ethology, and its original subscribers were, I believe, professional applied ethologists and those in training. Since the inception of the Applied-Ethology list it has obviously evolved (which is of course appropriate, since nothing is ever stable). Numbers of subscribers and their areas of interest have changed. New members have joined and -- judging from my readings of the list over the last couple of months -- many will have unsubscribed. However, unsubscriptions are 'invisible' (except to Joe Stookey). I would like to get some idea of how many professional and in-training applied ethologists are still with us and, making no apology for this single, exclusive criterion, will define for this purpose an applied ethologist as a member of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE). Therefore would members of ISAE who read this post kindly send me a reply? To me only please, no need to clog up the A-E network, and I am not interested in anything else about you other than your name and that you subscribe to Applied-Ethology. ISAE members only, please! Thanks and best wishes, - Moira Harris ISAE Membership Secretary (p.s. if you are not, according to my definition, a professional applied ethologist but would like to become one, information about becoming a member of the world's leading professional organisation for anyone interested in the behaviour and welfare of domestic animals and those kept in forms of confinement including farm, companion, laboratory and zoo animal species is available from me!) ------------------------------------- Dr. Moira Harris Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 24-OCT-2003 08:22:39.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Muscovy ducks 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 -----Original Message----- From: Knut Niebuhr [mailto:Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 3:33 AM To: Michael Appleby Subject: Re: Muscovy ducks Dear Mike, unfortunately I cannot help you directly, as we (fortunately) have no larger holdings with muscovy ducks in Austria. I only have some older german publications on this issue. But Ute Knierim (formerly at Hannover now at Witzenhausen, e-mail: knierim@wiz.uni-kassel.de) has worked with muscovy ducks, she should be able to give you further informations. Additionally I know there are some french researchers at INRA working on muskovy ducks, J.M. Faure should know (or you search for canard de barbarie and comportement in french sites, I found there some references at INRA). Yours Knut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Appleby" To: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 9:22 PM Subject: Muscovy ducks > Dear colleagues > > Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy > ducks? > > When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone > to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory > factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't > know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural > social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less > adaptable to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. > > Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized > the fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them > gooks. > > Mike > > 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%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 24-OCT-2003 08:22:45.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Muscovy ducks 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 -----Original Message----- From: OBi Fox [mailto:slvnhld@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:11 PM To: Michael Appleby Subject: Re: Muscovy ducks Hi Michael, no idea on natural but can tell you that years ago when we kept a small flock we had no reason to bill-trim and no cannibalism in a 2 yr period flock was kept in an area that had been 2 large chicken pens with access to both... 20 x 30 area with smaller 10 x 15 area adjacent containing old chicken coop. had about 10 ducks in this space and, for all, they acted pretty much like other ducks although slightly more aggressive on immediate proximal approach (human or dog) Based on my (limited) experience above, I would suspect that they require more proximal space than other ducks. (ie. more than a body width - Condor - 1948). good luck OBi Fox ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Appleby" To: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: Muscovy ducks > Dear colleagues > > Does anyone know anything about the natural behaviour of Muscovy > ducks? > > When Muscovies are reared for meat production they are extremely prone > to cannibalism, and therefore usually bill-trimmed. One contributory > factor is the sharp hook on the bill tip, and I realise that I don't > know why they have that hook. Nor do I know much about their natural > social system. They are hole-nesters, and maybe they are less > adaptable to large group sizes than are mallards/Pekins. > > Friends who kept Muscovies (also known as Barbary ducks) emphasized > the fact that are almost as much like geese as ducks by calling them > gooks. > > Mike > > 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%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 24-OCT-2003 08:23:17.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: muscovy ducks 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 -----Original Message----- From: Maren Bulheller [mailto:Maren.Bulheller@tiho-hannover.de] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 7:50 AM To: Michael Appleby Subject: musovy ducks Dear Mike, the natural behavior of muscovy ducks is only slightly explored. In literature they are described as ducks who live solitary or in sexual divided little groups, usually till adulthood. Cannibalsm isn't observed under natural keeping conditions. Among other causes, it is quite possible that they are not adaptable to big group housing conditions. Actually, we work at a project with muscovy ducks and three different bathing possibillities in smaller groups then usual (20kg/m2). The hook of the beak is probably correlated to their omnivore feeding habits. In nature they are very good predators, who hunt little mamals, reptiles, fishes, insects and slugs.... You can find some Information in "Handbook of Waterfowl Behavior", (1965) by Johnsgard, P.A. or "Evolution of domesticated animals" by Mason, E.L (1984). Your sincerely Maren From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 24-OCT-2003 08:24:36.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Muscovy ducks 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 -----Original Message----- From: Francois Martin [mailto:fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:28 PM To: Michael Appleby Subject: RE: Muscovy ducks Dear Michael, I did my Master's a Universite du Quebec a Montreal under the supervision of Dr. Jacques Beaugrand. For what I remember, cannibalism in C. moschata (at least in ducklings) does not appear to be related the pecking order/agonistic behavior/dominance as it is often the case with chickens. It is more of a "exploratory behavior turned bad" type of situation. Regards Francois From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 24-OCT-2003 09:10:32.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: with or without calf Dear All > I would, however, bring to your attention the fact that cattle have a range of vision extending an average of 330 to 345 degrees around the body. The "blind" area, or the area in which a calf would not be seen, is limited to the 15-30 degrees directly to the rear, and is usually covered with only a slight turn of head. A change in milking position may not necessarily remove the calf from visual range. We did a study of intersucking in a herd of beef cattle and calves, and it was striking that calves frequently sucked from cows other than their mothers, and almost always did so between the back legs. This would not prevent the cow from seeing them, but will have reduced the cow's view of their head as well as placing them out of reach, preventing direct smelling. It may therefore have reduced recognition that this was not their own calf. Being out of reach will also have prevented the cow from pushing the calf away with her head. Mike 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%"orion1432@juno.com" "D.B. Cameron" 24-OCT-2003 10:39:17.21 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: parrot people Also, try Dr. Ilana Reisner at: reisner@vet.upenn.edu DBC On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:18:48 -0400 Jo Angleberger writes: > > Mary wrote: > > Are there any parrot specialists out there? > > ====depending on what you need specifically, in my tiny hometown are > two men > who have raised birds for years, have traveled the country on bird > business > and have a website at www.foryourbird.com. If you have behavorial > questions, I believe they are worth a try. Their name is Beaver > Creek > Aviary and you can write them at bcaviary@intrepid.net > > Tell them that one of their Funkstown neighbors directed you :) > Jo > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American > Greetings! > Go to > http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134 > > > ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM Animal Behavior Clinic < \ / > 15353 N. Bloomfield Road Nevada City, CA 95959 ! ! 530.265.9341 .. Ships are safe in harbor . . . But that is not what ships are for. From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 24-OCT-2003 11:04:43.59 To: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" CC: Subj: RE: with or without calf Mike Appleby wrote: > We did a study of intersucking in a herd of beef cattle and calves, and it was striking that > calves frequently sucked from cows other than their mothers, and almost always did so > between the back legs. This would not prevent the cow from seeing them, but will have > reduced the cow's view of their head as well as placing them out of reach, preventing direct > smelling. It may therefore have reduced recognition that this was not their own calf. Being > out of reach will also have prevented the cow from pushing the calf away with her head. The paper I cited in my previous post (by Murphey) on the Brazilian dairy, talks about how calves are separated from their mothers and confined over night. The following morning some of the calves, when turned out at milking time, would approach the wrong cow in the parlor. They believed that the mistakes often occurred when the mother and the mistaken mother were of similar color markings and patterns. It was interesting for me to read that recognition was hindered when cows were similar in visual appearance. That study left an impression on me because I have since been contacted by several producers with concern about intersucking within their herd and the interesting part of their farm history is that they were all Black Angus producers. It could be genetics, but it also might mean that it is easier to confuse calves in like colored cattle and that fact may contribute to the higher incidences of cross suckling in some herds. In one of Derek Haley's study we observed a calf that was stealing milk and both the "surrogate mother" and her own calf were colored similar to the stealing calf and its mother! Most of our University cattle are mixed breeds with varied color patterns and we never saw cheating among those cattle, but the calves and their mothers caught up in the cheating scheme were all phenotypicly white Charolais! Interesting! Also, the comment that cheating calves were observed nursing from behind, through the back legs, is a commonly known fact among most cattle producers here. Plus you can always recognize a calf that is routinely stealing milk because they have manure on their heads. I didn't think too much about this detail until one day I saw a calf on Derek Haley's research project approach its own mother and instead of arranging itself in the standard nursing position it started nursing from between her back legs. Immediately the cow defecated on the calf even though it was her own calf. It struck me that the act may not have been coincidental and that perhaps the cow was "defending" her udder using defecation as a deterrent. Of course the alternative explanation is that cows always defecate when nursing, but I am not sure that is true either. If it is true that cows defecate when nursed from behind it helps explain why cheating calves have manure stained heads. It also begs the question of whether dairy parlors which are set up to milk between the hind legs have more cows defecating in the parlor, then in parlors that milk cows from the side? Maybe it is a stimulus response for a cow to defecate if nursed through her hind legs. What do you think? Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine 52 Campus Drive University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4 From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 24-OCT-2003 11:12:59.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Muscovy ducks Michael Appleby forwarded: > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Martin [mailto:fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:28 PM > To: Michael Appleby > Subject: RE: Muscovy ducks > > Dear Michael, > I did my Master's a Universite du Quebec a Montreal under the > supervision of Dr. Jacques Beaugrand. > > For what I remember, cannibalism in C. moschata (at least in ducklings) > does not appear to be related the pecking order/agonistic > behavior/dominance as it is often the case with chickens. It is more of > a "exploratory behavior turned bad" type of situation. In what appears to be a fairly predatory species ... I would like to thank Michael for forwarding these very interesting messages to the list. I have learned from them. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 24-OCT-2003 11:59:07.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: with or without calf Michael, was this study published? If so, could you provide the citation? Thanks OBi Fox =20 Sure: =20 Waltl, B., Appleby, M.C. & S=F6lkner J. 1995. Effects of relatedness on = the suckling behaviour of calves in a herd of beef cattle rearing twins. = Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 1-9. =20 Mike 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=20 -----Original Message----- From: OBi Fox [mailto:slvnhld@ix.netcom.com]=20 Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:59 PM To: Michael Appleby Subject: Re: with or without calf Michael, was this study published? If so, could you provide the citation? Thanks OBi Fox =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Michael Appleby =20 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:04 AM Subject: RE: with or without calf =09 =09 Dear All =20 > I would, however, bring to your attention the fact that cattle have a = range of vision extending an average of 330 to 345 degrees around the = body. The "blind" area, or the area in which a calf would not be seen, = is limited to the 15-30 degrees directly to the rear, and is usually = covered with only a slight turn of head. A change in milking position may not necessarily remove the calf from = visual range. =20 We did a study of intersucking in a herd of beef cattle and calves, and = it was striking that calves frequently sucked from cows other than their = mothers, and almost always did so between the back legs. This would not = prevent the cow from seeing them, but will have reduced the cow's view = of their head as well as placing them out of reach, preventing direct = smelling. It may therefore have reduced recognition that this was not = their own calf. Being out of reach will also have prevented the cow from = pushing the calf away with her head. =20 Mike 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=20 From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 24-OCT-2003 13:44:47.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans controlling animals You wrote: "PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner -regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued =====Mary's remarks reminded me of comments I want to make on this paragraph. I feel the paragraph shows antipathy to situations only where humans are in control of animals, whereas all social animals have control exerted over them by the dominants in their group, and even the dominants have their turn depending on the social situation, e.g., hunting, eating, breeding, babysitting (dominant wolves, for ex., do not take charge of all interactions). In a wolf pack, subordinates constantly exhibit behaviors to placate or gain acceptance by hierarchy higher-ups, and physiological tests --------------------------- Richard Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ and elsewhere, (and numerous other persons) have addressed the problem, indeed the fallacy, associated with trying to build an argument intended to justify human behavior using the behavior of animals as a basis. =======Well no, I do not try to justify the widespread human behavior of using animals, which IMO is an assumption in your reply, and an introduction of an element that I did not originally address. But here I will: Ray wrote ----Quite simply, if one accepts an argument that human domination of animals is defensible on the basis that such behavior occurs among wolves, then if one is consistent in their reasoning, they must then accept that rape is acceptable among humans because it commonly occurs among ducks. (Or at least "forced copulation" occurs in animals - which is probably best not referred to as rape.) =======I also do not defend human domination of animals. I originally used the term 'control' which can be defined to various degrees. I did use the terms 'subordinate' and 'dominant' when referring to the wolf packs merely because these are the commonly accepted terms--but please note I was not speaking of either wolf or human dominion over other animals. =====I have been converted to having a more open mind, due to recent debate, into accepting that working with or controlling animals rather than dominating them (I do draw a distinction) has good results in some situations, bad to horrible in others. Neither do I defend human rape, but fully recognize that it occurs and that it will always be part of human nature. Benefits of forced copulation in animals (genetic diversity and strength), however repugnant to humans, outweighs its costs (injuries leading to death, failed reproduction) or such behavior would not continue to be adaptable. I’m not aware of any current advantages of human rape though I wonder if it may have had similar advantages in our primal past. We humans are moral agents. We can choose between what is right and what is wrong - an ability that some other animals may have in part, but certainly possess to a much, much lesser extent in total. Because we have the ability to reason and make moral and ethical choices, most reasonable persons would argue that we carry the additional burden of so acting. ======only at their rare best do humans behave with an interdependently healthy mix of reasoning, instinct, emotion, and past experience. (I believe our behavior goes awry when any one of these is heavily relied on) Moral and ethical behavior are part of our culture but their forms and applications vary throughout cultures worldwide. So, which culture should we take as a standard for human moral and ethical behavior? And personally, I have never been comfortable with the extolling of human virtues, ethics, intelligence, morality above that of other animals, (your notes seem to imply such) and their variations interspecifically are infinite. As I recall, Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ said that he would not want to live in a society that was designed or structured with animal behavior as its model. I strongly concur. Certainly we do not have a perfect world, but the progress that has been made came about through our "menes" – not from our selfish genes, to paraphrase Dawkins. =======This is where it gets touchy for me. If we all agree that humans are another animal species, then how can we separate ourselves from animal behavior? A minority of humans may fervently wish it possible, and concentrating on our reasoning abilities may make it possible centuries? from now. But as long as most of the human population lives with starvation, thirst, injustice and tyranny, (as in the Ik tribe example below) it will not be possible. ====Colin Turnbull studied the Ik tribe, nomadic hunters and gatherers who were forced to move from their lands to mountains of northern Uganda before WWII. Ik had a well-established successful culture with prominent traits of generosity, affection, charity, etc. The lapse of their cultural norms in their new “permanent” home and inability to develop a replacement culture quickly lead them to starvation, thirst, social and interpersonal decay. Parents turned out their toddlers and young children so they did not have to feed or shelter them. Adult children stole food and water from their young children and their dying parents, watched them die uncompassionately and refused to bury their emaciated bodies. Turnbull gave medicine to one man for his sick wife only to find out later that the man sold the medicine for money; his wife soon died of course. When tribe members were injured, others laughed at them and left them. Children were teased and made fun of when crying they were hungry. Turnbull admitted to being personally affected by this decay and told of absorbing some traits like joining in the laughter. This note is not a lecture, mostly thinking outloud after being forced by your stimulating note into analyzing my beliefs and assumptions. Always a refreshing exercise. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 24-OCT-2003 15:05:08.55 To: IN%"ISAEnet-l@usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Nominations 2004 Poultry Welfare Award Ray, Could you please forward this message in my name to the ISAE e-mai list? (My address is not on the list and the message bounced back) Thank you! Inma ___________________________ Dear ISAE members, Some of you might be aware that the Poultry Science Association will be giving the Poultry Welfare Research Award this coming year, 2004. This award is given every second year to a member of PSA that with their research programs have contribute to the welfare of poultry. It is important that you think about nominating the colleagues that you feel deserves it. The nominating person has to be also a PSA member. Ruth Newberry was the recipient of the 2002 award. I do not have the deadlines yet (traditionally it has been during the first week in January) but you can send the nomination to me any time from now. After the nomination a full package with the required information has to be sent by early March. You can find more information at: http://www.poultryscience.org/nominations.htm Best Regards, Inma Estevez, Chair of the Animal Care Committee of the Poultry Science Association Department of Animal and Avian Sciences University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Phone: 301-405-5779 Fax: 301-314-9059 --------------------------------------------------- I have paste below more information on the award. (p) Poultry Welfare Research Award (1) This award has been made possible by an endowment gift of $5,000 to the Poultry Science Association by an anonymous donor. Additional gifts to this endowment are welcomed. (2) The amount of this award will be based on the return of the investment minus the cost of the plaque, up to a maximum of the highest of other awards presented through the Poultry Science Association. (3) This is an every other year award and will be given in even-numbered years beginning in 1992. (4) Nominations can be made by any individual knowledgeable of the nominee’s accomplishments by March I prior to the Annual Meeting. The award will be based on original research over the last five years which may relate to several disciplines including nutrition, pathology, physiology, and other related areas. Research on welfare of poultry will be defined as research with the evaluation of animal comfort or the evaluation of management under conditions that can be applied to the commercial production of poultry (chickens, turkeys, and ducks). (5) Materials supporting this nomination should include five copies of the following items: nomination letter, up to three supporting letters, biographical materials, list of pertinent publications published during the last five years, reprints of appropriate papers, and supporting data. -- ________________________________________ Inma Estevez, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Animal and Avian Sciences University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Phone: 301-405-5779 Fax: 301-314-9059 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~iestevez From: IN%"jebrown@upei.ca" "Jennifer Brown" 24-OCT-2003 17:52:24.85 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Muscovies, foie gras &intro Greeting A-E subscribers! My name is Jennifer Brown- I am a recent subscriber and aspiring graduate student of welfare&behaviour. Below is a rambling anecdotal post on one of my favourite ducks. ----------------------------- More on muscovies, again, not in relation to their natural behaviour... My comments relate to observations on the use of muscovies in production of the traditional French delicacy, foie gras. (I limit these notes to my observations and will try to avoid judgemental language on the ethics of that practice) In the early 80's I spent time in southern France in the region known for production of foie gras. I worked on sheep and dairy goat farms, but was also interested in local uses of poultry. While geese are used for foie gras production, the commercial producers who I met used ducks exclusively. There are lots of 'wild' Muscovies in the region- I'm not sure if they are native to that part of the world or feral. Driving down country roads, it is common to see Muscovies perched high up in trees along the roadside. I was told that the most desirable ducks for foie gras production come from Muscovie hens put to a Rouen drake. These birds are prized for their size and hybrid vigour; they are apparently able to withstand the considerable stress of gavage better than pure strains. Much of the production was done on-farm as a cottage industry. I went with my friend, the farm wife, to a farm market to purchase a Rouen drake. The market square was full, mostly of farm women, who were buying or selling poultry. You could barely move through the crowd of people and birds. Most birds were sold in pairs. A typical presentation of birds was two similar birds or a breeding pair, tied by the legs and to each other with an old nylon stocking, which also formed a convenient carrying handle. We bought two mixed-breed cockerels for the table and a pair of Rouens. The nice drake being intended to father a farm flock of Muscovie crossbreds for foie gras. I also visited a large foie gras production barn. I am not sure what breed of ducks were being used. There were maybe 300 ducks which were group housed in a large barn, with two large pens and an automatic gaveuse machine suspended overhead. Each day as the ducks were stuffed, they were shifted to the adjoining pen. When I visited, it was very early in the gavage process and the ducks looked bright and healthy. Back in Canada, a friend from France decided to try her hand at producing some contra-band foie gras. The practice is of course banned in Canada for welfare reasons. She raised a flock of goslings and began the process. Within a few feedings she abandoned the project. She simply found the physical and physiological stress of the gavage on her geese too upsetting. Almost 25 years later, Europe has seen many changes in animal management &welfare. I wonder what is the state of this industry now? From: IN%"MEUFFE99@smumn.edu" "Michael Edward Uffenbeck" 25-OCT-2003 04:54:13.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Human controlling animals First, arguments are independent artificial forms in existence not= dependent on the existence of there creator. Therein, it is a irrelevant= statement to say a argument's value is dependent on credentials of its= creator. Such a argument would be like calling stone hedge a waste of= time merely because its creators did not have PhDs in architecture. A= argument stands or falls alone and does not depend on who wrote it or who= published it. Second, I would like to see the definition of memes clarified. Genetic= studies of identical twins who share 100% of the same genes but where= raised with natural parents while the other was raised with adopted= parents have determined that genes account for 50% of personality traits. = Further since genes impact behavior then heratability must be considered. = Heratability is calculated by GV/(GV+GE) where GV is genetic variance and= GE is genetic-environment interaction. I assume when you speak of memes= you are referring to traits independent of the genetic hardware. Third, on the question of humans controlling animals. Animals do not= deliberate over actions the way a human might decide what to eat for= supper. Animals have been shown to act out of fixed action responses,= conditioning, appetite and imprinting. Animals do not have the capacity= for abstraction on the same level as humans. Thus, animals do not have= only a limited capacity for understanding. The sense are imperfect and= therefore understanding arises from the soul. And so it follows that= animals do not posses the complete sensational soul. Wherein the part of= something must be in harmony with all the other parts to make the whole= the animal does not have all the parts for abstraction and does not= posses a sensational soul. A animal controlled by humans does not have= the capacity to understand because it does not posses the sensational soul= as mentioned earlier. Without understanding actions are the result of the= innate behaviors aforementioned and the animal is acting merely on= reinforcement. A fact that can be confirmed by the methods of any animal= trainer. Thus the practice of controlling animals is ethical. The= practice of killing animals for experiments is a separate entity, however,= because it is a question of existence rather than understanding. Michael Uffenbeck Source for the above statements is based on Aquinas, myself and straight= biology. From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 25-OCT-2003 05:08:03.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Humans controlling animals Very eloquent and intelligent reponse. Thankyou Michael. From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 25-OCT-2003 09:33:19.97 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals I admit that what follows is an emotional response. As both a scientist and a human, I find many of the comments below to be disturbing both ethically and scientifically. I am neither an animal rightist nor a vegetarian. However, I do not need to objectify animals as a method of justifying the fact that I eat them, keep them as pets or accept that laboratory experiments are performed on them. I recognized that all animals are beings. In a message dated 10/25/2003 6:03:53 AM Central Daylight Time, MEUFFE99@smumn.edu writes: > Third, on the question of humans controlling animals. Animals do not > deliberate over actions the way a human might decide what to eat for supper. > Animals have been shown to act out of fixed action responses, conditioning, > appetite and imprinting. Animals do not have the capacity for abstraction > on the same level as humans. Thus, animals do not have only a limited > capacity for understanding. Who is to say that animals do not deliberate or have a capacity for abstraction. Just because it is not on the same level as people does not make it any less worthwhile. Conditioning is a fact of life; people learn by the same principles. As humans, we respond to appetites (either for food, sex etc.). Imprinting is limited to precocial animals. People are altricial and not followers so do not need it as most altricial species (other than humans) do not imprint. Do people have fixed action patterns? I must admit that I haven't really thought about it but I would think we probably do. > The sense are imperfect and therefore understanding arises from the soul. And so it follows that animals do not > posses the complete sensational soul. If you are talking about the senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste? They are different from human but in no way imperfect. I not sure what a soul is so have no real knowledge whether animals other than humans possess one but why not. > Wherein the part of something must be in harmony with all the other parts to make the whole the animal does not > have all the parts for abstraction and does not posses a sensational soul. > A animal controlled by humans does not have the capacity to understand > because it does not posses the sensational soul as mentioned earlier. > Without understanding actions are the result of the innate behaviors > aforementioned and the animal is acting merely on reinforcement. A fact that > can be confirmed by the methods of any animal trainer. Thus the practice of > controlling animals is ethical. The practice of killing animals for > experiments is a separate entity, however, because it is a question of > existence rather than understanding. Most mammals contain most of the same brain structures as people. Do they feel emotions? Certainly, they have a limbic system, higher brain areas etc. Is it the same as human emotions? Most likely but perhaps not expressed under the same criteria as ours. But that does not make their emotions less valuable. As an example, let's use facial expression. Studies looking into facial expression and emotion have shown that it is consistent across human cultures (never exposed to each other) and also were similar when comparing blind to sighted children. As a result facial expressions appear to be an innate form of communication. Is it any less valuable (worthwhile?) because it is determined genetically? As an aside, Carnivore facial expression is similar to that of primates. As study by Fox (1970, Behaviour 46:49-73) showed that in a comparison of several canids with monkeys and apes, that the repertoire of facial expressions was identical in all but 2 expressions and situations evoking them were similar (according to Estes). As I said at the beginning, this is an emotional response. It is what I believe but in no way an attack on the person who wrote the post. Gerry _________________________________________________________________ Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc Carolina Veterinary Specialists Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina 336-632-0605 (Voice) 336-632-0703 (Fax) gerflannigan@aol.com From: IN%"jraustin@telusplanet.net" "Jackie Wepruk & Rick Austin" 25-OCT-2003 10:10:07.34 To: IN%"MEUFFE99@smumn.edu" "Michael Edward Uffenbeck", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals Humans are animals too. I think we need to be careful in generalizing what other life forms are capable of. It may be *our* inadequacies that make us unaware of some species' full potential. I always wonder what people would think if an alien race came to our planet, decided that our mental capacities were inferior, and then decided to subjugate us. Would we then argue that regardless of mental capacity, we have a right to a free existence? Just pondering... Jackie Wepruk -----Original Message----- From: Michael Edward Uffenbeck [mailto:MEUFFE99@smumn.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:54 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Human controlling animals Third, on the question of humans controlling animals. Animals do not deliberate over actions the way a human might decide what to eat for supper. Animals have been shown to act out of fixed action responses, conditioning, appetite and imprinting. Animals do not have the capacity for abstraction on the same level as humans. Thus, animals do not have only a limited capacity for understanding. The sense are imperfect and therefore understanding arises from the soul. And so it follows that animals do not posses the complete sensational soul. From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 25-OCT-2003 10:44:20.79 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals --- Gerflannigan@aol.com wrote: .Do they > feel emotions? Certainly, they have a limbic > system, higher brain areas etc. > Is it the same as human emotions? Most likely but > perhaps not expressed under > the same criteria as ours. But that does not make > their emotions less valuable. > This is a short coyote story: My first two coyotes were brother and sister. I had had them about twelve years when the female, Diebale died. Her brother, Bandito carried food to where she used to lie under her house. He did this for two weeks. He would always take food to that spot first, call her with his lost puppy sound and then come back to me for his food. He would eventually go back and eat the food. Also, he and the other coyotes did not howl for eight days. I would even try initiating howls and they would not join in. It seemed to be a sad time for all of us, even the coyotes in the other pens. Bandito would also pace back and forth in the pen pausing frequently to look out across the corn fields. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 25-OCT-2003 15:47:33.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: coping with wildfires I live in southern Ca and we are currently surrounded by wildfires. We'll be OK, but we are worried about the animals. On the news you only ever see animals panicking out in the open in response to fire, but it occurs to me that this is not representative of the fate of most animals, only the most visible ones. These animals certainly have faced the dangers of wildfires for 1000s of generations and must have some effective coping techniques, presumably behavioral ones. I would think that most burrowing animals would be relatively safe, but what about larger predators or animals that nest in combustible materials? What do wildcats, bears, squirrels, possums and deer do? Should we expect a flood of macrofauna into suburbia? Should we put out food and water for them? From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 25-OCT-2003 17:10:14.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: coping with wildfires I also have to wonder how the buffalo in the Great Plains coped with fire. I know that Des Moines Iowa was razed twice by prairie fires, though presumable these were much worse after the buffalo had been hunted to near extinction. From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 25-OCT-2003 17:56:46.74 To: IN%"MEUFFE99@smumn.edu" "Michael Edward Uffenbeck", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals Michael, In my previous messages when responding to what persons have said, I have in general tried to refrain from using the names of individuals. In your case I will address you directly. And I will also try to explain why I am doing so. I am going to make some assumptions about you - even though my only knowledge of you is what is contained in your message. First, I assume you are a student. Second, I am going to assume that you have a serious interest in learning more about the topic you have attempted to address. Therefore, I am going to treat your message accordingly - and give the same level of scrutiny to what you have written as I would to one of my graduate students. But before I make specific comments, I want to give a bit of an overview. In one of my first messages in the series of recent exchanges, I stated that I wanted this discussion group to be "salvaged." Contrary to what some persons will no doubt choose to believe, my preference continues to be that this group remain open to anyone who truly wishes to learn about applied ethology. However, I do not intend to imply that my position is unconditional in terms of how and what information is presented on this site. This discussion group carries the label APPLIED-ETHOLOGY, and thus its contents have the potential of being viewed as representative of both the level of scholarship and the ideology of professional applied ethologists. Plugging in the appropriate key words to basically any search engine can quickly lead one to this site on any topic that has been addressed by any of the group members. I have a professional obligation to myself, my students and my colleagues to ensure that our discipline maintains a level of scholarship and professionalism that is deemed acceptable by our peers working in other disciplines at our respective intuitions. In short what you, or anyone else for that matter, posts on this site has the potential of being viewed by other professors at my university as being representative at least in some manner of the ideas, beliefs, scholarship, etc. considered to be acceptable by me and my profession. Accordingly, I will make no apologies for my drawing attention to statements by you or others that I do not consider representative of applied ethology. There is another reason for my giving direct attention to your message. I believe that what you have written represents a somewhat all too typical level of understanding of evolutionary biology existent among American undergraduates today. Additionally, I believe that the lack in understanding of evolutionary biology among Americans overall has had, and will continue to have, enormous negative consequences if this lack of understanding is not corrected. Specifically, the widening gap between Europeans and Americans over issues such as the environment and animal welfare, I believe, has as its very most root basis the poor understanding of evolutionary biology by many Americans. Thus, my comments about your message are not at all directed to you alone, but rather they are intended as a criticism by me of an educational system which I believe has, to date, not served to meet the future interests of you and others to the extent that it should have. I am also assuming that you have an interest in religion. I will now say something that will probably surprise a few persons. I strongly encourage you to continue your pursuit of finding the ties between religion and science. Darwin himself was first a student of theology. As a graduate student, I had the good fortune of having as my professor in evolutionary biology at The Pennsylvania State University a person who held both a degree in Divinity from Yale University and also a PhD in Biology. He was both an ordained Episcopalian priest and a professor of biology. He introduced me to the work of Teilhard de Chardin, a person I believe was one of the most remarkable and forward thinking individuals of the first half of the last century. Teilhard was a Jesuit priest, but he also held a PhD in evolutionary anthropology - and probably is best known in science for reporting Peking Man back to the western world. While he never used the term meme, he wrote about the concept long before Dawkins. He also wrote about concepts such as emergent processes, complexity, etc. that were addressed by him much before they entered mainstream science as topical issues today. Teilhard also presented a view that consciousness is not unique to humans. In fact Teilhard believed that inanimate objects including things such rocks have a very, very miniscule level of what could be said to be consciousness, and when one moves to viruses the level of increase in consciousness is of a major magnitude in difference. And when one moves to nonhuman animals, there is an even greater magnitude of difference in increase over viruses. Finally, in terms of individuals, Teilhard argued that we humans are privileged in that the level of magnitude of difference we possess represents the greatest difference of all. One of the many interesting ideas that he presented was the view that it was possible for a collective intelligence of persons of common interest to emerge - basically consciousness or an entity that had its own uniqueness and was something that existed in a form that was greater than the sum of its parts. He presented this as a part of his Christian theology - the idea of one collective body of persons thinking and working toward a common goal. However, this concept has been adopted by a number of other groups. I recently saw a web site that suggested Teilhard should be considered the patron saint of the internet because of his view of the possibility of what he called the Noosphere, which he saw as an emergent level of one consciousness surrounding the earth, becoming possible through persons joining together in collective thoughts and actions. I had the pleasure of taking a course at Georgetown University this past winter from Father Thomas King, a scholar of biology who has written extensively on Teilhard - and I recommend reading his work. I disagree with Dawkins' views on religions and believe there can a position somewhere between that of Dawkins and Teilhard that could serve as a basis for finding common ground and a place where science and religion can join - or at least converse. I believe that this is a highly ambitious task for someone to attempt, but the potential benefits are enormous. And by the way, while much of Teilhard's work does represent basically Christian theology, I believe much of what I would consider to be the "truth" of his work lies in the fact that he spent some time in Cairo and a lot of time in China. Therefore, his views in large part are a synthesis of the wide common ground that can be found among the different religions he witnessed and studied. I am also assuming that you are an American and that your first language is English. While I, like most other persons, send out large numbers of messages by email that are not as carefully proof read as they should be, I do believe that there is some obligation to not be too sloppy in what one writes. Also, I believe that the internet is tending to "dumb down" writing skills in general and that concerns me. Part of poor spelling, etc. is understandable in that typing skills vary widely among persons. However, I also believe that writing skills among American students overall continue to decline. Thus, in your message, I will point out some of the errors, for I believe that sloppy writing can basically "lose the reader," and can thus serve to impeach one's own argument - or at least not give the reader a clear understanding of what one is attempting to communicate. Accordingly, I have inserted a few corrections in parentheses in your message below. Additionally, I have added a few endnotes at certain points in your text. However, ultimately the purpose of both spoken and written language is too communicate - not simply a game that follows rules of spelling and grammar. Therefore, I mean for my comments to be almost exclusively intended for American students. My comments about English are not intended in any way to be directed toward persons on this list whose second - or third - language is English. When these persons post to the list, then I view it only important that one be able to understand the content of what they are saying. (And I also acknowledge that more often than not, the writing skills of some whose second language is English exceeds that of Americans!) And let me again say that I encourage you to pursue this topic. However, I also caution you about attempting to take on the role of teaching and correcting others before you know your subject. I have spent a large percentage of my waking hours over the past 30 years or more reading, thinking and lecturing on this topic. It might surprise you and others to know how many doubts I have, and much I feel I still need to know. But I do know enough to recognize certain common mistakes that are made in discussions about some areas of both science and moral reasoning. To be straightforward, I would have to say that what is presented below is a muddle of some partially correct statements from science, mixed with some very out-of-date concepts from what could be said to be moral reasoning. My purpose in pointing this out, again, is not to tell you to stop your pursuit of this topic, but rather I wish to encourage you to learn more. I commend you for trying, but in a discussion with most any group of applied ethology graduate students, I think you would be quickly taken to task on some of the things you state below. No doubt, some or all of my assumptions about you may be incorrect. And in no way do I express these assumptions for purposes of labeling you. Rather, I state these assumptions in order to make clear the bases for my comments. And again I hope that you recognize that I am not simply singling you out, but rather that I am trying to address a much broader issue by using your message as being representative of what I believe is typical among a much larger group of persons. Most importantly, I hope that my message will cause you to think carefully and then continue your learning about this topic. I sincerely wish you good luck in your educational pursuits. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Michael Edward Uffenbeck [mailto:MEUFFE99@smumn.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 6:54 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Human controlling animals First, arguments are independent artificial forms in existence (there should be either an "and" or a comma here) not dependent on the existence of there (spelling/grammar error, "their" is correct) creator. Therein, it is a (should be "an" - not "a") irrelevant statement to say a (again, should be "an" - not "a") argument's value is dependent on credentials of its creator. (Note 1) Such a ("an" not "a") argument would be like (avoid colloquial use of words - suggest that a better word to use here would be "similar") calling (missing a word here) stone hedge (word usage of "hedge" is an archaic form - most common usage of the word "hedge" today is in reference to a closely planted row of trees or shrubs; thus, the phrase "stone hedge" in modern English is almost an oxymoron) a waste of time merely because its creators did not have PhDs in architecture. A (should be "An") argument stands or falls alone and does not depend on who (should be "whom") wrote it or who published it (poor wording; consider instead, "by whom it was written and published"). (Note 2) Second, I would like to see ("to see" something is a reference only to a visual sensation; better to use either the phrase "to learn" or "to know" to be more specific to the intended meaning) the definition of memes clarified (Note 3). Genetic studies of identical twins who share 100% of the same genes but where (missing words; "one was") raised with natural parents while the other was raised with adopted parents have determined that genes account for 50% of personality traits(Note 4) Further since genes impact behavior then heratability (spelling; "heritability") must be considered. Heratability (spelling) is calculated by GV/(GV+GE) where GV is genetic variance and GE is genetic-environment interaction. (Note 5) I assume when you speak of memes you are referring to traits independent of the genetic hardware. (Note 6) Third, on the question of humans controlling animals. Animals do not deliberate over actions the way a human might decide what to eat for supper. Animals have been shown to act out of fixed action responses (not even ethologists use "fixed action patterns" today; at most one would use "modal action patterns"), conditioning, appetite and imprinting. Animals do not have the capacity for abstraction on the same level as humans. Thus, animals do not have only a limited capacity for understanding (Sentence is wrongly worded; "do not have only" is a double negative; taken literally, this sentence says that animals have _more_ than a limited capacity for understanding - which apparently is not what the author intended). The sense are imperfect and therefore understanding arises from the soul (the meaning of this sentence is unclear to me). And so it follows that animals do not posses the complete sensational soul. Wherein the part of something must be in harmony with all the other parts to make the whole the animal does not have all the parts for abstraction and does not posses a sensational soul (it is not at all clear to me what is meant by a "sensational soul"). A ("An") animal controlled by humans does not have the capacity to understand because it does not posses the sensational soul as mentioned earlier. Without understanding actions are the result of the innate behaviors aforementioned and the animal is acting merely on reinforcement. A fact that can be confirmed by the methods of any animal trainer (Note 7). Thus the practice of controlling animals is ethical. The practice of killing animals for experiments is a separate entity, however, because it is a question of existence rather than understanding (not entirely clear to me what is meant here - but it seems probably that this is an attempt to argue for the sanctity of life, which would be in agreement with Tom Regan but not Peter Singer - or many other applied ethicists for that matter). Michael Uffenbeck Source for the above statements is based on Aquinas (Note 8), myself and straight biology (not sure what is meant by "straight" biology). ------------------------------------ Note 1: I do not think there is any disagreement over this point - and I know of no one at any time since I have (re)joined this discussion who has suggested this to be true in relation to discussions of ethics, science or otherwise. However, there has been a very consistent argument that the professional applied ethologists are the appropriate body to define "applied ethology" - which I would hope to be an argument that is self-evident in its validity. Note 2: I completely agree that the validity of a given statement is not dependent on the presenter. In fact - I believe that the concept that this sentence was intended to convey lies at the very basis for the term "meme." However, if one who spends a lifetime researching, reading and teaching a topic area is not more capable of presenting the topic in total than is a novice, then our educational system is based on a fallacy. Note 3: If the point here is that the writer wishes to learn more about "memes," then I strongly encourage the author to invest some effort to learn about the topic! All one has to do is plug into GOGGLE either meme or memetics - and then read away. Also, there has been previous reference to the origin of the concept (_The Selfish Gene_) and a statement that a number of books and at least one journal now exist on the topic. I must say I find it most strange that one would see fit to write a message that attempts to present a position on a topic, _before_ the author has first attempted to learn even the basic definition of the word that is the subject of the topic. Note 4: Maybe one could say this statement is at least supportable in part. Results from identical twin studies do raise some very interesting questions, but in total, they do not provide either a clear or complete answer to the issue of nature versus nurture - as is implied in the statement that 50% of personality is based on genes. Additionally, there is a very clearly identified and defined risk of accepting simplistic statements about the genetic basis of human behavior. One source of information on this topic that I highly recommend to students of ethology is _Final Solutions: Biology, Prejudice, and Genocide_, by Richard Lerner (1992; The Pennsylvania State University Press; ISBN: 0-271-00793-1). This book also clearly demonstrates the fallacy in believing that science is somehow distant and immune from carrying the biases of its practitioners. Specifically, Lerner attacks those who advocated and practiced human eugenics during the last century - and outlines the role and contribution of some ethologists. Regarding, information on eugenics specifically, there is a site with considerable information at http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/. This site includes a listing of both the British and American membership in the Eugenics Society. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of all the information included, but there are some very interesting names included on the list - not the least of which is Roger Brambell with a membership date of around 1960. There are a number of other scientists for whom I have enormous respect including Swell Wright, Edward Thorndike and a number of statisticians and geneticists. It is humbling for me to look through this list and then speculate on how future generations will view the actions and positions held by me and my contemporaries in science. I fear that we similarly will be judged as not having been very progressive in our attitudes towards other beings. Back to addressing the issue of improper use of heritability estimates, there is even some evidence of outright fraud in the case of Sir Cyril Burt as described in the following except from http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/: "Burt, Prof. Sir Cyril DSc London Eugenics Society Consultative Council 1937, 1957 Personal: Fraud Pubns: The distribution and relations of educational abilities. 1917 for LCC; Mental and Scholastic Tests. 1921; "The meaning and assessment of intelligence", ER, v. 47, p. 81, Galton Lecture 1955; "Class differences in general intelligence: III", British Journal of Statistical Psychology, v. 12, 1959, p. 15; Intelligence and Fertility. 1946; The Subnormal Mind., rev. ed. 1977; The Backward Child. (1st ed. 1937; 5th ed., 1961); The Gifted Child. 1975 Significance: Both before and after World War II one of the chief arguments of eugenicists was that national intelligence was declining due to poor breeding control. This argument rested on the work of psychologists, mainly eugenic society members, who measured intelligence. These psychologists asserted that intelligence was largely fixed by genetic inheritance and could be measured with scientific accuracy. The most important of these psychologists was Sir Cyril Burt; others were Spearman, Terman, R.B. Cattell (The Fight for Our National Intelligence.1937), and H.J. Eysenck. All these were in the English or American Eugenics Society or both. In 1969 Arthur Jensen used their work to claim that blacks are genetically inferior in IQ and incapable of benefiting from the same education as whites. During the ensuing controversy Burt's figures were questioned. In 1979 L.S. Hearnshaw, Burt's authorized biographer, stated that Burt's data for most of the post World War II period was fraudulent. ( see Cyril Burt, psychologist, 1979 ) Since Hearnshaw had been a member of the Eugenics Society and President of the British Association of Psychologists, his conclusions were accepted." Note 5: The formula presented is not correct - the denominator components are wrongly described. It should read something like, "Heritability is the ratio of genetic variance to total phenotypic variance; i.e., GV/(GV+EV+GEV) where G = genetic and E = environment and GE = genetic X environment interaction." However, there is an additional problem in that this is a very incomplete representation of the concept of heritability. In fact, this is heritability in the broad sense - meaning that in this presentation, the GV component contains the contribution of both additive and non-additive genetic variation. More typically - and more meaningful relative to the issue being discussed - is heritability in the narrow sense, which is based on including only the additive genetic component in the numerator. The reason for using the narrow sense is that essentially only the additive genetic effects can be fixed through selection. I am proud that my academic grandfather (through my master's thesis advisor), Jay L. Lush and his grad students at Iowa State University helped define and expand the formulation and application of heritability in relation to livestock selection. E.O. Wilson in Chapter _Sociobiology_ acknowledges this contribution by animal scientists. However, as presented in Note 3, there can be real danger in placing this methodology into the hands of psychologists - or others studying human behavior for that matter. See http://www.workingdogs.com/doc0189.htm for a more comprehensive overview of the concept of heritability. Note 6: Yes, a meme is basically an entity that is replicated through culture. However, this is not to say that a meme is totally independent of genetics. Indeed, Frans de Waal and others have argued that our ethics basically arise - at least in part - from our genes that are related to our behavior, especially our social behavior that is common to a number of other primates (see his book entitled _Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals_; 1996, Harvard Press) Note 7: I would hope that animal trainers would, in fact, not agree with this point! For basically _no_ biologist today, ethologist or otherwise, would accept that animals are simply a product of stimulus and response. In fact this is an idea that grew primarily from the wrong headed thinking of North American workers in a now defunct discipline of psychology commonly referred to as Behaviorism. Probably the most noted contribution that ethology has made in total is the elimination of this idea (meme) from science. Note 8: I must admit essentially ignorance relative to the beliefs of Thomas Aquinas. However, I know that his memes made significant contributions in his era and later. But overall, the statements presented in point number 3 (above) appear to be almost strictly Cartesian in approach, even to the extent that it is argued that the mind and soul are inseparable and since only humans have a soul, then only humans have a mind (or in this case, sentience) - and this was exactly the mistake made by Descartes. Thankfully, this view is no longer presented as a valid moral argument relative to animals. And almost no one today in biology would argue that animals are not sentient creatures. There are differences of opinion, of course, regarding the level of sentience possessed by animals, but this question will probably always exist. I would again refer one to Teilhard, not Aquinas, if the goal is to find a view in theology that has some chance of not conflicting with what is known about the biology of animals. From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 25-OCT-2003 18:48:34.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Muscovy ducks Sylvie Cloutier wrote: > What Francois did not mention in his comment was that the pecking follows the growth of the new feathers. It starts by the tail and then move on to the wings, etc. I have seen similar behaviour in chickens, which are not notoriously known for their predatory behaviour. The young birds seems very interested by the "new things" on their mates, so they start pecking at the growing feathers which often breaks and bleed. For this reason, I do not think it is closely associated with predation. I would say it is associated with exploration and "seeking". A young bird at the "pinfeather" stage is very vulnerable to injury. Partly grown feathers are easily damaged, and when injured bleed copiously. However the process begins, they might perhaps become tempting fare for anything with a taste for fresh meat. Chickens eagerly eat insects, worms, small reptiles and the like, which they uncover by scratching. A hen who has found a prime morsel commonly seizes it and runs away from the flock to be able to eat it in peace, and is commonly pursued pell-mell by one or more flockmates intent on stealing the prize. I have seen this in free ranging Bankiva families in a quasi-natural setting, able to space themselves out however they liked, as well as in the more usual barnyard environment. If the pecking at growing feathers begins as exploration and "seeking" - which seems to me quite plausible - then perhaps providing other outlets for those behaviors might reduce the incidence of feather damage or cannibalism. Has anyone looked into that possibility? John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 25-OCT-2003 19:09:45.04 To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Muscovy ducks In a message dated 10/25/2003 6:00:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, saluqi@ix.netcom.com writes: If the pecking at growing feathers begins as exploration and "seeking" - which seems to me quite plausible - then perhaps providing other outlets for those behaviors might reduce the incidence of feather damage or cannibalism. Has anyone looked into that possibility? Is there any evidence that chickens pecking behavior is satiable? My impression is that it is just an ingrained (no pun intended) exploratory behavior and therefore should be no more satiable than a primates tendency to look around. From: IN%"MEUFFE99@smumn.edu" "Michael Edward Uffenbeck" 26-OCT-2003 00:02:54.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Conditioned Taste Aversion First, I want clarify in my earlier statement it was only meant as a consideration not to teach. I do not claim to be a expert by any means. I used philosophy, because without language it is difficult to discriminate action from understanding. The Thomas Aquinas view of objects are they are the forms which can only be understood through the senses ("sensible soul"). This is then in harmony with the intellectal soul. He argues a person has only one soul. The reason I'm writing this message to see what anyone can tell me about conditioned taste aversion. The problem I have encounter in my study of the topic is devising a method where detection of the conditioning agent avoided. I believe this more on the topic and I agree I went on limb before. From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "none none" 26-OCT-2003 01:28:35.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE parrot articles
for the folks looking for parrot articles - there are several in the ISAE journal online --
h.m.

Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month.*
*Depending on the local service providers in your area. From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 26-OCT-2003 08:18:47.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Muscovy ducks Michalchik wrote: > Is there any evidence that chickens pecking behavior is satiable? My impression is that it is just an > ingrained (no pun intended) exploratory behavior and therefore should be no more satiable than a > primates tendency to look around. Satiable or not, pecking surely has an orientation component, and some "targets" for the behavior are probably more attractive than others. Providing more attractive or more rewarding stimulus objects might very well divert attention from the feathers of the other ducklings. I haven't spent a lot of time watching young Muscovies, but judging from what I know of other waterfowl the exploratory behavior is probably more like "nibbling" than "pecking." At least that is certainly true of geese, which are basically grazers and nibble as compulsively as chickens peck. Working around tame geese, you learn very quickly not to wear shoes with laces . The bills of geese have sharp cutting edges which can make short work of almost any article of clothing, and shoelaces are an especially tempting target. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 26-OCT-2003 08:37:45.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: re-parrot articles I have looked at the official ISAE site and cannot see the articles you refer to. Could you possibly send a direct link to the list of articles please? Thanks. Also I would love to join the ISAE but as I understand it i require to list 2 names of current members so that they may 'sponsor' or 'reference' me. Are there any current members that feel they cold get to know me with a veiw to carrying this function out for me . Or perhaps I already know some of you who are members and just didnt realise it. Thanks in advance . Sincerley Mary Doran From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 26-OCT-2003 08:38:23.58 To: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals Michael Michalchik, Thanks for your message. I hope that others in the group did not confuse the Michael to whom my recent message was intended. My apologies to you if this has caused you any problems. I should probably have included both first and last names in that message. I would like to know a more about your current work and your location. I have attended a couple of "Simulation of Adaptive Behavior" meetings and still have grad students doing some simulation work. I have not had any experience with robots but would very much like to have a lab in my Applied Behavior course that was robot based. A big handicap for me is the lack of knowledge in the electronics/engineering area. I have considered using the Lego Mindstorms (Dacta) packages but expense is one problem and also possible overlap with a number of other courses on campus. But I hope to be able to do some more simulation work including finishing up and publishing results from some of the work from grad students projects of the past - especially the work of Zhou. You might be interested in the following papers: W.R. Stricklin, J.Z. Zhou, H.W. Gonyou, Selfish animats and robot ethology: using artificial animals to investigate social and spatial behavior, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44 (2-4) (1995) pp. 187-203. W. R. Stricklin, P. De Bourcier, J. Z. Zhou, and H. W. Gonyou. 1998. Artificial Pigs in Space: Using Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life Techniques to Design Animal Housing. Journal of Animal Science. 76:2609-2613. Regarding ethics and inbreeding, the best source that I can think of is a book edited by J.W. Gowen entitled _Heterosis_ Iowa State University Press; (June 1952). It of course is rather old but there are a number of chapters that raise some still interesting questions. There also was a symposium at Penn State in 1974 or 1975 that as I recall was sponsored by the Northeastern Section of Animal Behavior Society and hosted by H.B. Graves of the Poultry Science Department. I no longer have a copy of the proceedings but there were some very good presentations at that meeting - and both human and animal behavior were included. And let me state very quickly that I believe there is a common thread through all these topics: evolutionary biology, ethology, ethics (memes), inbreeding/outbreeding, artificial life/intelligence, etc. - and that common thread is, "Each of these systems and(or) processes can be studies as Complex Adaptive Systems!" I am taking the liberty of posting your message to the group - for I believe your work is such that it could or should be of interest to a number of persons on this group. Thanks again, W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 9:11 PM To: wrstrick@umd.edu Subject: Re: Human controlling animals Hi, I am the wrong Michael though I enjoyed your letter. I am the Michael that annoyed you by starting the thread about the ethics of inbreeding. I actually think you read into my post some naiveté's that are not there, though I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in animal husbandry or ethology. My bachelor degree is in biology and I did 4 years Ph.D. study in neuroscience and some advanced studies in evolutionary biology. At the time I didn't take you on because it seemed like you just generally needed to vent some frustrations about the group, and being relatively new to this group I couldn't address the point that negative changes had occurred over the past few years. I have grown a little tired of the ethical debates, not so much because I devalue ethics or animal welfare but because people have so many of their personal prejudices tied to this topic that I tend to think that no resolution is possible without going back to fundamentals and working out a logical basis for ethics that we can all agree about. My interest in ethology (beyond a general interest) comes from the fact that I am currently involved with an artificial intelligence research project who's nominal purpose is to create an intelligence engine with the learning and creative problem solving capabilities of a dog. Yeah, yeah I know that a dogs brain and behavioral capabilities are far more complex than any current computer's capabilities, but the chief designer (a programmer) doesn't think so. So my job is basically to create hurdles for the designers to overcome and suggest solutions from neuroscience that are compatible with our overall design. Even given that bit of misguidedness, the project is fun and we are succeeding at making an adaptable learning and problem solving engine that is growing more and more intelligent and may actually be useful somewhere down the road. Anyway, if you want to ever discuss animal intelligence, want clarification about my position on the ethics of inbreeding, or artificial intelligence fee free to write. You seem like a relatively intelligent and well educated man (if a bit tightly wound). ;-) Sincerely, Michael Michalchik From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 27-OCT-2003 01:58:58.85 To: IN%"jebrown@upei.ca" "Jennifer Brown", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Muscovies, foie gras &intro Hi Jennifer, thank for your telling. You asked about the actual situation of foie gras production. It is banned in most european member states, but in france (and belgium ?) it continues. Further information might give the report of the sci vet committee of the europ comm : http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf To Mike, the Intro of the European Council Reommandations on minimum requirements might also be of interest. >> http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_affairs/Legal_co-operation/ Biological_safety,_use_of_animals/Farming/A_texts_documents.asp << Your's Andreas Date sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:33:21 -0300 (ADT) From: Jennifer Brown Subject: Muscovies, foie gras &intro To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Organization: University of P.E.I. Priority: normal > Greeting A-E subscribers! My name is Jennifer Brown- I am a > recent subscriber and aspiring graduate student of > welfare&behaviour. Below is a rambling anecdotal post on one of > my favourite ducks. > ----------------------------- > More on muscovies, again, not in relation to their natural > behaviour... > > My comments relate to observations on the use of muscovies in > production of the traditional French delicacy, foie gras. (I limit these > notes to my observations and will try to avoid judgemental > language on the ethics of that practice) > > In the early 80's I spent time in southern France in the region > known for production of foie gras. I worked on sheep and dairy goat > farms, but was also interested in local uses of poultry. While geese > are used for foie gras production, the commercial producers who I > met used ducks exclusively. There are lots of 'wild' Muscovies in > the region- I'm not sure if they are native to that part of the world or > feral. Driving down country roads, it is common to see Muscovies > perched high up in trees along the roadside. I was told that the > most desirable ducks for foie gras production come from Muscovie > hens put to a Rouen drake. These birds are prized for their size > and hybrid vigour; they are apparently able to withstand the > considerable stress of gavage better than pure strains. > > Much of the production was done on-farm as a cottage industry. I > went with my friend, the farm wife, to a farm market to purchase a > Rouen drake. The market square was full, mostly of farm women, > who were buying or selling poultry. You could barely move through > the crowd of people and birds. Most birds were sold in pairs. A > typical presentation of birds was two similar birds or a breeding > pair, tied by the legs and to each other with an old nylon stocking, > which also formed a convenient carrying handle. We bought two > mixed-breed cockerels for the table and a pair of Rouens. The nice > drake being intended to father a farm flock of Muscovie crossbreds > for foie gras. > > I also visited a large foie gras production barn. I am not sure what > breed of ducks were being used. There were maybe 300 ducks > which were group housed in a large barn, with two large pens and > an automatic gaveuse machine suspended overhead. Each day as > the ducks were stuffed, they were shifted to the adjoining pen. > When I visited, it was very early in the gavage process and the > ducks looked bright and healthy. > > Back in Canada, a friend from France decided to try her hand at > producing some contra-band foie gras. The practice is of course > banned in Canada for welfare reasons. She raised a flock of > goslings and began the process. Within a few feedings she > abandoned the project. She simply found the physical and > physiological stress of the gavage on her geese too upsetting. > > Almost 25 years later, Europe has seen many changes in animal > management &welfare. I wonder what is the state of this industry > now? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov" 27-OCT-2003 07:52:59.62 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals Ray, Thank you for addressing this issue. I was a bit horrified by the insinuation of this comment. Indeed, it has been a long uphill struggle for ethologists to dispell the Descartian and Watsonian beliefs. If there is any doubt of an animals cognitive capacity, see CeAnn's post for a touching form of enlightenment. Yes, it is based on an observed interpretation, but isn't that ethology is all about? Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Stricklin [SMTP:wrstrick@umd.edu] > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:57 PM > To: Michael Edward Uffenbeck; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: Human controlling animals > > Michael, > > Note 7: I would hope that animal trainers would, in fact, not agree with > this point! For basically _no_ biologist today, ethologist or otherwise, > would accept that animals are simply a product of stimulus and response. > In > fact this is an idea that grew primarily from the wrong headed thinking of > North American workers in a now defunct discipline of psychology commonly > referred to as Behaviorism. Probably the most noted contribution that > ethology has made in total is the elimination of this idea (meme) from > science. > > - and this was exactly the mistake made by Descartes. > Thankfully, this view is no longer presented as a valid moral argument > relative to animals. And almost no one today in biology would argue that > animals are not sentient creatures. From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 27-OCT-2003 08:34:56.82 To: IN%"MEUFFE99@smumn.edu" "Michael Edward Uffenbeck", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: explanation -----Original Message----- From: Michael Edward Uffenbeck [mailto:MEUFFE99@smumn.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 1:46 AM To: wrstrick@umd.edu Subject: explanation ... I was wondering what you could tell me about conditioned taste aversion. I have done my own research in this area but as with so many things the more I learn the less I understand. It has been sought in wildlife management as a technique for controlling predation. Early work was done by Carl Gustavason and more recently by Nicolaus Lowel. The technique is to trick predators by introducing a substance like LiCl to induce vomiting. The problem yet to be solved is to find a way to produce conditioning without detection of the conditioning agent. Lastly, I think it is appropriate to question the morality of this type of management. I believe this falls more correctly under applied ethology. Michael ------------------------- Aversive conditioning is out of my research area. However, while I was in Saskatchewan from 1976-80, Carl Gustavson worked some with the Saskatchewan government on a project that was intended to use aversive conditioning as coyote control. He brought his family up a couple of times and stayed with me at Saskatoon. (I believe the lead government contact person's name was Jim Josey? - and of course Carl is now deceased and I think Josey may be as well.) My knowledge of the project is thus through these two contacts - and based on my memory of events some 20+ years ago. LiCl was added to sheep carcasses that were then placed at locations where coyotes were known to have killed and(or) eaten sheep carcasses. A decrease in coyote sightings (and maybe sheep kills) was determined. However, Josey (and maybe also Gustavson) thought that it was the increased presence and traffic of humans associated with the research observations that caused the decease - and not aversive conditioning per se. I do not know if this work was ever published in other than popular press format. Gustavson, however, was of course an advocate of the technique; see: http://www.academiclibrary.com/view.php?kw=Psychology--Aversive_Condit.htm. In one of his presentations at Univ of Saskatchewan, Carl had a film (16mm black and white, as I recall) of a coyote killing a sheep, eating the carcass which contained LiCl, and then vomiting - and then footage of the coyote later in a state of hunger being in a pen with another sheep and not showing any attempt to kill it. I do not remember the origin, etc. of the film. However, Gustavson was a student of Garcia at UCLA - which could have been the source. Garcia, a psychologist, did a considerable amount of work on aversive conditioning - including using radiation treatment which is not detectable by the subject. I very much doubt, however, that it would be possible to get such research approved by an animal care and use (ethical) committee today. See: http://ctalearning.com/ (LiCl, I believe, has basically a taste similar to common table salt, NaCl - but of course, as stated, would still be detectable.) Regarding the ethical question of using aversive conditioning, the Saskatchewan government was attempting to find an alternative to poisoning and shooting coyotes. If one was limited to choosing between only these two options, I think most persons would choose aversive conditioning. If you mean to ask whether or not humans should interfere in the lives of wild animals under any circumstances, then a "can of worms" is opened that is not likely to be resolved in the near future... W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 27-OCT-2003 10:08:45.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: conditioned taste aversion There is conditioned taste aversion being done in this country on coyotes. It is being done by USDA Animal Control. They are using a very deadly poison that has been outlawed for the use of the public, but the government still uses it. I forget the name of the poison. They are putting it in bladders that are tied around the sheeps neck. It not only kills the coyote, but also kills the sheep and any other animal that eats from the carcasses. THis was done in the early 50's also. The coyotes quickly learned not to attack the neck of a sheep that had this strange thing around it's neck. Here are the addresses of two people who might give you more info. Brooks Fahy info@predatordefense.org Marc Bekoff marc.bekoff@colorado.edu CeAnn Lambert ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 27-OCT-2003 14:38:58.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: Ray and Lorna Coppinger on CSDogBookReview For those of you who may be interested: In November Ray and Lorna Coppinger will be the guest authors on CSDogBookReview on yahoo groups. "Dogs" will be discussed. This is a no flame, polite list, and the moderator has no problems putting people on "moderate" or removing them from the list if they are not polite to guests and other list members. I don't mean to offend. It's just that this list can get a bit - well - shall we say contentious - in ways that would be out of character with the Dog Book Review List. Cissy From: IN%"marine.bedoucha@wanadoo.fr" "Marine C. Bedoucha" 27-OCT-2003 15:08:50.52 To: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" Subj: RE: Ray and Lorna Coppinger on CSDogBookReview Cissy, Thank you for letting us know. I had the pleasure of attending a seminar last week by Dr. Coppinger on the "Physical and Behavioural conformation of sled dogs" during the Alaskan Malamute Natl Specialty in MA. He is a wonderful person. Would you have the link to the yahoo groups, for those who would like to subscribe? Thanks again, Marine Cassoret www.marinefishpage.fr.st/ On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 03:38 PM, cissy stamm wrote: > For those of you who may be interested: > > In November Ray and Lorna Coppinger will be the guest authors on > CSDogBookReview on yahoo groups. "Dogs" will be discussed. > > This is a no flame, polite list, and the moderator has no problems > putting people on "moderate" or removing them from the list if they > are not polite to guests and other list members. > > I don't mean to offend. It's just that this list can get a bit - well > - shall we say contentious - in ways that would be out of character > with the Dog Book Review List. > > Cissy > > > From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 27-OCT-2003 19:22:45.38 To: IN%"marine.bedoucha@wanadoo.fr" "Marine C. Bedoucha" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" Subj: RE: Ray and Lorna Coppinger on CSDogBookReview Subscription information: CSDogBookReview-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I've heard he's a terrific lecturer. He'll be in Kingston, NY in January, and I plan to see him then. cissy Marine C. Bedoucha wrote: > Cissy, > > Thank you for letting us know. I had the pleasure of attending a seminar > last week by Dr. Coppinger on the "Physical and Behavioural conformation > of sled dogs" during the Alaskan Malamute Natl Specialty in MA. He is a > wonderful person. > > Would you have the link to the yahoo groups, for those who would like to > subscribe? > > Thanks again, > > Marine Cassoret > > www.marinefishpage.fr.st/ > > On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 03:38 PM, cissy stamm wrote: > >> For those of you who may be interested: >> >> In November Ray and Lorna Coppinger will be the guest authors on >> CSDogBookReview on yahoo groups. "Dogs" will be discussed. >> >> This is a no flame, polite list, and the moderator has no problems >> putting people on "moderate" or removing them from the list if they >> are not polite to guests and other list members. >> >> I don't mean to offend. It's just that this list can get a bit - well >> - shall we say contentious - in ways that would be out of character >> with the Dog Book Review List. >> >> Cissy >> >> >> > > From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 27-OCT-2003 20:54:44.70 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans controlling animals The reference is Steven Lindsay Applied Dog Behaviour & Training vol 2 p 38 -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:16 PM To: 'Geiger' Subject: RE: humans controlling animals Hi Jackie: I just had to say I'm pleased to see a reference to memes on this list. Could you point me to the Steven Lindsay reference? As a student of both memes and animal behavior, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Virginia Bowen Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 8:48 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans controlling animals Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in his text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially from generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it is powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with tail docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair and unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making an academic comment! Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:16 AM To: Jo Angleberger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans controlling animals <"PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued "> =====Mary's remarks reminded me of comments I want to make on this paragraph. I feel the paragraph shows antipathy to situations only where humans are in control of animals, whereas all social animals have control exerted over them by the dominants in their group, and even the dominants have their turn depending on the social situation, e.g., hunting, eating, breeding, babysitting (dominant wolves, for ex., do not take charge of all interactions). In a wolf pack, subordinates constantly exhibit behaviors to placate or gain acceptance by hierarchy higher-ups, and physiological tests --------------------------- Richard Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ and elsewhere, (and numerous other persons) have addressed the problem, indeed the fallacy, associated with trying to build an argument intended to justify human behavior using the behavior of animals as a basis. Quite simply, if one accepts an argument that human domination of animals is defensible on the basis that such behavior occurs among wolves, then if one is consistent in their reasoning, they must then accept that rape is acceptable among humans because it commonly occurs among ducks. (Or at least "forced copulation" occurs in animals - which is probably best not referred to as rape.) We humans are moral agents. We can choose between what is right and what is wrong - an ability that some other animals may have in part, but certainly possess to a much, much lesser extent in total. Because we have the ability to reason and make moral and ethical choices, most reasonable persons would argue that we carry the additional burden of so acting. As I recall, Dawkins in _The Selfish Gene_ said that he would not want to live in a society that was designed or structured with animal behavior as its model. I strongly concur. Certainly we do not have a perfect world, but the progress that has been made came about through our "menes" - not from our selfish genes, to paraphrase Dawkins. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 28-OCT-2003 07:29:40.98 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures The suggestion that ethics is "owned" (meaning it is to be addressed/practiced only) by persons in philosophy departments is one of the more astounding statements I have witnessed in recent years. Slavery, etc. are not less acceptable today simply because they are "plainly wrong." There are strong and supportable moral arguments as to why these types of exploitation are wrong, and it took generations for these moral arguments to overwhelm those individuals in society who wished to maintain these practices because of their "dearly held beliefs." Similarly, today there are such arguments as to why tail docking is not a defensible practice. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:40 PM To: 'Ray Stricklin' Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures My argument is just that people's dearly held beliefs should not be disposed of summarily. These are what keep the ground under one's feet. There is no solid research on the subject of tail docking that I am aware of. The so-called research is patently biased and relies exclusively on unpublished data, which can not be criticized; how convenient and also unsound. If a mere fraction of the money spent on propagandizing the public against tail docking, were spent on funding impartial PhD scholarships (supervised in part by those with more impartiality than most of my colleagues seem capable of. The philosophy dept "own" academic ethics and must be involved in these issues. At least they bring some impartiality to bear on a heated topic) then we would all be in a better position to decide on the issue of tail docking now, instead of being just plain propagandised. People have always tattooed others in their social group, circumcised, pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social traditions and serve as social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie evil as the propaganda tells us. Certain practices such as slavery, radical female circumcision, racism, are plainly wrong. It is very hard to decide exactly where to draw the line between such practices and less harmful societal traditions (such as tattooing, less radical circumcisions, piercing etc etc). Just how tolerant should we be as a society? We have absolutely no idea of what the welfare consequences of banning tail docking will be. It could well be that in certain breeds their tails become a health liability. We simply do not know, and yet the dog breeders are being forced into this mass experiment. The solid unbiased research must precede such decrees; even then it could be done in a manner involving all stakeholders. Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:34 PM To: Geiger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans controlling animals Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in his text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially from generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it is powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with tail docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair and unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making an academic comment! ------------------------------------- R. Dawkins, of course, was the person who coined the term meme. Memes have become the subject of a number of books and at least one journal. I, for one, am pleased that the concept has even made its way into dog training info - even if Dawkins' ideas (memes) may have mutated into a form not completely representative of what he originally intended. Dawkins indeed has argued that there are "good" memes and "bad" memes - maybe not with the terms good and bad. But certainly he has argued that "false replicators" can have enormous negative consequences - and thus, should be eliminated. (He often attacks the major religions of the world as sources of "bad" memes. And he most certainly would argue that these traditions such be eliminated - regardless of the number of generations that have continued their replication.) But let's take the contention above that the human practice of "cutting off the tails of animals" can be considered to be a meme. Simply labeling such a practice as a meme is not a supportable basis for arguing that it should be continued. And certainly arguing that it is a "tradition" is not a basis, for if we had used this criterion alone, we would never have acted to eliminate slavery, implement women's suffrage, etc. So yes, maybe it can be argued that "cutting off the tails of animals" is a meme. But it is a deleterious meme. And just as selection pressure can be brought upon deleterious genes, so must (or should) cultural and educational pressures be brought to bear upon the deleterious memes in order to stop their replication. Otherwise, the peoples (and animals) of the world will continue to have all the problems of our current existence. Thus, indeed I would argue that societal selection pressures must/should/will act on this deleterious meme such that the traditional practice of cutting off the tails of animals be eliminated. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 28-OCT-2003 13:37:06.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals You wrote: Third, on the question of humans controlling animals. Animals do not deliberate over actions the way a human might decide what to eat for supper. Animals have been shown to act out of fixed action responses, conditioning, appetite and imprinting. Animals do not have the capacity for abstraction on the same level as humans. Thus, animals do not have only a limited capacity for understanding. The sense are imperfect and therefore understanding arises from the soul. And so it follows that animals do not posses the complete sensational soul. Wherein the part of something must be in harmony with all the other parts to make the whole the animal does not have all the parts for abstraction and does not posses a sensational soul. A animal controlled by humans does not have the capacity to understand because it does not posses the sensational soul as mentioned earlier. Without understanding actions are the result of the innate behaviors aforementioned and the animal is acting merely on reinforcement. A fact that can be confirmed by the methods of any animal trainer. Thus the practice of controlling animals is ethical. Michael Uffenbeck Source for the above statements is based on Aquinas, myself and straight biology. =====your paragraph also reminds me of the philosopher Spinoza. And Creationism. When beginning to study the writing of Spinoza, excitedly thought here's something I can identify with! Until I read his premise on animal existence. That premise followed, of course, from his central points which I didn't understand until later. I can't agree with your summary above mainly because it seems to classify all animal groups as if they were completely pre-programmed and incapable of learning or evolving (is this too much assumption?) You wrote: "Animals do not have the capacity for abstraction on the same level as humans". I'm interested in learning what capacity for abstraction you believe they have. Also if you believe if humans are animals or totally separate beings. Don't get annoyed, I'm not baiting you for flaming or anything like it, I simply am curious about your perspectives. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings! Go to http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134 From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 28-OCT-2003 14:47:55.12 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures >People have always tattooed others in their social group, circumcised, >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social traditions and serve as >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie evil as the propaganda > >tells us.< In what way is there any connection, ethical or otherwise, between what people choose to do to themselves and the involuntary removal of a useful body part from a member of another species? Either there is a clear train of logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by dint of lack of critical reasoning. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 28-OCT-2003 16:15:12.31 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures I wonder when it was that our society started thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I have been hearing a lot lately about the mutilation of monkeys, just so they could become pets. They are pulling out all of their teeth and cutting off their tail so that a diaper fits better. These are things that I had no idea was being done until I got a computer and got on the Pheonix Exotics list. I didn't stay on that list very long. Life is so sad for some animals out there. CeAnn --- Andy Beck wrote: > >People have always tattooed others in their social > group, circumcised, > >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social > traditions and serve as > >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie > evil as the propaganda > > >tells us.< > > > In what way is there any connection, ethical or > otherwise, between what > people choose to do to themselves and the > involuntary removal of a useful > body part from a member of another species? Either > there is a clear train of > logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by > dint of lack of > critical reasoning. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 28-OCT-2003 17:17:04.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: tail docking Regarding the health aspects of not docking dog tails, there should be plenty of experience accumulated in Sweden where the practice has been banned since 1989. I'm not aware of any research reports but I'm sure the Swedish Kennel Club Organisation can provide more information: www.skk.se Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 28-OCT-2003 17:27:59.48 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: more on mutilations ---- Original Message ----- From: "Cecilia Lambert" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:14 PM Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures > I wonder when it was that our society started > thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I could imagine why before genetics was known people thought that cutting off pieces of the animals was the only way to get them to look as desired. But now as we know not only mendelian genetics but also have access to sophisticated systems such as BLUP and breeding indexes, mutilations to conform with breed standards seems to me to be rather like cheating. In a number of dog breeds, pups are born with very short tails, next to no tail at all. If this would be really important for the now docked breeds (well, for their owners, rather), I imagine it's a goal that could be achieved with some breeding efforts. I believe polled (=no horns) Hereford cattle were the result of selective breeding (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong) and can't see why tail-less dogs couldn't be achieved the same way. Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 28-OCT-2003 17:36:39.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Suggesting negative health aspects as a result of not docking seems very dubious. Having kept a variety of tailed and traditionally docked breeds of dogs over the last 35 years or so I am unable to think of one such aspect. Perhaps someone can suggest what these might be? But, were it to be the case that some rare breed of dog did suffer negative health consequences as a result of not being docked then one might reasonably suggest that it is ethically questionable to breed such an animal in the first place. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 12:15 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: tail docking Regarding the health aspects of not docking dog tails, there should be plenty of experience accumulated in Sweden where the practice has been banned since 1989. I'm not aware of any research reports but I'm sure the Swedish Kennel Club Organisation can provide more information: www.skk.se Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 28-OCT-2003 18:25:44.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" Subj: RE: more on mutilations Please excuse me for jumping in here - our wolf centre has received = cattle deceased from de-horning (wolf food). The last one came with the = explanation that, "well, we don't know what happened. We de-horned him = and he just dropped dead." To me, this is apalling. I can't say I know = much (hardly anything in fact) about cattle but I would think there = should be some sort of way to de-horn these animals without causing them = pain, stress, or death. Having never worked with cattle I probably = shouldn't have a strong opinion, but nevertheless I feel that de-horning = must be unnecessary. We would never think of yanking claws and fangs off = of our wolves to make them safer and easier to work with. Vivian Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. > Anna > Glad that you raised the issue of dehorning cattle - it's one of my = "campaigns"!!. I've just looked into it - in cattle (not sure about = goats) the poll gene(s) is/are dominant/epistatic to the horn gene(s) = and, so, it should be very easy to select for polled animals (at least = that's what the geneticists tell me) - or at least that's the case in = Bos taurus animals. I'm less certain what goes on in Bos indicus breeds = because of the african horn gene(s) - I'm not even sure if that gene = occurs in Bos taurus breeds too (maybe somebody out there knows). = Anyway, I've been assured that breeding for polls can be done, and = apparently without detrimental effect on desirable traits. The problem = here is that the studs have superior genes (in terms of productivity) in = horned bulls and are not making the effort to move to poll animals with = superior genetics. I cannot understand this when one considers the = time, labour, production losses, morbidities and mortalities that go = with dehorning - particularly at the age that it tends to be done in the = extensive systems here. >=20 > Carol >=20 > Carol Petherick > Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences=20 > Department of Primary Industries >=20 > Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 > Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 9:28 AM > To: Cecilia Lambert; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: more on mutilations >=20 > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Cecilia Lambert" > To: ; > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:14 PM > Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures >=20 >=20 > > I wonder when it was that our society started > > thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. >=20 > I could imagine why before genetics was known people thought that = cutting > off pieces of the animals was the only way to get them to look as = desired. > But now as we know not only mendelian genetics but also have access to > sophisticated systems such as BLUP and breeding indexes, mutilations = to > conform with breed standards seems to me to be rather like cheating. = In a > number of dog breeds, pups are born with very short tails, next to no = tail > at all. If this would be really important for the now docked breeds = (well, > for their owners, rather), I imagine it's a goal that could be = achieved with > some breeding efforts. I believe polled (=3Dno horns) Hereford cattle = were the > result of selective breeding (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong) and can't = see > why tail-less dogs couldn't be achieved the same way. >=20 > Anna Olsson >=20 > Anna Olsson > Postdoctoral research fellow > Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics >=20 > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > Phone +351 22 607 4900 > Faz +351 22 609 9157=20 >=20 > ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** > The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages=20 > (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally=20 > privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity=20 > to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of=20 > disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken=20 > or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions=20 > contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions=20 > of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received=20 > this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and=20 > delete it from your computer system network.=20 From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 28-OCT-2003 18:46:59.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations Hi Carol, Unfortunately you can't select for the polled gene in goats. There are naturally polled goats, but the pooled gene is genetically linked with a gene for hermaphrodism. So you can't breed polled to polled without getting into trouble. You can breed polled to horned and get a portion of your kids born lacking horns, but that is the closest you can get. I have both horned and dehorned goats at my farm now. The horned goats are pretty nasty to each other --using their horns to good effect. My de-horned goats live with my sheep so they won't get the &*%# beat out of them by the horned goats. Goat horns do serve a physiological purpose besides that of aggression (primarily intraspecies aggression, I would say) and that is for cooling the animal. I know that the people who use goats for packing (usually big wethers are used for this purpose) prefer horned goats because they say the horned ones hold up in the heat better. You can feel this by feeling a goat horn on a warm day--they are using them like heat radiators. I don't know how much of a physiological effect on cooling the horns contribute. One might want to determine how much of a cooling effect horns can actually generate in cattle before choosing to eliminate horns from the gene pool. I can certainly see your point about wishing to breed animals to not have horns in the first place, if your end point is to have a de-horned animal, rather than go through a dehorning procedure--some of which can be pretty nasty. (On the other hand, animals with horns can be pretty nasty to each other so perhaps for the cow it is a toss up.....). With goats, we are stuck with de-horning. Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petherick, Carol" To: "Anna Olsson" ; "Cecilia Lambert" ; Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:52 PM Subject: RE: more on mutilations > Anna > Glad that you raised the issue of dehorning cattle - it's one of my "campaigns"!!. I've just looked into it - in cattle (not sure about goats) the poll gene(s) is/are dominant/epistatic to the horn gene(s) and, so, it should be very easy to select for polled animals (at least that's what the geneticists tell me) - or at least that's the case in Bos taurus animals. I'm less certain what goes on in Bos indicus breeds because of the african horn gene(s) - I'm not even sure if that gene occurs in Bos taurus breeds too (maybe somebody out there knows). Anyway, I've been assured that breeding for polls can be done, and apparently without detrimental effect on desirable traits. The problem here is that the studs have superior genes (in terms of productivity) in horned bulls and are not making the effort to move to poll animals with superior genetics. I cannot understand this when one considers the time, labour, production losses, morbidities and mortalities that go with dehorning - particularly at the age that it tends to be done in the extensive systems here. > > Carol > > Carol Petherick > Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences > Department of Primary Industries > > Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 > Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 9:28 AM > To: Cecilia Lambert; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: more on mutilations > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Cecilia Lambert" > To: ; > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:14 PM > Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures > > > > I wonder when it was that our society started > > thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. > > I could imagine why before genetics was known people thought that cutting > off pieces of the animals was the only way to get them to look as desired. > But now as we know not only mendelian genetics but also have access to > sophisticated systems such as BLUP and breeding indexes, mutilations to > conform with breed standards seems to me to be rather like cheating. In a > number of dog breeds, pups are born with very short tails, next to no tail > at all. If this would be really important for the now docked breeds (well, > for their owners, rather), I imagine it's a goal that could be achieved with > some breeding efforts. I believe polled (=no horns) Hereford cattle were the > result of selective breeding (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong) and can't see > why tail-less dogs couldn't be achieved the same way. > > Anna Olsson > > Anna Olsson > Postdoctoral research fellow > Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics > > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > Phone +351 22 607 4900 > Faz +351 22 609 9157 > > ********************************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%"paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au" "Paul McGreevy" 28-OCT-2003 20:15:41.49 To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Alternatives to mutilation Dear Anna You raise a very interesting point. The good news is that efforts to breed tail-less dogs are already underway, see http://www.steynmere.com/BOBTAILS.html Cheers Paul >I could imagine why before genetics was known people thought that cutting >off pieces of the animals was the only way to get them to look as desired. >But now as we know not only mendelian genetics but also have access to >sophisticated systems such as BLUP and breeding indexes, mutilations to >conform with breed standards seems to me to be rather like cheating. In a >number of dog breeds, pups are born with very short tails, next to no tail >at all. If this would be really important for the now docked breeds (well, >for their owners, rather), I imagine it's a goal that could be achieved with >some breeding efforts. I believe polled (=no horns) Hereford cattle were the >result of selective breeding (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong) and can't see >why tail-less dogs couldn't be achieved the same way. > >Anna Olsson -- Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour Faculty of Veterinary Science Room 206, Gunn Building (B19) Regimental Crescent University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Phone: 61 2 9351 2810 Fax: 61 2 9351 3957 email: paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au Web page: http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/pmcgreevy.shtml VEIN page: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/behaviour.html Web-site: http://www.animalbehaviour.net From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 28-OCT-2003 21:14:41.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: tail docking My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an intact tail. However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction that happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections often as a result. I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it is for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be removed.There is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching the front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the dew claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws at birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and memory power that would make the op a traunatic experience. Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly painful. I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at birth. 15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There was alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it was hanging off by a piece of bone. It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over eventually. I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth. However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these 'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has become a hobby or pasttime. I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and suffers so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in dogs. Sincerely Mary Doran He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 28-OCT-2003 21:50:06.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking We also kept Great Danes - but there were no problems with their tails at all - in fact I found them to be very careful around the house generally. Is the suggestion that Danes should have their tails docked for this reason? Equally I own and work both Rough and Border collies - and have never had any problem with these or Huntaway types either. I very much doubt that anyone would suggest that poorly attached dew claws should not be removed - for exactly the reason given, and not only in working dogs either. There are undoubtedly a good number of customs for which there is no known reason except that - "that's the way we've always done it" - however that is not a sufficient reason for continuing them if they fail to pass reasonable ethical standards. If traditional practices could not be subjected to critical analysis we would be destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over. However, if a practice is sound it should survive such analysis - so there is surely no need for generalised emotional knee jerks in support. It often seems that there are people who would rather attempt to cite, at times disingenuous, reasons for continuing to carry a practice out rather than admitting that it may be wrong to do it - or to have done it in the past. Years ago I was responsible for breeding Jack Russels and docking their tails - I have no problem acknowledging that it was wrong to do so - and now breed and sell with tails. It is to be wondered just how many 'flames' have their basis in vested interest or denial of past excesses. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 4:12 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: tail docking My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an intact tail. However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction that happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections often as a result. I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it is for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be removed.There is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching the front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the dew claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws at birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and memory power that would make the op a traunatic experience. Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly painful. I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at birth. 15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There was alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it was hanging off by a piece of bone. It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over eventually. I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth. However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these 'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has become a hobby or pasttime. I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and suffers so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in dogs. Sincerely Mary Doran He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-OCT-2003 00:18:27.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations Janice Willard wrote: > > Hi Carol, > > Unfortunately you can't select for the polled gene in goats. There are > naturally polled goats, but the pooled gene is genetically linked with a > gene for hermaphrodism. So you can't breed polled to polled without getting > into trouble. You can breed polled to horned and get a portion of your kids > born lacking horns, but that is the closest you can get. > > I have both horned and dehorned goats at my farm now. The horned goats are > pretty nasty to each other --using their horns to good effect. My de-horned > goats live with my sheep so they won't get the &*%# beat out of them by the > horned goats. Goat horns do serve a physiological purpose besides that of > aggression (primarily intraspecies aggression, I would say) and that is for > cooling the animal. I know that the people who use goats for packing > (usually big wethers are used for this purpose) prefer horned goats because > they say the horned ones hold up in the heat better. You can feel this by > feeling a goat horn on a warm day--they are using them like heat radiators. > I don't know how much of a physiological effect on cooling the horns > contribute. One might want to determine how much of a cooling effect horns > can actually generate in cattle before choosing to eliminate horns from the > gene pool. > > I can certainly see your point about wishing to breed animals to not have > horns in the first place, if your end point is to have a de-horned animal, > rather than go through a dehorning procedure--some of which can be pretty > nasty. (On the other hand, animals with horns can be pretty nasty to each > other so perhaps for the cow it is a toss up.....). With goats, we are > stuck with de-horning. I have to wonder to what extent the problems associated with horned livestock are products of unnaturally intensive management systems. Horns and antlers in ungulates serve at least three important behavioral functions. They are used in agonistic and/or sexual display, they are often also used in actual combat (usually more or less ritualized and non-fatal) between rival males, and they may serve as a defense against predators. Horns may also, as Janice notes, serve as cooling devices. In intensive animal husbandry it is of course desirable that animals put the energy obtained from their food into growth and/or production of milk, etc., rather than into agonistic and sexual displays and fighting. It did occur to me to wonder whether giving the same attention to breeding for different behavior as to breeding hornless animals might not be of benefit? The catch would no doubt be that response to selection for, e.g., lower levels of agonistic behavior would act strongly on the hormonal system, and those hormones are of primary importance also in reproduction and in care of the young ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-OCT-2003 00:18:43.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Andy Beck wrote: > Suggesting negative health aspects as a result of not docking seems very > dubious. Having kept a variety of tailed and traditionally docked breeds of > dogs over the last 35 years or so I am unable to think of one such aspect. > Perhaps someone can suggest what these might be? > > But, were it to be the case that some rare breed of dog did suffer negative > health consequences as a result of not being docked then one might > reasonably suggest that it is ethically questionable to breed such an animal > in the first place. One case of which I am aware where the object of docking is not primarily cosmetic concerns certain hunting dogs which if not docked will while working bang their tails into a bloody mess which will eventually have to be amputated anyway - a much more serious proposition in a juvenile or adult dog than in a small puppy. Docking in certain fighting and/or protection breeds probably makes the animal less likely to be damaged more severely, by removing an otherwise convenient "handle" for an attacker. There may be no place in modern society for fighting dogs (though a significant segment of our society appears to disagree ) but there is certainly still a valid place for dogs which protect persons and/or property. Breeding naturally bobtailed or tailless dogs may not be quite the universal panacea as which it may appear. Dr. Cattanach, who produced the bobtailed Boxers by transferring a bobtail gene from the Pembroke Welsh Corgi, could expand on that. One problem is of course the "breed purists" who insist that all such products are "cross bred" no matter how many generations of backcrossing may have taken place or how impeccable the resulting "type" may be. That position is essentially irrational, but no less strongly held for all that, and it is supported by kennel clubs and breed clubs, ever fearful of contamination of a "pure bred" gene pool. Some (many?) bobtail genes are lethal when homozygous, which means that such animals can be maintained only in a heterozygous state, with continued production of lethals in each generation. There is also an "animal rights" faction which insists that every dog should have a tail to wag, so in their view the breeding of tailless or bobtailed animals is just as objectionable as the docking of normally tailed ones. The more extreme of that faction have as their long term objective the elimination of "dominionism" by eliminating all interactions between humans and animals - no livestock, no meat, no milk, no eggs, no wool or silk, no animal products whatsoever, and of course also no hunting and no pets ... a vegan Utopia ... whose effects on the natural world would be no less dire than our present muddled way of doing things, only less obvious because nobody would then be sufficiently involved with animals to notice them. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to live their own lives by vegetarian principles, for example, but disagree profoundly with any attempt to force everyone else to do so. I am not persuaded that herbivores are morally superior to carnivores, nor of the validity of uncritical extension of principles applicable to the conduct of human society to the interactions of different species. That does not mean I trivialize the moral implications of human interactions with other species - quite the opposite, I take them very seriously indeed, as I also do the responsibility which devolves on us as perhaps not the only "thinking" animal, but apparently the only one capable of sustained reflection on our own actions and their effects - the only one subject to the curse of philosophy - but I am very skeptical of simplistic or categorical approaches to these issues. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 29-OCT-2003 01:24:49.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Quite why it might be necessary to raise the issue of vegetarianism in relation to tail docking I am unclear - unless to tangentially imply that the view I expressed is representative of the extreme end of animal rights - and so dismiss validity? If there are such hunting dogs then my feeling is that breeding physically dysfunctional animals (for this is surely what it amounts to?) is unethical. Surely there are other hunting breeds that might do the same work? As far as I am aware fighting with dogs is generally illegal throughout the civilised world - so why offer this in support of docking? Are you saying you support dog fighting also? Is it not the case that dogs use their tails both for social signalling and for balance? Why then would an applied ethologist be supportive of docking? If it is your view that what I have written is "simplistic or Categorical" please address the points specifically rather than by way of a generalised disclaimer tagged on to the end. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 7:14 p.m. To: Applied ethology list Subject: Re: tail docking Andy Beck wrote: > Suggesting negative health aspects as a result of not docking seems very > dubious. Having kept a variety of tailed and traditionally docked breeds of > dogs over the last 35 years or so I am unable to think of one such aspect. > Perhaps someone can suggest what these might be? > > But, were it to be the case that some rare breed of dog did suffer negative > health consequences as a result of not being docked then one might > reasonably suggest that it is ethically questionable to breed such an animal > in the first place. One case of which I am aware where the object of docking is not primarily cosmetic concerns certain hunting dogs which if not docked will while working bang their tails into a bloody mess which will eventually have to be amputated anyway - a much more serious proposition in a juvenile or adult dog than in a small puppy. Docking in certain fighting and/or protection breeds probably makes the animal less likely to be damaged more severely, by removing an otherwise convenient "handle" for an attacker. There may be no place in modern society for fighting dogs (though a significant segment of our society appears to disagree ) but there is certainly still a valid place for dogs which protect persons and/or property. Breeding naturally bobtailed or tailless dogs may not be quite the universal panacea as which it may appear. Dr. Cattanach, who produced the bobtailed Boxers by transferring a bobtail gene from the Pembroke Welsh Corgi, could expand on that. One problem is of course the "breed purists" who insist that all such products are "cross bred" no matter how many generations of backcrossing may have taken place or how impeccable the resulting "type" may be. That position is essentially irrational, but no less strongly held for all that, and it is supported by kennel clubs and breed clubs, ever fearful of contamination of a "pure bred" gene pool. Some (many?) bobtail genes are lethal when homozygous, which means that such animals can be maintained only in a heterozygous state, with continued production of lethals in each generation. There is also an "animal rights" faction which insists that every dog should have a tail to wag, so in their view the breeding of tailless or bobtailed animals is just as objectionable as the docking of normally tailed ones. The more extreme of that faction have as their long term objective the elimination of "dominionism" by eliminating all interactions between humans and animals - no livestock, no meat, no milk, no eggs, no wool or silk, no animal products whatsoever, and of course also no hunting and no pets ... a vegan Utopia ... whose effects on the natural world would be no less dire than our present muddled way of doing things, only less obvious because nobody would then be sufficiently involved with animals to notice them. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to live their own lives by vegetarian principles, for example, but disagree profoundly with any attempt to force everyone else to do so. I am not persuaded that herbivores are morally superior to carnivores, nor of the validity of uncritical extension of principles applicable to the conduct of human society to the interactions of different species. That does not mean I trivialize the moral implications of human interactions with other species - quite the opposite, I take them very seriously indeed, as I also do the responsibility which devolves on us as perhaps not the only "thinking" animal, but apparently the only one capable of sustained reflection on our own actions and their effects - the only one subject to the curse of philosophy - but I am very skeptical of simplistic or categorical approaches to these issues. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" 29-OCT-2003 02:21:05.86 To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations John Burchard wrote: > I have to wonder to what extent the problems associated with horned livestock > are products of unnaturally intensive management systems. Horns and antlers in > ungulates serve at least three important behavioral functions. They are used in > agonistic and/or sexual display, they are often also used in actual combat > (usually more or less ritualized and non-fatal) between rival males, and they > may serve as a defense against predators. Horns may also, as Janice notes, > serve as cooling devices. I would add to this list, the use of horns as a quasi-tool or implement. Years ago we maintained a small herd (15) of Scottish Highland cattle on 197 acres. I soon discovered that "fencing" (4 strand barbed) and "gates" were litle more than a tacit agreement and not a reliable restraint. The bull, when the mood struck him, would simply wrap his horns, catching the wire and weaving them back and forth, and remove whatever fencing was in his way. His technique with gates was to hook and lift, usually on the hinged side. He and the "girls" would then go walk-about. The local ranchers got a good laugh and delighted in leaving messages on the answering maching informing me that the cows were out again - they saw us as "city-folks" and knew we had no horses with which to chase them down. I resorted to my area of "expertise" and simply called the bull before putting out cow cubes or hay. In a very short time the herd would come reliably from anywhere on the ranch (and I could fix the fence). Highlands have the unusual trait of natural rotation - they spend 3-4 days in one area and then move to a completely different area of the ranch. When I timed the "recall practice" to coincide with an anticipated move they no longer left the boundaries... a point at which we co-existed in peace. Horns are also useful (and used) to reach and scratch a particularly irritating itch OBi Fox From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 29-OCT-2003 02:32:35.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations "Highlands have the unusual trait of natural rotation - they spend 3-4 days in one area and then move to a completely different area of the ranch. When I timed the "recall practice" to coincide with an anticipated move they no longer left the boundaries... a point at which we co-existed in peace." Thank you for a great example of applied ethology. I think this rotation may be more common than thought - but confinement generally prevents the expression of this behavior. Given a sufficiently large area horses appear to do something quite similar. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: OBi Fox [mailto:slvnhld@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 10:20 p.m. To: John Burchard; Applied ethology list Subject: Re: more on mutilations John Burchard wrote: > I have to wonder to what extent the problems associated with horned livestock > are products of unnaturally intensive management systems. Horns and antlers in > ungulates serve at least three important behavioral functions. They are used in > agonistic and/or sexual display, they are often also used in actual combat > (usually more or less ritualized and non-fatal) between rival males, and they > may serve as a defense against predators. Horns may also, as Janice notes, > serve as cooling devices. I would add to this list, the use of horns as a quasi-tool or implement. Years ago we maintained a small herd (15) of Scottish Highland cattle on 197 acres. I soon discovered that "fencing" (4 strand barbed) and "gates" were litle more than a tacit agreement and not a reliable restraint. The bull, when the mood struck him, would simply wrap his horns, catching the wire and weaving them back and forth, and remove whatever fencing was in his way. His technique with gates was to hook and lift, usually on the hinged side. He and the "girls" would then go walk-about. The local ranchers got a good laugh and delighted in leaving messages on the answering maching informing me that the cows were out again - they saw us as "city-folks" and knew we had no horses with which to chase them down. I resorted to my area of "expertise" and simply called the bull before putting out cow cubes or hay. In a very short time the herd would come reliably from anywhere on the ranch (and I could fix the fence). Highlands have the unusual trait of natural rotation - they spend 3-4 days in one area and then move to a completely different area of the ranch. When I timed the "recall practice" to coincide with an anticipated move they no longer left the boundaries... a point at which we co-existed in peace. Horns are also useful (and used) to reach and scratch a particularly irritating itch OBi Fox From: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen" 29-OCT-2003 04:04:44.60 To: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Vedr.: tail docking Hi All, Mary, could you provide a reference for this?: "The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws = at birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an = adult dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and = memory power that would make the op a traunatic experience." I have a reference claiming that the level of pain (in relation to tail = docking) may actually be greater in newborn puppies because their neural = development is not yet complete (ie in contrast to what is commonly = believed). (Wansbrough, RK: Cosmetic tail docking of dogs. AVJ, vol 74, no = 1 July 1996, pp59-63) Our Animal Ethics Council discussed tail docking a few years ago and found = very limited scientifc information. Except for five hunting breeds = cosmetic tail docking has been banned in Denmark since 1991. There are - = to my knowledge - no reports in Denmark that non-hunting dogs suffer from = more tail injuries than dogs from other breeds. As for allowing tail = docking of the hunting breeds the argument is that it is the better choice = of two evils. In short our Council recommended a total ban on tail = docking, ie for all breeds, as injuries can be prevented by other, more = humane initiatives such as breeding for better tail strength or avoid = using the dog in ways/vegetation knowing to cause harm. Those who can read = Danish and are interested in the report can find it at (Udtalelse om = halekupering): http://www.jm.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=3Ddocument&objno=3D50862=20 FYI according to the European Convention on the protection of pets tail = docking for cosmetic or convenience reasons is prohibited (13. November = 1987, chap. 2, art. 10 and explanatory report). Finally, for those interested in the medical, ethical and other arguments = concerning tail docking I can recommend reading the chapter "Should the = tail wag the dog" in: The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical = Choice by F. Barbara, Ph.D. Orlans (Editor), Tom L. Beauchamp (Editor), = Rebecca Dresser (Editor), David B. Morton (Editor), John P., Ph.D. Gluck = (Editor), Oxford University Press 1998. Stine Stine B. Christiansen cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. Det Dyreetiske R=E5d/The Danish Animal Ethics Council Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk = Assessment Den Kgl. Veterin=E6r- og Landboh=F8jskole/The Royal Veterinary and = Agricultural University Bioetik/Bioethics Gr=F8nneg=E5rdsvej 8 1870 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen Denmark tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 fax: +45 3528 3022 e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk=20 >>> mary doran 29-10-03 04:11 >>> My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an intact tail. However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction = that happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections often as a result. I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it = is for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be removed.Ther= e is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching = the front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the = dew claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws = at birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and = memory power that would make the op a traunatic experience. Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly painful. I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at = birth. 15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There = was alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it = was hanging off by a piece of bone. It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over eventually. I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we = have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered= through these procedures not being carried out at birth. However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these 'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has become a hobby or pasttime. I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and = suffers so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in dogs. Sincerely Mary Doran He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 29-OCT-2003 04:44:02.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: early memory of traumatic experiences In relation to the discussion below, I remember reading that by using non-verbal ways of assessing memory one can actually find that emotional memories are formed (and remain) very early in human infants. The example I recall was the memory of having been circumsized (male) as an infant without anaesthesia. (Arguments for doing this at all, and for doing it in neonates resemble arguments in favour of tail docking in dogs). I'm not quite sure about the original reference, but one interesting reference I found during a quick search is indicated below. The reseaerchers found that babies who had been circumsized without anaesthesia reacted stronger to the pain at routine vaccination at 4 months of age than babies who had not been circumsized or had been circumsized with local anaesthesia. Anna 1.. Taddio A, Koren G et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet, Vol. 349: Pages 599-603 (March 1, 1997) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stine B Christiansen" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: Vedr.: tail docking > Hi All, > > Mary, could you provide a reference for this?: > "The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws at birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and memory power that would make the op a traunatic experience." > > I have a reference claiming that the level of pain (in relation to tail docking) may actually be greater in newborn puppies because their neural development is not yet complete (ie in contrast to what is commonly believed). (Wansbrough, RK: Cosmetic tail docking of dogs. AVJ, vol 74, no 1 July 1996, pp59-63) > > Our Animal Ethics Council discussed tail docking a few years ago and found very limited scientifc information. Except for five hunting breeds cosmetic tail docking has been banned in Denmark since 1991. There are - to my knowledge - no reports in Denmark that non-hunting dogs suffer from more tail injuries than dogs from other breeds. As for allowing tail docking of the hunting breeds the argument is that it is the better choice of two evils. In short our Council recommended a total ban on tail docking, ie for all breeds, as injuries can be prevented by other, more humane initiatives such as breeding for better tail strength or avoid using the dog in ways/vegetation knowing to cause harm. Those who can read Danish and are interested in the report can find it at (Udtalelse om halekupering): > > http://www.jm.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=50862 > > FYI according to the European Convention on the protection of pets tail docking for cosmetic or convenience reasons is prohibited (13. November 1987, chap. 2, art. 10 and explanatory report). > > Finally, for those interested in the medical, ethical and other arguments concerning tail docking I can recommend reading the chapter "Should the tail wag the dog" in: The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice by F. Barbara, Ph.D. Orlans (Editor), Tom L. Beauchamp (Editor), Rebecca Dresser (Editor), David B. Morton (Editor), John P., Ph.D. Gluck (Editor), Oxford University Press 1998. > > Stine > > > Stine B. Christiansen > cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. > > Det Dyreetiske Råd/The Danish Animal Ethics Council > Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment > > Den Kgl. Veterinær- og Landbohøjskole/The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University > Bioetik/Bioethics > Grønnegårdsvej 8 > 1870 Frederiksberg C > Copenhagen > Denmark > > tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 > fax: +45 3528 3022 > e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk > > > >>> mary doran 29-10-03 04:11 >>> > My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an > intact tail. > However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction that > happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. > Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she > often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. > I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very > enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections > often as a result. > I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. > It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it is > for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be removed.There > is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. > Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching the > front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the dew > claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. > The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws at > birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult > dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and memory > power that would make the op a traunatic experience. > Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. > On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is > actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly > painful. > I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at birth. > 15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There was > alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. > I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it was > hanging off by a piece of bone. > It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result > is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over > eventually. > I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner > anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little > fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. > We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have > not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed > centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered > through these procedures not being carried out at birth. > However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these > 'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has > become a hobby or pasttime. > I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds > such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and suffers > so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. > I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in > dogs. > > Sincerely > Mary Doran > > He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. > He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 29-OCT-2003 05:45:00.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: Kayce Cover in Australia For those who may be interested: http://www.petdogtraining.com.au/kayce.html Cissy From: IN%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "Daniela Lexer" 29-OCT-2003 07:09:46.60 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE Proceedings 1995 Dear all, a colleague of mine is looking for the ISAE proceedings 1995. Would be great if anyone can help her. There`s her request: Dear colleagues, Recently I've stumbled over the following quotation from the proceedings of the 29th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology which took place in 1995, Exeter, UK: Rutter/Rushen/Randle/Eddison (1995): Proceedings of the 29th Internat. Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. Unfortunaltely, none of the Austrian libraries has got this volume. The quotation I found does not name any specific article of the volume, but only refers to pp 21-22. Does anybody happen to have a spare volume for me to buy or else could anybody possibly make copies of the article containing these pages and send it to me? Thank you very much in advance, yours sincerely, Regina Binder ------------------ DDr. Regina Binder Tierschutz- & Veterinärrecht Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien Veterinärplatz 1 A-1210 Wien Tel.: ++431/250 77-1040 Fax: ++431/250 77-1090 mail: regina.binder@vu-wien.ac.at -- Dr.med.vet. Daniela Lexer Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna A-1210 Vienna, Austria NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien... Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++ From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 29-OCT-2003 07:19:27.51 To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Hi Anna, there had been a report from Sweden (please look into the litlist of the defra- oppininion), though i would suggest to read it very critical. Attached you might find the DEFRA opinion INFORMATION ON DOG TAIL DOCKING PROVIDED FOR THE ANIMAL WELFARE DIVISION dated from 2002, which lines up in a very nice the different arguments on tail docking. And - you might argue "as usual" - i would like to give you information on the the german legislation: Article 6 (1) The amputation of all or part of parts of the body or the removal or destruction of all or parts of organs or tissues of a vertebrate shall be prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply if: 1. the operation in the specific case a) is necessary according to veterinary indication or b) is essential in the case of hounds (means: hunting dogs: breeded from hounds and intended to be used for hunting) for the intended use of the animals and there are no objections by the veterinarian; Greetings Andreas Andreas Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:15:22 +0000 From: Anna Olsson Subject: tail docking To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Regarding the health aspects of not docking dog tails, there should be plenty of experience accumulated in Sweden where the practice has been banned since 1989. I'm not aware of any research reports but I'm sure the Swedish Kennel Club Organisation can provide more information: www.skk.se Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 29-OCT-2003 07:20:50.67 To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking --Boundary_(ID_pqrQtuXT56wrmGS1Y6eyKQ) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT * This message contains the file 'Maff_Schwanzamputation.pdf', which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. --Boundary_(ID_pqrQtuXT56wrmGS1Y6eyKQ) Content-type: APPLICATION/OCTET-STREAM; NAME=Maff_Schwanzamputation.pdf Content-transfer-encoding: X-UUENCODE Content-disposition: attachment; filename=Maff_Schwanzamputation.pdf begin 600 Maff_Schwanzamputation.pdf M)5!$1BTQ+C,-)>+CS],-"C,T,R`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+TQI;F5AF4@,S8S#2]);F9O(#,S."`P(%(@#2]2;V]T(#,T M-"`P(%(@#2]07!E("]3=')U8W14,^QEOT-^UJVQ^R\;"ZL`0P,21'3 M5#N[)TU6@>IEZFDRNK-,E4FSS76C;Z%+XL2B$BB1$BWRJ..D\XQE'CH8&#@Z&A@8!#L`))`@H'9-`)(LD:`N'!!!F9CBXX.J#H@E093 M`D2A'1WX_`($&@R,[=U`FA^(1<`BF@S\C'R,'UA72`>(+@`:SU7"?(7I!Z-) MTJ_&=>>.JC44,'HDWF"MX%\`\;\N`^-BD`&"0,?>9V!@#&!@_+<9%"Y`[`?$ M=@R,:[*`XD(,#$&>$"T``08``YUC(@UE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3,V,B`P M(&]B:@TS,#D@#65N9&]B:@TS-#8@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]4>7!E("]086=E(`TO M4&%R96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@,S0W(#`@4B`-+T-O;G1E;G1S M(#,U,R`P(%(@#2]3=')U8W1087)E;G1S(#$@#2]-961I84)O>"!;(#`@,"`U M.34@.#0R(%T@#2]#7!E("]47!E("]& M;VYT1&5S8W)I<'1O"(KD3&9&(PH"+NYR[CFGKS^S M[[^?7'^XG=^Q!(428)`B[O)E0Z0N0"1"7#[;O[Q9_;YUT]? MYG?W=PS1V.*7>W;SC;LQ&W1CU(&19&`6A;L#509UQE%#\WZM>K57)1+>39=\Q6HD/\ M==.RLMGN1*NZIM:AKDPL`O$(PXE#1);I^E]4O]&@0I9]TZI25)=,U*)OMN;S M4F[$LVJ&5J]6'O!\G%[JP^4F/7H$SZ]8.;0M4,I,I4VM(>4JM@GJ:#Y!C?S" MA'$(P7=*[K=W`7N0S[(5E8<\EF$G\'MW*^`KGP7>:.'KNRM:J=^W^-N9/5[) MKFS54JYT1UNYS]WO"A-]K_H!=^KP2&G7-J5<#:T,SF`G_Q8)ABS)PB#UZS*" MY>]3'EQ<13S-`CZ=UWW;K(:R5W:R)UY6?!NH21(&Q0BH=CFC,$O=*SD#T_`H MF=XY8':Z5G1ARVR7-$$XK!;9`5AS&Y*'EL"(K#9-V\N:'L/$1(U_:BNJOSHS MI.6K!RL%>X-6BWX>.O2+[6[H!77B.YU9*[?-,T!!H4U2,U01'G$V(LQ,A*JZ MQI;TCDLIB8"Q>4^U[IJN4\M*THQ+T6+L"C<.^)U;*8K^)D>_`I%=@1)800R] M!*)ZEMTEFB#E3E^IQ':)"SOUU)E\\R"*]Y0=I[90?3/NJF2/V]ENV.WTRN,J MH9UV=.6WB"*\R>HMQK$E&$0GNX"=P2L/S]%G7"1!II$3[HGS;!A^-DS.#P#H M1I.ZT8#5-0#39&KF8?<0C$EUMYB$JB5^VK4"V^#[%QV`L'!AB\R$[;#8*/^W M=TP\@>"&JL?6@I$0")?U0/:=C(XZ:4$-\\$M!FF,LNM8UU``.Z2`S1U7$6J4 M'2^\R.P4848.+40D&ZQ5;[(T0V*/4[!=K2D,U\U%FZ2.."9-O\IHJ='9==ML M68-D2!0&T`=!9RM>]!;4[ZZ0-$PJ)9&?]C0`UH\TIU$H]KHT(]>I%5M91[5?#N MYZ2BA'SF`J[4LUH-Y`/T$"[9"V".GE/)_G5[`V0U96SC_7'"V.RI2ZT4M45^ MWTK1&WBT$B;#GBJXRVU*#2'GI&'NNKS7)FT)1IH?!YP[CO\_&/3L@6&6I"=\ MK"?YWZ>19OA@7+#F[1+DVZHGP-MRWD?I3B\%/[$I4>QHY87]4PJBI8"]%0@3VE"] MG;X.=\;^\LR*@Z$#VY6/TK_ADMT,70^64>*2N?3"["1Q1J'EA=\>;C1!W6+! M5@+(5%77CUV^83&?7WCL>%(_4D/E*%(0MYA.S>F,AA?0E\\O8&>1E)Y#4@0M MSD;:DN!.VU-(19-XPT-="0\ M8J!+06LO1NQEM-%"J?4&C?>"Y&J#-RG,[L!+&O@FU>GQ1,9LFV6&62 M=S0+2SJ4GI,;E]WA^[\P/F"A M1SS/]QX!)E*G('4"5+*@F'7OC.JA+CBO&T7>Z]**6$W8JNI/N((?15O+OC>( MQ'ZF;C\/76_J8]E\9(_N^J?L5D=!S+^2P9071?%X$;`[V>W@3PAD5Q%\>G%N M)GEA%U7^!Y:_4\\T!P"^5T\H!#]U.$*1%U&.\),WJNW@7[C$S2I!8EL)EFY+ MD'W'<"*5X&E)>B:,7_?FZ%B]G>#&4>KD<=GU."DJ$!#-!MSOH+>$M5BKG@S8 MK9.D*/?^G,>IW8\O'VY8A)91?]A"2Y`PLL-Q6W&`L<0EX$A'$@Q*V=9TO!*] MM41?D?;02[MUA&7STOW%Q%)5JG\EI`V=+D6UYEB%*S[]\"`91UHSIQDK\AIL M7>FY=-H/P3YJ*GV<_B*WW0L.<)LW@+NR@4^W.LX=8VO<'<%NEIWJ3UR$MC\, MR$LNV6=)SI5^B!\O-%DTRPY.23@^SDXZ_[B86:=.RV/1`JYJ#&2V8@4!6GOO ME1`C5#"WM[T;43Y)\40?A(';19KL7KMT8U#&>HSRU\\-L'.,! M8I5H_SR&D?3V)3M:-6]>"BNVG0(UB':/*')8Y:9MB`UQ<:5,%SS0P%KN2$)" MZ(K4YP-3%:VGJM>RI"=Q5A7X^7%JIN&9[^@08H&56F*>FK%=LEH.Z)"@O+:& MSD8T9GR28S&K`F:4Y MZO:;`6+3C)`0I^=2Y$ED4W04>>#;P01ZPR$F1HA<@DGD:6V?'X)Q!WK#A)=, MD4%_O=21R$E:MQ0\3ID&L,^1(I[.,?)EHW\A]>^AV6(+=XI.7I`%,+&!*%/: MV/EM2@]\3JU):'!J0D[28EI%^VRRN-3LT4T6R3U"`3-+&;TAG_''.CW(+ZRL7!E("]4J4:* MU!*>8@=L09#:4FV)4A#03B`M`:R"K5;]5*0@I=9':J6*A7X(4BW"3L]L0DSZ M?77NSLPYYS_GGN?ZP\(-W_!((/\72LNJ%X?IE)_^H`W>Q MC+94+VDP5E\8^C?&W@6TV7/J[U[8)/^5!.AYS-]R]X+[YZP]F?$G('T%,"%4 M5QNN.?KNKC&\W^=L,[*.!8E9^F=`/.,85+>P8>G?KTQL8)[]R:4+%E>'MQQZ M:#@PNXW]/;\PO+1>VX%7V'X-ZQN+P@MK%[UR(@"$9C">6[_XW@:.FZ_0O MOZ>V_LKQW;%`8@:04*,=0D;TWHD,E066.1]=OR-SG8]_%G&DP&]M,5I.!+2J6AF`R%+]CCKW$-CR(),["5>F,0DG$;)I-B'3\VT#9G MB7,68_$(FIP#M,K9S?B/\3*^Y`C>5X11*&/]VU"+L_(,@L[/$(-UB,<83*=D MA'&*UV6.83.VX'EZP/F2O29A%>]7@`F8X!QUKF((-JB-VNG8WV`3#I/N5#MS M,0`#80F_<\KY`%D(XDGLY9C\=$1-@@_SL1:/4:I\F:E'\10BE"#NE$7:"^QI M,F['(GP/%G;C->I-Y=II[8+S?>=CZ.B#P1S37)RE$31%[%`)SCCG'HZ/:,.U'UU8ZVYUGD<#Q#.6*E+&?*JS& M4;R*SW!1-#J-F(0*]OP2]2>#LKCBIT2J6"Z6RQ.XB;.]DZ.]#[^`S1TYA,/X M'=?FKVC#&4JB=/H.5=$FNB@21(TX)K?)%GE2D7J:ZVTBDVO4@!WX+5['&SA& M&N]_,Y73/%I,/Z''J4W8XISX0L6HU>HK=4W+BK1%OG+*G,OHAS3D_8$[GZJ\CFR#.1X\X!YSC/3D_>/PLE7-&5/!4[\`).\.Y_P7OX MT)T?WG\,S:2[V,N]]!!MH6?H)3I.GW*6B*Z!8HPH9J^+Q3UDN\(]X3_Q27I28'RI'RNW*[M&6K?$O^0WE5EKI)#553U4SE<&>&:;=H%=HN M;8_VHG9!+]!K]'K]$\\JSYJ8UZ\-N?9^!)&ZB!W9S[,;PY.TC"OQ!)IX[ENX M!Z]Q1=_DB-OP.7NY:B!JC[U#+U4[53M:CCVJW:0EY-V@O:$>VX=E6[ MJ@L]3<_0<_5Y^B[]0X_N&>DI]_S0<])S*::>,F@(1VZ@RR52^1L<(':+)-5( MYUG0GQ02.7,_]Z&"OXI+&"\CW)>>+LZQ]16IJH]KJ1'#'CZ--HKGQ&&:B!91(&X7/Y>@,[0+ M9WC>EV(+S:=[L8?.4S[]@$91(TZ*9%E!:U#@-`E%L329+H`CP$I5@[OPC1>- MYM/Z;.0)U4,]P.=3*[9R1_?B`WH:5TASSO'I)ODT"O,ILX'G?2W<4^]._LX: M^7M,Y1-D@7X,+<1_!3RC]'%J&2[@/SA;6%@X?MS8@C'YH_-&C1C^[6%#;\Z] M*2?;/^1;@V_,RAQD#O09-PSHGY&>EMHO);EO4I_>O;R)/7LDQ,?%QGAT34E! MR`Z8)2'#S@K9*LN<-"G'Y=7:P9<26B>8<>:$\TZ:UZ(6Y-FV9A^OV]? M6EKA0:<-:0'#FE%I^NSQZ68P7)S1G`1K^OW[4PN-U.Y(3G:SMU=[89M[)G80 M"3VZ$K6=6)2*JKM4Z?3.RI(;D3F9!\(VJ@V.I-+DG/+<1VT>K.H\5N,K2&QE MUW!'YMJQ12'+F^_*77M;R_2:AG49/`'F^7/=)>$.B9[IO0R7=.>D<]08OT[; M?K\]9(@[(IXB[BG'."[*C\C)7M(J1IKU7H-?7#Z4%66*)TQT[+BNF$E?`!95HEIE%@A M*]SJK*@R#:]I'10[Q4ZK/A"ZWM!6Y]#Z=+MD0Y"3J*/\'+C%]HR+E*$H!DZ3 M\X>8J.2_I)=M;%/7&<>?<^SX.H$D)D592I2>F[BV@UV#DY*Z$8Q>@?=`9:!CK(_D0.('O4RBOP[CJX>NA)CM1%V)VX-YMPH/(_TQMWJ3F MC7GY1"S+]1Q@,#_0`Z@OF\!WT/.7KD MVF'_OH('T6="2HZ[NB>40_QWY1E7_5;7L.H0VH]B/7X#78-^+W/>E3HC-:F^ M9LG&9RO_A)^3YT-^5^<)>RK/CMP_N7=UGZJS-%@;4U/MK)[!7+\#9AAZ%.IV M7*:#-77;7ZW1\Q/'J/ M61VB)=+`?\U2[%\(RM.*=&KA'UCA/R!\VEK4Q0*?YM-&6]CP&$%CQA;RA(*A M&9ONT8-Z6)_1(RY^ENKH`C^#/L_@&B:=3^)X3I(!3?-)RQXV(W?X&"U!G"9P MS:M2!M>L*N$1E%SW6K]0I0%^FO9`''V,0R>@">@D=F^:OPZ]`;T)O:5JQJ`< M=!P/A5D061!9$%E%9$%D061!9!615=ESD"0R(#(@,B`RBLB`R(#(@,@H0HXW M`R*CB"2()(@DB*0BDB"2()(@DHI(@DB"2"K"`&&`,$`8BC!`&"`,$(8B#!`& M"$,1(1`A$"$0(46$0(1`A$"$%!$"$0(14H0.0@>A@]`5H8/00>@@=$7H('00 MNB)<(%P@7"!P\N/D58[^E(^1<#)+A)LCK?@7L`=Z"3H&78#FH&N0IDHWH+]`%=YG M=-F;M3W:!6U.NZ;5S6EEC3<[]C@N..81>OXL7F`? MPX!U"N-]2["4L=Z[4ZQ`8:]O)_XSG;VR^@UA>9\21;98MDRQ34VHI[1,L&I['`&]G,_">-5"_S^+K! M7;5\(5C1\NV!_=;R'1:1>G:%?$P.]"/LW"7XG"5NHOG#JEVVQ%7814ML@[UH M^;;`ABW?=1%I9`=P&Y?H_IH/8M[2]UEB"&%[+;$9%K!\7AGM1R(/6C>S%-V$ M>VK4X]5,;DMLAW59HE]&.\DG-YXY**B&5P=)M\UC0+<76,K.C'7BEC@O5H'_ M`PN+X_$GO6B'W?`4V9#1(!:#OT)P1%B1!AF/^T.AYJ;TC\2,9U+\''TQSQ7Q MOM@BS@:+3E1/8=R3*H4E3N'=X)+QB)@0(3$6O"E&Q6YQ2.P3+WI0;XF#8E$. MD](LQ2]=$4ET^!QFX;'$LYZB&N(N\7UA")_HUQ?E^M+3U7[#P46Y`M1;S?X$ MUM?O*;6KLHO+*R[R<98S)Z?=9#YB2_#$8)0ES*67 M*7%8-[\<=!=9`QZ]Z]Q19K8D*+$_:CX=2!2URCXS'$B86G(X56#L;!JU)O]1 MD='^5)%59-7I=OF.6V!T>JI]@1A[]/14.DUMK:\-M`VT[-S0ORNVQB53NP;N M?]H>+':8[R8&4^9L1]KLE85*1SIAGAS4#Z86>#-OC,<6>).T=&K!GN7-\7VR MWIZ-I1%V4X7A-#56BIFQ4,/Q.#$@(T5O%X5Y=992D:QE%M7`]NL.A(" M(4&A0E@C"=618"J9N?5^B*<6TG%=,XM/:>CK"RA,8!!L#&93I8"+(`5-!K(01K/._(:7ZC@:69^4T?OL=_A M#GX"XJ@Y;FWMZ95-Q^>[/+U&$2%;^ZK>[5=N;>KL18;Y,%#IGO]R72W`31QG M>'=O3Z?3W4EW>IQ>EB5A64X01+)E9)1XZB,.`4*$H5`;EQ'0/,HKH1@"YA68 MSF!,)I/:,S0Q;9E@VHY_Q_[L3M:9,A49[:?O4]JK.TLZIG54FZ.W)06`>/%@4*`W<:C5BL,;8!%_""+`4G(/C"WH9# MCQ\G6#=Q>5*C.1!+=099.*ICY#6;6)TPIW$4\?@(]B!/3!ZI'JN>)P]79\:J M40VTY5$HRA-A):R40@%A%XV&F/Y1C45W48CV&W%W+Q1O82^,%=%<9#JRD*@- M(G\()>!I+UVQR1.#O\QFQE!-9J@\D83_VHN]V*O?A)"-ZL=O4BO;CZSPPEYM M[F;+'DL7[N:Z^2YK+_\7WERO-*J-OOK@"F6ENM*W(FA.D[0IQ:>D.62.:2;_ MI-3%?T`NFL[QYZ0KY)KI,G]94F1/R$,\!L*E=K72DS-+05O<1FP:W-ERB`T, MUE%,?9.<@X(W_/'9POPR0_/DD:;,$*H9BC495WD"9U$VBRO][`,-F/1"YA@70*8C"!XUQ6DUA$@S1$CU!*O9:3N`MWH@F@JS,& MBT!?3?5P=BA=GD#9<%@Q<=-2D:HD$]5O_OK#M9@D;M"2]IGCD8N[#0Z3"%$1 M9A#`)=JR$YX>7Y__?7K!,^`9\`[XS+7^VJ+:0+WW-_1U3S?-%9E-OA`<;ZM\ MLVFMI]9;ZS-'/!%OQ,>H45I/]WCV^_<7[0]T%W4'S'84D`.A0'E@4V!7H#WP M:<`<,'A1G:[*`)%%6T`&WHFA%0T$9)@#.$)Y4!,6X2$2#.S'G M8/E!5<5U,&5?T#8H-Q-O\7T"APL,5E=G9"!Q+-9T`P03?VZ/.-BU>: M]:^\V'S^RNU9F:0^,DO%K'[WEYB_]J>:AA\M?7[UMJ*OWO_7V\\>>V;&\/RH MP40&_.`')AY&'VKQU]37W!==S+:B5XM(CCG$=CE[F)-LC_.JY^]>L^K$84CG M%+L=:C@HR:(ECR,:KTEM$I$DK.8QT6Q!1]Q!'`9XCIR?Q0#H"1E4`^J"I5=` M-\V524?$?D!85.7!G<&VX('@X>![039XG1NLB^"(+Z8.NIOQ(/).?F"5X7MF M`7TIZ7CV'MQ&8=P.88!<22.C+/P`3(`-91VE!=\44..JU`?P_8`DP64N)Z=" M@4HF13)8EM8O:&A>_\/4W.#ZS8OGS/ZIH(_Y7_SSEDLOK_AX1X?^Y4<7].]P M2WCEVEWK5F]W?<&L:GAJ\7/+I[0<6++KA3UG-OA/MYS1;WT!7@%0Z1.`IP5) MZ**6%D-2FA>]8DQ<**X1/Q=-0Q(V4966TH>DV=(2J4OJEQ"E\`*"<\QQ MMLV"+08-=AG.:.]Q#.>SU9"=A!"O]21^&L\N./9&DSR2S8!O#=/60/`=RU8; M"-K3!0CMZ5;VD1A]63YGL]D,60*0,8C%TW!22;I*%*Q@LF/L#V3[-ST]^BW] M,"X;87XWNO2_^A52C/^C"Z"I):"I:6P.W"UK#YNM(;'*/M,^Q_LKZ4UKA_VJ ME;C'H+ M*O)+8I[\6)."EKB%6`S!67).0V2"4ZT,.1-.S" MG2'"&R#&0L,(>G+!\]`1>Z#);),R`:(50,0/A%E0Y?8`7+E4L@*!%B'B M1Y9@C[@ILWCKEI]L67ZCG=P<^W;*TF=.8;JJ3?]@'.$M@64_:VMO;5T3)G?U M.W?B^JTK)WYQ]BJHK@$0GPRJD+>J)\A'\H"3.X4NP>L4I=,ML]EZ MH5MX5_B;<$6PA`4L,!P*"G&!Q(4:H4Y@!&/!PDG2B1C\5B\AF')PA@0#'HMS M&/8]RS4KJ6,PXY-@TR/>`Z':R!7@NK%"HI2'"K+!]]<>-?4C=P[4$1E,#A$PES(%@9 MS8_?UIJA<4&YX/B,_8RC+L%M=WTN'/(=\N>*NLMR40XD^7V^QN]FQV[';V5I&.X#.#D"LZ)%] MT/H?V]4:W,1UA??>W;O:75FRM+(D6WYH)4?V(F$AC(SQX*"%$N+@@AQ,H9`( MFX:2D:9O"$#5M!GX4 M2#)A8#H4,H"6GKNR79,R.[MW5]K9.>?<[_O.=T(BO0^PWC`*TRK$PO$P#J?Q M5NA9)S6'JS"ZK"15@GM*4$D)+]M4I%(\B?!F1-54K(+)U&RRQ>M',7_<<#SM6T,_./VD_'&MOM+>9 M5PF;A7?)N\([UG<<1Y@^]HBUU_Z^XPQSWG[288\Z9IAG65KLTQRM#KZ(=+EV MNK^P72X@BQPH1U9O\0@@JY8C*K'Y%"`J+;7%(&MZB=K3XZL0]IP<8ZO MEL),7$:R)Y#C;=X0OMX>-*>/Y^M`Q'/63)O:#GQ=BIK+FIMZ'JQ&YDN7D5W_ MM;Y"7Z*_<8PM>;5[]9:M&U)003I?G"!IF"XD5-W'F!YF-+&V+LJK<#$9$%-K MHKP&%WC*:$V^2O@/+L.8(.BB*HW(&\/4DEC>8F8Q;F,7DD5"N_0EFS^9A\8K M(E821@RB/`3X;J:2/9M.;TIG`A74RV^OI- MIT_#!C0>,,-@60:#91_#/M0/"9R4?JA#:1X^GPL',CG8%ER M0O]=*GMTI7X6CT5UP?-GT13],$D_^"E6LE=`7;JATO.@T@[PR<.9S[7Q7<%, M/EYD?3%XC;O#<:+/*?+J<%_`)7N=<2>../<[L=-94.X/R`Y!*0@@!A=7+N-3 M/.8;U'6\+)P*KPMW!,6E'`$%*3`KS"*(P+6 ML1>_=KAJ9//`:)$%>YU(W@GES)\Q(]+3X+UAL)T/4X=*ZYS48'OHDCKHH)YZ M%KPT!*VY8N5#L0Y*"A2&FD-?=1D>D`0>K#3Q@6VOKAU-5:"RHIRU^_H?*LJ[ M\>3?OK=I]M*6C=L2;W9.UJ_J%J2>VA?\_LS&R<,_W8/DGM"$9FWE>9(N?7YG M2_O>4.7Q=0L^3%H$S)W5]Q%QYM,3?R"2;)_^HIB7F#KA^2!UWG,?7B=SR`7& MPUS4IFP4-Q=L=OV2/R=>9"^:_\,*`5'-4RW#"H:Y5I`5XD8BF!PFM]OA=@_# M039`3"J)H3C:27:(?V3/F#-$0--L#+K"W`*VT(K;"Z/&*EE@1;,U=V$5)U@U MJQRU-K;D(RJSFK,P"B./JOGE*HG-OVF=P=QDX*,8>2(@X,[*'A/*-WE-$3"2 ML'F'B]CKWX.+G;GV%?HYFHR5H M^ZXY!R9UK/]:OZ=__4TW5=/7`:%S`:$VQLNLTT:I0.^GW6U<6QX)NNO<#:Y9 MKD4N4N<>7;RI>"?I-A.OG8+2(0?R;4)1Y7[:HG.(I$EICI0/*;X(R*==!@S: M(C9LHQA4'HO!00#2+).(@LCMA<9BB!C#T.BX]UOIR;VM5[<(I MK\S;G;V`U"]>JFUHJ:]_H7G<$9(NJ3BE7__SD5=ZYC<&O=RI!S56><:9/7N. M+I2M%"';P:7<@DS-S#;M28&`S0CPLI>@"-E/,"$BRP4PPI(8,#."B6]D<8/$ M@%WQ*):(18,A@1,51$==0`1DE#=V+O;@*WPEJ["C2/I;_8.[>O(N1+\#HE\/T8M,AQ:#Z'D2 M,"E"1#@A7!:X$<(V`0L"DTM!A/AC?!PT8QH+0PWV*.:(&9L?C5]Z7/R)>L-/ M9>ME&OSCXMO!WLB.Q0NR;]#8WOXV^PM:V7G`O0^!>PJ3T2:-*6LLFV'J%#KS M-@CK\S:XUQ>+O)LOEMURL6I7"U6/6B8TF)_CIHNSS8NYU=RJPN6>H]:CMG.6 ML[;/;-=M5K:$5RC9-*^GSDO]$4;(55+%BS+EF]P8=R`')9N#DBWHJLIG&>@3 M12WP]U*GKGYY//'!]W#QW6SO[,V_1^T7KJ(%+<]?B:8A3]HK@@8^W]("(D")2]4SV.$EG3^#Q]R;AE[-T,M@"\'@? MO%"PZ1!@$633890H$'*S\@$_/_5_S.CI]UYO^/[^_S$A>*M M5-XG8A0R.;G.BHV4\_E6NE/NHMWT%&6ORF_3?GK7!1PU>+7G&\^FN3#L"+C( MDR>IRTD'V45V\=WJ?M)'SA+U-#E/'JIDDOH,PA@&=["*)C5_%43"^1Y/+#,;D]-U2'))DZSX7":B@4*EEA3JBC-,AMM8'M,[7,IL$0FS!H:"P8G3T![XOZNN M0P]F_%?H%8@6M`%]DAL=M#2-C%1&:H1"EH$T6SQ[0EI-3IB8=JPY-%MO9!?# M4QADB)5K_%\JL)NJ!G`V]?(HJW$;?X/O5W_$^]2Z_ MKX;WTJU\K_H!/ZM>Q)?H!7Y9O8'[Z3_X%ZJ^BK>IK^`M]!6^1=V*69W6A)OI M8KY$78E74S8%U]`IO$9=J"SD=2J+JB5&&D^@:3Y1K3(8P6XJ2*IR7$1HDA&)-51W@.H1OOP>"<[ MGV_(9&6D=G[:5<8LMDY!RLEU8)J36E)SX^-XO.6'=+1@H63!(JDL1S`I_(PN M!,9[I_5F08&W\I:W,A[S#K0.M%;&HU[@;GC@O=X*?O$Z89^)]&$@7N!09:`6 MHE`9O'I$2PK>;G`.)YL+)(A2<"5$3R:*?-O0[Y&*&#IAW[2OV-?LOP)U1TG_ M_6JZX<%:<8*?=T+6FZ)FHGV6P8FLQ$A$H7[0%'"U)&)=J)O8M9BMT;`A4L84 M2'^%*!@SPL%<8"I"Q8:IV#`MD\]!SR&4-V9I<[5&C;1H[1KNTDYI.%-G%3[T MHTX>&K6U:5[V-2U6AVDQM"2@QH_D&.X<%1.L#7I04;&I6&P>##2F=+*CS.W' MM'*E72MW7GA2O#BMU,+@(F%21BQ"J\E&0($NY:ARGCV$S6QCK902P+A5Y6\.B0'KFX7G(\+/(5^7:B)*Y#`?OBP!%P;!'Y MZ'XU.?%PBB#6>J"-&T`;'BE+VF?5[W#M4':Z=QH779?B,9\?.7+MRCOO7,4?7]W9[>]QUX*&+_D*WMP#W#537[Z\C^F-B'\/`)M8/3H"49:OM,,X9A:T-=W\_0I\AX=NW^%W?, M;CY[^I>'5TY^87IYEZLOG'OE\*;C+_E"`Q?I&;NQ^,5OSEVBJ_#'@H&`(:20 ME"O=LS94>&9X%K)FK=F]G[]E=)G'C$M%<9J[T>JUL;;8BL3G;PSUI&0>3C(W1ZCUEAAO&K\U/B5X3*2NCNH MZVZ/.Z1'PGD!;Q`U!KN".!B4DKG"7&"XD*2`0IZP\B7="X7]XZS\+KE;/B6? MEZF\J<5$2;/4Q&9N:+C54L/KO1,+-^\T/"[W3\#:R7#([@8#:CSR54B/4+.U M01BTS+$G"XEYIFG4Z=-VIIJ-=>G MUIN?I3XSY0)UM#XB-<*LT--FC5JC3TE--IOU)G.U_OW49OVUU#[U+?WM5``P M3)=3LAE38WHXQ5*FJE,461"U8LGTTBA:&MT;Q=$^W"1E@1*YH37(0EE%02)- M1T*:9L23Z5)DH;FH$6U%7:@;G4(*ND6M>(67(EHTFD=O#T90Q`I$TI$:EC\R M7IR3W^7MAOZT!MWV91P8*_K34,S7U-8=D:SQ];.$]V9[[\)F.#N[%&_N#MO>?P5>M)? MH3JG1SSKMPPW/-,KU*@X'>!^^\RE/CWO2BC`Y%(R$J1,Y MU$Q*,U$ROG?3C[9-^E:Z]U;CIG6W?XV"*,+L2X$U:];/*"DRMW6NGI>>D>4OGKA@]:&6]Q9]^:'>^IWR5$4ZKV31RR=?7_N7[R(D MXJ<0-*<7*B:]9HUG"N/,"R+!IRG3.%O( M%WBW_X_NLH]MXKSC^//<^YO/Y[-]OO/;;)K7FN*0'`G0E!R#IKRE23M(8Z@) MV0;,>X.LDV#5@*QJH577]86.=PFZ0D&MUG6)`@::@I@*[(\)B4VT=$-T4X`% M%G72,D@+=O9[S@;1/Z9$S\]W]]AW]WO]?+7MOAW!W<9![8CQ2?`*=Y.3/8J" M$<57^D5%3GC.$1YR!56D([(B0J^-]$6H1*0NLB]R,L)$,"B/A%5GG;1HBQ1Z M^/\*JE&WV%TAXD_Z("2&6[HPUS25>F!2%8G;5EPC^U_]^<:^,*ZI^\6G[Y^_ MN#$0@T%W=6CZTA^MWO8^G;I3+(Y_MBW3LWO)QIO@]8D)Z(R+X?TX],4`HK$` MK`K9Y"+KXO!,^Z1P`5^@+C(769:`XWIV.]Y&[61VL'L%@48REQ8(G*X0UF'> M0@97BZJX^>@Q[BF((DU1"8P"$-R2Z.%`]'!TGOJV(W.@-4'O0#MDCU$]B(%" M@]25&;R)Z6,N,Y\S#)/'LB-MHOOHR_3G`-%0BX.P`XCQ&)811?4X8AW&V.*7 ME_MB6\&""LJ.9;,I<_0>$(Y^'0?!>=`'LPC$`\HF2Z*!D@MC>#9^!J_&,PO_ M88_=_@/SB*OM>(3XEUV:?]O14W2*2\@-,H,X>#!P#*B9O@&P]'VVWYH&;';- M$<,Q6[)@4>X>(7+$DGZVW(C93`(6'@";4\(H*-:B2I$?D:XIM\0OI5L*>X;] MHW1&^0S]!7C^@G(=71'%]YBWV?>D`\IQ9H`]+@TJ9QEQ"C.)34L)93>SE=TM M_5H13LD,F\A/U`UP@.KYB7KG:1HIB?O"('$L6R]+`5F61([G$X(8$`21D16E M#/4R!R2/*,PH-"O)O"AP`L^SY4BY>`^3"\HO#?2>QW6.E."&Y"$G320.'"H) MJ$405);G;E#"5ELA&S8+A;!5R)J/0]5=O1<:K?SG3BSX][DK\A&$;[L_:%\W MT+5<^H'V6.8\LO22:/HAFGXWJGAE\3R$.\^?^"G5@FU8HTG M\PUEKT*!A)P`%>FHAJV$VVULKX"J_A5I&PVUR>X0OAS"[:'NT)H0';(:S-5.EHV.V^D&4P,$!*N9/:Y:W4:!8.(3ZTJI7F2&^6S--J MF)Z$M.B`$4J2@_\?&BCC4+%^/EC=PZ[Q9VL_(8C?#)@A;M*`6HCV)1M&TV-C::`F\:RPQ"7PE@J-4P:`_%^;Q:[W%)R M;V,32[Q/!!+$A)E:O*%^ISVW8=,/.E8%<2`U]J>1X@ULC)ZZ0OVK_EN+7W]W M:,^R->F/3N$JS&`>5QXD:F@Q^*_'54-1])KSD)[A,E)&[S0ZS4QT![]3'!?% MM?&^.#63MI690=M:0,]5%@3G6CM%,0"9V<_*89*@JLRK7@B'%*I5/54XCVL= MKQ>%7XWCN)84K%A7\[TW[+W9W#9::+[J,DI)\;D,/Z?+\>2XG)335QFKS%R4 MRV:2R6GE%P3M%P*-"V1P3P0R/<7;LW^_]$CQ=O%4_W/8*NCIN<_VO/C\ZN]N MV;,L@ZN!955LO4EI=]:^N^C'!_8?>6LOO.]L>-]JR)<`BN(#1Y$V,>ZTRS-V MBKL\V[1#[$'IN'C6"]*DR MSH^+MSQJU!L-.I&8'714G^T-G@B>"])!-RWB+:Y50V"I5QQ04GJ'ND*E5%,G M\'W8BMBX04=D3RQANW92;ZQS[P+=+@^;MU'?P]P,BZ2?Q> M(?,HB=/!4C:EX]WQ-?&]<2;N30J.QVN#Y\O%GR*NSY+L&@.$&`7V=@*F4Q-H M,9VX%Q;H."9I32XZMQ1<-M?A(6"'3AX&-NGESD1L_]VM8^59Y7X!P05]!CST M!P.B-(L\?/_L9`L98YEATDNR[FU5![RCDINIY+:J`TYR)UTFW0P]")0!#,X& M%P91;S:%29(G``!)EB,ZZ;*AOT3O(>HK;#:._*YXXX4<#OQY%.M?3S]=;@ZY<@&U+%,\6A#2_/PS]\=M.<.<^0[F%""5P%76>@ MO%/?R.`'F826\&68/I,5F!,F%31\5$`W?*K?BS35CY%&!43!*^-N>4*F9!(! MB<,^KX$G#&R0P[@&O_MO^&G.'Y#$AA:A7>@0:*%&2_NZ?90OCQG'H_JKJ$`W MVF><-"B#)(.HV(856G^4RJ%2L'J;_T=WM0!%<=[Q_;Y][^W>W=[[#A#NP2YW MIP)R1*F86_4D&JJ"1!0F1)I&Q*0U0*HFDQJ92GV/U&001%3JM!4;6ZF/%$P[ M.I.VMF-G:M.Q,TUKM*T9S$PUL0%=XD[#+(Y[.LK.[CQ MS3>4A<_.*_WX8WVDCU*JMG?41'YC+ZNNO#;V2W*).?UZ-=5HB@_=,ISI1+/ MW(*2Z6!1/94%J>EWQ;17V`?,9!$E2TR45*O'ZYXAB6"R?!&C\<^9C6_VMU4V M6^2,1VN.=I+E2`*J))O66 M@HXIP4]Q>&7#IT\UWD565#@9UUCS_WJ_*OEP_NL>-N)PS\\ M\N/^PY"2=\%7U@%Z>XC36MR&^@(7BTWRS1"V.F2 M'4[2A9'-2%T.R?*"X'(+'H*P"`K':WF1Q"D>C?.(AV1"XCVA2.('OGX?;O'= M]>$[/N0C7(K';6(2?+??C>ZZD=OO36;2V]H6-]S<,L/8Q4HO=W_OH;?ZA#51_D8 M$V-C7*%42572`D@P7N`Y@19XDJ$L-,5`E(3%PK$"*0@6:@A_6PO0A5Q9+HO8 MM1*V**B=0+EPPWXQ^?:$7#3B]MM'6WTP-X9B)S*5A*>AU0U]GBDE^!6B#>1B MB3RIT%EY%_*C):A>[T+?U_^LW]\&]F04;=*_FWX)7=NEGX0+3=6N9IB@(2-1 MHW)T%8W;Z4'Z(GV%OD/3N70CO97NAQ,T!$""S"(51$S6B/!37ZG11%5*,A6A MSYM^]QV"8'H`YU2T:)B(PJ]7P;6`5T0WXQ$39()+^!+A%%[$+?*EPF(>61BM MX1NC[=&CT1\QQ]F?B.>8<^)@]$KT1M1*1`NC5?#!A>CU*!/5`MF))!RWFQ_2 M[-#X74UP>Q-LD&(#.08CG!;8H$D,%&N7934K.UM1!>@XFUUQR%I]::.,7H?^ M&<(5FBV0I>1DP[G7LU%C-LJ&V&06R+9^:6-/*`CX:)LV`1,.;ML4-RD%Q9]!MV`"O:0:\'G.$U<*P`9CI'K9[;/%,?F99\9G[S#'V$4O:?>&'ERA?6O)CJ M2=?A-4=FEB_>?@/EH'H>XJCF8YU>9SW7S%%#%(*Z MV5--O!L!:C37HA4`C]S2/OZ+33"/7`^<%.7\`AYB[]E MH1Q^VL_C.GNML]93Y^O&/4P/URT.\5?QW^E_\%?%$7J$N279CW.7\1^9C[C? MB?1&;A?3P9&RV8H6KY$F%\6ZRMA`8U9+%LZR!HFG#$CKZ%)#()HA33(?O][> M!*I\O8]"!NVA!F?"`:$1;A<1#D64_"I3%US*UCYW)*/LHBX,A"I@6A#6 M="*@LZ":1LQ@ML#PJH89F8IZ#V)*?O[J,,+ZV/#JSN509L^^II>_M_V;ZW9" M>:M>T3_5T_JH_K>*E>G/R>$S[Q\^<_S846C*'01!SC9C']`*NFG$6U$-W41O MI,E"QVIKL[7%00F\3K$59%GJ0PRLZ(S-8G6GJTP;\T(S,A M$]#A9;,RJ6@E*@>]-96#I=7UJW\AS)H#>0B:??U8<#(RZC>Z>N%KJ<:Z5<_- MF[NBD%*Z7TN5WI\Y_Z?Z/8BQ"'K:#C'&<)MVA)&9,*=Z96^XQ]'CZE:[8CSK MJG!AQX?2L/52\+/P0VDTQ$2EE=):J&A;9^6$MDE+6A5Y1=CAVN+:' MMD7XVZ(];J[8F=#9\-2.^KT[O4=C)V(#4YG0D/CEPT5&IS8 MX?C&F6D1X_A_[%=];!3'%7^S.[M[^W%[7WNWMVOC.Y\Y^^!L[HC/-F="LA5B0+'%('Z%#9#^9)CP0/VI#9)(([MI0!-<2X@P#)9OH-.7HRI0: M<7#S2*/IX,ZF@]N:3E-+SG32B[!)+L`&=_:9,7.3NS29]= MM#E[94@RJR-.=4TNXE3&1?92Z.GNB]Y.,DEG>B\7-*N9_^BB2C35T^R M]2133^JKJK-^XF\DU5!&(K?')25`EKT(R.F1">9=-Q!=,-W>^T$Y8*;W,@UQ M!Q\;YE#IF<&YE)NI,^DR)C&6:.;+E#)=8CA[L0P.NOQR?O%7CJP&VWTI;/`6 M_OZJ-Z\96IZ)8UH>[^?2"37OL#+4DCO+KPHWN_C\+,FDU_>G*C/QL!'H7G;W=P_]]!M?6[QL12Q24Q6NW-[5_=5O_6$4O3Y6 M?)_[IO!]C.-O.`OB@%1*6>!KU;OT`9]DA2'*1\)@!D,&,8.<0:*\+"F2%F57 M[0/SF#EJ\D/8G3%Y$RGC6)BP$#<.85%BH4[75#FC9`!9VR9\U8Q4IJ)\K1GL M#[<;SQNO&/R0L=]XVOB],6T(8/B-N)$UJ&'9(\?F,H#NT19\UTOQ79\&HWAF MR4")<FFX-C69T6K1I(&:IL:F9(![ M^(Q:5UG7%=WRY9Z'\ZK\^./$IK63A;N>2%=67%C8N*YC\;?)[R;??+'P%-KG MZQ@5[J2UB.G/.>:&P([`LP(OBY;8QK4%NKGNP-\XR64I`:I&0`D;AB*+(:,V M'`86T/2(B^P14D3'_0QDESV?0+J'3'N(Y]/)2@D2;D+TP>HFT3UF$\*Y>^SF M9B;R:UI_MG/7RSW$BJUO[QQ>2*SG^[?<]_*SW+%"='+;TK4/3I$SF/[C.57, M7>[!<;LU=Y02D5<]'D53D5UQ0=Z6 M;24!#>KKJ@8LOTS-B^<4$%0#+#4)"]4":NX54*GM%K> M!R-TGS`BCRC[M`-PD!X0#LH'E0/:>3A/SPGGY//*.>T27*)3PI1\29G2KL$U M>D6X*EV1KRE7M`9AHOBF(U>TYF@M-O)$\8*K*4S3YN:`:2(+EE9KSF5_7A14 M!YM?J%2(3Q1[QT5%QK['N8T'+:Z*/*\!1ZC&"XHJR1[1(TF"0"F[7$W!6P8E MH[?KG(XWZEDN$QWB:+('0,6O`SS13\:)Y3U[FM@EL+>MWED[.CMK6[/1T@U" MZ>[:RYF^OXWE^7G\!-P6`F;>#<%0"J9N3,7`#"P2GU0=;Q[/6$?7HX^$2.YD,"60$$/AJ.;+>2)>7TYB MC<@:(8)C7`E@6W-(\JA7U44_!R&1ACB*OX>)8V@(D6R"O.($59\WHZ<@'LZ& MA\+\-#XY%Z-KN9=8V>3N\=[O7/3&%^/9@I61Y?3L"E5Z[E)=W?QDQ> M,OA@]Z@?@W0K!NDQZH?7BM/X0J=/\'ZR!,N`"XE"\7U']P;:0_Z0A4TPVHX> M.3V."NO'4"_M-5`RMZ3S-8FZ.A;(6G22+EPE-86G;D_>ON&QOG5KK!5-6^ZS MT/0Z]_$-[O3@EL\E`G_R?FD`L#3?LO9C_2.)DG>X)WF)/T,WTE>%PV+VIGI1 M.NII]AR7%7FC?%W9IKRDO*0^H8YJ+WH/ZV']4?U17\:_UG\TH`2^$SP4/!02 M;JHW0C>,Y\)&I"+R/?,1\WJT!^MYRV=]:&^UWZFX%^L;\SKGO5W54_5N['+L M"9A7``BPBT+_V]:`$)&.&)&+;NBLCPT/UE;EUJP,%T/ MBS+9Q;4]>#0]E&6*WEF6*\I-E643YA]T=O3U=J]/+AW=NWEV_8L_N^V\]@`;H@%[H@2XT M5!H-,HQFV@R[H1Y6P![L[T<#;8,=\"#*FW'VUNO_&RMMC.!?'//RDW7T,[%@35.#SDP8W@M])2[L?E MV^#VP^791Z1-OK9_>"R/N_J%]]KFL7XT]8-GBB\4UGE`6HJJ/.<-_QH`AKR# M8@IE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3,U."`P(&]B:@T\/"`O1FEL=&5R("]&;&%T M941E8V]D92`O3&5N9W1H(#(Q-#8V("],96YG=&@Q(#(X.3`P(#X^(`US=')E M86T-"DB)C%9[5!37&?]]]\[L(BP/%>1EZJPCI+(0(M:(2!6%17,0Y65<+,9= M`04-@F],?,8H=GW4>(Q5HZ;66#4F9K!HT1-38QY-CT%MXK&)M;[25M,3(^TY MQC3&G7ZS*)'\T=/Y=N9^[]?][@40@'`L@T31N-+T#-^J"0>!A@KFCJVL\S74 MJ%-W`G5%`)VKG#]7>RYEQP"67034U5,;IM4M>'3_;K:FVE=UJ&%&9+)=!1S13/>KJ9O;>+)OP1ZF,P'9^$Q] MI<\5%]\$S-C`\=ZN\S4VR':PKX9LUM=F^NJJMUSL?P&HSV/ZFX;Z.7,Y;W[J M^UGRAMG5#?-.GF?]2`,(B52/(9[?!'4OXI5DQ`'F=7YO6&N@UKQAR:U5_).M M6ZW7Y`?[\`;5X@W\'B>IG:W>Q%&TX$/$(@_;L0B;T`0;)C+GYRAA4)F_B>+- M%J1C%^>S"VVL.P%+<`R]*,[\`DNQ4G["5BNYTWTQ`D6HQSH:8\Y#!2XK*S`8 M8S`3#;3,])CKS8WFJ]B#H_)#\Q["D(!*AC;S*_53\R+2V.(E;,5EVMCM,'(X MRC+6W('9V"8G*61.,[_E#)Q8P#DH*$0;G1`N]EZ-ZQ1'BV0N>]EM&N9[K-4; MDU"#;3A&@VB4<*H59J'9AEXJ7B2ZVG! M:3HA`_>6!X9SWU3N4G\,84D]WL8?<)9T>D?4JPXU0\U1GS7/(1H#,)ZSW>I_/TN<@5D\7+ MXIKSDRH[B##YC MN(QKI%(813!HY*3Q]!S#$EI'OZ9]M)]:.,I9ND9?T+_I-MT58+")1.$4?1ET M,5LL$)O$=G&&X:SX4OQ'QLJ^TB4'R6Q9+NLYJR:Y@>&PO*HD*&<4D_NP9P?$X/$2#&.X6E1+6:)#6*C:!'GQ;?2+L-DI(R1*7*4G"2KY5RY4&Z6 MAOQ(_E5>DU_+[QA,)53IH_15DA67,DJ9K,Q3=BK7E>MJA7I*_;LMU%9G6V5K MM?W+_H1]F+W(7FR?9/^%_8C]7(B7I_-=',;O\-!#5^1RZ9:'L5X,5.+%:7&: MYWDRJF2AX$D5^VBU6$PMHI_::!LJAM)8M"O)W.L/Q"OB:S%4%E(!E6*Z&-#A MS1:MO,9+MO(N;BIO<6VGV7.CS4%+Q"V;`X<(8@C'?%\^KKCD*5R0E\FN[,)? ME%"*I9MBKRSB*3BN#%,]<,KM."AGT6(<%FX@]&[(6I[CL?0:WPMEE$'?2!-2 MC.4I&BP_QPK,$)_B)I_CU?@E52G3L!X#:1&NXS=\*OJK,VTIMACZHZA5_*(G MM4`H^[FZ(=2/I!J-%VB2W&:[)3[#/)Q10G%)OL[9GQ$'9:'2KI90#9^`Q5B% M6>9R+%0]RL0I)RA6^W13)#E^GUN='C_1.3(B/B^T5$]VS1_>H MR(AP1UAHMQ"[356D(*2Z]7RO9B1[#259'STZS:)U'S-\#S&\AL:L_*XZAN8- MJFE=-7-8<^H/-',Z-',Z-2E*RT9V6JKFUC6C+4_76FEBL8?Q=7EZN6;<#.*% M07Q#$`]GW.ED`\T=5Y.G&>35W$;^_!J_VYO'[IK#0G/UW.K0M%0TAX8Q&L:8 M$:LW-%/L,`HB(M:=U2P0$LY)&0EZGMN(U_.L#`R9Y/95&47%'G=>HM-9GI9J M4&ZE/L6`/M*(=`55D!L,8]AR#7LPC%9K58,U6G/J"?_:UBA,\;H<57J5K\)C M2%^Y%:.[B^/F&;'/_BWN>Y*=]\CU-#TL391^=URM9I%^?Y-F_*K8\[#4:7W+ MR]D'VXJD?*\_GT.OY286E&H<3:PL]QBTDD-J5B5651WU5>MNB^.=KAG=])%Z MC7^ZE[PL61GI3_)`&%JEQIEX=*XI MT_I49\)?F1DF*-B#V7]Y1S'!:D!Z6ESF\5NMX0I?'"[4,1 M]]97GI7.[7TYJ#*4P8RXH]';2&*8F'D)/N*C>$UY*<>"")&6])ECV0 M=)I[=9[D%EC_(,88(4&I7E`\T:.Y_=[[O2TH MZT)UR#,[9?N1R:*^YA(E$$I#V5%I[)%>!R&DL0_6W"HJUKM(3R500YI M^4:4=W3'MSS4Z?P_C5K-=LLJN'QO=C]-(\O5E1[:A>Z2GL,O.6'^XU)0-M'O M#^TBXU'K"/A?QJL^MJGKBI][GS^>$U([@00G=OSL.#80$_)!6`@QR4MP$JA7 MDI&0QBR%0,B4E5:PF8`T;?0AQBCA4YO$"JO(%DT;HE1[<:K,"9F@11I:)-0_ MMJE_C5(ME8HT!E05!8W4^]UG\]4R:<_^G7/NN;][[[GWGO=QUV44,IZZ>GS> M-3IMQ)T9P#^9NKQ2(.;252S9&D%`_J5=F>(S1%?&CN$2V5F^M!4/NN'A5K^W M=;AO>&LRI6WS>QW^X4G^`?]@>%=+WZ/$2::FCKCTUJ,QK-4@6U4N]M3:\-5Z M6B,KJ='4I$S&+C]]7;=D7.+]EX'./Z+-ICCE`^NLQ;37W$T][!!MXN?IQP)2 M,:FF"_1#<,^CW`0])=J"OQ'X&`@#W4!1QO<2L!7H%&5P)T5;]+%+]&/H.&V2 M%=II[D[-8;Q3YJOT/>`L[%'3/^F1_FW:'?)1%0K.&ASRG*>WH+_;=3W MPW<6N@?EW\#N1;O*C&VS'L,9`AJPP+\$_1S)S'>1]#Y]RQ1/?8*YQ-#GB\#/ M,$8'="L0!6<^=#-PB%VE-]G5U"CJH>D`QC\D_$`DH]>BGX.H;T2[4I0/P"Y" M'!9H.^`#%O,+5,<7T#1T!>;_P%4:%'-^/"?$GXGIFTC'&'T:&/-/@)_7 MI3Z%MCT5V]=QX&M8)RTG#7H'X`*^PZ_1ZZ9O$\-ZG39_2I(`5?!_43GR)H)V^X&SX'YF['.C:'O[T9S% M/%'>CSW:@'X>RB(?SU,GT(8UUH#7C#&P=L;^8>ZHZQ40<8M\$AS!1]M`)H=& MGV@:!><8UN0&M`G(%V,^@I$C&:#NS^BG$+``H\`.8+&13]A3D3O&_F'OS%,_AR5$\*='80D1_-%^6$($7]L#2XC@]E=A"1'< MM`66$,'V+E@027[VCZ6+E-KV'%-SM:%7-U3;$:,/ M*^JC-P")+D%^"*2,D@J2MR1-+O0(73)>UI@N+UM5O;-I+;^"AE>P#5?H8\"$ M#;I"?<"'@$1VR$9@"W`9N`VD``O8)0C\A"'MD!5`([`%>`.X#5B,<&X#G'9F M0OR#$5A%)NAV4>)7\!.'21_WJ<4.MR/D6"N=<#.[A[5[4AY>2P4%N%OR/\!!5C(TYF](G$@V(ER=Y*!"\J3?GLE^0Q(>M8'059 M`'HEQ8WR"G++0M>0F[\#79UP=Z.9/1%6!>U:YZ4YRF)^Y+RH? M>9,FEE#^#L\[$\K?W(>5OU0D97BF@TD&->4UJ)/NEYNBQM'GA-+HWJR$TZP5HLV$4HD0 M0FFS#,$N<1N#^CU&AQMKDVQ076H]9>VQMN/D66U=:O59%6NQU65=(.?)#OD% M>9Z<)I'T^5*4 M1SN;652_W$_1;5[]7J<_R;+P'6'V-S,]+TK1KF9]92B:M*8VZ+6AJ&[M^&[/ M&&/'8_#J_,TDPT=`DJ6$ZZ!+?+%/$F.Y!X^YA%Y\\%@L1LZ"/8W.QKR&W+K6 MR'-$7T:&GES.9^QB_52TLT<_7QS3JX61*HY%]5^(3_I)]CF[TQ*99'>%BO5, M2@WL\Y8-PB\U1&*Q:))U&SSRLKO@(6/N&CS90U[!(Z_L2?/.I'D!M`>O5"CP M;#8*&+R`S6;P3$SPQN*E+9&QTE*#L]!+<8,37^A]FC,3`"<0,#@%<8G)D" M37#T!H/B=H/B<1L45D1N@^)F10:E^PFE(D,Y_)ARV!A)8D\X[C0GY\8C3LX- M<$+_[S70'`JQ\?I8?Z\X#O7Y6P:`/OW(GD&GKFWS>L?Z8YES4K!O6_^@T%L' M])A_(*+W^R/>L?K>YU3WBNIZ?V2,>ENZ>L9ZU8%(HEZM;_%OC<3&VSIJ:I\9 MZ_#CL6HZGM-9A^BL1HS55ONNOYE"NX?B0^1L^7XD_8_C@FOWD%CPM`S% M_]>%NA8<7R/QW411O:PSJC?B M$X4O+'PV6X;XS?T?RN@UXB[0^,5QIGK8;HK')-T3[>)X%'1E#A=3-&*\'N(Q M3##.0N)I@J>*&3^\`JS4_!YGLQ9KDI]6YY/9-"M1EM4TRZA0MIAGN33-J\C& M3K-EY`PY[H7GPNL=7X1?F@M3(VS'0XBJ2E^N+S<`@6<7/?1*EQ^J9OH/>4V7 M,19MEL;Y7O,4ALNFH4FBU/WQDD"-.9FZKY8$E]1D6[*L9L(;P6RV9/_;)LN2 MQ,DJA[/L-LW&;9B_FI]CK[%=9Y(IS)F:DUO#"N?]X/?.$`()B4@<MDXYI?H9"6/,J?F:\Y,(*BRCG MHVQ'ES8OMF:HYN5-8G5?N?7%+<<]"&J\-7=+S.:_=%<+G,A!S[U!IU+@Z.=@<\*.B=X,'C_#`:/P)& M(C%Y4"JC>+!9#R.K#D9CTD=!ALV`;FQ6M@?E^*`S8L&#;2QTDL'B03(/'1KF M%QX>U.&P-3<_.-&FR)POTX\S.46V!2?FY^7Z*0YB_'_F7MK;TMC95;_^&`Y- M+2E]:AHTFOGFH\_Q];W;8:(!)I[0'DXO*65*]_SMHU/=Y\_BCZK?WE15O6MS MU==57,J__X4W[[VL39S#9ZK?;JK6)@"L4G!=5H)/?E5!+,7L78)HG1*A!YJ+@&R3@?@XC/W$G%N07Q#D>+@4 M">//MOVYN+2WKB9KD@]0C,WIQ5]AX]U+0P__4M+8TG,RYHEI+G\:]A__>']A M%!DED12]A)$E1;-`OX]BS0(3VD>?-1D]1F(\;/GN_:T^9,[-\L,5M*7:%(G\ MJ0YER$](3"'\05\D_,0F5H.5J-6@'Q5L/^'6#%8'CP MFG0'J`D@)P@J)1DZ(2<(4,LZ,51TKR`I*BG$Q;.E#Q,FN@`4.9L4F3=G7PM(--+[XSH0<5`F'S,M0 MII#1.-K9J95#W=`U@/44C53M1#.V*&GB4<2TPGPKD[#R03C!@J11W?W]_8E2 M*GZ3A`!WBGY\`M'XE78Y1*+Q*ZI7#FVGF-!]]"@E="7",JR&0`G1D-Y"Y!;X MHPTV9XZO@C<72:#3I`\:V.Q`.*%('`X$%$T1;PP?QJ\@&S0+-!(7@3QFN@6PP;#"=-[(IO,%.IEMG M*C,<4]/F616Y^9*!U97OU M4Q4#^R_4;#W15EO;UO9:[8PP&<`,GG2X['@L?BD6BWUX9$<7WA/;_N4]O!17 MW'VA7O/%9P#00\!&CZI4+]4B>X193;:0G3KF,(-3$,<2FL)B@>`^?<)VBW8B MA#7].`56A;3`#A\IA\5>5F4)ZS!TXR*\'B595!D(),Z6S%B34T/8K.6$,`H' M,GQFCN/S@*E!\K!CRL"\[7\?7\V\\KU:SWO?[RO3["L"?_-@GQO=5/.?9)_D M>MA37`]_3G?>Q?]0*!'F&2-"N7&5997U#4NOY;KS>MH]IW#*T&4E:?#YE"ZY M)>Z#^#W$@X-U<$^)WU.=;KVDX[@^EU-VN9PZEQ,XIW.ZJ.B6HN3@\5EF#!]7 M]D[1+;/('24]J@D305^5.@#V:/[$/:0.>9&$"U7!W#F9E)'E9#5A2#<9`1EG MR[&D0[4L$M!(FDC2D$O"U\P6[>S0-1BS`T8@;%*O:-C+A2B,P[\8J63X"P"1 M?"V$^S(30DZ&=PAN',_PCPI(ZLA?[?KR-SM?6;L;G[!^]VMUH_?C3VT<6OMM[<,/S$P#)9^(W&!L@&4`#ZBA6M(G3 MQ7J1F6Y>8%Z91N?:EDD5[(N/W>RWV1)>5KFV.W+OX^CE^W[VSXW=K:_?)>\O*KB]>N6^?M M//>S]O*RW=GNDYM/Q^[?`(N=P$X)\J`>B6A0S;59OH#P2!%'LHXQ,*4-%1`21X6D/Z4$Z*`A;53UB&%B"^O1,E"SI M8EF]FN[)U4=Q@2KR:J8OEU^3D<L5BM?4:3;+3*1I,(_%.M1KU; M48VMD)&-)E7!BN*R@$R[3`P>T+@)XE5]C-LEFLNDY=)J:8O$2,!#>X*'=HSL MDIW8F[V67IR'3'@;L+BPW=CY77ST_"\?OV6DEG2!AY/O`"/#9FB0?J\UZ+(# M+("+$JI."!I7AO^;F,!&:X:208&12)%YK5Z;?U+9N6QMQY&F!4VCVC:33X>Z M9JW;>AKKJC<-_G$(KY$:-YXYL*M]UF0;^?G-O:?E7+:L6`I@)Z M3D=C4+N:%7'@:;RJ3'-,\Y9:YGDCM)POUU58RKW5NA==ZW7UKHNZ"S8S#X+N MR/+ZO/_ANEJ`FKS2Z+WW?R;YD_P)D(1`?A("X5EY*2]C2<>6C@^4%8O"&D!9 M0<$'#[MN$:LHOG'%=:H5NU:M#]1E?:$#R*R/970[EK';SJZ/UG6WM79U)]MV MW,'=*G&_FX`ZS>3GYL$D-^>><[YS'%39AGC%HRW4$J!2!/Z\G&('(E9Q2@07 MK81J8=YF0[P[&]LH!["#;"3+,I';D]44+`7G>-1YYG+S4O,J,VON(3%GDD:F MF6\4J1'I!B2;XO6-PD(E*T!@HM.+%ZA"C=3?G-'((&=1O>+0EU!CGIRQ)$^J M+7[MK7GDM?[J[N'EG[;^PW_OMYO^V75G.&OZKZ8A..YI.J/?G&'*"1D_9`"F*1PPO.#.-QJRYS-DVOV]* MIKZ76?-H$_MC5]M[?J/_2<\77?@AOOH![89%<,KA<,IFY$2IZ*XG:YP))Y@F MF2:Y[DL/4CE5*EZ)5N)F=IE8KVF0WM8VF;>@S;B-72^V:%JE]=JMYD\,5T*, MT7#<7NHAQ0$NP24BQ(BE#&[!N#QQ@="L_%*T:MTGA!A54] MI-HC)S7J/78@`$1TO:PG^AZ\_5RZI?$DY%-X_W1,8]CS5!/F"2-A[6G/4PVX M-X7EA8T;<[PIOA$W&J%#D!(-]1`S7:YQHV5FU*X1O!(2^A(;7J8&KJE;=/_" MQ8>UBS=L]0_=NN4?VCYO?>V"=9NJJC?F3FHO:NGL6K/J"!.1\'[-OMMW]U7M M2D@>V-C_#&%\<=LE/'-!Z]KRR@VM3Y\5M$\_O'K-L2!R)Z`^>L;G6 MJ2:/\^>F6?M\`ZMP6,@AO:DJS\=D+Z7S6A48LA+,WO`>UXEX\;&47'!B@!;HR$0(ETX M@&"P+=9UF9KG%JTLS,29YQ>?>XJ%*]M\*YI^./"[V^3:H66_.GVT>>5^7"0W M+9FZZF:=9"FNQ>+-NUCN\'\-;>9;_YG?7V#&[CDW\$$;51A!O2"S]:P+^"N@ M;(^=Y1`OJ`CO9ADWYEGH"BDH#Q&:(?>+(VVFGJH%$GV`&,'.2"LC7+U0&YB2 MP<&G1Z`^D&!O"GRV#JWSI#1JUFIV:#[2?*_A`$F7.DN=KRY6SU>?57^E%C1J MG4"_4W#S/*=C--@G!YM68)-(_IA*&C74CV[T>>D:'*E=H[L>+5^P^P:\G\UE^0`R M;WKB.!ZS@@K%,CB6(4(LR_*Q8#\?DNN$D`L3%GG\)Y.^GVEX'42="T%1:-63PKP-H(T6YLC MR#SK_`A2*\W5D5((T213][J.1(2+`HOD.(,!:1-"L0(\/>%Q.J(=[BAUE#LZ MVNYV.!14IBQ1EYEK8N0R.T3E&B?='_5\>8A2TDU+Z7"@E`ZY`YR\9P@D-2_< MD->+0>%9F5F4E"_R&4NQTQ&!HHAO8L64%G,^^^#RQ@Y+;_CC:S@;QPAAC34'N^*1#\W(7?MB^VS1X^^'AB@/+IDVN6.3?1?GQ;!@.M00RF8!T M6/%4ILBITB=1X5$ MZ8&'8$+ZL`;L1>,Q2G8T7V!F%++7V;LLTP[,ZL'8HRF4+@IW):9=PA)]+NN% MZP)9):P6B+!#_]<;0>:%PP5W"QRS-5P&B5ORW%9?WKT`NCY:>"%H;!AC21II M$90(&^2!`=W`P`8NN`+D4TYJBJ:<5'Y6.KN;U3.BT`<-"#W[+_6'$MQ0[W7B M#.QD'$R(@W'%\0)#,OY,9M\Y/KQG_RW\P^[\Z,@,KN_'?-SO?YV4XIV]R[=N M`=[N!$8]`'P-@>31XBEDV7QGL;/*V:AJ5?$+K6]S=2H0);=6P\>95(PE+E$Q MV52J$*.2F)B0@")M"J`4I2@&)%I<_,Q8EV1-MBGV0*/T)HV?$R`3C$V8H@6^ MT?H$%S`)B.7.23'DT/P?C/_`J`R#XZ5\KR-.[$@/EB>7$V21'J0:/-Y)7)W7 M&JNJUVV;M?I2FW\'GM"2/7E*_IJ]_B_PXC+7Q-+^U^;NXOI+>^66',^+Z M5U>?JDAC9AA,5063EB8\V2=(V;7Y,]Y)HQFBZMFWW"]!5S;4XZFH)#4V<+-T M;26J0\MLJU&KK1UU<,>90]I>IEM[5?LINF=[9#/HC#:#S<8D\O&&Q$A[U)O: MXM!98<7A"[A:VPKC%F,'LUO7$=F)#Y).PU]T(2@46>50V8C0A1)"9"856R2S\9N>P88VN4V647L1BN5,X)II$"&D6\!:,Q+*C# MI"2OMQ[R5P,V\ZPS.@;0,<:`!,V"BPJ2A(4:Z41@NR]/\/_Q&Y__QIX3>.+E M+W'R^`L9EW<<_7K.XOOK/_J*D+3OGES"2S[[!K]UZN_77MGWFP/^[[:?]S_8 MW`^NLQ>3E9GVQH/#]Q\G*I0% M!_[/=;4`1W65X7/./7?O:^]S-]E7=G-O-KN!AD<("6$AR!U;40@9(LHCA"VI M#*U3C29@L?51MBV/6#M#P0["B"5T1ILJ"#00EU2%9CH6J=J.5DBGEJ)#'S*# MPU0&&W//XO___OQ]\X6/8IX*ZW`H?GQ!%04`<91N5 MI82"1('9K,JPFH0OL^W7+M7?#?A9#;#X M"J?<7J"UX\]S]>-_X[;R(X>+"P\5U<-L)1#LZ398B83:W'N\E>P4\.1B8"'[ M;6(KA$25R=GE^6OOFOU2B;`R'G'WS(/<>^,?D*.%#C;KO,.%!^$+/>`#)\$' M4FC,_5PL&*L@W77X?C&`+:ZV%CE6B*00S(Y]H83&`:V4,$[7I6IMB*#$KNL& M3KTQ5X?KXFE;QG(DO;[K-FK;C2Q`H1V6P,J&,FVIUF>]#8WP:H'$?3<:J MHE61*L[G3QNIBG1U6DS1=#(55N,.JM0##KP<#-@"]&KXE(.K%,!(T(1;0G(< M5,O!#;%2%K#"LGO][8NA!KRD.67^GY=4AH09!-S$)P!SLB@X2HO)+24].XMO M#8P5#QP?PAWO'L!X=_J(\Y7A;VX;_;8S=PJK)Y'*7#Y0T42YA"0/ MR&_)1.8)441P!EL0?-F?*7F>6!8PM;`4B[GD8KI]M@J&A)>%^<)3<'!TM^/B1PL_)FIN+R%"A'3Y^ M"I;V!*R*0\^=8'@B/$PW-'=!DR=G-Y7D](:2G#*U)).IDHPG2C(<]:0[4S6: M;/Y9_@@/6(#X&>Z_1"P[UK5[^<@\R: M[>S;V%K(WK83[&4A`^IL\]0HRU:PUI:)C[@'O`S5[AH;R$.^;Y%'?/UJO^F3 M"/#JJ.O0A"Y):5D6TTK6#F`[X`8Z`MT!&L!IU&8->Q->,;)]UZ]XW._*%9@" ME>DTA`V8S*M6T_./"+WK%S\\9;3SU2=?_1,>"`]^[]Y-CW.?C$?R9Q^^P*P) MV9)?SJR)M[FSN)J6C"C-JY.;?7/DS\NKN.W<>4[8++_#O2-S4_AGZ-/\+^AE MD9#S`'^5/\Q=YRB\1V9C2(&`;J,I1@1/R9+NK*'8YD`UZO`7JD+XKC,LS5VIE M,&MM90V\EW$6C9$6'E@+!440C5:Q%3A*&#A*##C*240GQN9V>BG*N\#BKBG5 MP$ZF13*4M9I8!O!S8;@2U,J,CVU4L3)B33!#W6"&;?Q$"M2*3/VG5R=S;]RW M,8OZ`#0,*-C!\!/,/:-D#`N%?>3)"52X?A40/Y6<+_QJ?"_Y\'*1EJU'[P'K M\6BVZ\<$O)!'(JL1\N1%5Q,(5PZEOCO2UX?94@0O@=*I@%G^`L#\SV%X<2]" M/AV^9^!'W"V(Z&*0Q$2ZV;_=?\;/2?[%_L4Z-Y6FU&G::JZ+;E8?U7:HHD)X M,:/.T9:1-NX^P17;U<]J\EZRC]LC[!$'N1<%GT5T36O@"1B6B'Y5;>!%4$7_ M;Q+%?V2[+M^K3(X9++8$@&[0PX)P]8]K@IZ M=+)S*0O,%1!@W/$7!3[+T+#C^QZ#!0'.]2E5_2WR3]Q"XL0YX/+G/*;:=M0/ MSZ9X$%$G;AS39#8*Z&#=MX>=C#;-R:AY4%LR6F.+IYZ8#J/3RSCH!*X+UO=H M`*X,S6G!#L0ZG,3F7ER+NQHJ(\UX'>9?*:X\4ES-C]SZ9-<7.G["C=]<1-^X MU4POWK(9%O:7X[*$+A^S%!;%FB'8BJP>$$1P)!'*%TZ4*"&2(%+.AHHS:RO8 M5CJ4;J57R2F\(D+J]<*T'_ZSG(-+P:W>B\U]UR:#,U!Z5M_MH#-*!X29-QP7 MW449"`.GAQ=E1+>QI#9F!'`1QA&'(Z`VEE0VFO145TEF!"T(+<#ZUX8#H,9+ M:AS4"J;>.#;I,V7O\Y)B)T`8L\2`S?VOY6#IC>>N`` M[_%O(PW%T!:W.ZKCH!$,QD*Q&*4HA)49?"@UKO]>X4"@<(W;<-9<%EH7< MZ&I^M;3*6&&N"ZP)K0NOC*Z*_3"TCQB1!,=9"46J2-M`8**Y.([K:796D:H[ M:6V6\5J/&;`J`/@LD-J`@9Q&RBB>E[%;##2[$9E-!&@M6H_[\9PW\*)?'B\. MGWJS.#)X!L?/OXMCC_UKUY^+Y\E9W(-_.EK\V=_?+PZ<.(/7_*[XW^*;N`G' MAK#RH^('J,1I:0'LKZ(P6N4V;S"_%B1M1ENPR^@*4L6?`!=$H7");5EI,6I' M,?RB8;4<(R)WEC9]V>ML^;=IGI>&R[5,*`$4G#B."?HD0R53=[=_?7?GOXM_ M*/;C[_[F^>S265N+/^!'-&O#<,\KQ4+A$(>?V;+VJ0H55LH8!)0QL,X:O-35 M+47#UIRJ-=4/BCW5U,I/_'/(BC:!O#I44]=DLGZ\KLDH2[TLX?G84#Q=>@[O M&V7)GKN;0$EI2ZJ6V%]2UE;U5&V4'M4>T[?)_?J/U9?TO/ZQ]I%N:'Z_;>I! MT]1-W2]9,>)$*V6?91JJGP]+4F4H&DF$0LBI\AY2##O4R3R` M&(-P9='5,[HQS[3F,7SC/B^,:.`FT4C&!$>RH&EN5<:`I&+45$.;](S..TI- M*"8"26X&`>LD/4LQ4R6=@^3IU_[XG;-_;9^R8NG$M=$5WU@UW6G[!SZX[7]L MEPML$_<=Q^__OX?OSG?G.\>/LW$2.[$=.R8D(<[#)337+B_2A81V+4^/T)*2 M0`ND*0Q864$=X1%>VA;:KNW8AE2UT/`*"1E4*F-H!74J$YK:91),FE(H:[.R MD2%18F>__SG05EJB_R-GGWWY_?Z_[^_S/3#WU4/I$O9,R\6-;WZ2'0K.79?N M0J4_W5UEM:36T665&QLZ>HC*+)F\P7P!3%U"I8TWGZ&?8;KI%QDF5%!.)WS? MH^=8OI]=EUL;K"]X@EYH69(]/[(S2XG(X2`.T@6A"EL\OS945[S(_U3^DZ'G MK"OE5-JJGD*(QQ#9(&.=.( MXMF)0Z6275#1694YN&SFE$<+%H3#Y?&*BC((_Y1/=3K<+L9M9@-(+!A> M>G'SFL-/M"Z9E7YN7N>*G_SG%X?N]K!G;/WO'O]-H@J-+-BRJ>?>6Q^F;[^. M/E57[YG_:'=MW8I\][)8Y:'V-;]?WOFGK4KOWJV+6\K*5D5F#:Y?=[G[Q9OP M/Y1`W9^!:K)0+8;,XAP(#]@ICF6$8=P]8,(`0J'%TU-9J\3HYLINY+2\!9E1-OA;/2V<9'6X8+6$6=F\?5,$[_>]C;[NO`F!409F_Z1:"5=AZU8YX\O362:.71%GX_#W\C9,C8B"268K0/ M'\08DRN:GVUE<0D0RG[`UELL"Y2R8\#:]DZ&4KI&DUTQ,G1UC&!]M=K!Y@*=U/5LFND=58Y`3J`,+'@!X.A"B=Y?D< MI^YP.G6[)`@Y3CML[9IDL_E5S:&JFEV0>-W)VC05SA7KE%A:5VU@EW@>@T[K M=KNF4;S7[?:JCPAH'N6G))B=,`R*1?.&_'Z$D,3TI M?6Y=>^WU!\I]GPB);$/Y:_<'<$_SM_GPNPLH\79%O7`!INH+]W??GB`W-LB- M1E)H%_7AR3N9A(7@8N$W"9MB3@6N#$@&:U29.7R!)#`KD\`L.RQ990"*X0+. M@M"OTC_^\.]!;Y6(W/^\TI+O*[K^A_3JL^F/"BQN1_H2E$3-JWU?!.EK*6_Z MR]N]I^BC@$G)W?[VAGN'2&5P4Y4AH?@0V$":F056[L:`W4TLVPU#@0WC@8DF MDT#ZKVZZO+\:];!A(C#9PTR4+Q2+%:8#=7`=UFL,$CA;\HM4A MBE:.Y@3:CQ'4$N(D*X=`M)!U&'L,010%&H.$*<-8-P1)>-P0MXA8'$:#AFRU M2GZ*?KP%[S,K:O`D(CJF#\G*^0"IHM@=HF0@W9GE.E$R@/OQ:BV3PNTS8CS4 M$$LR13;;%4B)"M-CQ]T0:A^$^A0O"1)S9G*LG[`J1D(=D+=Z(&OA&@19YJX"/,!`8A!A!9'A1#&<'XA$1 MW06U]",&BH41(U9?')&)I&$`5H:D(XM`)%JDFK`37D51+'2`C$\`+[YYF1`CXI1Q65I*<@2\`9 MQ5^U-DY\S'@G+BVDWSE%'UG>U-\_85E!?&AONA/K9D^K,G(9.H:PRG(QRF*' MDV'ACC)LR&QA[_%O==QGUO%JLW--/6AI2198VWRMS-F+]HR,I#LM\_KNCO21 MJ!>D.]$I\[/CAH]A8Q9.I7&,0G:.91$^RM`A"_6>\,8B^.#Q__.Y*%`.?J,\ M@$ZENT=&T)YT9Q]7T`=4VS3Y.>-C'J8B5"7*-O8*LE#HD;V%4;FP,"%7."NG M/50XIS`I)PM7RIV%;26[Y)[H+UUO>-^5G6][#D>&/&<5R-\K0OE MNG/UV/3">())3)_#-$Y_BE\8>Y;OC*V7MDN7I+ORW9A6&5<0HQ8'X^Z9`8>^ M-+HFBJ.^8J5&V:<<5"85]J!R3/E*H17%1[N'\6'#I?9P+E?#8:ZT"N+>!;`$MC!V)SD&L?KL,]*G1VO&4J,@D\7P:A>L)CAI4^2$ MB-$-$2(R>:G2_"V/%Q!BLA0\C$V`OGO5AY[ MOZ&[L7S5WU:@LKH=+V_,/JZO_O/.'8=;5<&=][[/_?2%-4MF/M_9\=MP]BM/ MUA_9-G?K7(X,A<771[(5=>E?O8\:RIAD;;MW;-KL*78WXU$AS<6/;XI;9 M/X(,]D`&<^%DJ%3V_Y@N^^`HRCN./\_NL[NWN[>WNW=[N]F[#9M+<@EPD;>[ M)$!OS"(D#$U"$MYA.(U"$(/%7$HBBI%0%;"BILQH1;0)!2E6D"!GJY26:V'X MP\(D5&'&^`)30@MJ)&,ARDN2/KLGZLS=[=S>S>SS_)[/]_?]_L`Y:S^DW&(^ M54R54U29V6T2IIEK1(U[C":SPZ2G^^)J/%"E5@42KH2P1$RH]P8:70\+J\6U MZMI`VOS8W:?UZ?_V?:5]I5_,OF".FGH.-5&C:XC8PM^T[G^CI74_=63X^HLU+W[P MRY&K(^=>AR\?6_CIDNVZVZ-[LO$J0G]S[Q M$7&C2(K0AG7.).S7M:`>-($.T`4N@$$1 MST=,;`78V><8_OP>!II,&4,PDX.Q$TY_2`[@C^;*^7F5CKU"VUX'FJ\--#M) M'[,J3YLHX;B?Z+\3[Z%F0PKDF-<.]3]D>KM89/Q0]M6W^T:^;;[R[(%/S8/Z MQF5;_[CGZ<87X#/:GWM@-N3V0V+3P5W!-0\?__#GA)Q&3QC`PP6B2?%84@+(MA2>J5H21;+V^\?T;)%'2JV18U5G2D8Q@PJ/Z)%3FTXL?%L M2^-'3]6_//'P<,[^EM8W]FU8OVOS[[;=VMT)R5_7S2`\-RL([ZD/_GZR[]0) M7+-*K,8QF"P_KMGGUDH3&'YB(9F@$NQ"OH%<0SW"-O`N"4A0(@J]'U,WE:$` M,]D[79]LS/!6!V88==[E^CSC?N\O`O<;Z^GU_B%B*$L"*A0%3:M5[>`VQ M0^J2"$E"08-C@`T>"U_R8;@T2W`FDL+QL6X!"@$3?SL<+HC95RO;[HPF--6H ME,]8^>-C/RG9]UJ,5`_WSY62.)$D(\[\,MSO@(:M*AF'=D^T:P<3=O6:[\`F M@>@4("M,R!EJ8*C`Z8ODO4>*OG[_RLA5J'QZ%GK@[XX=B1ST=N2#D'CZR&+VV>N7JO[7@^`(AVZD.@@I.^T_V:\*;@"@ACA6X]K2/=WMW8@!G+=@FD6S0XZ"UV\L(EF3PU9E\MSC!C'?A9N[/TH_`("($AR`$[D"4B$3N` M27$\T@PD,H$,>^D`3M&3)\U\S%(DF689VH4M16*]02#38A!&8&3\IDTP@L%J MMMTV6APK+<%<81W:,O1'L;6_T]GI"SS56K4\.'7*O%D]/>2KVY)K8A6+O:]S M%?4/;+N]"C-TST@=^05F:`P8#P:M>IZGE"(^K%3QY0K-9NO917R!4I0WC2]1 M?LY7*(N8)?QJ_B9WW>^9D%=4>'?>W855A1U%745,2:AD7%E1!5\1*A^W(+1@ MW$/,BM"*E?[2`->H%- M5YLU@S(,D2O/-=RZ*>J1H7<@69&2N(TALO(XFA_N'<#P9L%TWT6]?X\Z@A[N8IJE:QCL+ M,5U$1ID:3B^*X[^^G\ASU4%^RLQU;5NS/+"U^Y/!M6>>/_KXWH9/NO[VQ8Z] M;4_L._#X^GU+`G7A*2N7E78_!^.?O0+AME?:;S=^U[/^+7+\F?2Q4\=/'L>G MOP4`\C+NZ`4K7]-CFDMVRPI)02`:%*/P MG#O,6M&2V"@+TRQDYZHV45JL)-:M#JI$D]JE=JNC*E())>Q09_GQGP?Q\_!T MUXN]`8&Y_MFUF4X?P739D007*8)U%\]XH!W^'=P\M(<)>VAW$`HN#!K`I$4V M@4@"1J(99U15OYPG.U6A_?*6U)/IUK7:090!KLDUL.]OY_:T+["C+ MF2SV*@81))Z(GL1S%T4CCF;"%$"=J`MUHS2Z@.@T&D0$0#FH%W]#:*[KS@Z; M\0YM'94-P#L3J7WDS4E?<=1/XEUL3:52Z,N>GEM^5'"K#XM_]/6F*4EJ>B,W\Y! M5\Z)ZI5V=\/U)[_#>^/A*2O`T(OH92PI"O^CAFAR(?DH M1WCI')\SI@X>]A;:8^M@"E^]E',CY-RPGL9W:(1'5;J4G8VK0]_%+>$>)5NX M/O(BS>RE81Y=P(1=T^BI;)E0(RQ%2^DES%*V#3U&[6!/TO]"Y^A^^@KS+7W# MY?=R'$62B*!IAOT_W=4>%-5UQN^Y>]][=_?N^]Y]LT]D%759)""ZJT$QDF`B MT0;8C8Q!4U`:P$>Q:HHUAJ;)&&+J8#IM1:7:)ND(JVW5QH:V:B8^1CIJ6B=C MT`FQM9:ITW'\(\DN_$AM-,]Q(9:QL"RCH:@0 M+5AH&C(N7'`(SI=F6([3:@F!.H8,&=K/P90,^%3_XN@%Z=&&"#($OH]`"6() M])LBZFX45*_^JNY`K*`T]]*8$Z#A)?B!YJ@TVLMQ3*-PS*4A[^IAP<()<)4: M=82>P6%-X*>ZRWG.[:YD(*UEW.4P7<[XU&FH0,UMT7K0=]`I(HKCW7&"F1C. M%)0#FHNI>1 M\M6L8CBB$H0"B(6&1F_?RK6B]S_)[?L^?>++]]!@;F.VF?1^ M+]<(';`=VJ!,[>[7CA,TB%+9(W$:BU.\-#_/F)F?_2%U3H:`E0RTE]Y+C]+4 M$ACNT!HOW4YWTQ,T!:PBD)H\T>#_I!*.`Q1H+X&&P8:2#[$.]0"3T6@>E2KY M=JH[P3O8#DGS\X5Y9F3"H$0!XLQQ@I_X6W*>5@?,.$:-\3?LG_GH*_0]'VGG M?`%>=OIXC2;@<3%6EQ8@B)B`0Y&$D1#J#?6'R!!@41_J-2+C,93^C1SJ=2(G MK)(*098$0FB$0-@ODUX"=XN&4(*A8ZCKR%=`A8R0'0.#,GXWG:U5X0HF M"$5M)6@;I"(WCU318@Y;1*,3F736^W2)70O>G766:O7PD.=,59P?9L]]L8.M M&_N\+Y[]^=M'`JFY[3\^^DSSX]LJJ/#NVA4KGSEQ^+?9"/FSM2LJ=@]D^\A, M5]>3/WDC>W521VY"M6S$^:29UC!F\I?2,>E3S=_-=S3WS`R%,3L3"KA)0GND M$?FZ/"%3/LZBM]A,("B(L>D$G5[4![6JJF@1_&IK9?4@L:K(=V2R7>Z7!^5A MF9(U9(G5-BDLIF\(B_V^J-RMS"==D!5`&%86H+@'NF)CC+S`":R@8:2PD=$[ MD4$P31:L:!L6Y*C:T]99DQ'WH8+U[-]PK6G?DY)PM&C-HG6'J'#?X07M3\2V M9M>1+W^G;=ZN\]GWH.NJP`]'H"8Z0B'^F$R;6$$1JYE%W'*FGGN>:>&XN%1A MJK"5R@ND&E.-;8&E[.'-G1DR'-*+)S8^Y&]L+M'R`/ MTIT_=_XOI\^=A5?WY%JH`JB+"5S>Q>0O1&F:-$>JD:B$;]!'>GU3Q(`[9HVY MY[O;?;T^KL)>X5QL7^RLYQK%E#WE;.76B"U2FWV-<]AWR7)-ON:XY!FSC'FN M^R9\M@`5E:+64JI"6D@MEAJDS[2WW3E):]1#BVA5X(C`I*$I-`D M=`N4L!Z92\@24X@@AH&V43\:1'<0Y44)M`0LNN*M+I-1/E9U8M6\.X:-'%0K MH8IF^62F@D^)#O-]D-FL%A*;MHA1\U"I>@8J=GW[AR.M&T8W-[Q>;#RXL>N= M0^O7#>5:Z),_>NJIUR;V',A]\>KC%=DO-`,73IV[BW(MFNM0+XEP M$7]([M&24;)(GDW6D)M$)F%-*#5*KZ??0\?-<6?"4V6N9*Z:;S"WQG[(TA?2+46LY62H^1BX4&\@6\JKXL?RI[99RT_DE:4"4SN*` MW*EG+!"G"+U=7T+@U&E`DB%I:#)T&RC#>N/_2)UNS]=\;M[DWJW\9GV(#F3, MYZ;XK$EG^[7(.;6H;]G)W+]?N/3BZ8[]V8)WN]8=/+QQPX%<"\G-KD7%B.W/ M;3^X\_-'-;^^<.'/'US^Z`/L)G:`73H#U3$2VY.SIYN11*$`%:<>I>JHU=1Z MBN&-',_Q.K.1UQ$:#FG5-B`$OK"70YS?9T9FTF_\OR[55'WJ@4L=D])W.\=@ M6WA3X%#S5HF0/NS1;SV%M]B)TO=)-I][6."*'?OGMB0:GYT[?_[L9RT>*KRO M8U'%H4AUHJDS>QE__\3$/S1#\/UGH*O)S93?XJ_@%_-5P>7^5?XM_$[^I>!! M\SM3_Z31\7:';)]1,_4C.^TDEY&D%$."G.)2?$I(:5-B2M?*M?*M0JNV56S5 M'0T?C1@BX6`D.&56L$&HUS:'FPO7!]8'NX-O"C\5=Q7V3=T]8T#XE7@@,E!X M)'PZ;'.#`4B:/.4-7"0D"I3#%[92VF*W`PY76%5'Y/+B.L<`:0GR241*2$1L`E(0F1".NQQ1;'<]*C-\81*DZYU[I) MM\O*4JYBK=>!'$$E:9;CRC&R,<,&B^#.W[G*1XI0D2.&GPI'BN)-L>$8F8AU MQ\B8A!`*$KZ@P3_ZP%S-Q#RF@O,)2%CCG;4JZ7=$P5Q%QSM52NLPE4^/`IMW MJL#M'(-C,ZI&UYZ7@F1DFB<`03-LE$R26=(P?IW/2?"%K!/1TV#P6."R0!]P M$OZ`3N2F@`TNC/`"$Z6O(KFN-9TKJJ:$Y!#L<>VU59O*O1&%VU^7EZ: M6EH6<+G-0K!DWI94P]YOO8L[+3CQ'[*(?HNP$]W'"0'.)A#&9GHX.0\6W0HD M'%$G(`UAD_BH00"JU&@-DI_P(YTI)*()EEO`+VABV]ENMI>E"-"8?G:0'69' M6(8]0;82,IHUM#H/%F#(<9SJQC`+C"=@B5D``H7T(;9;T6C(CO<9+OTOU=4" M&\5QAF=F[W9G9M][:_ON?,#YP/:9LV*W/L"J4%(0@$ ME4(@#@^5Q)`0JK128OI0TJ0M(+7EX=N!;[Y*5A_`RH;B\P=&O[^@/B[F\AVHFNNA&A1%;YQ"<9@#`X=( MDI'RK"FL1IWC9C,1/(U&RC4<*5>AX&V8#FHJKXY6!!:C`I^MP!6/Q(.R%Q8C M_G&>0-OP M-K*=/L&V\2[<19Z1]BO[Z+/LQZB;O2'<0KOOAB\[2%Y=3YWO@MS5%:@Y!)O-^``0<<@)WS)=/#U4Q\E\>X5] MT)9LP4\VI2IK)2:-I5O_EU.F94.RQB)R)8LYX1`*R2I3#>I8*"*Y2H)6JI/` MO%4KTVG&R*)F92:=97Q>FB/[R@+:KCYDSK'G.RO,+SGKE6_0M8>RA9Z2 M3YO]SB?R'996[31*Z[5&VJQU&MP9J,791I^AW=)+VF%\A!Q1?Z[UH7[YM'$Q M]&?YKVPH-&1^Z(S(_V$)1PJ'@<)*F'%.54WCEFU#?;7WA)&3+)3F^6NX:21_ M8RLTJ=B.DPDK;CBL&%S3JG7#U76#VJ:9X=2%VU%X`D5$L.*$J&EKALYM'I(< M7=,H510!JV.:AH&X>\O2\4K]<7VW+ND%?-CGR0Z.-_%=G/`"^;+/.FR\R=YE M$UN,5"N,5P9Y4`+@#_?A6Y%;:X)M(;9@))^/@NS#GR!`/OK!!.K6^-L92U"" M$7;0=BVXEPR?/@$3N@SKO&)8K>(0?7&T'Y^R>%FOGM22Y/72=83A,$J7>E&C MF70*I>MXQO@KUWX\NWC9*41+ETXHC3BX4+6X_7C3HN7!U>LGE.3850>N3@ZN MPH/ZS:1X-BV4+IU4&L433Z(9Y/38+TT\?.*^BN`^NW2]AR=#220^`.$%3R\> M=KG?\5`]'(72Y1,1#R:4@UU1,'PSN#1!\H#CD0I!]*E2K83;BV=.'VT+-1T] M]7+SY_J/%7O/'*V["J3_X:#]-MDXVOW.[\F:.]=(9]]__P#L-T&/_@WLM_"V M`=/!9BKFR4*/^F/><=DIE_NQ:4(*]/C5C.>J>[! M!U7:X'PEE%-RZC+C)=S-N]4!4M`NJF\;O[.N25?8'_6_63>XX\BRI%#&L"RS M<$B"WJ6"II-=%72+"Z;Q.36!72!$:L:,1?I.+<7-53+;Z7,0D@%?7BCOEB6Y0![RC:2TDZ0Z8*+S M[,XQ=S@RIBT@+=8-:V3X@_RG*":D)3].H/Q3UGDDN&::730@SE@+)\&F5MHZ MAE.O$9WDJ6+5U$F>EJKP)#C$^&259XF=B9=Y.%7E,3_AW16H7)!90;?RH$]- M%4*I6J`'"&(3[RT>^L=K]R7JJWNN%E_`S[UW;6;QGR2-B[?G-,YNNE/41M_% M\W/%O%"OJN(BZ5^`7QQW]9@);(K_XJ<)+^TN-8]QR==]6-!DNC%KB4;1F%.N M1YU:M5:KU>_7[M>;C4.VFG;2D;GE.2<7R96M<]9%UI5ME[?JV^T=[HZRI_5G M[0/.@NC;>SJWDO5W+AZ;G5LL<$Y#G5X&G`V\S]>=`GF+$@=_UJG(@LJ\ZS/H MX`?`&\#HG#\?.G4DS1HL#WM\'GZ8/$SGL0[KJW@)64*7LX76!KR:K(8(\B3> M0I]DS^&GZ7YV&X^0RABMP74TPSSZ,WH5*X*]`U99EH`"P>YWV:\%*TYF,DXH MY]68P`9!,.P<,ED5SL`4^2H=Z1F#DP(V>V&3"$,1KO#KD9+27S$P,GQCI;'; M^-@(&UL0WXGQ,80[T"940A**F=:6*E&B03)M76`-"__?.FB-"-!&P;2U6C?` MG=ZP11X8=P"6<3X#V```F_-(X``H]=7A&BKRS-BR4+%(,#HW()9'K%'P1;PY MA_,!IA3JU!2S&S_]C_EJC8VJB,)GSKW=F7;O/N#>?9:6V_+8;ELL6+84N6T7 MI$7!0DO!0DLA18N!;"C+0].B@/SP!S$I+828H"$V"!*0A\;H'P*-F@@A`<4? M-230`!*($HA$0X52S[W=;8LI01-CG)/=^>[D[-PYWW=F9L_-+]*GIPIO>HEY MW7_J,X?N1].\TU&C3]`[M(,+(\PV+BN2Y6&\J##+DX/[-RQYM$!ZM:^KN64- M^[E#$K:.-_J6;T[=2^?^0W96;L9Z"C0SZF(1P&"*3K(&Y,]:S:OO>H/[!A14 MWIXR6:()97D#.]O>3GX7=4O,*OJ'B>GU?Q M%#^EXC%^3,5]?)^*;;Q-Q2U\BXH/Q`,-8R*F89VHTU`1BH::*KA/<=E!=;3-T5=S5D@FG8PWM4O,`OJ'B:GU;Q.#^N8B?O5+&#=ZBX MG6]7<1U?IV*3:-*P1M0DF'(I=@FTPZK)C>(@RIQ$%A.'N3DPF1&!"`9C3I>A M$%\AAZ]441PF78Y-B)(!1%D(=,;8&HLMNGX,JK>((Y,JRFT36ZE-V7X[V3]. MUB!/\3CQ1N=+I-"C41D7*BJ:5C@,UW:-S:O/+XI(W4D@WR>"9E2'YWA7U`PA M\S39)MUCU596;8D6;1;O"G0(UL?997Z'XTE^GN->?I1C'8]Q%)R2A>)D=HI4 M%#>SK:R-25:V>#C-985(.:&;.:%\T#*4$Q2=&5P#NPYFR(:9!F94R9C,<(:K M/7,DC>D-,>D6*[&4W1B=>)%?XWB"?\7Q5\%VB0\%;A#;!2X6351H""9(KX0\ MF6QPV3"HA27&8\M,:#"PP`3[D$Q2,TN'$_[F2-P"M:)!VV$:6T[V-NM"L,S` M%?@6?BX]+^V2B^6K*2TVW7:2J_R<6"O>%[1/4PO)CJ0>25N6=L6^UGY5"2F- M#L51Z_C$<<_YO?,/5[?[%7?WJ$FC)HVVC_Y!=:HQC6F]6J_GA+?4&R-[;\!\ M+7[5?R`0#?P47)D>3-^=?F/,HHS%&0R'X[Z9 M,'OB^)`_=/__9#D:V:%P67A/^.9_9:9\)!*S>HU.:$(L2!\;/+5)D`(@(,VN M`+CH;Y"J>;P^?R"8/B8C$W3(AO$3)H9RPKEY^9.>*9@\Y=E"B!1-*Y[^'!@E MI1"E"6:75\QYX<6Y\UZJG+^@JGIAS:+%+][;?VUDHW-\].LAT].Q(*_=TF/=5#P*K$ MG!*0?@DL$U82V$;(;V:$G$HC?AB?P`A.,!)8HO&Y"2P37IG`-L*M\\HK*RMF MYY/5/Q\W(+L,2 MX*2?3)&XP4L>@"=(-6L7R,!V4EH+F9#YE.QA%8XFD@;;7^DLHT8YK<,>01/! M.9Z/1Q.LXC8H:"W?N,)E_"8"PO+NO!;*-?OC/S;F]'<^JA;`\^DQ-:GRGP,` MRTNS9`IE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3,U.2`P(&]B:@T\/"`O1FEL=&5R("]& M;&%T941E8V]D92`O3&5N9W1H(#$U,3$R("],96YG=&@Q(#(Q,#@X(#X^(`US M=')E86T-"DB)C%9[<%3E%?^=[[N[FP=%`;,81[Z?-^(3K'.!6#_SP_T-32W'1M2P M;&P;(%L6-\[W/=^RCL^;?IKM'6GPM03D`SC"_G2PO+K$UU#[[M'/_@Z4!1AW M!1J7-1G7&4%9F8D'EM8&GMXAO@'B%?9ID.4PTB+W3J0K66`[QK_YOFR^PPN, M*R86;C0^$9^P]H'>N^?JQ!MHPW[LY!6"G134H!5K>;V)SQ#$5FRD=BS#8 M(P.*1:DW!AOM[/,]&(6'>,U`!;Q8@2E16;SRI?;Y`'YD3PGKRHE M2HMRR1IK9!NEAM]H,5XTWC`^YIP.13:F\YG5>!0^CNIQK,)J_)*KM8G79KR( M'3B(#AS"8;R'<_@8UW"3!M(HFD`3J8X64PN]2@?HC_0.G1*/")_8*KJE)JO8 M]G8%2K%2IBQ33H41'A=N"X?"?S,&&ON,OQA?&+)8M[L9>Z+P.XRS/R*>=DJB%!I.]U(NY5$^E5$Y55$]-5$K/47K:`,] M2YM(I_WLS1%ZFSZ@R_0U7>/,<)I%K(@70\4PD2-RQ7UBIJ@7:\0&L4<<$)V\ M3HK3XHPX*RZ*J^*63)!)O(;)+%DB'Y+5LE&VR%;YA-S-^>R2YQ6%ZQ>O9"LY MRL^4'Y1WE<^66)=:RSO*,Y?>6BY:+5ECMUDG6,JO?^EMKA_5]F[25V^IL M3]B>M#UE.QB%*"UJ#_;Q=(0XTKLN48V7\!X=P;]HITP2NZE,[*+?T4"9BD7R M>7K74HJGQ42ATPPQ6'Y#S=2,9/D*7<=U'!2*.$-.91=M02=/4IM8)%J4>'I8 M>46Y34W**46*"]@IKIAVK$G*+K;6S//?0).9JD<#7A!)Z!+;N0H_P3&\8(T6 M&[CNZY$E2C"&IIFU$5_A MM@B%5O,L[,%^6:+$8BK:93N.T,OR'^3$7J6%EM`SANOV([AAW:F\*D.6?&6( M<2+\(>V@D\9A<15CC1.R(EQ/FY0TGLL5/+U+.4.QV,WZF_B+L1-13&7R/*[C M?DWF;ULT3[F;OUS3\2A=XXE9S5G*IVS,%,.P2#QH4ZU)0&%AX93)DR9.*!@_ M;NR8T3\<]<#]>??EYCA'WIL](BMSN#;,H0[]P3U#,M+34E,&)RRM)*27)/7?+SANVO#JZN\Y>XOHZO>B)C: M7[*0)>N^(UG8(UG8)TEV=2(FYN:H+DW5NXLUM8.JRCU,_ZI8JU3U+R/TC`BM M9$68.&8<#M907:G^8E4GK^K2W%8F.*M*+:F-PH^I9RS]VHPWQ65O(9 MK"LRW=Z@FTVWF5E,S6-'3/?-4'J"JM5 M8D#J1-XS;0U?DJ>^+1.)!QYJ-V'(+SQ[$87Y7$ M6GH-EV&!'EWD#=H+S'U37[=DVC4U>`-<=NW++_KO^'IWK)GV&S!)LSGZ&HSQ M.[3N=.HC1YI]82OB0K*/DR/\F-R!7S,O:A,,]9J0NOB1R]@R17F,C*.TB?NE?C]FV'^<\N68_* MZOO%VPBF1(2,H=V)UG[#)>`;H2B;_K)%.KNFP17$K1G9(=>MV;TG/LS+&X?@_E3J, MKTVMR.M;M5XW]0)G?WY"/[Z?>P."DAU6LD3IG*I@,*8?YN;O3C#HUE1WT!OT M=1@KYVFJ70L>$CO$CF#`Y;U3T0[C\-H,W=U6R4'X_\=XM08W=5SALWNO=*_\ ME(2QY7C,2@A<:OF!'U@U<9!L;$*M8!XFQ@8\0"'3\`HT!@<*&)II@M..$U%F M&,*4!`IIB;%!MFOWVN3A_HDG,W5_-#.$'VV&#+3-`!ZF#:$TP5*_O1(&FOZH MY.^_W7/VG)5W+YM?B%0CW=J":`,MU$5,C][0.W"#T!X[)3ZSFC7!F58Y MA3;^*4M6VV@=L%G+I3%+$YUFAW%'[*9>WAT[JN32+;6'#'!+8%L'W!'X&_FXY5LXQA3:FZH)V6)IBG\)?BV6,1H`U M:*]5KU&KM1)QC%&3'(N+=BWL:S#7"FLWK89]$_HOP=8,_3Z>UZ,=QK@8VA^A M'=6Z&&'N#]&^#7LIYDD%+B#N3N7WX+;%.G@WR\>:_#;:A#ENRIPA)W)\@\PEG@^A_2O$\;9*L4FT"9B# MTW8K;A#O\9[82JS_;'S=P!B])]<\M2;$GXCIVXC'N.51P.>!1_$PMF_AT']A M1"EC#N@30!!8P,=IN_H,ZG>-ZBU_I48)G9@+>5J--4[H%.M%C!?43;0?_)#Z M2TKA=^DW_!:]@7VS"N/>!'K`;8_7F(J`TX"<)^_!FN4Z\<)V5NNBGR"']W6Y M'[OI"G"9C3$=(/B0>22S?FUT%GT;``_:R5CG,&KR#^S-*QC;F=A#:Q]J6IO8 M5;?2(,8L'Z9#_.Q`W9[2H`%=.K_TD-3Y)?'G M6;-+#U;;<;MD=-N4Z9#%0``X"*@4!&UZ;GR8+4,..S/P1$YI^H?\#!AG,.X, M[G]!?B:8A&[G4NM2C=^N]K.;F.UM4QXTY3I3!DQ9;,KT1.\-Z=V4'YKRHBF+ M31DPY5)3[C"ER6<3^-["]R:^-]B-H),*&`EFQYU(L&`!"PHVC)>3Y/YR<<1@ MR4%_N2AR+Q2E0)G[:5$`+8!]^8M%(>#)KQ5^AGG)QG"YH:PLI-GIT(,&Z_E= M]'#JY.%4LADLT)__C*BVL?DTHDIW%<`)0.W/?U%\@-%N\Y'(S<_WBV\*#=;4 M+[X6AL[ZQ;^%P5EPFK@GKHM_B4OB*U$O/LX_+X;!.M$O#&&H8)W*-_CY8+KX MN5B!X*Z+/6*;>,%M=FWS0`63Q48,6IV_6C3CG(67!K?IY6F!:89$'3IK\PW& MAD10O";*"LVAI7+HD"@1+XHB8;HKB+O[;CRV.5(-B>_`V4S32YUX-M66:O.' M_ZR%SVGA7VOA#BU%IZKA8NUL$\+S];"N5J&[M3M>IJ>HB?I MNF[559WC;2K#B%T-^N3ID($W#RBK*J5JMNU<2AX_/#C3.=539)H2XJ'&&A:* MC&ZDT`_&M8Q!FBT,H:5^1[OI"AQ59$_+Y01%NVIKF/L==; M8(WP3H/1RF:#94O3*SGRDCB,JF:_TI4C=>R5KI86RFP/N`+.!8[*1;7_0ZQ/ M2-_#C\OWV">T;.\PJMP\H(FG-#PVXC$L'\/RT94;.19J;(YTY[9$2F4CEML2 MBAQM=*]M'F876$]=[3#KE:JE>5@I8!?J5DB[4E#;TA)":4P>MOT%R;L@%7CZ M90I('@7TRR9/97&>U^1AV\5YF6[RFCQOIOLQW@S6*WGY4H&7=95FF+P965.MJ^[S>!W.-F)R1^%R1*I,B!"@>85+P4Q$F13!N4A8]I!0F*$53E"+3 MD\(>Y&I^O;K/<*\N:^W2J:<$5RM29]IT+S+JG9B]X M)V>$_J31:%(?F,H$L#MK4_3ZG#%KVV!;>X#6W)RG1$;C1N+8*R21D69(D[9 M;+8$$=D86EK`E@KF1P@MOC:$`D+ M:K"BWRJ4I,G&(*-LW6J1_9P4MG#`MN8#)/!NU615@_U.U9+)*@J@;;\/43+7 MX_`X9D/@5T[WWYK!OAK@:??(8'<&>7;Z]A^[?)A^R9T)._XF4+22N:R5<4>YTU_A+[,2GVZ? MQNI/'GRYZ?VNW=%OVMNBRUDSV_I/=OH/G5<.1.='Z_\2'8J^12QV-+J M%P4=FY/8T;13="I-2;/C?]9C?H,I*0WI7/!BKO`G[`9K[%LL@[C;NF1"AC&9 M"**5.1T97+-JW@IRSK,K[-A;!U]>]5[7+F;=W6;Y)'HN>NS+Z/KQSBL=[",V M^!FK9QNP]I+H%?8\C9.-&H*.6=H\#3/8%%VU*&3=HAG\Y7X;*08_$71RSNHH M2;G(Z]A%6I*T_6\RVW*)D[S>_1UN7Q.;.9,3@HZ]4.\0)B5BA[2,:$B)"F`76^#.D.BH)!TGV[ M;[Q@?!SDV/'8%\KWD6N%"H>PQ["'>'4R3DO&]F/OS`?E2U+9"ZR6,,/DA)RC M*H!MH[$R]KR2U13-P5RN M5$=YMA1>(_;%`+0;.EB,QFOVGWIX7O)>^RZ/$G"5>9[+V)S]0Z]EAMMJR72G MISH#E#T[)V![(F_OLV9AETS(]6=:47SKD1V=O^AJ.O=YP]JS':??N7:Q\*D]FYOV']B[ MSS$7;H/VQ7>7`3YQW]CKVTA[0Z;,NR+&E]"BO&@(T]`H$6$DPP MX)"6##5$#2F7,;U(@>`X)M10&QP(%"@X*7?`Y!A@;`((.TFA,"$-1TJ3H4EH MF);A*`TVM+B&`I;[6TE0_JCD_?;;G95WO]][O_?>7FT8<>_&[>[8U=7S,/U# MTX2Y+S02=M?651537^O["HJ!BZ`!S\,J);1"]XPG]9A481P4G\;CQ,GD!R(K M2E('P@ZX%%KQOFZFHM_$2GXDBZ))DL#K=!$""S9-,DPT2JH.*B:LHK0.(%T! M,EPKA`.OJ/_$SJ((3(N2-L5M939@?[<^9&SO#?'_1V%VE^T;Y@_=TN.-B>,-X#9Y>0]L/5UHJW7-= MU!SM/ZU/-%M+9!\,^98<5ZX[2$LM09N>.=I317XB5=MGNZ9G3'?/R/R1IX[4 MT6;23-=G[.:B-,WK0YD95I6EG-O%,0RX@8/U05Q!AS0D^WJSU0Y8I16?U"64 MGB6&G:[LE?L>`Q*:]&I!K`,RQ MT#T:O]@]8]<_WB@9GY6VIGK.6UJ;ZWYG_:G9U7KLT\9E&EF;O:QM6^?\TLKQ MQ:%9J]=L=1W_6_6',]#-RB./:`,% MC4R\#(2Y%4DRYC'RQ/TS\,HE.(3++L=Y=/6R"I4/A+J0-6@PJDFH/P%[9T`` M;EG@8T`Q'T7F:W:M#!?38CZ;4CLF,Y_I>R^/#MUP_*QV]IDQ2_LNXD4'Z*\? M/+\]UDQ2R!V8EHD*T&_TE&'N"C=Q^BP@!,:07Y!0@;_J/ME: MHKKKK+79+QK*M)79?%HJBO;?TG,E:PG*]2"_C_:F5:2> M<_GLK.83E;0MN6%N2ZKK"4]820]$26/;1.?W;7HN;=>?*JE9GWUXK/T>^'PY6/_:7\32W>^O7'PNY]V[E-? MKEERI^_ZJ^_.^5-UXP[CS>DN<.XXVXH4-$4?N$!:+I$,IHK],3M;6L*^P7*" MR<+QR#R-Q:Q%,;&<3^`9)"MA+_ST0WP>F?$H/,00XIZ(8;#0./%U16`+6HN+ M!P^*1#3H&%2F@3%PE%`\P%D9P0./].5FTW>RNML_G[#AC_?QS?;6UG/@MRI5SI+$0.P60`QKM/W\`\"*PUTTP\?L`.,TX*H?) MPO0%KMJ<187-.6P&_X0U*#PM5`N-F,-(L`%D0IY7R/))O;@"G7,7`&:,SZW@ M+=ZP90M*+\H+I[H&U2;X^S]%2&*F_E_0`A$4L9>EQH6]C`/<\O,`.(#1]E#W M\^R/@`/DS*3Y/6O-N.JJ92.GK:YHK%FU\_7/#MV:],+.Y;M;CEU9/VO\AIKR MVI&A!3,&XTG6NNJIR^\\-6SJP@MWVUIBMWMO7H]U-]1\1&XU[YI]:M[DM>/T M5W<8S%X(@Y?)B^>P`2!L8S#'CF'B5DM^V,Z-8:-DQ0%AV"^,$!#WRX17@>O& M-W_@=$%L*?@OK3ISYL$>PX6)D35(>OQ_*FB6[LR5ADI$$A5>D$U49"@:0S`G MUDB=I`%2&@^9P\S%;\KOA_LE[GR8W<^DFXW;QNL(TOHH@/1V&52QVAX/(0^? M)Q%$<%;@="#VRT=Q)/EL#T,)(OU_!N;>!+4$>J+M>KG`<803!)XUB3+#"699 MYCG!PII4>9.,B0]4W\/+#IZ7B.6V-3R0C\\POKENR%!NOHO\9^!4DH`VT[L%'`=E`G@_H.0Z7,T`NJ3[66 M6`W^.XU3@X'@C-/A)'F.L%I.%ZN,:G:DIJ2K-DO0O$["P;6&PS.V0HFF%S(F M5`<@O:@[+'7FU`)(3T4\YDO7!-[';KVHOM+;V$R8C%'N!R/`BOPO3:O2^LV[;%@Z6ZC!J-@(CDR'`[W\)1RE44X MRT6]*-/O\WJ3F'L]]J!MG=GG1QKQ8\RE%III9B%GLA?8B(FH-(I'ZFE9KH)! M(BX2L5A"-3^:[RS./>H^_N2UV8_)B!#*`D:="R:`8"MGBF2HM*#1-3)2G*6GO;+*->"$D MA'A5",6SY$OP#OH!X[W$B0&'_#AV"<04%@H!`FT)^:F3\#^KL"10*"2H+93_TD*5;(A-(TPJ*Q1H MJP9HPNA*"@B8M*J3)G5MI<*F;)VJ(J"E=(/$V?N=30>:)LOWG7TGG[_W>=[W M>1Z,`QC3+;CL8B_MPI:QQ?B[+S)-F3\N9\Z.3:,^&CL^^BOJ*V!;$/;?C!![ M#_;O`".3['?B&%W%5?$Q>18WBZ^59RM-=(NRFEZC2^N?Y=/&M*E#2:L=SDW* MB\[=]';S'N68\A?EFC._WWG-24G`K_=$'WMN_#QBX*T;/Y\,T#J&H5A.KV>, M)E$4)-EL%E6+U:K8[`Z'=9>HY\%3K!A@%+-O$(>33UIA%%$,XP%Y4!B]8M7# MN5FTF!G*+(+#\@BB11!$,JP<5@O\`H,=UF:*%WOT83V$.LJAA!6S61`,8-?T MX,EXL&KK3S,8(YX:Q%.20'G4X^"M5M[AZ&5X$;ST^8'B2(6V6D/:FJP6Y0HQ M*O0+[PATA_"B<$V@A:BSQDDY_V"`/]$#L:"7]S'[&:H==)_)] M]@1Q=A$R"G&>F8R$KDCW+>+HNO]*CO*W7=URJFL8[L%YQ.UEKYW/?B"WY,DC MI(D>.B'$D*%CX`!?H!IMO0$J@>`!N5R1X\9./:S,PR?P(#)O+_[?`XK'XS@> M!S)UI=8"@52;'<2E'`?4F,IR.*"-8[H9E]WN<_-3]U'4]YF/AP]6+JM)C7WY M0:^%SW-<8,Z.SOG=B;XQ>N^]6NKJ#[A\WY'1Z?2)+2>&NT:;2)L\(76C@+'"9DDTF#T>!7('H&J@P(,\U&U63W$R%348C8&\"AW\OZ33R M%-6#`3`C^56PYO=Y+LF]!-9C$.](%B,>'L`3=JAJ#Y]M3U3+G_G(Y!IC9]*9<$B<*D`%]9P6H[+?_]#U^.%9?G%IS[, M?/Q1IF])3(J&+M&M]VKI^NO']WTRNAWVV@[S[U-`QHZ"Z&9R MBY\(IIL8_,4")OTJ*XIDD&H+VNTY-!1)\HB"!>Y2)($.B85> M0;'S.VSY[0X_I#XK"@3]!!B[%)9$$>F#0=YN[T%0;2@T=/#I$.\M\;&E8$MF M%&*H];X9#V+175`.*-.W6HD?C44Y_I,^B(RA:FBQ:M`2^>\Y#8')";(BDIHQ MV1HB)3M0N>IJ4CWRSNI,.?9KZ91E2!55PG10F`"M^LL@66AVU-^.RZE59\X] M^W7F_H+B9^*=7Z03L\M^NGYDUS$LG4MTO#;_L=:N3`%S=NK1EP:^"4Q);-F3 M^0:;^U;71F!_>!5VD"GJ]!G0V@"&!5P)25$D1UP8B0E M?V[2UF(JIHOIXWZ:CV$=N5A!O#LQ,!PYA**QB7T"+9F$D@F36%NE.^%"">QV MVS"N#$RTT>S$2A[W(#+G3$4E/J54H22E4Z&40:I\(,Z73";#S0"/FGS97>)L M=Y&/NZR[:-4B],I"X`E#(W\/PNC-V)P(BGNIZR.:8$U%Y M1!XA1?I^:?VOSNT.2R:R=KEK5NOOF+@;L=^`/!\G1OR^&FF?'9%1<.52]H>'T< M'?EWYA+^7"E?].J\7R[[22+>7A>>?G!IUYGVC5=:>*LT+3#UZ?(GJEIBBXK= M#;7AR@/MSU_]V6>D^N/`\SD&Z>40$PE]00=:DT>6IB*)2]"[8?RCWI3-Z7B/P$*90EL,_ MLC="1/Y1`A.M!YN<&]V/VI^4'Y,D""+^)RQEO`'=UD`FD+G-J&^^>>\&R1W- MX__4Q7334!&J1,/)A2T3<<@0$@+&T(3'\!S,1O4)_6+_*K^N8D*)H(N&"TVT MA$*>0#A"JR9#F3,*%0A](A9ZQ>+T7+KV\MZ3RW_'OQNZM*XQ;XK+ M]KXTM7#QRD-;'T\O:?YM^[:%=2=W-NU^2C&*[CF3:X)E*U+RH:.MM9V+.C/_ M>J&^K+4"_T.2>3'2FIB[M.TM4N.94.,GB%ZA`!I-KG02%^TA!YV_/K3>NL=\ MS#QD9HO-T5!-:):UP;K2RG;[,:U8K`4J_$F%=@5IUJM25``C"X@+F$%$![U> MEE/#R.#P2@+O4VI<&+FBKAI7O>NFBW&Y!O&'22.X%.J!'@WB6#*/+T6$,J@> MM4&.1`U!C6@-*QZP;+[F(%)K_T>('`_<1:H++.)`IPM715)-61]."#@V`DN. M@@0@;482G;E(!`822TH;D>6TUL!6BT@#4$6"5#L3%QV>DW#WKD_ MO[Q@PPO;IJ8/3RQ9@[M?N:5MZ1M5Q:`\=^JG?_GG5[_N;XMVK+V*3Q7L M>FT[=CZ_H^_`K]=#9ZZ#6MN`S_EH;]*0H-.65?D'6)V6UQ:!&"4,KYBI9_+3 M\F9^DWQ0S[`6FZ68GX$;J48]*P7%IP0<+`49VT\Z4:=X!2[/JQ-0HP_B$H5O MB38?5^B2&I$HBY18YX[7$30^O:UUSN&5C8^-O\,OJY>'K5]_&"]X9[C>N6+LG M\]767;MV`*-6PRZO`J,DY$5'AY`;YC]L3B&[;`->\30KZMQY=-HX:#HC!`7.:CBX;)1+0M(*6@M0RJ+I`M:UCDTA%DC6`(&L%3%`@ MV515ZC3!I*7P#XBN6O\H$+/ONW-"Z&;)N;MWCI/[O,^OKYM7-9S"95*RI$5: M*W%S\6-23-.N"M&XS=K[''1!V/UH$0&J M1:MB6.9.50I@N!E6>>_H@0N]MU\YO^:5@<*5#PLSDQN6_&+U:SM7UV]C/)U`9X"`" M(#KM'P&*2BM%A8^7[P[N#I%@J+&4$=!@Z%R(C;%)Y];2GE*"Z&?1M%+$^K#7 M$T85"EX)]HL5_!2<$/P,F5::]+[M.PSYYR,1W25HP`R(POWF-#7BB!GAB,?4 M(AGD43P_]5P#I&HK8K4V/1(V/VQX+'*`7ROCN?R89=2@E`L)2I6./#5XX`K$ M6&R2+*I0QMM,P64V6#S[U$>QPNW3/SNW[@A&[YSYE_O>-^2-]MQ`H8)Y%K^^ ML7,8K_?MN+EI=-Z( MB%4FR?H!#L+R`;`B?Z?*=BK0T7R=,!$%`JU())T0=BG:SX88=4`3/]L#5C.E MBHU-B;(Q$$UJK!AHM+TJX\`E:BH3MN^K5BX(G%(#`VN--;#FP?73?B.;AHH% MM!(L%Q'2@L'F/OD@_($>3+_4OFA'V0NU55DU>#%\\1/VT)X#^=7UX5\'J]H[ M]MQ;2]E355A!=@)[RE$:AT^@F*TF:#?6\3'*GSKJUK/460P)5HO-L36Q[BHN MFIA9Q41]T9(Z5*,3J!])39.D4%R.!T,A0](@%35<@9`"?V*(>MW+68=NWI>"$IO%0M*AHL]DI:LZF M63=C4]:O:H$'CNYFYG[,E$=G/?F;Q:FX[\W>(U_^\>:VO^8K?O>%T?'9KNX3 MS]\HF;%EX7,?;=JWFMKO8'FZN&6O;>^[,?)@^>/W;U_]/2+\[<_ M'6*>V91M6KX-\UMWO->X[R)M80O!HN>!"P:Q:FYM)#@F8-VERXR(HXXG<(-C M!=OCN.(5U@E=CB[(V%..4UZ>.(F;46',8%@MR##!H&'W-!CE#%E195GQ0Z[2 MA)6!T*((ZZVRN%?!BB*FY#IYNSPB$T5>)K?)6V0"4R&SS?QA*<2L&`P"W7V8 MEKOOA6Q(Q$B1(6=EK:66)JTUFDU-6R`_G?TFE3"9M<4[RL2&%><\>[\FE#$Q MF@AN6Q3PZD"Y_)2T%5C#7[0.F.IHR+Z\YM@+._='=@SVA!1\'D50`SBP2<,J4/F3/LS?8;UDBTN[Z MH]2 M*JM+3'T]]S][5/0I^O/6E.XM<%/<*9''V;2`_6D6+TH,)`H+KPY>);B@4?.]80.ZN/7`19NP39D^-P)G5N#9 M>Y2S-@FM)\]2+\C"\T.W,\H!A/[$N!*IG3EW4?3:X/7$G*6O-5(\OMMYR-O4 M1V;>[1M9NAJ4W0#*W@RH.+'O!)+N?VW^W*ED(IS)/4\VD-WD5^00)X@$>UB# M/2)])7TK<>O%G>P!_C)+@."BZ)`DCF6)DR$\QQ('XW069<[",$;2G*1RG"0Z M1,EA"#S,DKSH$'@(,=D%!D&AY0COC#L$<(`A/&0F)-*>XC"WI\X2/BLSBK.U M`[!6'LB\Q05-N@72C0(%:9^C@UK3N'61HPU1N0YLJ9GDS&1'?C3A`""Y'M#P MY,F#$ETM.(!.CAI'#;7A//BPU:)Q&F.#%=@&G!XXPRBW"_.P[_SG_UC"G;SW M$OZNT#F^EBD[4WB?NN1LH%G88EC!;%[)X65<-S?*L0ZLL>SF"4OSH6$T@IAN-`J&8#IA>GN1V+-#V^2$"KKLL&6)S*"O M#DW($E%96E?NZ5FX`CDB*D>ZU%^6M8\@0S0A0T1E:*V"#%%1S_3X<3V]:?@> MUN:D.+^GSG#1%*=.; M/&4,)T>T"\8-AC^H'32.!8Z5]R5/:?PB=XNCV;W"M]:]/V M=W"_?W[-\M_GC)\,OJO49YJ.;BA?3V)]^9;U/U[=_FK'K/SXL\R9EFBF9E7O M;\?_RW:Y`$5UW6'\G'/W[MZ[=W?OO?NZ>Y?'[O)8%A"A86$AH;H&4=&`2D:R MRA!`T(30*!A$#%7!25`;C0\TV%%'FUJU[4P;0<*C[:BI;__.W8\8X"Q3# M72KH7GA5FJ'`0%))&E=(EG#5Y#G31K*=ZY1_(E\&!+C!?2!;&*<"WL`01='N M*BP5MVIW%<<`"7ZQ1<)Q&F!&<"PL$X+U`9-B-@-YT3@'9Q@>,$4DV,(`!G@. M"GY!=D`3(7AL0(E@:L6V;]R-:PX#Z&70T@1;&VP:%6CD6Y*]L`2ITH1+R_BX MXC3E9Q2GUK#'6#)X7)_2 MFD+T;(+#GLRLM:]S5"=7>S8[ZCWZ4A:W2QWV+O>KR9<8-M&C,U@]@B!Z43@G M-XC\/M6+#)*AU<`87DGQ;Y@I0UH7@D:D=:$94P-(A9/9I-#,,8A6?T*T\BP@ MC_IATW#_UU?N'(W=Z__N]9:A0YN?W+*^S.$YO&G-_K8"W(=#-RY,W1B._>;" M2^\=?NM$;GW7TL::0Z=7G[Q)4_9.K%FW#,XG(Q]Z$$XI\U3KGA?7.5I$]DE' M@:=,5R&6.]ATW7PQVQ'2E8BL-`*9LQH.GT@56.OJQ-M=^W`_^I=/K[K\IB*\ M#+\@O>C2K+S=W7I35 M+2M.7NFI+^O8\'2LF?W5T885?_OP7.S>N9\FWS%ZW"=<-[^LH/_P'F MJ!ET;@&=P7[0W;`P9L)=ZCYW;Q*33,L42&FC94J&#[?S*51L68EJT$M(GT(M M/B<_2/=PN9(8U"<[DY^S`*%+DAG930G$(HJIDMD./R9X>(,E8-;;/420`J+% M8N%%,2+QK69XKB"F)$D+I952G027B!O#$B][6;_D"Y@E29%\1O\H]J-OZELY M7:'UI$>Z_F^.3,[A]B/DH=5(>X#9`*/9\`S3Y_J0$PH13L7VN1YD`/PA7YUX M\^B-$U]V-YS^5N;)V(=#L>.[&ZK.M_0VU"VM+0AT'OKTYF]Q^,S+FW[]H)19 M>JI_+Y9V[3ZZ8%5_>[SK,#6@K(BFPUT\T\OW<8=YG=[L-)_CWM?]0_>`T?M) M0%>$"\DRO!WOPP:+2!B!@&[Q@A/A]$)\,,69>`?=4-@B!0$<(>#IG>4!)="^ M6H]:(>BGP*]FG(M!U9*6]M='<0EZ%/B::I"L$/FC",$=VGWQ$+Y@U.<5`S8T!%C*%)&\8.F,[GC="CH1Y'/'22HC1 M"+&'I1R/@I4ISHO2I722/N6DBLEIF4'DE)SD$R=V7IU??77&+-NR*Z9KHQ.U M\+EE$H*B;<8VK<6Y$U)T0E8`$8L!(L%&M4>>C;75!MY)AZ\@F.%/R_##6&I3 M:?!3\1SPY.D_AUVS`/^:H;R>ZL[.M/38IX'2Q>.7QG^ONZCKWOK\BSG).SXJ MK&YX?\](3P]N$2HW+:E?E)N5U:5F;EZV\])HOZF^M?J))_SNPG7!9[>M/%Y3 M4P,'?.7A77*$O8#<:&\X:[FX4>P0]XC'+=^WG>??2;R2>-L&88T9I(K(*LR3 M3<`]C"!.R9"P`U*[=0S'D(TD#-HCO&F$)`R8VX5?D@08U@3$@TA"VCP85HD_ MR#/\"#DXF%`$'0:DR9Z>F`8]Z#I!]2F)EBP$78JE#^CTI!NT2+W8IZ5DE?4?E@D!9ZD[2O!^S M.V([]T>'6IW>%#A?-\Q5A\X/^1X+;U4YE3\FO&MXU_B%XS.7`0H%_YJIUW7, M<,SX4^;'>B[#&')U&#J,[::M+OT\G"L5R^6RSJ&Z`#N4[1!T2P.=5E9-T!I\JQDA)Q4J`079&%*I;4E6J=NEG5 MJ2-DQV`"O'#*(HDF;QZ+/V(_8:=8)I==R!)655B%=1N+KL:-KY(^VHK)Z4E* M'K!IY`%F2*O))+!'2%#TH"V/`J!62BR4I5$M3-FLWVG=3M.RL#"D-;U4 M1KT\WM6?TCWTIK5\Z3.'FWW.I/JAC\]?^>(ZCB&:$SA9!G,014,,!V!;QXCP\A9G-^"`F M^*$PABM()]+F9DOTZ]I)>N@2*@"U'2X.6O'6T%8+UG:),UJ5(,Y>ZV/R;<"U M(5J^5OWLG1K1&5R-&R]'S^C\T>'Z6VU'R"[M/*>A5X3@/&[X^_[/5"PF_CV1 M9*I+U6VV7J9;Z#7MMKWNZG;W\W^R?\'?-MZV61*I32;Y@G0/ET+7E2#89+-) M$"P.IZ+87:K;K=".JC>RT&`AO-W(8E/L5ED6!*71:*0GMUD:[7:WOM&-C+8Q MTH3L9,.P.U%1W-:(/(9'D4":!J\8L7$$CPZ2"`8::1H4J2?AJV%>!!11$P[L MI[8ST59QO^US*7J_-J;>=T75RK(-BS]W54CW[X)6DR#5Y(QBDYILV%HL%]-Q MD2P[KEV[!MOL^E\++0G9M6VHENI(A:3CH@EJ@[AD_!EZ`\;_8;Y:8Z,JHO"9 MN7?O<^]K'WTA9+>E#[KEU6V[%:I=+"O4LJ4%M$`E6!NJK25`TY*4B`\TE!`4 M4A&(QA#TAY486BB8@H(&2X)&,1IC#"HAV*3&!(BA8`S97<_<70H:$7X0XYR= M.R?3TWO/?'/F.V?T-0=FN"D_J7!:[%2.1(O7C1R)_?%1`4^GE,='^;QX3GQL M4F/+ZE6T,':Q^_/-E\B%ZV?IFEE]SSP;VX6\GXAA+$41>X/H88_+M'P6S3?" M5IW58G2+YRW!LDN,J;-+!#E-1M`$I",JB"+P#KR3R+*D*!P&DU/7#56ELJQ@ MY2'ILD!X0Q)%CJ."@@6N@4&V0%":578SD/4%Q&@&J5D\1K-!H.H@X9HIHS)" M/$=,6(.%T3'R%9B$.\CXZNJ*$3QY,>RI)R3C+_E$-K>1E!`T:5BO2(ZH)5&4 MAD6SPJX[5JRSTZZ4N'9HR MZC1>SV]$3#VP)[S8ES9##3O#:3V*0W:J6IJ\"(X&'SFR/2+TS'5 M,19/X8'1A5G.IB.;C)+UESUC\L-2A7U,K1`R$/)/R#ZBN$B6V]3RTE!V4O5S#]>A`!ZL8"C!R,G&5%NP/ M1S;3K1H5U"[R/+]!6:O]H@I.55$TCA*>X$V/\'Q0T3PXHW2RL!&#DD`F&P:6 MGT%+<:>GU\AFI\4NB`J[)W8?$CMM;L:2H!\_%5;U$KCLNES#3MM8@!7WT;&1 M&`YC([4F.VU0&;5/UTAE7D;?\V^M+<:FUW1ZP[](2,!$7A.^X$U^`X M##*XD7>S\'6K\SHO8K4:Z?1D@_$DS5H&?M!D:Y8[$1[&.8 MI3%'8_Q?8W1R0[4P]EEG>XL_,#]+)G`2"B+SB;B]P7&->`)G9ZPOXT2\/[WO=N=!_],:(1Q"X$S1DKW,95EE"F4!%0>;8J@#='Z*; M!B%"N"%<@($L"BH2YKC?-8-*X]:4W[7)?:F(LF.+SJ*?MH]_]9`\..[736\0 MH%G_*%TP9,L8<9$`J2.?TFS:1_NX!I0+?!'*,'\)4_A-&7`,",4I^3HI8KU8 M+[TLUR=%$913:N%MY4=GK^;07M%S]?>-+8C]KU:7:X*KS_VJ9ZKG+6^]-YZV M*WU1^LF,]HQO,WNS*K+Z)^3_#^5-E'/_E0!KE/$@-@_>A5`C6=@%N&/C4J/J M!#!,R^7V>"$=,K/@OHF3[#],ACQ\%F*?!C-FXE!:%KKU!7,C#\^;7_U(S8)H M[<*Z^D6+ESSZ6,/29V:U[UWCH`[8*'VH\/J=`,91`"&;# M'*B">5`#M;`$-D`O[/1E^B8F$FCM0ZXM0JLRN'_<*@J+H.FF5>+GVPG"YSZ_ MX_S6U'[$6)'[[5PL)6E)OXY`+(:7SJ+M3NH!:'MMY7L:9//0[J5/0865* MYW!^=4KG47\MI0NH'ZV)1&OG5P7F=+0VM1=5=S:UMS;?W11"$T%P:F$^`A5` MN#J@%8%J1P"KH=/66J$9P5L%3R&=M.-,QUW^S[VT2J%V#I:"B,8\(F-"&IH# MN8)[;I\>'L@.<(#$`@7L<$F.T$)=:#?>_KX]E=@@C%&S4\(7P1=B`3V0^AY] M`9QY51=6&A57I4S)MGZGX^3';!PHV/=-0HK72\^)F-E!OA$O?PX`-/1F!@IE M;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3,V,"`P(&]B:@T\/"`O3B`S("]!;'1EEJK75,`L`C=:@STJ,Q185%&*D M"0`#"B`"$0`R>:TN+3LA!^"2QDNP6MP)_(N>7@>0:;TB3,K`,/#_B2W7Z0T` M0!DX!RB4M7*<.W&NJC?H3/89G'FEE2:&41/K\01QMC2Q:IZ]YWSF.=K$"HU6 M@;,I9YU"HS#Q:9Q7UQF5.".I.'?5J97U.%_%V:7*J%'C_-P4JU'*:@%`Z2:[ M02DOQ]D/9[H^)TN"\P(`R'35.USZ#AN4#0;3I235ND:]6E5NP-SE'I@H-%2, M)2GKJY0&@S!#)J^4Z168I%JCDVD;`9B_\YPXIMIB>):'!P4)_']$[A?JO MF[]0IM[.TY/,N9Y!_`MO;3_G5ST*@'@6K\WZM[;2+0",KP3`\N9;F\O[`##Q MOAV^^,Y]^*9Y*3<8=&&^OO7U]3YJI=S'5-`W^I\.OT#OO,_'=-R;\F!QRC*9 MLHFKZZJ-NJQ6IU,KL2$/QWB7QWX\WEX9RG+E'JE%H_(PZ=,K57A[=8J MU`9UM193:_]3$W]EV$\T/]>XN&.O`:_8![`N\@#RMPL`Y=(`4K0-WX'>]"V5 MD@2``K`4R$$YT``]J`&H1W0;NCWT%'H!'0.N@1]!4U!#Z#O MH)U%A]%=Z&'T-'H%G4)GT-<$!L&6X$4((T@)BP@J0CVA MBS!(V$GXB'"&<(TP37A*)!+Y1`$QA)A$+"!6$)N)O<2MQ`/$X\1+Q+O$61*) M9$7R(D60TDDRDH'41=I"VD?ZC'29-$UZ3J:1'0/R5? M)M\COZ*P**Z4,$HZ14%II/11QBC'*!I^ZAGJ M;>H3&HWF1`NE9=+4M.6T(=KO:)_3IF@OZ!RZ)UU"+Z(;Z>OH']*/T[^B/V$P M&&Z,:$8AP\!8Q]C-.,7XFO'9%YB,6A>7&DK!DK%;6".LHZP9KELUEB]CI;`V[E[V'?8Y]GT/BN''B M.0I.)^<#SBG.72["=>9*N'+N"NX8]PQWFD?D"7A27@6OA_=;W@1OQIQC'FB> M9]Y@/F+^B?DD'^&[\:7\*GX?_R#_.O^EA9U%C(728HW%?HO+%L\L;2RC+966 MW98'+*]9OK3"K.*M*JTV6(U;W;%&K3VM,ZWKK;=9G[%^9,.S";>1VW3;'+2Y M:0O;>MIFV3;;?F![P7;6SMXNT4YGM\7NE-TC>[Y]M'V%_8#]I_8/'+@.D0YJ MAP&'SQS^BIEC,5@5-H2=QF8<;1V3'(V..QPG'%\Y"9QRG3J<#CC=<:8ZBYW+ MG`><3SK/N#BXI+FTN.QUN>E*<16[EKMN=CWK^LQ-X);OMLIMW.V^P%(@%30) M]@INNS/E1Y;/;[TA#V#/,L]1SPO>L%>P5YJKZU>E[P) MWJ'>6N]1[QM"NC!&6"?<*YSRX?ND^G3XC/L\]G7Q+?3=X'O6][5?D%^5WYC? M+1%'E"SJ$!T3?>?OZ2_W'_&_&L`(2`AH"S@2\&V@5Z`R<%O@GX.X06E!JX). M!OTC."18'[P_^$&(2TA)R'LA-\0\<8:X5_QY*"$T-K0M]./0%V'!88:P@V%_ M#Q>&5X;O";^_0+!`N6!LP=T(IPA9Q(Z(R4@LLB3R_A\0EQG7'3<1SXG/CA^._3G!* M4"7L39A)#$IL3CR>1$A*2=J0=$-J)Y5+=TMGDD.2ER6?3J&G9*<,IWR3ZIFJ M3SV6!JF;TR_DR'(J,GX0R8Q,R-S)/,O6:*LEJRS MV=SLXNP]V4]S8G/ZU'&VE]G2U?75# M]26=EZY+-UD35K.I9D:?HM]9"]4NJ3UBX.$_4Q>,[L:5QJFZR+J1NN?U>?6' M&M@-VH8+C9Z-:QKO-24T_:89;98WGVQQ;&EOF5H6LVQ'*]1:VGJRS;FMLVUZ M>>+R7>W4]LKV/W7X=?1W?+\B?\6Q3KO.Y9UW5R:NW-MEUJ7ONK$J?-7VU>AJ M]>J)-0%KMJQYW:WH_J+'KV>PYX=>>>\7:T5KA];^N*YLW41?<-^V]<3UVO77 M-T1MV-7/[F_JO[LQ;>/A`6R@>^#[3<6;S@T&#F[?3-ULW#PYE/I/`*0!6_Z8 MN)DDF9"9_)IHFM6;0INOG!RAMJ(F MHI:C!J-VH^:D5J3'I3BEJ:8:IHNF_:=NI^"H4JC$J3>IJ:H_R#W(O,DZR;G*.,JWRS;+MLPU MS+7--:6YQ_GJ>@RZ+SI1NG0ZEOJY>MPZ_OLANT1[9SN*.ZT[T#O MS/!8\.7Q"!;(#`@,"`U.34@ M.#0R(%T@#2]2;W1A=&4@,"`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TR(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4')O M8U-E="!;("]01$8@+U1E>'0@72`-+T9O;G0@/#P@+U14,B`S-#D@,"!2("]4 M5#0@,S4Q(#`@4B`^/B`-+T5X=$=3=&%T92`\/"`O1U,Q(#,U-B`P(%(@/CX@ M#2]#;VQO3C#_#RXMSSSWGX/X7]L,/L_NGAY\_ ML63VXX^SCY\>9A]7L_O5*F4)6VUF25[/'IX?9_5E/Z65/BVL]I8NH6E!'TWL7TWO3Y;+P[TW8 M3;K,YWC[$I\^-&,[,'$0AJD-Z]38#QR-K+40C6'/<]M+4D;+),=+5I]FIN&<7EU-MOL!C&ZTZ M5N]DVQ*RO&_87ADCU^W1_LKU8I\,K:"3I'3O[[@9),Y"0UGSAAT$Q[MUQ%;H M!V/B=F+3^XMH49UC4[I9I]E4"R5>XZIZ]*,TSM&J`_LV\E8.1]>4+?<*G\SA MDRSSJ>96\^_4@=H,HF>JKD=M&`!JQ(:+F@\2;QB4QR?-+X97A&KNM,SLM<`I M+;P&W0"F@VC;NXW2':%)-=L`&I5[U:#G`X@VE=SC<3$8L/POZB!>A+YUY,:+ M-$JB/]]=DKGN\'SF^=2.X!'`:>WL,(U1"QJY:L9:@`\XM[X-'5&)5QTMW2'S M9355-*H3@^Q0I97?1CF="M\==K+>L9KWC`/&;FSY(!C7F-@$R%YHV0O>XF>" M`W#[TM6?+ATN<%,S*#E5V&KFG%MQ+=1]$/8J_SM7N6>BGE*Y>;=47(C::]EOQ%F MF(ARD,..=7R[58.'XV;U.XVFK"ZZ6_AR_K#"[20VQ8QH;Z9 M-B8,B@I>W_VT\&QLSO1PI-%(C;F@V9[&A>[]VB7%>7.5E[K8-0<-ZD$@T6S! M-X[U`'W`Q'Z04*3=<2M%+^NP="AV';PLSCVGM:I%`R(ZD!J%?FK58RKK$:09 MH%*>U$5V@=S2U_)L)&)!K-`,F(5=VX!=I,#VQ'93H@!:\9;=N5_A(IWJ?9&= M;+ENC[>$6\M!-+96NJ=%F\;!.Q$VKOK_7!VI;>VM(+:UOA MU+7J.B"`S=^IQEJ<;W_"HHH6BRMS2LO8SUVNL-&1A:[P& MV4*O0/#:4/AU^3CJ1G[_KAATM19[<\OJ$8Z)FG8%.?O:RXVX]]J0>0Y!O'I) M,H(3:,`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`L+I4]Q!WO7FLU[+!L'UI$FW%KB[AERZ.L?$\KL]2; M*V*$$<]S`XX76-ACPPWH$%N>#TH3=DT9,;TRATW2YU8RH&"^92V]BU' M9IB$)Q]T1I75X!*TLP= M%-.`)3?0@D%MA1V^;:Y7A#9>0_5.FO`FRWKD0BRQ48CZ@IZ0XBK<&_='&H#4 MZ!.4GSK#KA<7,TQ#I85O+3`N8C];#"?AIF;)(P[HUHW5E7L'N=@C5^]X#RNF MOG:C68/=B(HV))(_P!95^^+S`UR@+$^A)LZ6)UH3'UK1T:GZL\P_W:+N@BN7 MY<5JQ,O2H][M[29,.%F8UB]((5,?JF\M8$B=OI.\"IW$I3]-B*23H4R0^T"# M8YRMZ53A>KP*O!K.9`UWMBE6#>>7,?1EA&=6>6U\*.8V%Y(V&M;PCF^GVQ_= M.+BNT>`T/L2-0*RW*[D('F#O!_,I:\!UH_)KETZ)0)6=!*B8!PH\ M_A-)YD"*3'#\`N,X1;BW5Q,?`JK"-?I):B@Z,>=Y7B7W11;?/SX^0*2F[:?4 M*;M]>\J8U[)`M0PLQ%2GOGY"UAS81RT'BA=3>V?A\IT[4QSBU;_<_0C^]7=) M;@3,V*\V2$^T1#I81$$OR^J*7L:Y,X[51?8S9(^X*@P@WQF8ZU/"+-_TE_KH ME2Q.2WO6XV#WZI:ZW?MA`-`'Y^MA3_$S7H(@)$H:44 M@[PLE6^B7>F+NK5[_`^)VK2\VEY7U4$TN+SBTXO0MU;G/'+5Y=9EOE:5>-$D M#1<$F^KO;$@4_J8:@G5`KGJ[=TG8.TO@N=,#2I@DY9A$P^BDI)8P0T)S@Y*C MMDM.4WLO`B;)>PM:+:/B;#_]H?+_M5WE.`#",.PKC"S<(&!GY@4L5$JA2X<* MA/@]3AN.@00#S`)&'-O_7ECYZ4<7!.OY!3SVQG"&$E M6'0:C;0C:W]C>O>;PQZKFMA)?=4U7`*Y7A(X7\C*J^=H8L6KA.T+%5(?70IE M;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#30@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]4>7!E("]086=E(`TO4&%R M96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@-2`P(%(@#2]#;VYT96YTB1@&XETC<8P%`JS\E,E#BVQ)[:5(ADUJ MK+]/G68W1OGRZ:?/S%]]__WJA\^?5C_L M5R_[?<0XVQ]7/&`^_L,ON<_2./.RB.TOJY=/.F&%-G_G,UW4JY=_?.7LI%<[ MW_-]/V'[8N5[8_'?_ MKQ5/O2"-$7/_V7P?Y/3]NE?UB:FZZ*30LF1:UEKUZJKZ&SL+Q#Q(66_VOZYV M]OL=]WA,,<9TPC&=@`>Q"=?)MNEZ!!+'7G:L;(IO],#K^JNZ-#6B,T;1T(;$ MMB%!+C:MAPH1,ALKE#U#1::(>_L"+\Y=,0&/QG_)\YR_;K;L,/2L;I`[2E#- M0`W1_5`JVXH=S[P\F]5"[]I^3$6SHJG+H4`MGDGYQ_WJQR^?5B^SP0:SP3Z. MTP^]Q(P3G0Y26T?D16P3!O&:;78I?MF?)2N&KI-USRIYE15KCE/'W,QX]M"< MV(X_M-,7/;"SR_R_(-VA*I$YY:W[;J`9:"9LP6.@=\.+QF#<#S.'I6,EBUXU M-:72(S]5B[;MFK93HI?L(FIQDAU'JAL#]-!ZC,'W3O;QH5UQU0QC6 M5J*@>!36)F4^GP^!!\D8HE4$RG)`(3YF.HL^N+;JHKFO*F^C.[-)UDYP'U2'84W04=MSF-`>=)Q6Y^%]F?FU)[ M[)_-&\;5;5DO5,4.RG!H`AM&".8U!:HW=:N39M]DV]-OT$PQML0\M__KXUB! MPM2@4)42F"4$*IJ&IA^/RN0YML+TXBSP-E/TMY>VDK_1"ZK'VYTZJ5I[3V`; M/NI1L*!'21AY1#\`V&1FDGI&@^@9#1(>`7849:R23U6&8T=C#W*PXXD?KS]; MW*.$LD''3'\6'HN?/19G@>?/'HNFQQ+W&&?T7)KZZQ]$\>W4-0.0-2*2_?+S MLQ?3WY?O..9>'-W?MN/D49Y.;WNK%]$37*2"S&7J7S0CN MQ'N`=F:CQK9[O_S,V-L92E7+-W9HNAHR6\NF%KVH7C>L'5I`X6AQ3;'>T=]F M&86!S;*0'1!=LT,G9:FWV![%F41$MZ)6LM);EQ:@X7_8`5'H^-\V35F!`X:X MDHKK$`W`-^J&2OMFR@JAEM/B46K3:J`FV$H'Z$C;@7@UM>G7`L4D>Y!74HJ+I`9JYRTDX$?)=D M;H-.0GR^G92$FARF)&FZ1R$+$/D(#:+?0GO&'#//S^.':O;;MIFB#:3K"!(+>:AG^J;]-C^#)SUMU;.5PS^J)2Z MZ-Q4<[ZXAX/,!E,'C`[UZ>8B"1:T%\XWR'JO"LJH;NK=-%<*-D]I4M&>#$HK M!_K(93(J_&`U/027XH4)!HF;H)DZ9,+(8M-AU5@DW#>.*`IHKBQM0F/,Y?WG MI[X=H@&^P0"U"L5I51CO@`1%1]+/]JY;H3^9*3]U&C,NJ$*60T?;\D9[!ZZ, M'CJN&<6PJ9):4+I75#U$'3!;M*P!;[&+C70W<"T2?`)WQ))[C5 M"=1C`E##3(4P9H,VJ\3L+Q2'7>&PCECOVF2!P#,WPJ\$`#<[`,HP:)1MJEE4 MNF&-`WJZ.$N>Y78_FSV)!LWK*\`6TWERI5A_$\[3CT-TJS-U*N9XW4D0W539 M.(6`:,`#LF/77)CS#VD2+S#13QV%`"1LXQJ:RGH`MW5]T^.JPGR8[`MO2R"> M/`0%?727)MK:*&H#1(AQK8^:"-G`)L)48*^D!HY[VK14[J/Y>[<_UV#0$V0\ MM:S9[^_^,$N]<-S]T\`X'&?@5EG`_HX=TUS,A#;0+'^M#`U-4<_6*/\#9U`8 M)_8,>D"R'T]^(<`2W^RB:'3/XU@UE`!> M'B]Y:3]VR&&CFS+BHD#ZRGR('94L(!B^T*F1?O#,(PB"#&?)4[#Z;K=IX,DX MO6JXU$8'R"#>W=DU(0="%%3*O!6G[$>3/3C4".^ M$Y+X8:OG+BVW@)MZRZ1N9:$,^ZV1:HD8TBC)"2/R)B6)/ZQT=SF$W*:X-_>/ M1IMG!U$USC?WTG`)%*%;4E``G?NZ9AH)H%\$=LHDE@._%CS0/[Y:[`[(: M.W*L1W#ZSASLV.B^@G!76C0VM5V&L7DIQ:EK*&9^B.!`\X2%/@["F$XDR_+H M_F9_-NHS\3+*N)<$^(3;F]9DR:>*G66Y"V`8>$DXG_L]>$*Q'U/*$R])6)"' M7O@AHP_)X%;UH$0!-&HN%*%+)G9=6.`)>&JX@/98IQ%Y,5^P/'[H-MW0MDW7 MD[87YZ8S$X4N'%0%@IH>"\->^O^D_4GP*/U.MF%`+51'NR,937>X;.>&$7]\ MF>\GE)G.,IQ".34^2/JJ':H*QJ7HX-,-^LU:(.R3BL%I3=L=T=[!WK:.!R.` MUF_B:@RC)'.%C5>8O"ST[IAU'OM/X?2!:#P($S)_GK MQF-?U45!):O;=I'"T9W"%"L=.UGA[=Z@1CUV9!?D7A8\6P[!Y&1&66=G6;4& MM300886-?@9F-)L.BG1!1!#,$L**3RNK*VQ#(4BUMZ;I>KJA[N=$^B&YB1I! M-KNBQ@.JGD'/H%GK6=0)R7ZZX%)])Q_BA-)T;R$PC"M+_H9'"`DG62M`68GM MA`3_`Y1=`\/4LL/LTGLV(Y1,8'01Q*#E<+(OGM#I@^S?I!P;G"RI)XQ(0(+] M1Z4SSHVV^;'G?Y3.(,QFTLG2I0?SS`3X$V_"1O&<$[8G=712G;OE-+,.QJP+ M58YV5AJ6T+[SV$_]-#F>+/K0/+0>'J9)#Z<3O*LD91,X6=V:]!_=A)MZ;E$$ M`)*O.=[1HFIKH!(PZ0G5@\3/G90R=0&GR9"T4.N;N4`J*4HBC,+X70WIG:$X M)*U2D!5'U5=9->T%=+*9:&DME9[01I\O4R+@;EN\KC^)^JAD56($6?*Z&3$, M;6?J:"!'\C.XC/*%G@8XC*P0F0MW:X%;#C@JT62SC\RY-#E-$VF9"3#M3M;N MT#?D(L5U7:*_$W>:YM&"6(=A:O."1Q.]&"T1;./_ZRY[W09"(`B_RI4ID@(% M)7:9'TOIDB)EFC-&`OD$9SATRMMG%EA,++NTY$/+[O#M#.)1FLK/;-DR9<^% MR1N5B>:`K2.4P:0YA;WS!F6"`V0#*63FN,J,0S;XK\,MG\4]R_%J+(_]$U/8 MX57;:&`IM9[1S2ZCE<.N%R=;<>]^K^%-W?`%-BFC0XEL1^?7SD8\7SJXJ@PI M&)8&_T\UHO47QJ;Y\-/2U57.Z@R$%-SY;Q-29'EMD0J&U2"'+NC2J,ROTK,! M(14O!+%AO4NHJH*F-C1202.A&D%G]M'F`2Z^;0!\<-&;38-6-?#LK-$5H#\? M\'/WFD+P:X'WCL=&WI2?'B-CPF#P!=X)%NS]`&]V2GJ"21MC]/#P1)+5`FX\ MKL>;"Q-`K>/"399,D8>#5T=B.]7A(0<*3NZ0KXGH\W+>FD]7\2381P9=Q!V- MG0<#:65>[FE)-.+UB?YN@10IE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3<@,"!O8FH- M/#P@#2]4>7!E("]086=E(`TO4&%R96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@ M."`P(%(@#2]#;VYT96YT'1'4W1A=&4@/#P@+T=3,2`S-38@,"!2(#X^(`TO M0V]L;W)3<&%C92`\/"`O0W,V(#,U,B`P(%(@/CX@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-.2`P M(&]B:@T\/"`O3&5N9W1H(#(W,C(@+T9I;'1EOF+?*A4WS*I)H$"![:2Y-BJ`6T(>X#R-J M1,XNQ5%G2&N5GY&'_MY^9RZ4Y)41+!:V9?/PS#G?;1Y_9=]\LWC\Y?V/'UB\ M^/;;Q;L/[Q?OUHO']3IG"5OO%DG*8OS#ESIF95%%5<[6^\7C>[-BC;&_BYEI MAL7C]T\):\WB(8[B.*[8NEG0=QE;'Q?+C1B/0@QLY+)G6]5\ED/+^+!E9MKL MI3'R1;!)RX'KN_6G15)'<8&RZP^^6AFJY365^VUY8G)HU##*00R-P`_L,!T. M4ACVO/Q!]2/5OOO/^J?%@ZOUD$1)<:Z7AWKIRK:W[O1D=E+T6Y;4=?9\%U$; M']>+C[^\7SQ>S"B]F-'U9)(RRNUDW!L2]X8TS0K7<1&E47KW4)995"_7=W%4 M+COAYL',R/5H&!^9[3E)HK*^/'X6BI6^V(A'M5(C.W9"X_@C^Z3D8/SC<50G M5^-;S<]7Y^<-;S3OF1:M5(/=!3YU,TO3J+P<&HJ4;I&_+?$:H4=Z1!IZ@GV: MAL;^K':A^Z(H;K0?EZEOWSYGC[Z9QI&-RG[0:#4=(K;N4+CCANWY<&(O7$M. MY8U?IZM^V=HJ3,5,38=*&*,1!Z[Y*-A&"[$-I'9MHB1G6[G;8=H#@:OM!;6M\#LDVU'M;[;M1T?[MD[I7]7 MTN[RB??39^D[L[4N1S;C$S-(+`,Z-0U;C6:SM?R5LQ,Q2U;C,TB`C#:AVC^, MWTS3*+TE-2$4N=$5474#_2CET=]Y7/R-#7R1P M$/JSPZQ!^P/;!*K@9?45'I.DM"*U-'O>]^#VM,%L1GE?L-/AY M^5UOP"4^/-_=0R>?#E)SEN+W;^M=?NT)Z0U/*.HTJBI2OEO`(N'+[AZ255Q! M\=[=I5&V%!U_D-QA^01N=XX:]WD.&EPOXT<;T51`MVE&CD136\EYAE MH&I>W+*KM"J]9I+`HLI><(CTY@39EI"J#>3#,FQ>8GXM;8GE@94VS(;`_ M2``+D((#]I.%OIU7P'Z=7;8R\\@['0V\F_!2%-B*/71UM$+IQ$X.6_DBMQ/O M"0\/KMHK6`4Z5967-"K9J+[']LC&^3C*<0+U[7*UZ)U\=_)@2-S!O;!_YN3V M\BCV$.N_6K,*-#CX'5"Y>?(H>6]=8D.Q0GSQJZC0ZDS?L]^)@1)&?R(V;B5X MB)3`=^)WN/VJOF?L[^J+WX$K\.K(V8QI"Y2E?2JIR_KYCKW%G/*MI)#7<91= MH##,,\G.A'%)(8]RFQ32.2F`&U;]R'LG@W.`-?BD@7A#FA\VO.<^#I%OJLG` M;1JU5Z/2IS#:VT?BM#PY`F,1LUNR[]M/INFQR0%10PV8GU4KH&*><3P+M$$` M4WJT6A^>PX)G9[?[Z^2P__@6_.'POLM>#2UHW(NA!?E\?R](-&)#>@0<3_MAQD)\@?[8B^B_ MP9V-PHG:#EEQ];9VUF\B($UN(2#.J_2,@#P@X`-T:+4DAF^E.?3\Y*(S@R,W M([LDA^:2,&&0,#"G(V];ZXNTR'L<=13#-08*]]Z\SDN/`6#%YI&MTSF**JU& M-0H&I(+Z)$,^OTZ8>2@5T.`,62*A[^66!(9DC_"A[0'.V3SY"@2^K:3(RSFM M[HWH7TA2@&BN:8-TX+U"4P=U%'H6XOJ6\Q=!!W93?^_B#;H1!"#@I[,#!:WV MN'^`/F#5KRAUAYQPPG?S]2A\!`2Z7G_E9? M.XY';IX%Y/(>,HBX:FT,<5*!6?N#Z"#PD59D^PF"+^QGL-^;C-2(N4J\1/V/K!L!$G(TA MR;A>]4@8..^(W`&0S@BSIF34?KX;[CF2M9D9`:1?JV0Y.Z6/];(=:+&"&PFF M8OQ:\.T,01OJSCG*7$;<`V\^@WYO^$62O&48:5%$9>XC=K4ZFT3A3*)8_D@A MN5XB'N#*T7"#U5Q2BI/%G9CW2.AB,]!*?DK1JD MP3T.^U?;62G3MU)BG*\\='P!J.3STB`W`<$-$.VY+!U;DRPJKSH+>\Y+OV<[ M=@IR-.N=5GNW2VC3:(G'CP#!\_)G.,/PN^_/%GW57QT*!R5/Z@+W($;A9S(^ M95ET\_,4-[TX:WH9U:M;0RR"I(LO!R(+D[C4(&E39.5T'X0;PDZ-0>C`1_,, M4>VVV\2K,I]GZ)%$529R9:M,07(X,X&">7Q%P7#<5>5#YH0(`T\@9\9VK581 MCZ4+UHHN.GT/B@XXP4Q$*GJ9A^PE)RN"32M';`3('\=S-C=3V\)JB8H='^?A ME=6M`)%F(4!8M&V,F(_F`BD_T6W!+GV>7/FU&9XCE8>?'!Q`,#-LA:Q,(3BZ M-:/Q:3CR(*"O+G-?28W6H`;AUHLAQ.4J%3(7"V=YS__\0D$4&#M`[("X*YL) M^8&]2'$\*"0H7!LU84@.4-Q1MO;R\U;H3+(+$7E^NY23)\ZBNO)R< M81;/Z1/9,UG%%6+G#W^E9; MQ75;^:VV*')=Q&+?5U(&^*.Q*+&*MP3`,*U7T!*07(N7L,DJNV%#21DPH38X M0E`@"*3<4?*5SBO^*;"#C]R,\QZKKT0D3*Y,?8?/RW_!4^Z!@`)WPWO7E@V& MIJ,`;06E57P$#%V3=61G\#K%Q659GWE`ZH841WLG+FS^7W>9Y#`(PU#T*AP` MH0@4AGT7O49!3C>`$&T7[>GY=K`;(5A'MAQ/_YE$]_&`&$><;&_#:3B[B+'3 M&,&YW$98Z_)S8<0BNPF]AL"*!L?/UM[=W+OZ@;,#6*7JX5L..:@TL$^A'8J%U\W?'Y=="`]S97!E("]086=E(`TO4&%R96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@ M#2]297-O=7)C97,@,3$@,"!2(`TO0V]N=&5N=',@,3(@,"!2(`TO4W1R=6-T M4&%R96YT"!;(#`@,"`U.34@.#0R(%T@#2]2;W1A=&4@,"`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ,2`P M(&]B:@T\/"`-+U!R;V-3970@6R`O4$1&("]497AT(%T@#2]&;VYT(#P\("]4 M5#(@,S0Y(#`@4B`O5%0T(#,U,2`P(%(@+U14-B`S-30@,"!2(#X^(`TO17AT M1U-T871E(#P\("]'4S$@,S4V(#`@4B`^/B`-+T-O;&]R4W!A8V4@/#P@+T-S M-B`S-3(@,"!2(#X^(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$R(#`@;V)J#3P\("],96YG=&@@ M,CDS,"`O1FEL=&5R("]&;&%T941E8V]D92`^/B`-H'MZI;&NYG^+#?NY'U M:#;%%@8SEL=F,BHC,C+R\7?VRR^KQV]/7Y]9N/KUU]7GYZ?5Y\WJ<;-)6<0V M^U44LQ#_X) MA4%>%@7;O*W^6`]'P1JN#H+MY'XOE.AJH9GLV.EXUO+NWYM_K*(L2/,,Y3;/ M]-$JC.U':]XP+?\K[ME6'/FK[$?%>+=C@VA/0O%6=(/Y_(,K\!`%449%+)3< M0HFBHK3UNGYXD\-1#R@BN\,]`S8EV)%K?('H6-UW'E$1Q*D'%,5Q90OL\*W; M1A@03(\U7J+W8X/7#$)ME1!4-G"83(EWD$H+*8P=HD\:M9AXI2]O>BWP/JW[ M6O)!]ATCL*S%7_"8JFSJ4AA7N0?U*IK^)';45,%52J5/#$=\Z'($(^&3+&VW!O,H:+&ABP&-*+");*/6%2@?.\X3/4ZM? M9-,`Z/9,SZ+^CWK"E;Q'Y:04AK&1TGHK#K+KT&'BC>VET@/;B49N\1V#8"?5 M$Q^LW]]M_B1D:3:'%D_54E.-:=&(VO1YWRLV=F\<+.X8'P8EM^,@=$!UOFQ6 M7[X]K1YG\Q+/YN5J2O(B#T(S)5?="./8=0,R#>*[AZ+`+^O-71BD:Z-`CG\U M:%00O!)<0X<&U-M1UK;/99!65\_)?>T\L;6/;-E[_56@D)T$#`@ MC\',^UX>CO030V^W7-*/P31<87H9KC)S@_",3IH/[-G`)<:`Y,)5*Y3^255V MJG^EGR<54Y5WT-P3DQQ_9">6B!HU&"*2H0"R#=.CG9*O]'/-/>U).N]6Z4OY M.1V<&^FC$"<`DA@1/LRXGSA/;LRH\JTO'>>_B5X=)$V^]8^.?>D.#97GQDW$ M7Y>QC\H%7%'HQ'@B",1^_];!U/:J;QE'!_]BC7B5^+/QU'=3SU!KF<1AN8^/YQ/>!'13BY-)C$;%]A;/X'! MIZ_!3*.1N+6D92L;,U=NSC`K_+67]&(8+KW2]*R!@8Z'H^D#_<\W=%&)D^"- MY29O'_LPK2=(V0*V6J1]!5_54E.71S<7--8+@_G'6C:L[;&Y'*T! M^W[LU?!`_A);^G'X4&TD'6^H(. MQ3[87W'EHI`>$8/4V:CC5>"=F%7\5M>20A$F#"MICVY.^-(%?&$2.WQH^G]& MN!PD<,D`@&KP$M<$=7#=LD-2LX5FH2@-8/'AK8'$ MWD!\/CIQR-O8TDB1CQ@Q&A%_D6+HL1Z6*?FN;\FTJ3.[]\]&%U[^;L_#N)?7 M<_K1>D[+V(78ZT20%NEE/2=F/9OEG*^/?8M9^RS4FZQ?[IUN(E"P).LPK8P* MS=#"A$=L.;9B;<,B-;WWOWR!<@1:7OC9FG?K\WSW&SCH>V%*/V MSDPF'\D_HC0O9BL03D3*']`D0$&8/CGM7IQSVC;%4O;)O2==&L[<)%#F),^D M[8`0@>^Y!,VHF`]",CD;IH"3W!$+1@JY3F@(/C8J^ELE+Z;]DOL@+V%B_@"P MXX315&[#NTL!=$[G2G[#GS^<$G\X]5MTU;A9+<@,.[Q-FYJ#0G8QVVPZ#/(E M1>:I-]KZR!6OR7&T<2VVQGLUTK-330Q&@3R3R-2(<:!X]`R:USH6L"U=G[_47:(7763%NSQL>-/@ M5YP1.DCA].9:X:)\F%PCF5(S$'I]D$I';1+\^[!AHC2F_&(6R?5:S[P.*+,Q M>RN:T&Z0T8#UFIYWH)EKY#!X]BCD^@0$@H0TJ9`^U8^#<0)WP&35)>EGJ8NL M+MZKF4LZ7O.@^B@6`:QKFY6_\]5E;D<184\15SN?\4W;/;'HG3BDF2"<_[0W?M$;1ZVJY/ MPM+;>^52W9G6(<)#+8RACLH[:1E4U=(I6G@)U4=[QS3F(O7/?HCA`#=QS>7\ MI(B<(K`*X-ZMSZ7&WO$.##Q7N\#8GG_`E5EX$I+"!9A["$*)_=A<5@2M!2KJ M+9B"P8,M-.]HFCL:87Q*;D=P8;;:;(NC=H?!Q`(]RFE#7221>DZP%W?3,-1] MB^W62C.B]GK:\UK04ME?=M1\+J=,=LDXYC'WU-X35U@K(XZB>TJQ)IDA)Q75 MDMI]K,-9@^D]4WOINH/#*!-?`89:%'P0[XI9O,,(GQ`<]FNYL3B MBR.?\[*[AR@/2PS9TUT<).M1*0H,:`L%!W2AL[WUF9.6KS^4%C!5UYC2)4Q1 M%12S\%GXJ[*H)E!!9,)GD)GX&5&L^80T\O#L4'QJ8.9T*?Q8QRCQXXYY_<7Y MTA17GGN(UM\QE"(9SB5#GK9GY>&23$RIJR/+1@A#^+_^R6BR$2&:QBWRVG:N M.9M6B1W%`<,^"I6WURC]Y"5M%CP:N^>O--*S`W<&5U[V1'R[7:?5F+N'GA1D M3@0:]F3WYXC[BN:?DPDV-ADDW9@*)%&37$QP_7O_AB\R M:F>/^#@B MU/6*7(1HN$I6#[;6LM-!'\DL<+S%:E>ZRO MQ#O9G:?$&=^N5W_,9(E?KRC4,,HV$K-I5:N-G0&H MTZ:GM%@R8P0PMV3I@#DC0Y%2C`]?4@DITC9V(K1(/DA,:>R7C!;JU3P7)X,8 M'LE;\?*^\^^_QSO`+3+P7K-C$%-*R&/_>&4JI)GBG9+N=W7G# M:XKU4M&Q>J,"%(8ZBFV1+S[A'#Z069I&^SF0H??2=2:X*14;P&L=53/5%7Z\ M2'-HM&WM9OH>![E$O-SOI)/?:9UU5I1+7%"661S.>:IYVQZ&3&,40+4:-]2T ME)+2BG\K),V6;_ER(S15Q@$:%&,A%DNMA.)3J!'(GI!SE\SV$/.6.+U=G9`1 MJ+$W4!TW=0,P&D][$P2Q-)X\_]VP+)_^`?`=A6W!N<[3*:'1,ZRQ$H>]<=6, MT8"R;;VI#X].#N6DXR[?!?0!Z[N-8"F5N M9'-T7!E("]086=E(`TO4&%R M96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@,30@,"!2(`TO0V]N=&5N=',@,34@ M,"!2(`TO4W1R=6-T4&%R96YT"!;(#`@,"`U.34@.#0R(%T@#2]2;W1A=&4@,"`-/CX@ M#65N9&]B:@TQ-"`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U!R;V-3970@6R`O4$1&("]497AT(%T@ M#2]&;VYT(#P\("]45#0@,S4Q(#`@4B`O5%0V(#,U-"`P(%(@/CX@#2]%>'1' M4W1A=&4@/#P@+T=3,2`S-38@,"!2(#X^(`TO0V]L;W)3<&%C92`\/"`O0W,V M(#,U,B`P(%(@/CX@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,34@,"!O8FH-/#P@+TQE;F=T:"`R M.#$W("]&:6QT97(@+T9L871E1&5C;V1E(#X^(`US=')E86T-"DB)A%?;CMO( M%7S75_2C)M!P>)-(9A<+V&/O-=X8&05&$.>A1;9$[E!L;CSAT^/OWQ@X>R''V;O/SS.WJ]G#^MURB*VWLZB MF(7XA_^*D&7+/,A3MM[/'A[UBI7:_"UDNNQF#S\]16RG9_=A$(8A?E3.\"G* M5FQ]F/U[+K=,#WQH]-"4O&6ZV77-%A^[4K!!,CWN=D(/C+.[_ZQ_G46K(*<7 MKS\XO-SAQ5%F\7JIFZ%Y$8QK+]B2I1ROQ== MA1]SC=I[)5Y$1V69EZ[_\HJ-,#9LS/>"ZU$)E,AX=P3HON>*;UI!")7<-W?K M/XB#.%Y:$LRS2_-LQ[NA/;)1;7C'>MF/K3W[U_EZ1-F*1461?KT+&&%\7,\^ M?GJM M]?W+?.5Q$3L`QO?].-ARB>D-UTW)MHVBQC<5.Q"Y4[NRU]UZS6*OY`:D':D5 MO$(9?#"4[B7P2JZ%#FYPD-SB8)6M@M!P0'4O(UOW,E@&\=U]EJ5!/']W%P6K MN=J-YM5#+>S[Y.:ED:,VZK$4Y$&ZO"+AN'!L&(T=I#*ZJN1.4^V$]\_?&%?" M\6!0+HF(G&K396R1MO);+?%B;5C5M1"]P3O435FS?E1Z!$.=':TX#-+P6F%1 MZ@H3WP8E]@*GXZ4=,:#V]5%3>]NC+?9>+:V@)4E[P7"Q16MJ.I\R!E17^P5)9JW`3.DHH@S"YXRR9`=UJVKE$$ MXWTON-)D:U!F)YEX:2H!HUNXZBS25%XXZ=KTAG]'+B*#[K(-09 M9H4#$,I,FO5EPP!K-*L;B*(:S38Q<'X*P^BB:X7W_,AM)MZ3]?#=CMH/+='# M!GMSI*&Q,S!-(Z&]$M;2'3'V\XB3H8J=`))BAV:H+>:Q%TY*<5!F%Z%VA89K$I[UN^Z])%K0=:;595VX;6FI31]/L%G=A%KL9HBS0 M[)N6JZFWUA7A;T+ME#R`3J+!UQ>M+IA,)L"E`\2SK41K:]XHUU]\*"4?-.N; M\IF-_50A@;VJT)\XCUUK-J-21/ZA`8%B*'V!FN\Q'?RX<*5A>)972\MM,TS8 M.%KJR364\0J;*%`:=N248##8]P[O576KR3O,T,[E1)L>D;>:#NX`)--1(QY9 M'=E.=$(1*$P\NO2T>,)+;8TP?$0+);9_94^B-*N[")8&JPA6R!DW7">[Y3II M'KL,>7F"XMQV4FL[Z?P)VS:=>X%]G3^-6HMO"_9($4TMV%.O,+9"31;M*0\G M6"=4/-..^PT]]"/`J@5[KYIA0/[")WG$*OEZ=V;0;ZGV8QYZJ4Z+=L'^#ME_ M['9MHVL4N9&;>W*0KW>&IT%X*\J3:V3'H>5:H=>*#OF[5%O9/B_8.P2KBK=8 M4'_CSX+6TL)JP4+=T$+L\]872M0_PQ?-D^Q7#K'_@PALL4R^`/O^9][8VK(@ MRB_FW,L^3FWLI,#WH_QF#O2E%HA:4-5@;A;FRX/E'_D)4 M*?8;+<#'FBLLE[/04TS41LLB=4GG$]U;8-(PFHT2HK*W+/PZN98L5\XZ;8*1 MJL&N/8N2>1#%MS97G,9N3Q^H[XC=JK*'W\+KS`BR;8L3Z6EO^,KS2_OU223U M1N."POGLZA$R`2_X?K*"_*T53!*/3/_G/PF%G,N>:M%#G15&^%VK<<_AY"GD M,RAZP3Z/1JU9D(=7]T+L5U;;+$`P,OB>XVEX-UTP'V6++BW8;^,+U_]=3"W/ MWRY]GW17N9/GNV=@0K.U8?3XB.@O>+4RHMK>$&#EP>4V9 MTZ96@O:+6Z?;$4_:&`I[-U&UD.?@G7197+TT>.>3.,O[D6SN:>!;**72-5U2[7*;WX\],BO#Q1G!>^>Q?%?V?O%>0'E4#6;#:B.F7> MMQ.0^RRS]/W3J(,,9%`V=6"ZGAN(`I=38;/'3GKSAVS3]&HTRAP<0])#;0'[ M97NJS!?K=\$T`VEZ?E6`IA(?Q.U+'1J0<%&H((1R0*Q!J!D'U.9$M0J2])IA MA-.%J!8FGLD.#]>($.RE$0>*E!2CFY-\75T6\/P.DWLD>>BLRF&'="9Z&*4) M[&:L2=XR*MI3!;*O>&KASHA1DP?KB&1HHZ+<2.MV:]J`<%X*/3&%QZ\N""-S M'[&)^%MB3FZ).4:87)V)^8VKD9@SNR.C^6>(.9LCE2)/GN>2D[*-W7LU8PZO MB3EU5G3:*+2-*K,:IDC>CZK'Q368Y`RPZZDCBCS>EF3+8)#(++N`K6NWYFC" MS#U.GT1S>;WT[8E;=W&_PM:6(\NR& MPGUDGL;RSTT[S(<(*3M)653`WLSJWQL_2_)3M[5-;U,/HQR_Q9-%$H2I?V#R MI%7F=@E[AQR"7!GCC[B6#MR,$`G940*7NO2>-P?`\6E5D.)+0,D]`KU*/QH<^=]DES9+&\NJ!2\C%W#)LV6(O/P3N+?E4[O M2N-KI:>^=)O&]$#.!D`E=G8[4Y:"]8TW&FMPSRWJ-!_ARD$[Y9/:0$S+!XIY M9-/JV4<;%QK3(%F=Y=WIS%'HXMF1-?M^W'7Z=)W>-_)C*O96Z M,)?.F;4I+V__J+KL4XM]"H,T:LL,X;=5J.AMD?6)- M#\]M`J=;.FI6+5BF5!5$4_)!@2T%_62M%<=K>3J^_=MI&.[W/)";L MQ4]FIHY5.4^_+$O\AW"S.JZ\_2MZ6>#G<(>!?P%U+\#VN-55+^DRZ<)90)63 MB!F96P=-/"8H^$^\;A)\['"`9?E0'%C6+(J_5)8^0>UH5&M"F5N9'-T7!E("]086=E(`TO4&%R96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@ M,3<@,"!2(`TO0V]N=&5N=',@,3@@,"!2(`TO4W1R=6-T4&%R96YT"!;(#`@,"`U.34@ M.#0R(%T@#2]2;W1A=&4@,"`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-R`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U!R M;V-3970@6R`O4$1&("]497AT(%T@#2]&;VYT(#P\("]45#(@,S0Y(#`@4B`O M5%0T(#,U,2`P(%(@+U14-B`S-30@,"!2(#X^(`TO17AT1U-T871E(#P\("]' M4S$@,S4V(#`@4B`^/B`-+T-O;&]R4W!A8V4@/#P@+T-S-B`S-3(@,"!2(#X^ M(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$X(#`@;V)J#3P\("],96YG=&@@,C+GGQ=OWSTMWJX7C^MURB*VWBZBF(7X@_]6(2NR M,BA3MMXO'I],SBICWPN9J=K%XR^?(K8SBXFCK@*T;T0DF#6LUOB9%V\NMK)AXEK5H*\'N_K?^]R(J@SC/`+Q^Y_"2"2\; M\73'>"NJ6O=S$3NKVGFV&GG5\9&4> M),D8&2$DCHGX&EK?:7R5V50JWHGMH!@HK_>$?6QDU;B8+,954"N7851&(V2% M/LJV4D,M6*7DX2!=]?"J);<+CVU.?EZB[**C+L\P]GG:[/2Q%1W-(.;/CF#[ M(-MG;N2SN&=*&#,-#<%=19E.M,]M7P]-50AW@K]ZCK4:@MZG-K(-);`Y$G:9#;@0B#9)6=AR`*[QYBM#I:_MK3]`^J MQN.)3*#:2'B,,+@3OBIXLO(%IY)2@=YVLI>F8;^)MA6*/:EAPRQ_:_$L%%I< MNPI9Q/D"YZ,$8>5"#2$,DKO5N)-O,,XO+9^9SS\Q60?)" M'MVZ"4O/C#R([E"5R8X'T?H*_#S28B6359?EE^:D5=HY`4UB]8O0H"$N/]+W>WF+3Z ML;W(PC1(XG-7_2+)$M_4V#4U7WX`NX)RR=L3-%L?%"J$C3"T1ZF4VPF\JL2A M]QJPNFYL,:$79Q$85SU.+$C+.",W$NTEEGKH8UPD8UX5RK@ MK4,:N_V)A)IASX$WUT??QG%+>,.P2EZ&67K(W.YM["[5F+R7I/%D"O&WRDL`-U8QG%>>N:!*?!2%@S5 M>K",I63M_B(NTP>FG5/.6:S8N\N`D5%G(`G?"6NM7VBW#U6:R=/DMY9ADF9N M&9*EV6.782?"OF@E1B\CV+/HR73QSL<617-6)DF+47Q.9+:V,"LDY%^6_U*B M^H9E/1J1/[`J.X3]X-=B]-J?7J_%CZ";`1:('Q+Q;PA8%-WR)DE)?'/>)/?; M'T[/J54\JE6ZY'LJW+WS=C3:M`=MX.-$WK.#-N"$U1MF^!Y&1@R=<[3K?RQ> M'B#@I*-XW^&[>TF>"Q!@(*9#TX\'WC='?AH?<6-YI!ZM<($W6=M-1ORLT M'TL"A?X#S]AHG'&[YM6RF-D5=#19.`Q+_N7.1@#OH\R9ZWM^&N^U6M(1-BW@ M9%:G2Z\/1$OD;Q,X^;&QBE?%Q0KVRI"'TPY.':O]V5D-O3B[ MJ4TW8.?*UAOO*)[A6C@-"2/ST=M<.J'L!:$L*;K>VD1PGU;?/]%11N8EM^:E MA`ALA/>/D'K$C4L@AQ<-XI1ARP!ML7TUJ'&9!%GI!C7R,51\,"CU!@=NQP?W ME%Y6".#K`(\$FVR&SE,!-?9<2*+4#>!.X'.BKP+V:8"[1S7LQ\M@E9X_['=Z M2P)6#Y4@\VEHNIR0QBG6XVWWE>6QBC.:'"1M!F57B.W"@T)+:EO_2>\MVE643I.2>)4ZO5=*/$O> MCY7%(E$[860U2A$W1E=XT]N@(IV)+ID.*6",V2#,2Q;0=+ART/'9Z\D)`?)& M(:&;Q5DW_QRDDG]!.!DFB?W'T@V>Y7=AH`WHI=]*:3:G2E!-*R?+)UB52BJ: M0>N>WIS'0G'34ZNWXNBW4IJ];#-@;-)6?/70FG#E2H.HG#@8 MAUZ/Z#&V@[SJ00G6"&[=(\A64>&^+#]HI=O3V8XYI.LR7>_'WTAPD5=QV]Q' MV8_=?506[F:SPS!MR6S:DA^A)_FRTSW?:5BC\6*D*Y?2`"_Q$O.,22^7F'.D M2;1RN-8''8;#00IK^:B"9X$_-J*=F)*^7F+>J\&L.3;O#T,_W8Y4Y9ZCVSW_ M!OB#XG"21SG1.2WF'$R<>-XUY**(#\PV&H@;V4'6QQW";1O/X167Q\8T:^$Y M64'.BD.#,":5WF\QN'`96P">[NTH:P1>2Q]?G,R>N+$_<=ICIN M!,`%P\B(?HHO3EZ5SP>8EF[7\BTVVI%WM6/U.%H(TY82MOG_$!_!)TL?K1R_ MO4[%3OH,;07=U<+>/F:HOBD!LSI>")A`O=_K=MK]@)EW)W%2N%90#$+V9'B\ M1G%2?/PB#%[&KUX!XF)6`=S@NE5M5PGEJ`\0)4S.2Q)/?CDN7M7,WRV9KYF_ M):WR4LVA)WKS+/7@3@;7E4E#\[GPHMS;ILGB\+,T`<6%-CK^LWKFEZ3S0?U= M=A7M(`C#P%_9HT]&18Q^#A*)2T#,*!+^GFMIJ\/WK>MZ[=TUOB+%2J>H27VW M`ACA.14\6(),:DX*X^3IB6A-V6S M5?2J+%BG<7CR+9]1E+_"*V!UXL11M#E,UFA%QNI'"V:#)>1[9U&D!PNN:!?L M"D061D5@\&8KRC],#8/2/.?D;(Z@;S9Y1.[RS#2=]Y>#\SONRL]V31MK/CNB MK9"`[`NY*P^KT_[EZ`7,OQ3]"F5N9'-T7!E("]086=E(`TO4&%R96YT(#,T,"`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@ M,C`@,"!2(`TO0V]N=&5N=',@,C$@,"!2(`TO4W1R=6-T4&%R96YT"!;(#`@,"`U.34@ M.#0R(%T@#2]2;W1A=&4@,"`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TR,"`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U!R M;V-3970@6R`O4$1&("]497AT(%T@#2]&;VYT(#P\("]45#0@,S4Q(#`@4B`O M5%0V(#,U-"`P(%(@/CX@#2]%>'1'4W1A=&4@/#P@+T=3,2`S-38@,"!2(#X^ M(`TO0V]L;W)3<&%C92`\/"`O0W,V(#,U,B`P(%(@/CX@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH- M,C$@,"!O8FH-/#P@+TQE;F=T:"`R-34X("]&:6QT97(@+T9L871E1&5C;V1E M(#X^(`US=')E86T-"DB)A%==C^/&$7S7KYA';;#+X_='SC!@KQW'`0P<<`+R MX,W#B!Q)8Y,=?O@;LJ#Q8@KUZY8).9Q$S\XGV71XMCTR MU3/]QR@0&?\XX^NG_^S^M7FQL5X"+TBN\5(;+P[S*>"YE\>C>50=&$*S@U%R42):$!B+'AK6;5*"B.@0LR MB7:8*8-8'Y"%4SS\8BBX[7JA1?\^Y2A1)=F6`WO;_AN1]ZI7X_'$@J)(WYX\ M1IS^<;?Y\9?7S:>;:0MOINUNQM(T]$(S8W.>F,7,]2+W,\B[:OH)WV?8&/I.::1"+2`?9$,,SDX.VXYE[V7U_G6[.LB%; M#+:6PX7B8)A(>7@[&!'%)\U3YJ5;]>1[^=:JYX]4CA2H`P^]R6(/>N9[!71R M7\O?;?M,1_&SDI`^H0W1S.NC+KW&Y/3_^XLDC+UDXO2M[$9QXBB8&PKF0/OE M"3JY57IXX4TWVK%NQ=BKANMGI#)@I9K4HE=-G+O5TVSJST8FH: MQ;:UF$)]D!O+YSC)G>CUS"A.5W,M.:D-PKP+X`(QW-9*O")=D)@XM4W?"]$" M0J=ZZ@8&JU)'K'_VRL<*X&CL+"@3:<7E!(Z6$TU,9XV6\^H$#F'2&'8TB2'F M3SB;LRCJ0>`:01G9_4%;':S1M).!]UK(&9V)MKSK_=SM>LH-N^&5]SU69U8\ MLY]Z9>?/?ECXM$^_W`CL+#T?@`Q@Y5X+"?2A%9(OKN^+:D)7L M13E,LD2QB4%JA,Q>]"`:-^YIM$3LP'?$-@6D%K44!8FB>-6]59FGG&)=U]3L M>8P3W3H_\[,1M(_.G7$&#:!"'.`;&U03=D3_?44*\L6E1GH>!S%4YBK5\8S" M;(KM"PD4_'6+J7K;GS"HYB;;G&/AS7 M58B"&44PK=GKGQ<&'L&(.G\.5&=9P>EAE)HU[R#1Z6/:"NG>+6I7EV&LSSXJV'*2E,1<)W^/(8\F<2?1H[$E'UI"LFCAL M-DOW.V/B!\G'UK+IH+Q!>*\'*,3:X@V2U==CZ)/XT1C%H57*?ZJS>!?],_$8 M)#=.AI4P23UTJ1('V8(M8C9#\>)UZ,=Q8&T>!J,4TU78/>BX;?B\-Z9X*\[> MGR!.>\/L,]I'Q%TNZU4/$F1KI0BS]-J)Q.6?>H7UO,EV!Y,4;&_J`-(>)7$1 MAFE*#`.OE;,<^>+Y8,^JEY*,5L6.)T77XY$62(?S=%"-76I7PY&O+,\HRFZ7 M)S^0X7%;&?',_8?3I-;S-D,C'I=%%#N+,%M4C^U.Y+NY\81[4?(1VU&/Y6G> M9`AU<]+$L;NTX-TK.1A?`0`-KB22QYL%[=T^E+>9V&>8%Z M[!_JZF&C8.F(@E;8(^HTHMI&K%'ML;%SYBA`%FVF%(6ZQQ>XBN6AO6+^A(61 MAM9WQ"S5"`,!5I3SQ7%_W$4N4F;]C!'MT5IK7$(GY\L++W?N:KHC\!K'#DUH<,$4"T,0^(XCC[Z/B@AN ML&DBP<-;';783-@/T,*9?C9/TTP:A,=Y'7)6#GGBC!R5+J6>C&2>+ M1CA(W$E@#Q0C&CC!?K^GS8UV3+%6\/D3OJW!T$A=27YLE88881(.T'88%"J@ M_5R8UYG-L:KYJRX/M;BZO-R/G>8'/D0?4KW]V1HXL^\G?7?Z:M;,K*OI8FWF MXX8;.PJ,/89Z4IUJ+,VU@J\ZHCQL]"RMC\2:UT>1SA&A@=.,-@A*.[17I:C& MWE$KCZY>SYV4I`GP*W)@9S?&>MS_)NPL!U[DWV7B'&(:V@"$V=XCO?ACQ(E" M;]=6^(QW7UG8MPN")'TMT+&O@KCJCZST`OFRN;!8FGCW$;;`ME]+*-9`JLJ^V'*0667?E?V1D2=&+(\SC6V%Q4 M\A;191=Y(];?&9)S,O6G)+:>[<4CGW%`NTZVII.6))_K\! M`.HB#*`*96YD'0@72`-+T9O;G0@/#P@+U14,B`S-#D@,"!2("]45#0@,S4Q(#`@4B`O M5%0V(#,U-"`P(%(@+U14-R`T,"`P(%(@/CX@#2]%>'1'4W1A=&4@/#P@+T=3 M,2`S-38@,"!2(#X^(`TO0V]L;W)3<&%C92`\/"`O0W,V(#,U,B`P(%(@/CX@ M#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,C0@,"!O8FH-/#P@+TQE;F=T:"`R-#Y6JXA0LBIG-"`^_(-?F4_2 M>.DM([+:S>X>5$)RI3_SB[[OPY?RF>_1R(2L) M(\_VC6QYWO*"L%KL6/6,?'R$OX6L"?U,VBUK;SZO?IG1U%N&$'?U6L<(8A.# M[-B1;-D3AV]RPLL2EA)9DIQU2M2;T_I;$^"6>C2V05*:F"!F8[)GHEX0U4&0 M!M8N2"%4VW"EB&Q(Q4P:B1>GLP(G MS7G1-9PH>;/Z`BF98(.<_&1I4BIX*6K`9'W4![N'4PE%&@ZI-?`:H!,U?.)R M2H89)28C/PUL,%CYMA,%JW-.F$+0&[[I*H:@]TD]\RQ.&*U/R41AK@+FT"D=E=7PP[B"5ZW(/4((@O]F-7OS M_F%V-V![,&9[,,'V)(T]+-%NYO<;6DA2[^8VH$GJ!?/_\A89Q)KC#:7P-X)< M`H^`"D`SN1_G.C)C$` MIQMU5-.`+EW^%#9._,Q+YJL;?PX;_B:/D.^#K"J^T5">#F8RH4LOIJ/R1BYJ M:GOKL6LV7-8*.D)!3:&A.MWL3R>,3%E-J+.RQK:YDC0UX90+AW2#+D"VP'\; MI*11[GC@WU(O[:0"[WIZH=QUF'LLJ[Y$V\`\PJJMB"YK*&I M.]YOZ(C9&E$(L/V=-H4)M8S`?*1J>:W$NCKB8EF6BD/#\*ID#3<'-XNG&XXZ M.8`,S+#0;[&7%&J&`ZZ[E@0Z' M@:@;L%W-(CH%#*KZ%-X"G!7E5L:_\ M``S`/S_=>%?4,!Y(RDA(XI!ZJ182(#N-J)./P,I'C/+A41205XUHA=J21QBO M%;DW8Q9Q=7R(D@GQ"*UXS"WZ]TK)7#`]23_-H;?C3S=:*3_(IBK,)-6AKC01 MM06YR&(BOANH:3*J1NI")9F)]6E^WVV`JP@BA71*B:,/:JLZ9#PH^:;AV)K] M4,6(4T71+F@-0PIV-XRW7+:#\%I]TFOUB5*P%9="[X=9XDH5]DK_Y@8'5/U' M)QH4-.VDUIS7X*L*W<;(L;P2M0$&EHR!L=KB]X9,Y`!NP?>L:7>@4@K'!G#T M0EA,I&EE`7-@)53E6RE!1B$1Q:$S2\S'&KZ"M0Q!`_5W0@Q1,<@EI?S$*3LX M#%%_Z?"TS\FOIIW`WCUV526>L`IEW]FW-MR@:D&0VG/^7@L8$4JT1USRMF)J M`]8'AYQJM;%J'96":$JZ()(5(G"H!$#62Q%Y(,&:Z8%QD.@\VRTPJ:<11CM# MS4I%$/F6Z/J`F((>B4!&A9,P\6]3?P'?-_-2/CGE6083?C:(C)_].(>QP(#F MY,A9`U.C$;)X3LC'![G3!>Y5!\*7]?(WCV36. MAUEH-6C0B/N#!W#X$'HII(9'*C)KWLFF=_W@%:THGP::@'V$<>*%5?-BI M]]KF(C/($QO[FY[;7WV((+0754-.S.0% M,&?YTN0>N=S=3)J[>\((I7`:I2`9;#"V7;X;D>^T:8"K#G\2QFG@[=2.'/_< M&SGKZ_<6A[,G^^!#G2F:^R6R.@B3R#MP^6<.H M+KZYUD%DC=IWU3JY7NM^@[&]\DVMYZ^EN<>=XJHW4';%<+KXEXQ5.[HK-\*P!)XRP8^$(.3?330O?2-T*; MI/\&;Y?7H>TW&"L+S2RT/7%%G0/S%#Z0O]"3\;\)^&@&1D)U3@F2.+[D+@T" M.Y:KUFG^B/U&38XC]B:7D_2=8=K# M=F5)D'A4+YG$-_"OF>?3PK$?#8.E,\^Q-<_1_&?MQ#@.@;SJ"FU)@79PSUWO M1-MB<_9V%]QNFIRP#JUP$WW%/4GMUUH>:GP)PW+/1'WR*F;]&<+6/=*EN\+I M8;L5^18NJ?8N.#6J%KJ$^NH(3EVA>R0Y*(B^^Q%INV;UPUC2@M32(H?%&(VM!E_V\`I6KQNPIE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3(U(#`@;V)J M#3P\(`TO5'EP92`O4&%G92`-+U!A"!;(#`@,"`U.34@.#0R(%T@#2]#'0@72`-+T9O;G0@/#P@+U14,B`S-#D@,"!2 M("]45#0@,S4Q(#`@4B`O5%0W(#0P(#`@4B`^/B`-+T5X=$=3=&%T92`\/"`O M1U,Q(#,U-B`P(%(@/CX@#2]#;VQO M17(2!$@<8[&+36`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`F7W`@8N*^(-LWRQ2>K-( M`5ATB3JIDA^E^44I)#O6KZ`EJD3-O>\(NKX"R249)D?BX59^3]"^"Q'(8=^` MWW=]4UOBNL;+O3"]438_[EN%M.?&]!HP-G-GJ%F87=?,#2P_R%V[@F3;6@I3 M:WQYUU65NT/)&LE?F2-9Y,53I5N[2"$^XM*PK6YQ.-+ON/ZV+L^$-@U#!^IY M*DK7LS;9ZJI6@[=E!_K*,96!;W&@8F_'M!ZSK[SL:&6(]6Y* MK%F.Q!'8->76_\^6;)XM0_S),(BS?AALQDU1LAT7Z&@(84$[A8OU3`D'IL1Y M-/##7)L(5@O::A'LFH8S]0Z_0>E8+]+F]`^L!164*9QI.5P2$:A34ZOV7G5R MKV459:(5@-9/M8I+F"`N=)[(LOQ9K'4FOXQU/H_U$'\B1D%JQ>CWY>-!U@)3 MT0!'=U#.FYI$T`"B;HD"G+74HP\C?L?ED92`V8#J7^,9#GC&!L^2Z49Q(WDT MD%7;E;I$/X=8#*WY=78&_BQDEP],1TX47,0,Y3:`C*^!&51:6;<$C;TD[PD* MS^3:7_M=Q\D'`RQ,[PFCFHH6J%3\N'4,-<>GB`8#HI%%U!3M,L7&A?M9-+$. M_#K_@F`>S>$#$S3#;.V4]1D]-;"MJ(]-I3<#F%VE%9*+OMNC?GCKPZD5P1TK M])O&,)5Y+L7B=[[TY?T?/* M8R/=+G88)#?7''KM26`!W4Q&O"BZ9>#"T"D%,]9)Z+0J[299J;><%HW:Z@T4 M_!XR0Z2):1K-(D-";(<==CBE8.3NC`&%U$"&F(X*]="/W*YWQ7U+^S%C)^2: M762B*'Q#WH&?;\*L1V'`[/"Z'71`+)K:ISJR)KUE-3->PY5[JWL0+EO^BZT2 M+U[N@8_^6:WNHZ4M+-UC@!CYW?QQNX6'.D4CO@&'&$6WS(ZD9^F/1S!"M3P MO&$`C^S%KR M47`P5)&7Y=/FFZ-D_G::#XMAWOO>K[5'5KG&`M%?5N1$T;]8"DQ*BN^%76KQ MI2`B7^M7=MP"Q2#/4J.F!3UJ?H*S>+]@YLN;OTU--BY@/K;40<@7#+0@ST/R M7YWLX_/SQY?5++5O&WH-?1QZF:6V;K!PQ&_[9R[BO&T-,=C\M]5$=%/-Y4<) M4X[5$6U./F&$P+]"``O>5)`\C18U->BE9R:!<-X$AE>^^7HWP'=?E@%J]+4V MRYLZ8`K8!05;70,6N`PZ<5$38]=4M]MIM=[KQ15YH4(C18#.0M"4FJM".&\& M@C1R9?ASS`(8=?*M7V+`+VGMUMP7Y^H/&3\?B%74^NC`J'Y/9> M5+D:]>!?*'+I',9-,7OS,7#A&O*1$]+VH#!&@2JS3,B!3?EROR>1E_OB+_//"6=4(VBHB&'+>BVI)NRPEKQ-6_ MU^\641KD!:*N[VV<*/)QXMA&VK,=.8K=CLB6"$5VXBO?O9!.$OX-L05O*FXB MK6RH511$Z1`N+&RXI'1U*?[,6TX.#-6H+4/81TXJUB)0363?D;ZI>8OR&%>H M4PE&9(-\CR^$F33KO[O(J8V,CIK0RV?>H9R&M8(UNE8;:(N258]"GX5"%X*9 M/L>S?]MVHMIQ0B/R)_F-*V2R_9[)E$QF`H"R/',#-7D2 MFR?*L\)VCERM:)JD9K(1)GO;O)!/'>OX-=DS=*3#:F+ M6(1N%D1NB!)/#>MZC`0M,R_F09:/`>'?BJDY[W'+&U+S@U2B$\T3$9TYZ8K2 M($_3T_A#WZ?8U2\:U;7]GC>=SJM!N1&5:=4U857%#QT#E&P-41:D8U2>AIV[ MVE&M?DDI\W[-JQW#&;HMVB`ZPIZ9V"D'2Q/K`I:N%V&:)ZZZ3O'=1E6,N> M6G;8DN@:8'Y::DF9ID)V2>=8,$\^:91"[KI3+GZ_P M4`Q@F):8E<-1];8^W'W\>&N[4F*V%F%ED$X!+/'0MZN#".X]@ZS'5O9/6P-^ MT71RW+XTBX.D($GVU^U+HS.>M(H53TKHPQ:BM/"I]1L?!>E3?,0*-/5T1UG=;V8*" MN2)@/E=^'J0TG:D?SL/57TD0;6LQ"+Y4JI;QW05WW52M/!Q& MT#$G`F#*<%)EX]BU!W+-H'JU43XT!F'1'+7GD(+QFB9%&$#K*?BTF%_3)"O/ MV-BQ`QW80?7M$V]?=)5V&K`$2O5PH`?%L M0HS`<7Z6Z3#+-WJ6O-TS.*5ITBV*:T+\()/XK!?Y8!'*"]X](UX=L88+@]B? M39.FAG2A`_0OIAG%#IEGG!O:U5H",6:20(VEWR.89X)_*00R1K#R_Z9?&H5! MFHSR7YA;?V;RGEGZ?44N>%>:+?B.5+?8>GQTD-"RE9[M>^21]=AR7BMSHB?Q MS&'B-,'S;WQ_@""30X]E`WGL>\^C17DV'L_P4>Q*59U6=#T.N=FH0VOO-YEV M#J/7?(NCW/$ORH9-@Z-"LY4A1,>E69#GZ05762D\ZAN,=GC&P>X@4+W26J#\ MZ0T_7)-&=N1+C[K\U_;,LZB?O1K$N%MF\W<0C?K,H3XU'BQ&C37(<8&C1I[T)><>:GK4O]C3=2'E,P`MRRCQ7ETY6-1I!S^Q@ M\8`:JY8S98HU2!?-E]XA"WQ'O;0C1N*!#="VW-I*PF`YG\A_C[+]ZF%!_@C( M[<"8.L(9Q(;[5A8F`Z$_\Q<-4IBBG>C0*J5_>V.831N'MCM=FJ:L8S3<3;9, MM'JY).:@PQC<[IG0#AQ3N=C>;(K0O44;[G6?ERA!ZM<@"+J!L!=U7^GCU^@5 MCHTQA^1/S9C!0+9I/B&:0+8[]%O39[323Z#6TIE&?],GQU@'NX8XYP6Z_M$L M=D!Y`IP/Y$<""RF:6CR+NM>"]B/`@JG&=BA'M;*B+[B7#YEJ&O[?>\;4AAL]7L]YF]G9&DV+RUI-Y/U`& MN:.&>/D`:DC!>#NAMB<0:+^GJ;TC.8:3S[>%KL%`\CS_&P%T]P%&1ID6%$T&W"4-Q`4DA4WPM##TAS?&'?/67N)ZI;?DPOWX!WF8P7\QA/LK@K29,8#AXP&+P@!\` M^60IVR-\C#/T4_=`)X!YX"7OLAH:C:JY6:]Q@R7KS45=--8.?JBK'.IR&(`? MTH7!=$7+WSCP!"``%V0V*3U/FDPE#>.@G"``;[AOP>BK>W?:V]U.,.2T[IN0 M;=<=_G%S`Z:?7!E("]086=E(`TO M4&%R96YT(#,T,B`P(%(@#2]297-O=7)C97,@,S(@,"!2(`TO0V]N=&5N=',@ M,S,@,"!2(`TO4W1R=6-T4&%R96YT],S`X"@9*RW_&#:)!K=IT^?/CU=PD\_C::+^?M;L$8__SRZN9V/;M:CZ7KM M@0WKIY'M@(5_\*_8@M"/2.3!>C^:SD4`B=#?62"28C2]7]FP%:.)12S+\F&= MC"SBADX(Z\/HUXL;6A5,2OB0CV'.<[:G!=Q_&,,#VXL#K^0.E@]C^,0.ZHN[ MZS&\8X>LV(K)`\US6(TO?UM_&%DPL8F-L6_-:VS;O,:.7=>\YC]95F0P)P"P MIED.*4^>,0S0(H4-RS/V)(!N>"U!![1C%<[J`K9Y8\`F;[EC4%8TD5G"("M` M_?M+EDA>99AH2K/JJ"--3*CS_*PF/\MR='X769'60E9'`M>U@"\,\0`[CN,K M",,9A)XS";T0+M>_C^[6H[O%?#3M-B\+79(/-T62[]/OVHHBC,8Q7)) MH*.8W-TN=U\'O,GI,SO0(ZS(.;;\"3]N!?ZOPH9)5F4%K8[PF26\2L<`'^K\ M",$8'(PUAA)<9R`W;RBW(`R(92HDEA,&#:?JJN('`?,QW.5Y)CA2BL#[8@9K M]DUN.'_&W$R?`^)[3:-5A*CI;C_=]P5^+&@."Y9F25:P,;CZX9#$D%86\#L.LZ33;X8IGQ@AA&N3:Q MHM>,\KNNZ!(N[E(Q@SLIL1&L@M7C&%:T+E)6"5CNLIRF+"]W&4661))1F6E`0A)^9]@6/]&*P9(+#4XS;2I4!XV%]&]CK"25;,\**:[> MTE2-*[2,B*.6$28/#UMK8B14RIP10UQOK'@+O^ZD+&?3Z>%P(,G+GDYT&(31 MLV(287/MB`01Q#[QP"(Q5&ST]!9)*SSQN&6`!I$F^Q?"J^WT8.K]K=2[W7KJ"A9(H7" MK47,]<_$,FXCQ0WVI6H_PV=W.$E(.J67^EE<&V$[?8[CVN;G*!D.>9/*H<5\>T8$?-<_A+O?F1%F+#*UYO=V1( M4:U!T-RH/ZI6V.P%WXE;T*H*U@3FM$X56*G*'_DKZHU@?]3(/Y`<9(^`ZK<% MP@/+=IT@;K&9]?4_FO=X)T8$L\"=!-Y@[H-"[L7!V;@V#;?"H,T]I]4S+%"P M&B))66):.5Z7M$<,^VTAF&31"HBR?Z7X9K]7A6)H*_P?6: M2=C3=C7J"*^Z^7J]%%SBAH:")4P(JE;DK4[G,Q.828+^("MQ@2-^.([6%3@H M%9\XV%\O\?/$'4)I<*4H'7?>BIKMMB#QNDBP+*36+5:&A=Y4C*6MJF3%[W65 M,0$M1D[0'XVF.MMS&DG!,&*G?`X6A;'N6:6,3LDSM77T_NRPPDBOL'(ZK#R- M%=*Z4!1?'5C*"LUYY7A`[WP;GW6Z?IV)3%_"THV6&Z%#D)W<]Q#$$562X;DQ M<2*P@["O:6?P#NX,SW8;JX@H1$XS\;=(/!R`^_LQFH6J%D9W%E_&<)W)9RQE M?H\;O+5FGMN'M&U0U,C6:;?@V&V8/#!\7O9[TQDS#/0#1)4_;`F,P!H_\\;+ MD+'"VK\"VPYF@,(/9-"L#>HQ>N(S/6[K\MT.(W2^,`=CJ-BWLL*)R`PH]BN> M=;K4CB5B@533-I7MN<)&J((4V52-5"]5K&V^0Y'?\EF#D?U_L.Y<;YL`J&:8 M'A,[7CP!^RH(.RZRK/T\.F/2."=BK?Y2QY+E"V8#E&A9=Z MC"9+5`CE_JYQ"@Q.:`\L_SM`N4$+U)T:Y24UV-"MM@P*J1:AD\^P_+[30#AT MA(M'-7+`<#R*\SOZ'6`=M/*=)KC<: MN"BS"3%$T]]/^`:6KX'C3(V859)QHI$;4>>H,ZJVT^=1CALB%S0 M&(,FVJLKL".J:XB*%P;>@X-]&%P)#OK<_F0V*+I6B^([_@T6CV8NJ79*&D&Z MW?9&-""1_9UZ7=NX96X&,4-G566RIGBW&`G#MJJ,I^MU`"B73Y@;.4/.]D]* MKJQ$2EGS@&<><$EHGXZ<]B(AQFY=S.!:_7SBNKC%?VBN4O;";ZPD!(O6F,3;.&):-.<8_?L!U]R9!B2CT#O$)*837O5'WZ*Q%+S2O<4.KY&O!M),MF12DN46LH`=6VV)]/GZ^A>L\9Z93 MCP]X@PBYJ=0]^57IQM?+<:<.*L@K*%M-QK$V,54N#QBJN4A?738SN.F8$\9G M#;=;3^(VNX'OS5V%GEDL3 M47QG!FX43]QX4+'=P3V%#ML(17,Z6G'HZ*CW%<=MN/XX!GT@K![PI-J7M30C M7I@BC$V+2!R>#4^+A+I+6\_85*I+/#,FN+HD]K_3[/CM2-M=Q49Y$!3EF\,9 MWJJ3P.D5_?<`[P(C=@IE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#3,T(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO M5'EP92`O4&%G92`-+U!A"!;(#`@,"`U.34@.#0R(%T@#2]#'0@72`-+T9O;G0@/#P@+U14-"`S-3$@,"!2(#X^(`TO M17AT1U-T871E(#P\("]'4S$@,S4V(#`@4B`^/B`-+T-O;&]R4W!A8V4@/#P@ M+T-S-B`S-3(@,"!2(#X^(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3,V(#`@;V)J#3P\("],96YG M=&@@,3DP,B`O1FEL=&5R("]&;&%T941E8V]D92`^/B`-7TYN/M\0&O_PRN+Z]&5S/!Y?SN4N, MYJL!XV3C'WY%-@6N9]DNS;>#RQOE4Z+,9S:I)!M<_C9CM%:#D6W9MOY2,L`K M[O@T?QW\>7$?K\2/(=W-[BR:;P0MQ"9^D?FNI'Q%RWPK5"4__#5_&+#`8@R8 M\]L&*FJA0E9#)11G*,:<,0L MYAU`O0;4YH$&O7C,LV6>#8E%?G1%14&N$X[#RR.NG".N M3AFR':TU>1KN)2@-&FL0_ZE$ MIN2+2/>TC;-X+9:TC&6YIP2@J;!H4A0I3<`S*L-)T2R1!'8B;TPNOR+FLQ$+ M>0\]7A\]OL\M;NBI6_/KUIC'PT8F>0HI@!%TA+.%,I+O,EO7(EFKNL]6)T'@ M'?/DM&"^5X-]%14XS6*T]2R2O%P.Z6&7">)\2!Q<#*GH)**Q3C6"BC6>X2N( M^EH->EOEMA4>M=I(@7/N=*U6]&31W9#05;E3*RE2E#BUZ*M%-*F[Q,!Y)UT& M+8X;U3A*Y8F,*YEG)#-:R"K9@,&%J%Z%P/M2"(`J^4.T\U!#OAF(L(8-@J:Z M3.P,>6LS4:'%G)/R_!;'K86VI%US!#)+\JR2F<@20429W3;CE34LJBO#INK\W5M`L:NM0+F92PSZ`'],T;(O%837S)86*EDM:>G4BC8`\;:'L._ M&1\Q=TA.$(ZZZC1:_X@[063UT,Y8'^]NY#<'=](MM!$VL5**[`=]PCQ_TK,T MR]-\FV?_5?1L>OXL7NF/O/P^I,]_6'13YK#P5/NLU^FK,\OB555UL>) MG\6Q3#J[`>(;53@=3\:J+S!UE530$BPB$5F#J+2A[?,=;I7&VP6.]QG.AG$U M:<2B,$(8^5?DA,'(B?JRFO6FD(JW^Y;QT$(&94P MQ[+9.5\&1%3/\"S>94NH9-X4^@KV^O\^`06Z0'+U@2[D%);_;;9"S`*KGO.M,%',Z3P>-@_%1AS?0;8 M*K;MTD4[A;/OADHC_<-N56SV2J*PM4Q@P5L1*_BV+DC53@DNF7\NR3MY/-2; M2'WJ43"FP/MVP;Y]&!/W_1$/>H>EUS`=+^SV-*;CL*&OK*#B6XMN3_<.K(1E MG%2F@99#F[=.R>R@KE,/A*@VYFNQ*O1LG8F7.O4,0'^H1!$?PPAE\J\%Y[#BL-V'P1('(Z2_0,*JGT[HMR]W0( M@*'QTG^).-7W`WUNGYOS7@?E@7>RLK4CC6BHZ7K&+D5T,[&,'N.T?7!)NEJK MH_74=\ZEE^W:37H5I=B`I+R4"8J/2[J#ER(I('.]Y&BG\*)Q-VG^^R7I+7', ML?5JSB,0[?39"^_U0^ZXF.5V\F0?M4Y]?@\I)L\R_3K9_T( M@]\39-VL/GC\5\#$A;%Q8^`F.4!A&P[SGS0\:UVGR1)\`0YAW`*/)PBMQ=[P M&NME!52WHO1.1=DL/8!K5EB322LJ=XL%O%SOLA#19(=[F`QYT`D2CLGWKKK' M)>]8G$>G9MCU1D$?I;V.S;!5\'>+F>VUJ]5,;C5%&=U?#^E3*K/O>*T?!U.] ML0D,(2R\;3@,SB:.;S?'&9PV>^VT`=`@N;93;&?I@GF%XM`M+,W'UI:#!(Y^>*-W/U MY\7OV-'4)B_TCC.#@E!-O$!IDS6&=Y=6"+0K^OBUK2UPNRV:VVU%H]8T?A"!; M(#`@,"`U.34@.#0R(%T@#2]#'0@72`-+T9O;G0@/#P@+U14,B`S-#D@,"!2("]45#0@,S4Q(#`@ M4B`^/B`-+T5X=$=3=&%T92`\/"`O1U,Q(#,U-B`P(%(@/CX@#2]#;VQO\1=3"CIF1R_XBB)Y+#CJBB@*D0 M6SERJ%,(RV0$\[2%9U%M@;H.4YCQ!V=,L3R?6,15L(XSV.^I3L94M_&0_T8! M1\',0UHO#];+XS(%:F-#I7"$FD>%A#!;D9?-8;=_!Q[GA33;-$4*OLA@/5AR MSU\/OT"WD!JX[Y)89V5MV^)6%)LV?<&)V.'XH'43+G:P2ANX[\19 M7U5IY%R7VL@^@U6YV(;,D*Z'&*XT9EZU8C',E!5RCOD:Q;W\#]B__P$S+6G=.Q/K:ZB3^;A;/((3\'CMTD4P"K@013.)]$S^.$J7(:+^;7]E/S7 MANXZV`;3UK%[7DM/6_5C1-2"A<<7TR`")J7T-OP58`!H&>NX"F5N9'-T7!E("]&;VYT(`TO4W5B='EP92`O M5'EP93`@#2]"87-E1F]N="`O2T5.25!'*U-Y;6)O;$U4(`TO16YC;V1I;F<@ M+TED96YT:71Y+4@@#2]$97-C96YD86YT1F]N=',@6R`T,R`P(%(@72`-+U1O M56YI8V]D92`T-"`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH--#$@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]4>7!E M("]&;VYT1&5S8W)I<'1O MG1ZVY1CCD0R4$%B;N(`MB9.-#;*!(DMG^X@>1B<9`QG*23Y;!Y).UIU?0S"6 MPLL!$M,"X5F,(7$2PX104V@G::$P`1P@YA6(\R!3R@!M2-/P*N_NR1@;$IJ9 MSK33J6YN[G;W^___^__]=O<$)```)6@`4@#-%%G8+&R=@7JV`:#ZVE,MP/0# M=Q8"H%X#@%Q6'JSP7\6MR+X6X6$PQ`3K$_H:T#&T8`L9'+SMP`QYPP`<8(*![HGCA*7B<0I[13XH-E@.9>MG>+TZK M_TC*/AM'UG0%!W M+`+B5?UZ`!I(!CPZO09/[QX8WFO)^AE(";0_R`8J(,6$JED/`QT<)^C'X)G= MZ`R;'5I(8SYI(9W3H-%D(HJ=A%D#1WI&&<;"QV/@0PU+?F$CF0AI>CNC=BX3`XJ8/?>E_2:'7A(>\I=K;&[TY* MF-I%G:TZ?S@K?>>I&W$SQER]W'0_[IG.SYZ=_MNC%V\L>6_CWL5I?YU7VI^? M7?M19?*]#TMOC&HKG;E:=D_K3BH-#^FH7'DZM73TZ2-J^8*:G;2];6IVSP+=H[N?#UV>UOYIR^&Z<]V6Y8CTF1JI^0A!3QRDW:L%`^\<3E MACMS3[]];5O=7?G=51,JA[^=,?+<,A73>%^S6/+:]'7NCJ36AFN[?Z_>?;QD M[9Q8-_%ARQM=V?/EJ5^&M+)%\M:7X@;\4FWZ]N8`ZR]=;# M^BB_5Y\D/%$5-AT^?M23/9 MSY7SW4T*_=%C#Y:L*#A#YJZ\?$KQLXW;6VJG?WWKKH>P[XD/X']KR6G3QIW[ M.S>B+6'*+'FV??XQI[USMR;_;'SG\CTS'_RFH?/\ZO;YJ61^?]_)-3LD)5OV M?ZS;E'MM_ENE;YY)92XL:ZO=\/ZGA?G>&=IY]W9A$ND/"-H_Z\[:GV]E?WUR M;C##/7RH&4YY=WCR00&[17XW8O"+VQ959L=FW'CMRZ]VK;ZTM/6%\_RAHKB- M.[J6=B7_HD-Z(2ZM1''1MK7PC>-3"TZ-*[F>?7-MU:EZS.2;Q]27_EBQV67,5B@U=3C$:4!C\2U-$LQ M"8;UMTU<$)CZ55/GITLM1U)?GF;MRQ@33XH?J/K39R@+UW=/>/HC19@XOY\) M>5C:!RFN7*BA0PPLKG+[6-[+A'AH,CZ49`X^!L=[)#E.;&9F91NR#=/QB(3X MCY/0%^#F;J,)-34UNFIDR"-#G8?SCT9',,>S`A>J&VTJIL087"BH@^XZZ&#* M=1I1USJ+TRQJ.4>?AQNZ_62:V0I60`%),S3Y:)Z'65`+K:PGQ/&(0B^/$MK' MEM$"RP7T\>A81<8*%>:B>E*.12G[?&R`8WG]8'Q0=Q62"-\<6!CBJI$YZ_/1 M%8P^!1\FCDG5@ZQ<@!/J@@QTU@6YBA`=]-9%*X._^.1:>0'@19@1M*3-G$1= MO?CIGO>-5?''0GD?1SY+T@M(L?:T8<3GB(RD4DD M#V0#<34N?ASU?OP,D&(Q#0!5"D&4,@6.R"LFX1%93A^,4C2-R(:C[F'-HQI& M>`4AR.>.'OTCTMDX)1Z3M3B_+0P\3$MARUD,+#&2CDN)"Z)T7=15BRID0 M$_`P&D@'RB`K\+"*1S`>\D*(]0B^.B5?Y9[->`0H!G86X1'?I&B8'&( M]@CBD8$V;X'Q,P$!CD1,1BD135X$Z'4X"E)-LS[:[1.9/.ZM-P%("[G*IR6: M)[(FM'[D!N$@BJ`-,955#"_PDQ['<2$E@O8`'Y]3#9"9Q$!710![07HE:2B[L@"TF1T$A`U*:>#-#DMTR#ERI],F)S0 M:1=-E"6$@T3_+6Q]\*3=!HL=1I.3-!'(#CFP$C8GHBV&("G*A>)!H\M99'<@ M+LH>DE1/!I"T%EO(AYR)TF('05&P-RM4!)O)XC*+7GI[E8BWE7"8BE"S)TN[ M`Q:03IMH7H#>C;#8B#B:7!:C`Q:[',5VBM!$@TPE+19HLSN5^42T2!8B:F"R MVRABB@N1)XT6#3*QD4ZRY*%-#UD[RLH!S4:KL9"@=)`B"*68I[BCBC[,!$)9 M*%1I$X?6?@!-&5?^I!8K6!YM"TP9#'`!45;E+%-&=2\$HX!6AKL*+2`E4XOL MH^*NIGU5#.2]--(!VA.AFX$>#@V519W0//PG\T4"%<65K/J_>V8$!"216VT< M03DSHXA<410&SPB*!^"1@4'`Q5OP"F81XQ'B08R*8J)@4'39C4W4!)*(:.*Q M&Z-L5&(433RBK`;UN48E.M-;@ZY!DGTO>9NW;[OFS_OU?_VNZ]?1*293SJS' M$9@^?=;4EIBQF?,X(1,%W52K!(/[!]F\&Y(7_&O"_-_K4Z9G3`_*F)Q.O:,U M+W?B0CYS)L2)ACT-&Y6M<>D@7/K`@&I$JG'-SOE8_CMD!NF_S`RMLP&%O/0? ME2;BWQ+VTN\0]I(U[$=-FA(D^>NE'L'ZWKX2E=S`T-!>NF>S@?2;TX'TR^G` M:N2?IX,2>Y5=*^]AZ;,XTU$G[]SC5U8%2>?^' MB1G%+UU-ZFS_^<<-QW/,(=>V%WW[ZL!Y;XN\["WGKBZ??'5DX^68'[V;*]C+ M[>NG/3IUYO`%^WF7;\WO^G?GNXM['&V,-2^([+N[L3KH])5S30,V_?#@Y(=7 M%I[9<J27`=:9!=ZI[G:KT!3R[`U"=-F?4"2&WZ,"&J MI$BU_O*??;M6%#GWVGCX'VY,,^ID^O)LO_X7ZP[T&GVB;M.-&P<'.[V3/7ZF M0;W,&QXNJ)_8?668ZOP#8]KU5=7K(DKSL8YRR+&?-%+I\W$?+55;7;6HZO_^ MPY1UA'T=BL]&-WD]C$U\[?6_Q2XO]+[YO+&-NY.H`6[E;=NGB!K)V4]W1+U# MRS=%:$]Z]*&]>R;_S-G.-3G-"1-V9PUR")D0OP=SV[ID45Z`39QAZJL]ESMN M^7K'";^FPI7ECM^8UNGN*=L%F][WBOOC4G=B+ M!]]?YE7LW50_=--JOW5?GXH_$M((KWE,_2P@>':7-9&G/E57XN0095Z*,[63H0)X!>'`9=:'CR MM>`!H%Q\,JY8DI0F,0NTEC\H#=T=`&#/D_'X20%OF`B^,`0.PFVH03^(AUJE M#DR0R.9"(*VOA@^A%BY`#*0!`W?,!4EY&U:`#RR&$@@3W)6],`P:-0[@#-T@ M'*>#"CI"!FS&!A@,0^D=$3`07H=9]#^"UN]C*.T@V,`$XKX6-D$-'(=OP(W> M&`3UY*#[RL<03=%C@E>@&BZ(`\0WX#EX$\IA)QR`[S`(R_`ZOZGL58XI-^B4 M+^@A!,91I*7"&B@ENG+XG&GYNXJ[\HJR0SD*GB1]!6E]``X1KWLHX1@TL>U\ MON5'99I207:P(YE)>H+^I,UPR(9M1%D/#[$=03Z36#]FLG107$`-72AV_4F^ MT13=K\)R6$E:%,,6V`6-V`\S\0N\R=JS/+9?C%=N!% MTHZ%+)A')]?`6[">3I82K\\(;H,90S`"^^)@'(FK<2ENPP?,GYUC#[D]=^`! M/(D;>2Z_Q)LUHCG.4F2I4^*5>61+))O;D">C2<]1,)[RRVR8"[F01]*M(B@D MZU40R&3/_02?PGFX3'`5&N%[9"B2CC;H1Z`CB,`H'(*C\67,P-E8A!]@%=;@ M(;R.=UDP"V%A+(Z-9!EL!LMFA4QFE6P_N\+^25*&:MEJ&6=5$N3*#M)H!,PGFD^V6D$;K83/9SFJ]#Z`*/J%;>I#\>QCJ MX"SI=QXNP7UH)N-8]>N(7AB(>K+OBSB0()G\-`=S,0]783'9N1+W$M1B`VEI M(0W'L"0VDJF!5 M@JI*K=+,UUS36&`W'(%*V`MM'ER.CE@)?\%K7.!Y[!A+9+:L'O.%$]B=/!") M(*ZB.G*').R$7[(^.):;,)GLEX_I.`[>X9Y\*Q\"Q\1IF,#C,0T2A")X)'X* M*6(!>Y\SL8";L9E50":L8EGFG4H2VD,"EK'M=&,60B3X"NY0S\*$:O1FOFR_ M^CVL@KYJ%0_CX1H'PLKX91(S0>.`UR&%7Z+XN4BQ-9)MIYQP%1O4<22=F>\B MFH70%\LL'6"GF,2,Z,G*<)AYL?D,WZ1L03=V"<#W7V\NVF[>DE=.G?R]'!WPD571LKJ%C339J@Z\(54&U!:LJ'*$5*._79HV+65\ MHLQ3DJP\.O@3WQC99<$5UY]0>KE3=.*RUKL>O,#@.EFRH@4%RR2Y9$1BZUTO MZW]2$KV#SC+O6&-!++%>\2_RJRZVC>,(S]X=[TX_MBE:9BDQ*H\Y2ZITEF7) MB?5'2$=*M!V=S.DS[435#8+I#89K\]48K4&D4?"W3);V=V9F=G M=G;O=@]9M)(:O`ES=LIAJC.UNNV:MGT%;\UZ8@L[ M=Y69ZAU;F8E-GP(QPMJR&2E(XY=?-JHIMRV6YT0[$9 MK)PS6)%)IV(PG?/V=J0_'.8+?*EH M4@8-9_9$:KVM42:X2&:[83M"FFM6-C1[GN6:V0W-IGE:QTZ^AO.+:(^C-FW^ M=WG]N^-G>QWF_P_JB76]E=2M$\^EM'@N7<:C4M$C=(9.B$OT!&YAXZ*KU$O=&-`&W1O M0M>(_M\MTS>%GE()\F'@,V`?D`0T(`/8P#'@>\`)H8=^!5R";83;IA3G M/7^@6L])>A+4)]VF>ND6-CS-\3P,C5)-Z@;MGV>.?(C]B/0=7M:*"8_#W^WR(]Q?BE_PLZ!#GN&(*/2 MIQ*)?\;88XAC&C@LWJ4X;)^1##HB#F-^J]0F_(P&0>/0[P$ZI)]@3@9]#3R/ MOPN\#3J)/@G8&M`?03ZCB'5$_#N=`FW'N*?$/]$J^S%=!5U#_Z>D^[2;?>[Z MC3"L%FP.(5<.)_QD.:?3L'\1 M?J+BK^E<.<<<>[DOE>AC:57H4:ET&7/7Y"M8\XO4AMQ\4[G-?H!<)5QP.Z`XC313G^8^7X M78HXVY'7Z(:]/$RML#%$'R6W@#9Q%_>-N_C.<2F["IOSL.\7.H@\%X5?K(,& M15_I+=$GO+!.20?_?9?"EEVE)Z)[R""A6%_8L_Y63?8D,+R%ZSZL/Z4$>S+Q1IYNVOF'W?;@G=7*@+?0B\U]P9 M>CW2&7H-:`+W(:"Q59"4NF@OR4WN9&"O-70Z6J6TS MRUG)DI71G/M)O<@J\:+RZ#'F^"RRQF(!\E\8"`SX^FMZ#@\]IDJ7:^/+$C"V M%FMD^@:%V'G^\<5>65)";REYQWGN,6$F7(_QR62,62.I@DHQ&X>/2Y>$JDHL M53H8MF-^[TO][KKUA0.O!M^7B+U+53B+JW&OVP%P55NT+#[[-VRR@MQC1XCX[SQ+^5E7B@0GQSB0"3+I15A=M$7ZC1L?LX(_`C" MUQ\>8RQ:G_E56V=`>,A/=NY/C#2,)[/W+< M^S!"`Y&'$8Z.`^&:<$TC*NQM>J")*P],#WV!$V?%/>56A0_P[JNB\#*)[)JY MLT*A^AUR7?6.3\-\6"/QD?=C&CA^I^,`JY7U)YN>?NK0P4Z_\,':V^^LK;WS M]IH07:=K[NG8^7_VL__'?N[[BE9P5_&XZR&0E]K)!'?'L\N5<+TP2TU?G)X^ MO2MR3VU07?'/C][HX]31V_*ETJ-^]1.U"LVJC9O0/P<`CQA'>PIE;F1S=')E M86T-96YD;V)J#30S(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO5'EP92`O1F]N="`-+U-U8G1Y<&4@ M+T-)1$9O;G14>7!E,B`-+T)A7-T96U);F9O(#P\("]296=I M2`H061O8F4I+T]R9&5R:6YG("A)9&5N=&ET>2DO4W5P<&QE;65N="`P M(#X^(`TO1%<@,3`P,"`-+U<@6R`Q,C`@6R`T-3D@72!=(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J M#30T(#`@;V)J#3P\("]&:6QT97(@+T9L871E1&5C;V1E("],96YG=&@@,C$W M(#X^(`US=')E86T-"DB)5%`]3\0P#-WS*SR"&)*+D(ZAZG(L'?@0+>RYQ"V1 MJ!.YZ=!_3Q*UAQALR\]^>L^6E^ZY(Y]`OG.P/288/3G&):QL$:XX>8*3!N=M MVKN:[6PBR$SNMR7AW-$8H&F$_,C#)?$&=\-P?E#W(-_8(7N:,O*H/[\RTJ\Q M_N",E$!!VX+#4TW,<2B5D+\"C`` MZE)JE`IE;F1S=')E86T-96YD;V)J#30U(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO0V]U;G0@,38@ M#2]&:7)S="`T-B`P(%(@#2],87-T(#0W(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TT-B`P M(&]B:@T\/"`-+U1I=&QE("A3=6UM87)Y*0TO1&5S="!;(#,T-B`P(%(@+UA9 M6B`P(#8W,2!N=6QL(%T@#2]087)E;G0@-#4@,"!2(`TO3F5X="`V,2`P(%(@ M#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH--#<@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]4:71L92`H,38@3T-43T)%4B`R M,#`R*0TO1&5S="!;(#,W(#`@4B`O6%E:(#`@-3@U(&YU;&P@72`-+U!A'0@-#<@,"!2(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J M#30Y(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO5&ET;&4@*#$P+E)E9F5R96YC97,I#2]$97-T(%L@ M,C@@,"!2("]865H@,"`Q-#D@;G5L;"!=(`TO4&%R96YT(#0U(#`@4B`-+U!R M978@-3`@,"!2(`TO3F5X="`T."`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH--3`@,"!O8FH- M/#P@#2]4:71L92`H.2Y,96=I'0@-3`@,"!2(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#34R(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO5&ET;&4@ M*#2!P'0@ M-3@@,"!2(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#34X(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO5&ET;&4@*#4N,B!! M;F%T;VUI8V%L(&EN9F]R;6%T:6]N*0TO1&5S="!;(#0@,"!2("]865H@,"`S M.3D@;G5L;"!=(`TO4&%R96YT(#4U(#`@4B`-+U!R978@-3<@,"!2(`T^/B`- M96YD;V)J#34Y(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO5&ET;&4@*#,N("!$;V-K:6YG(&EN('-H M965P*0TO1&5S="!;(#$@,"!2("]865H@,"`W-38@;G5L;"!=(`TO4&%R96YT M(#0U(#`@4B`-+U!R978@-C`@,"!2(`TO3F5X="`U-B`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O M8FH--C`@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]4:71L92`H,BY$;V-K:6YG(&EN(&1A:7)Y(&-A M='1L92D-+T1E7!E("]- M0U(@+TU#240@,"`O4&<@,38@,"!2(#X^(%T@#2]09R`Q,R`P(%(@#3X^(`UE M;F1O8FH-,30R(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO4&<@,38@ M,"!2(`TO5"`H*0T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$T,R`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0 M(#8S(#`@4B`-+TL@6R`R(%T@#2]09R`Q-B`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,30T M(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO4&<@,38@,"!2(`TO5"`H M*0T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$T-2`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S(#`@4B`- M+TL@6R`T(%T@#2]09R`Q-B`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,30V(#`@;V)J#3P\ M(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO4&<@,38@,"!2(`TO5"`H*0T^/B`-96YD M;V)J#3$T-R`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S(#`@4B`-+TL@6R`V(%T@ M#2]09R`Q-B`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,30X(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`- M+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO2R!;(#<@72`-+U!G(#$V(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ M-#D@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]09R`Q-B`P(%(@#2]4 M("@I#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,34P(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2 M(`TO2R!;(#D@72`-+U!G(#$V(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-3$@,"!O8FH- M/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]09R`Q-B`P(%(@#2]4("@I#3X^(`UE M;F1O8FH-,34R(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO2R!;(#$Q M(%T@#2]09R`Q-B`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,34S(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O M4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO4&<@,38@,"!2(`TO5"`H*0T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$U M-"`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S(#`@4B`-+TL@6R`Q,R!=(`TO4&<@ M,38@,"!2(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$U-2`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S M(#`@4B`-+U!G(#$V(#`@4B`-+U0@*"D-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-38@,"!O8FH- M/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]+(%L@,34@/#P@+U1Y<&4@+TU#4B`O M34-)1"`P("]09R`Q.2`P(%(@/CX@72`-+U!G(#$V(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B M:@TQ-3<@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]09R`Q.2`P(%(@ M#2]4("@I#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,34X(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@ M,"!2(`TO2R!;(#(@72`-+U!G(#$Y(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-3D@,"!O M8FH-/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]+(%L@,R!=(`TO4&<@,3D@,"!2 M(`T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$V,"`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S(#`@4B`- M+TL@6R`T(%T@#2]09R`Q.2`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,38Q(#`@;V)J#3P\ M(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO4&<@,3D@,"!2(`TO5"`H*0T^/B`-96YD M;V)J#3$V,B`P(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S(#`@4B`-+TL@6R`V(%T@ M#2]09R`Q.2`P(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,38S(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`- M+U`@-C,@,"!2(`TO4&<@,3D@,"!2(`TO5"`H*0T^/B`-96YD;V)J#3$V-"`P M(&]B:@T\/"`-+U,@+U`@#2]0(#8S(#`@4B`-+TL@6R`X(%T@#2]09R`Q.2`P M(%(@#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH-,38U(#`@;V)J#3P\(`TO4R`O4"`-+U`@-C,@,"!2 M(`TO2R!;(#D@72`-+U!G(#$Y(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-C8@,"!O8FH- M/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]+(%L@,3`@72`-+U!G(#$Y(#`@4B`- M/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-C<@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]+ M(%L@,3$@72`-+U!G(#$Y(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-C@@,"!O8FH-/#P@ M#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]+(%L@,3(@72`-+U!G(#$Y(#`@4B`-/CX@ M#65N9&]B:@TQ-CD@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]3("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]+(%L@ M,3,@72`-+U!G(#$Y(#`@4B`-/CX@#65N9&]B:@TQ-S`@,"!O8FH-/#P@#2]3 M("]0(`TO4"`V,R`P(%(@#2]09R`Q.2`P(%(@#2]4("@I#3X^(`UE;F1O8FH- M,37!E("]834P@+TQE;F=T:"`Q,#`S(#X^ M(`US=')E86T-"CP_>'!A8VME="!B96=I;CTG)R!I9#TG5S5-,$UP0V5H:4AZ MDY48WIK8SED)R!B>71E&UL;G,Z:5@])VAT='`Z+R]N&UL;G,Z<&1F/2=H='1P.B\O;G,N861O8F4N8V]M M+W!D9B\Q+C,O)R!P9&8Z0W)E871I;VY$871E/2&UL;G,Z>&%P/2=H='1P.B\O;G,N861O8F4N8V]M+WAA M<"\Q+C`O)R!X87`Z0W)E871E1&%T93TG,C`P,BTQ,"TQ-E0Q-SHU-#HR-5HG M('AA<#I-;V1I9GE$871E/2&%P.D%U M=&AO&%P.DUE=&%D871A1&%T93TG,C`P,BTQ,"TQ-E0Q-SHU M-#HR-5HG/CQX87`Z5&ET;&4^/')D9CI!;'0^/')D9CIL:2!X;6PZ;&%N9STG M>"UD969A=6QT)SY$4D%&5"`Q/"]R9&8Z;&D^/"]R9&8Z06QT/CPO>&%P.E1I M=&QE/CPO&UL;G,Z9&,])VAT='`Z+R]P=7)L+F]R9R]D8R]E;&5M96YT')E9@TQ-S,-)25%3T8-,#`Q,3 Subject: more on mutilations To: Cecilia Lambert , applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca ---- Original Message ----- From: "Cecilia Lambert" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:14 PM Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures > I wonder when it was that our society started > thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I could imagine why before genetics was known people thought that cutting off pieces of the animals was the only way to get them to look as desired. But now as we know not only mendelian genetics but also have access to sophisticated systems such as BLUP and breeding indexes, mutilations to conform with breed standards seems to me to be rather like cheating. In a number of dog breeds, pups are born with very short tails, next to no tail at all. If this would be really important for the now docked breeds (well, for their owners, rather), I imagine it's a goal that could be achieved with some breeding efforts. I believe polled (=no horns) Hereford cattle were the result of selective breeding (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong) and can't see why tail-less dogs couldn't be achieved the same way. Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"wickens@ufaw.org.uk" "Stephen Wickens" 29-OCT-2003 07:37:25.51 To: IN%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "'Daniela Lexer'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: ISAE Proceedings 1995 We are the publishers of the proceedings, and whilst we have no copies of the proceedings for sale, it is possible for us to supply individual papers on request, depending on demand. We have informed your friend accordingly. Regards Stephen Wickens, PhD Development Officer Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts AL4 8AN UK Direct Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1276 500880 Office Tel: +44 (0)1582 831818 Fax: +44 (0)1582 831414 Email: wickens@ufaw.org.uk Web: www.ufaw.org.uk UK Registered Charity No: 207996 Science in the Service of Animal Welfare -----Original Message----- From: Daniela Lexer [mailto:D.Lexer@gmx.at]=20 Sent: 29 October 2003 13:06 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: ISAE Proceedings 1995 Dear all, a colleague of mine is looking for the ISAE proceedings 1995. Would be great if anyone can help her. There`s her request: Dear colleagues, Recently I've stumbled over the following quotation from the proceedings of the 29th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology which took place in 1995, Exeter, UK:=20 Rutter/Rushen/Randle/Eddison (1995): Proceedings of the 29th Internat. Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. Unfortunaltely, none of the Austrian libraries has got this volume. The quotation I found does not name any specific article of the volume, but only refers to pp 21-22. Does anybody happen to have a spare volume for me to buy or else could anybody possibly make copies of the article containing these pages and send it to me? Thank you very much in advance, yours sincerely, Regina Binder ------------------ DDr. Regina Binder Tierschutz- & Veterin=E4rrecht Veterin=E4rmedizinische Universit=E4t Wien Veterin=E4rplatz 1 A-1210 Wien=20 Tel.: ++431/250 77-1040 Fax: ++431/250 77-1090 mail: regina.binder@vu-wien.ac.at --=20 Dr.med.vet. Daniela Lexer Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna A-1210 Vienna, Austria NEU F=DCR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f=FCr Fotos, Musik, Dateien... Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru=DF, GMX FotoService Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More! +++ From: IN%"daisyberthoud@yahoo.com" "daisy berthoud" 29-OCT-2003 08:24:55.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: page number 4th international veterinary behaviour meeting in australia, august 2003 dear all, does anyone have access to the above mentioned proceedings ? i would be happy to know what page number marder et al's work on the 'predictability of a shelter dog behavioral assessment test' is. any help is appreciated. thank you in advance, regards, daisy berthoud anglia polytechnic university, cambridge ===== "'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.'" Mahatma Ghandi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 29-OCT-2003 08:30:57.67 To: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D.B. Cameron", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures No one on this list has equated tail docking with slavery. The comparison is between bringing about the end of two separate and greatly different practices, but nevertheless practices that each are harmful to other beings. And the topic is especially pertinent when the practices in question each are defended by persons who benefit from the continuation of the status quo. I believe no one would disagree with the statement that, "cheating on exams and murder are both wrong." I also believe no reasonable person would try to convert this statement into an argument that "cheating on exams is equivalent to murder." And as for the relevance in professional discussions of comparing progress in the treatment of humans to improving animal welfare, there have been numerous articles - not to mention books - written on this topic. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: D.B. Cameron [mailto:orion1432@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:20 PM To: wrstrick@umd.edu Subject: Re: humans including animals in their social structures It amazes me to see, on a professional forum, human slavery equated with canine tail docking. Please. DBC On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:23:03 -0500 Ray Stricklin writes: > The suggestion that ethics is "owned" (meaning it is to be > addressed/practiced only) by persons in philosophy departments is > one of the > more astounding statements I have witnessed in recent years. > > Slavery, etc. are not less acceptable today simply because they are > "plainly > wrong." There are strong and supportable moral arguments as to why > these > types of exploitation are wrong, and it took generations for these > moral > arguments to overwhelm those individuals in society who wished to > maintain > these practices because of their "dearly held beliefs." Similarly, > today > there are such arguments as to why tail docking is not a defensible > practice. > > W.R. Stricklin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:40 PM > To: 'Ray Stricklin' > Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures > > > My argument is just that people's dearly held beliefs should not be > disposed of summarily. These are what keep the ground under one's > feet. > There is no solid research on the subject of tail docking that I am > aware of. The so-called research is patently biased and relies > exclusively on unpublished data, which can not be criticized; how > convenient and also unsound. If a mere fraction of the money spent > on > propagandizing the public against tail docking, were spent on > funding > impartial PhD scholarships (supervised in part by those with more > impartiality than most of my colleagues seem capable of. The > philosophy > dept "own" academic ethics and must be involved in these issues. At > least they bring some impartiality to bear on a heated topic) then > we > would all be in a better position to decide on the issue of tail > docking > now, instead of being just plain propagandised. > People have always tattooed others in their social group, > circumcised, > pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social traditions and > serve > as social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie evil as the > propaganda tells us. Certain practices such as slavery, radical > female > circumcision, racism, are plainly wrong. It is very hard to decide > exactly where to draw the line between such practices and less > harmful > societal traditions (such as tattooing, less radical circumcisions, > piercing etc etc). Just how tolerant should we be as a society? > We have absolutely no idea of what the welfare consequences of > banning > tail docking will be. It could well be that in certain breeds their > tails become a health liability. We simply do not know, and yet the > dog > breeders are being forced into this mass experiment. The solid > unbiased > research must precede such decrees; even then it could be done in a > manner involving all stakeholders. > Jackie Perkins > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:34 PM > To: Geiger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: humans controlling animals > > > > Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in > his > text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially > from > generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it > is > powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with > tail > docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair > and > unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held > traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making > an > academic comment! > > ------------------------------------- > > R. Dawkins, of course, was the person who coined the term meme. > Memes > have > become the subject of a number of books and at least one journal. > I, > for > one, am pleased that the concept has even made its way into dog > training > info - even if Dawkins' ideas (memes) may have mutated into a form > not > completely representative of what he originally intended. > > Dawkins indeed has argued that there are "good" memes and "bad" > memes - > maybe not with the terms good and bad. But certainly he has argued > that > "false replicators" can have enormous negative consequences - and > thus, > should be eliminated. (He often attacks the major religions of the > world as > sources of "bad" memes. And he most certainly would argue that > these > traditions such be eliminated - regardless of the number of > generations > that > have continued their replication.) > > But let's take the contention above that the human practice of > "cutting > off > the tails of animals" can be considered to be a meme. Simply > labeling > such > a practice as a meme is not a supportable basis for arguing that it > should > be continued. And certainly arguing that it is a "tradition" is not > a > basis, for if we had used this criterion alone, we would never have > acted to > eliminate slavery, implement women's suffrage, etc. > > So yes, maybe it can be argued that "cutting off the tails of > animals" > is a > meme. But it is a deleterious meme. And just as selection pressure > can > be > brought upon deleterious genes, so must (or should) cultural and > educational > pressures be brought to bear upon the deleterious memes in order to > stop > their replication. Otherwise, the peoples (and animals) of the > world > will > continue to have all the problems of our current existence. > > Thus, indeed I would argue that societal selection pressures > must/should/will act on this deleterious meme such that the > traditional > practice of cutting off the tails of animals be eliminated. > > W.R. Stricklin > > > > > > > ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM Animal Behavior Clinic < \ / > 15353 N. Bloomfield Road Nevada City, CA 95959 ! ! 530.265.9341 .. Ships are safe in harbor . . . But that is not what ships are for. From: IN%"V.Sandilands@au.sac.ac.uk" 29-OCT-2003 08:48:04.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: docking, mutilations
Dear all,

Great discussion going on here.

A colleague who attends my local dog club bred his boxer pair, and subsequently wanted to get the pups' tails docked.  All the vets he contacted told him they don't dock tails.  (The Royal Colleg of Vet. Surgeons instructed its members to stop docking from 1996).  This guy then rang another boxer breeder, and asked how she gets her dogs' tails docked.  She told him that if joined the Docked Breeds Society (? or some other similar name) for a small fee, the society would then send him the name and phone number of a person who would dock his pups' tails for him!  Very cloak and dagger...

Personally, I own an English Springer Spaniel (second hand!) who was slightly docked as a pup (only partially docked to keep the white 'flag' at the end, I am told).  She runs in and out of bushes and undergrowth.  The only thing she has ever caught was one of her legs, in a wire fence.  No one advocates chopping legs off though, do they!  And as the DEFRA document that Andreas refers to says, these types of breeds are much more likely to get things stuck in their ears, but there are 'no comments on injuries or damage sustained on ears...'

For those of you that can attend, there will be a Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Studies meeting in the near future in which the topic will be 'unecessary mutilations', and we have a couple of guest speakers to discuss the pros and cons of the topic.  The meeting will probably be in Edinburgh - I will post the advert to this list when I get it (with date, time, location, etc)

Best wishes,
Vicky

Dr. Victoria Sandilands
Avian Science Research Centre/Animal Nutrition & Health
Animal Health Group
Scottish Agricultural College
Ayr, KA6 5HW, UK

tel +44 (0)1292 525421
fax +44 (0)1292 525098
http://www.sac.ac.uk/animal/External/ABDWeb/Avian/Default.htm

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%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 29-OCT-2003 09:09:08.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: docking, mutilations Dear All Victoria's mention of boxers reminds me of Bernie Rollin's story that he himself got a boxer as a pup, and did not get its tail docked or its ears 'pricked' - indeed having a boxer with natural tail and ears, contrary to custom, was part of his motivation for getting a boxer at all. He was walking the dog one day and was confronted by a woman who roundly criticized him for 'letting the side down'. When he defended his position as being for the dog's benefit, she made a final, strident comment before striding off: "It's in their nature to have their ears pricked." Mike 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%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 29-OCT-2003 09:52:37.52 To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol", IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations I endorse Carol Petherick's position on dehorning. Dehorning of cattle has also been one of my "campaigns." In 1988-89 when helping write the first version of the USA research and teaching guidelines for agricultural animals, I argued strongly, but ultimately unsuccessfully, for including a statement to the effect that mechanical/surgical/chemical dehorning could be avoided through the use of genetically hornless animals. (But now, the second version of the guidelines does include such information.) The primary opposition came from subcommittee members (from both the beef and dairy committees) who contended, as Carol notes others believe below, that horned animals are superior in productivity to polled animals. While historically there is some basis for this contention, I believe that today this is a position that needs to be challenged - and possibly could be said to not be defensible. A primary contributing factor to the contention that horned animals are superior comes from the development of the Polled Hereford breed itself (today both horned and polled Hereford in the USA have merged in one association). In the early 1900's the Polled Hereford registry started with a small number of animals (I believe 11 head in the year of origin), and these were animals that were not noted for milk production or rate of gain. They simply were Hereford cattle identified as having no natural horn expression - and no attention was given to their production performance. Other animals were added later. Continuing into the 1960's and beyond, there was a major rivalry between the Polled Hereford and horned Hereford breeders. Much of this had to do with the horned Hereford breeders considering the Polled Hereford to be genetically inferior cattle - and they were also competitors in the sales of breeding bulls. The disagreements became personal to the degree, I have heard, that there were actual fist fights at a Kansas City exhibition over whether or not a bull was horned or scurred (an unattached horn growth - making the animal technically polled). On a more practical level, horned Hereford breeders argued that mother cows under range conditions needed horns to fend off predators. They also argued that Polled Hereford bulls (or polled bulls of any breed) under range conditions will tend to stay together in male groups and fight. Whereas, they argued the horned bulls will not fight (for long), but rather will disperse out over the great distances and find the cows in estrus. (There may some validity to some of what is being argued here - but even if it is all correct, the argument would apply to only range cattle which constitute less than 15% of the beef cattle in the USA.) In dairy breeding there is also the argument that semen is not available from polled bulls equivalent in expected milk differences to what can be obtained from horned bulls. While I cannot point to an actual reference, this is basically an argument (in both beef and dairy cattle) that hornedness is genetically linked to milk production. I am not up to date on the literature on this topic, but I do not believe that this is true - and would expect that there are data on the topic that could be useful in overcoming some these "old" ideas - which should then lead breeders to increase their attempts to produce more polled bulls with the ability to yield high milk producing daughters. And also would encourage greater use of semen from polled bulls. I think some of these "myths" are slowly being debunked. But I especially believe that there are still far too many beef calves that are dehorned when they first arrive at the feedlot - which is usually a few days/weeks after weaning and after they have experienced much transport and social stress. I believe there is still about a 3 to 5% death loss in these cattle, and dehorning is one of the stressors that could be eliminated through the use of genetically polled bulls. And dehorning of an unanaesthetized adult cow is probably the most painful procedure that I have ever witnessed an animal experience. I have seen cows go to their knees and vocalize in a manner that is difficult to witness. Younger cattle going into the feedlot do not have the same size horns but the pain they experience, I would argue, is still in amounts that are not defensible in today's society. Nor is it necessary, for these calves could have come from polled breeding stock - thus eliminating the need for dehorning. While I was in Saskatchewan there was the Horned Cattle Checkoff Fund. Money from this fund was used in support of beef cattle research. I believe that the amount was $1.00 assessed against each horned animal sold at auction. This is an idea that I believe could serve a useful purpose in other parts of the world. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Petherick, Carol [mailto:Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:52 PM To: Anna Olsson; Cecilia Lambert; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: more on mutilations Anna Glad that you raised the issue of dehorning cattle - it's one of my "campaigns"!!. I've just looked into it - in cattle (not sure about goats) the poll gene(s) is/are dominant/epistatic to the horn gene(s) and, so, it should be very easy to select for polled animals (at least that's what the geneticists tell me) - or at least that's the case in Bos taurus animals. I'm less certain what goes on in Bos indicus breeds because of the african horn gene(s) - I'm not even sure if that gene occurs in Bos taurus breeds too (maybe somebody out there knows). Anyway, I've been assured that breeding for polls can be done, and apparently without detrimental effect on desirable traits. The problem here is that the studs have superior genes (in terms of productivity) in horned bulls and are not making the effort to move to poll animals with superior genetics. I cannot understand this when one considers the time, labour, production losses, morbidities and mortalities that go with dehorning - particularly at the age that it tends to be done in the extensive systems here. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au From: IN%"wickens@ufaw.org.uk" "Stephen Wickens" 29-OCT-2003 10:06:50.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: PROMOTING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE: THE UFAW 'TESCO' AWARD PROMOTING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE: THE UFAW =91TESCO=92 AWARD Applications are now being sought for consideration for the UFAW = =91Tesco=92 Award: Promoting Public Understanding of Animal Welfare Science. This award is awarded annually to the author(s) of the piece of published or broadcast work which best communicates to a wide audience the importance and value of animal welfare research. Animal welfare has become a matter of great public concern and not infrequently, public controversy. Society expects high standards and to provide these requires a proper understanding of animals=92 physical and physiological needs and how these can be met. Public attitudes to the welfare needs of animals however are often based more on emotion than on science. The processes and the findings of animal welfare research are not always well communicated outside the scientific and technical community and are often poorly appreciated by the public. UFAW and Tesco are working together to promote better understanding of animal welfare science through this award.=20 A prize of =A31000 will be awarded to the author(s) of the piece of work in the English language, which best conveys the important contribution of the scientific approach to understanding animal welfare issues. Subjects could include research with companion, zoo or wild animals or any animal used in our service. How can science help us to understand such animals=92 needs? How can it help us to be sure that we are doing = the best for animal welfare? How can it help us to determine when things are going wrong? Applicants may submit copies of either: i) a book, newspaper or magazine essay or article, or=20 ii) a video (VHS only) or recording of a radio or television item or programme=20 that has been published or broadcast any time during the year preceding the deadline for receipt of applications, which is 5th December 2003. Applications are welcome from anywhere in the world but must be of general relevance to a European audience.=20 The winner will be decided by a panel of judges. The judges decision will be final.=20 It is UFAW=92s intention to promote publication or broadcast of the winning piece of work, or excerpts from it. Applications must be made on the UFAW =91Tesco=92 Award application = form, which is available from UFAW. A copy of the completed application form, with CV (no more than 2 sides of A4) and 5 copies of the work submitted should be sent to: The Secretary, UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN UK. Email: ufaw@ufaw.org.uk. Applications must reach the UFAW office by 5th December 2003. Information about the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 1) The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), founded in 1926, is an internationally recognised, independent, scientific and educational animal welfare charity, concerned with promoting high standards of welfare for farm, companion, laboratory, and captive wild animals, and for those with which we interact in the wild.=20 2) UFAW believes that by making rational judgements based upon scientific study, lasting advances can be made in the way we look after animals. UFAW was the first animal welfare charity to take this scientific approach to solving animal problems 3) UFAW works to improve animal welfare by: * promoting and supporting developments in the science and technology that underpin advances in animal welfare, through its programme of awards and grants * promoting education in animal care and welfare, in current issues and in the assessment of welfare * providing information, organizing meetings, and publishing books, videos, articles, technical reports and the leading quarterly scientific journal Animal Welfare * providing expert advice to government departments and other bodies and by helping to draft and amend laws and guidelines * enlisting the energies of those who care about and for animals 4) UFAW publishes the leading international quarterly scientific journal Animal Welfare and the key texts The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals and the Management and Welfare of Farm Animals. =93Improvements in the care of animals are now not likely to come of their own accord, merely by wishing them: there must be research = =85.. and it is by sponsoring research of this kind, and making its results widely known, that UFAW performs one of its most valuable services=94. Sir Peter Medawar CBE FRS, 8th May 1957 Nobel Laureate (1960), Chairman of the UFAW Scientific Advisory Committee (1951-62) From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 29-OCT-2003 15:01:57.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE-More on mutilations When the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ruled that docking should not be performed by its Registered Members I complied. I am bound by a code of ethics, which is not optional. To be so bound is be professional and to be worthy of trust. It was highly inconvenient, as I had performed this act when asked in the past. Among those denied this service were old clients who had come to me after operations, which were sometimes fatal, attended by undue haemorrhage and damage by chemical cautery. As a matter of interest, historical as it now is, the technique I devised addressed the complaints and mishaps of the past. At around 2 to 3 weeks of age, fit and likely pups were operated upon in this manner. The dam was out of earshot of the pups crying. The technique was to crush the tail at the required length with the jaws of piglet tooth cutters with the cutting edges filed flat. The closure was slow so as not to cut by rather crush in the manner of a burdizzo. The piercing alarm call resembled that emitted by a pup what was being squashed or hurt by any means. The jaws on the clippers there held closed to a full two minutes by the clock. The crying invariable ceased after a short time. For about a minute and a half there would be no sound and the puppies would seem to be asleep. The redundant tail was then twisted with a rotary movement very slowly until detached. The pressure of the closed clipper was maintained for a few more seconds prior to release. There would be no bleeding or further crying. Returned to the warm box the pups slept. By 1990 there were only a half dozen "breeders" in my Practice as I had effectively expelled those who required elective caesarians, bred extremely deformed types and were of a mind to dictate to me their terms and fees1 My last and longest client was a breed of Pembroke Corgis who was insistent that my method was the best she had encountered. Furthermore, she convinced me that puppies "mutilated" (if you wish) in this manner could be identified by a straight "top-line". The alternative method favoured by home dockers and I must say, by the malcontents and rebels of my profession after the Ruling, was the rubber band. The banded pups do indeed have a different profile to the rump. The lower spine is curved downwards. It my sincere belief that the discomfort of protracted iscaemia can induce a postural deformity at a time when the pups are growing very fast indeed. Finally, I was convinced that a lengthy period of pain and a slowing of growth attended the use of the agricultural banding technique. Since "the Ruling", I have not performed this and now describe it as a curiosity or relic of the past. Why do it at all? The very small number of injured tails (or claws for that matter) in my records and recollection of 40 years cannot be stretched to justify routine ablation of tails or dewclaws. Latterly the Practice abounded with natural undocked dogs of all types. The simple issue here is the tyranny of custom and fashion. (The postural deformity theory could have been tested by recording, and measurement. Perhaps there are unreconstructed barbarians who would undertake such a study!) Robin Walker From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 29-OCT-2003 15:29:34.77 To: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" Subj: Fw: more on mutilations, genetic mutuliation Andreas, Upon reflecttion, I find I have little to add to my previous post, so I'll simply share it with the rest of the group. A attempt to a short reply is that - this is a complicated matter! Because if you say it's ethically unacceptable to adapt animals to specific conditions, you must stop all selective breeding efforts; selective breeding will always mean selecting for individuals which show the desired traits in the environmental conditions such animals are housed (which will usually be the predominant housing type for the species in society). Even if you don't directly select for specific traits that facilitate a specific system, you will favour animals which do well in the present system. So where do you draw the line? I guess one could say that if a trait occurs naturally in some individuals in the species and they don't seem to suffer from expressing the trait it would seem acceptable to try to select for that trait. That would be my reasonably utilitarian position. The conditoin that the trait should be naturally occuring in the species would to some extent also protect from deviation from character of the species. (Although one should be aware that if adopting this position, and if accepting spontaneous mutations as valid traits for breeding, one is obliged to accept the featherless chickens, unless one can prove these birds suffer from not having feathers.) And yes, if we are the slightest bit utilitarian and think that pleasure and pain matter in ethics, there is a difference between surgically removing a body part and breeding for the congenital absence of the same body part. There will always be some pain and discomfort associated with an amputation even if performed under the most aseptical conditions by the best surgeon and with all anesthetics and analgesics in the world. I can't see that it would be any more painful to be born without a tail than to be born with one. I was born without one, but got nothing to add to WH Auden's words: In moments of joy all of us wished we possessed a tail we could wag. Anna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andreas Briese" > To: "Anna Olsson" ; > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:23 PM > Subject: Re: more on mutilations, genetic mutuliation > > > > Hallo Anna, > > > > would you say, that genetic manipulation to adopt animals to specific > > husbandry conditions is different in relation to more "manual > manuipulations" > > like tail dockking, dehorning, debeaking? It all comes down to the blind > hens > > case, isn't it? > > > > Andreas > > > > p.s. > > I suppose, a pathozentric utilitarian would agree that reducing pain by > > reduction of pain receptors is a fine idea. Many utilitarian arguments > seem > > persuasiv, but this is always "repellent" for me personally. > > > > > > > > Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:28:00 +0000 > > From: Anna Olsson > > Subject: more on mutilations > > To: Cecilia Lambert , > applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > From: "Cecilia Lambert" > > To: ; > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:14 PM > > Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures > > > > > > > I wonder when it was that our society started > > > thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. > > > > I could imagine why before genetics was known people thought that cutting > > off pieces of the animals was the only way to get them to look as desired. > > But now as we know not only mendelian genetics but also have access to > > sophisticated systems such as BLUP and breeding indexes, mutilations to > > conform with breed standards seems to me to be rather like cheating. In a > > number of dog breeds, pups are born with very short tails, next to no tail > > at all. If this would be really important for the now docked breeds (well, > > for their owners, rather), I imagine it's a goal that could be achieved > with > > some breeding efforts. I believe polled (=no horns) Hereford cattle were > the > > result of selective breeding (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong) and can't see > why > > tail-less dogs couldn't be achieved the same way. > > > > Anna Olsson > > > > Anna Olsson > > Postdoctoral research fellow > > Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics > > > > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > > Phone +351 22 607 4900 > > Faz +351 22 609 9157 > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese > > > > Tier"rztliche Hochschule Hannover > > Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie > > Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover > > D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and > Behaviour of Farm Animals > > Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 > > Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 > > E-Mail: > > andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending > attachments!) > > andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 29-OCT-2003 15:38:32.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dew claws You misunderstand me Andy. I did not at any point say that ANY practise should be continued. Perhaps a less emotional response with clearer reading of my exact words would have allowed you to see that I relayed factual accounts of my own experience ,and that my main point was this.. <"We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth."> So allow me to explain further what I am implying here if you did not understand what i meant. I beleive that before taking such a step as to ban a particular practise scientific research should be carried out to see IF any of these practises are justified. By 'not researched properly' what I mean is controlled long term studies following both groups of collies that are' de-clawed' a birth and also those remaining intact. The fact that I relayed my own personal experience to be shortly followed by you with your OWN anecdotal experience verifys my point that without studies and facts it will be impossible to assert what is best for the breed in a non-emotional way. I am very interested to know where you work you collies with sheep. Do you take part at trial standard? Or farm work only? IF farm work, what size flocks and type of land do you work. I attend alot of trials here in the UK with border collies, and I am also studying to be an animal behaviour therapist based on an ethological approach combined with operant conditoining methods. I have started a survey among the regular competitors of the sport and although it is not yet completed I have to say that so far the trend among most ISDS registered working border collie breeders appears to be that removal of front dew claws is the preferred approach. The difference between you an I, it appears is that you carried out a practise of docking without questioning its validity and then stopped whereas I chose NOT to have invasive removal at birth only to discover there was a possibility of a real problem developing as a result. I do not see why you are talking about emotional knee jerks as you seem to be having on while accusing me of doing so. SO I suggested critical analysis BEFORE banning a practise as this seems a bit backwards to me. Naturally, if the study showed that removal of front dew claws was uneccessary and unrelated to following 'accidental' ripping of dew claws then I would be very happy that it was discontinued. I am wanting the best for the breed. Not sure exactly what your point is. Let me know what exactly it is that you disagree with. Sincerely Mary Doran He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 29-OCT-2003 16:05:30.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dew claws Mary I am surprised you think I do not understand =96 was there anything so = complex that that would be likely? Dew claws is a separate issue =96 and I think there is no ethical = question as they are liable to tearing =96 which results in pain - therefore = removing them in a controlled manner under anaesthesia, even though it may cause = some pain post-op, to prevent the much worse pain of a tear is quite ethical. This is quite different to tail docking. Even so, it would clearly be = better to breed so that this becomes unnecessary. Sufficient studies have been carried out on tail docking =96 as you must surely now be aware. Therefore there is no quick judgement going on = here. My response was based entirely on awareness of these findings =96 not on = emotion. My dogs assist me with all farm work =96 removing feral cattle and, on occasion, pigs (fence and pasture damage), rounding up and removing neighbours sheep (except when with lambs at foot as the dogs tend to be = a little hard and inexperienced for such gentle work), moving groups of = horses and protecting our plants and fruit trees from possums - quite varied = work, and a great deal of it out of line of sight or direct control. Please =96 no further FLAMES =96 the practice is somewhat out of place = on this list and, in my case, merely makes me bin the posting as juvenile. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =A0 -----Original Message----- From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 5:36 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: dew claws You misunderstand me Andy. I did not at any point say that ANY practise should be continued. Perhaps a less emotional response with clearer reading of my exact words would have allowed you to see that I relayed factual accounts of my own experience ,and that my main point was this.. =A0 <"We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if = we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices = developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems = encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth."> =A0 So allow me to explain=A0 further what I am implying here if you did not understand what i meant. I beleive that before taking such a step as to ban a particular = practise=A0 scientific research should=A0be carried out to see IF any of these = practises are justified. By 'not researched properly'=A0 what I mean is controlled long term = studies following both groups of collies that are' de-clawed' a birth and also = those remaining intact. The fact that=A0I relayed my own personal experience to be shortly = followed by you with your OWN anecdotal experience verifys my point that without = studies and facts it will be impossible to assert what is best for the breed in = a non-emotional way. =A0 I am very interested to know where you work you collies with sheep. Do you take part at trial standard? Or farm work only? IF farm work, what size flocks and type=A0of land do you work. I attend alot of trials here in the UK with border collies, and I am = also studying to be an animal behaviour therapist based on an ethological approach combined with operant conditoining methods.=A0 =A0I have started a survey among the regular competitors of the sport = and although it is not yet completed I have to say=A0that so far the trend among most ISDS registered working border collie breeders = appears to be that removal of front dew claws is the preferred approach. The difference between you an I, it appears is that you carried out a practise of docking without questioning its validity and then stopped whereas I chose NOT to have invasive removal at birth only to discover = there was a possibility of a real problem developing as a result. I do not see why you are talking about emotional knee jerks as you seem = to be having on while accusing me of doing so. =A0 SO I suggested critical analysis BEFORE banning a practise as this seems = a bit backwards to me. Naturally, if the study showed that removal of front dew claws was uneccessary and unrelated to following 'accidental' ripping of dew claws then I would be very happy that it was discontinued. I am wanting the best for the breed. Not sure exactly what your point is. =A0 Let me know what exactly=A0it is that you disagree with. =A0 Sincerely =A0 Mary Doran =A0 He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 29-OCT-2003 16:18:24.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Cindy - could I ask how a loosely attached dew claw that is never in contact with the ground could aid lateral balance? I agree that some dew claws are well placed and firmly attached and are used for such things as holding bones or biscuits - but in my experience these rarely cause problems. Before this continues - I have not stated that dew claws are of no use - neither that I believe dew claws should not be removed - or that they should - I assume this would be a judgement call best made by a Vet on a case by case basis. The issue was tail docking, which I firmly believe to be ethically wrong - so why not keep it there rather than going off at a tangent? I also contend that it is, at best, irresponsible to continue breeding from animals that produce physically dysfunctional progeny (usually for trivial reasons of style or fashion)- and am more than willing to argue in support that contention. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov [mailto:Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov] Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 10:35 a.m. To: wheep@igrin.co.nz Subject: RE: tail docking Actually, canids use their dew claws for lateral balance, and contrary to popular opinion they are quite important. Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Beck [SMTP:wheep@igrin.co.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:49 PM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: tail docking > > We also kept Great Danes - but there were no problems with their tails at > all - in fact I found them to be very careful around the house generally. > Is the suggestion that Danes should have their tails docked for this > reason? > > > > Equally I own and work both Rough and Border collies - and have never had > any problem with these or Huntaway types either. I very much doubt that > anyone would suggest that poorly attached dew claws should not be removed > - for exactly the reason given, and not only in working dogs either. > > > > There are undoubtedly a good number of customs for which there is no known > reason except that - "that's the way we've always done it" - however that > is not a sufficient reason for continuing them if they fail to pass > reasonable ethical standards. If traditional practices could not be > subjected to critical analysis we would be destined to repeat the same > mistakes over and over. However, if a practice is sound it should survive > such analysis - so there is surely no need for generalised emotional knee > jerks in support. > > > > It often seems that there are people who would rather attempt to cite, at > times disingenuous, reasons for continuing to carry a practice out rather > than admitting that it may be wrong to do it - or to have done it in the > past. Years ago I was responsible for breeding Jack Russels and docking > their tails - I have no problem acknowledging that it was wrong to do so - > and now breed and sell with tails. > > > > It is to be wondered just how many 'flames' have their basis in vested > interest or denial of past excesses. > > > > Regards > > Andy Beck > > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > > 433 Wharepunga Rd > > RD3 Kaikohe > > Northland > > Aotearoa - New Zealand > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 4:12 p.m. > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: tail docking > > > > My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an > intact tail. > However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction > that > happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. > Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she > often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. > I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very > enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections > often as a result. > I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. > It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it > is > for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be > removed.There > is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. > Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching > the > front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the > dew > claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. > The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws > at > birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult > dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and > memory > power that would make the op a traunatic experience. > Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. > On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is > actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly > painful. > I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at > birth. > 15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There > was > alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. > I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it > was > hanging off by a piece of bone. > It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result > is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over > eventually. > I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner > anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little > fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. > We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we > have > not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed > centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems > encountered > through these procedures not being carried out at birth. > However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these > 'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has > become a hobby or pasttime. > I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds > such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and > suffers > so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. > I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in > dogs. > > Sincerely > Mary Doran > > He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. > He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. > From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 29-OCT-2003 16:34:00.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided I am glad to see how many people here are concerned about animal welfare but I am a little disturbed by how much of the bandwidth is being consumed by it. I think to some extent it is stifling and diluting other exchanges which are more on topic. If this debate had a reasonable chance of coming to a resolution I would think it fine to just let it run its course or even participate in it. As it stands, it seems unlikely to reach any resolution and more likely to just be an exercise in emotional rhetorical posturing. Simply to have a fruitful debate we would have to first agree on fundamentals that none of us are likely to address because they are so fundamental. Questions like, what is good? Why do ethics exist? Why care about that which is not self? What is the goal of ethics? What is the relative importance of principle and pragmatics? How do we judge outcomes? In what significant ways are humans and animals alike and different? As a whole, I think this group only has expertise in the last question, and even there I am sure there will be a lot of disagreement among the informed. I am under the impression that most people here respect the importance of scholarship and know that ethical philosophy is a topic that a lot of brain power has already been devoted to. Unless, we want to spend the time creating informed consensual opinions on all these questions, I feel that this debate will only wind up being a superficial, exasperating and divisive struggle. I think it is safe to say that most people in here care about the welfare of animals. Perhaps we can just agree that leaving to each individuals conscience and practical experience is essentially the best that we can hope for. From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" "John R Lane" 29-OCT-2003 16:34:47.38 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: removing dew claws FROM A PREVIOUS POST: I very much doubt that anyone would suggest that poorly attached dew claws should not be removed - for exactly the reason given, and not only in working dogs either. Hello listers, While this picks up a point made by Andy it is no way adressed to him personally but is meant as a general enquiry on the validation for this outlook by many. I am normally a lurker on this list but I felt the need to dig further on this question to perhaps further my own knowledge. Firstly to introduce myself: I am a owner and trainer who resides in Napier N.Z. and who owns kelpies and has been a trainer and breeder of corgis as well. As an owner of kelpies and watcher of border collies and other mid size dogs when working both in high spped hill work and in sports such as agility where high speed turns are very much the norm I would suggest different. Let me say firstly we have had dew claws removed in small dogs and also have performed this process ourselves previously with corgis bred and trained by us This was for for the reasons outlined in previous posts. I am however these days no longer sure these reasons are valid for the following reasons.. 1) Firstly let me address this from a data perspective. From a data perspective I know of no scientific study that shows that a majority of dogs with dew claws on sustain sufficient damage to warrant this operation and I feel to offer justification we would have to show a majority or at the very least a large percentage of such dogs sustain damage. If someone can point to such a scientific study I will be very happy to stand corrected. 2) I feel (although I don't have a study to point to) that: The dew claws in mid range dogs do indeed perform a valid function. It is my personal observation from watching my own dogs both on hill sides at speed and the flat and watching similar mid sized dogs performing agility rounds that these appear to act as a purposefully used turning aid in high speed sharp turns. Of course along with the rudder counter balance of the tail. It is my understanding that there are many, many mid sized dogs that perform well in agility that still have dew claws attached. Can others perhaps comment on this supposition from their observations or point me to a study or medical or similar information that says different? If my observations and my resultant supposition is correct then they do have a definite purpose in nature which we are defeating by removing these in early puppyhood. 3) The arguement that the animal will feel more pain if damage occurs in later years than if they are removed in puppyhood seems to me to be perhaps an emotional one based on visual observation of animal suffering rather than one based on proven statistics and any resultant logic. It is I agree a horrible sight to see an animal suffering in pain with a ripped dew claw, (one I have seen) and the pain *perhaps* lasts longer in this case because it takes us longer to get them to Veterinary assistance and the healing process will be longer than if removed in puppyhood but I would ask can you extend this to claim that all appendixes should be removed from humans when they are infants because they.*may* be a useless appendage and the pain associated with inflammation and removing them later because of this inflammation is more than it would be if they were removed in infancy. We (societythat is) have actually stopped using this as a reason to remove tonsils as a matter of course during childhood. I look forward to hearing further views and learning more about this specific topic and hearing views on my specific points from forum members. Regards John L. New Zealand. From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 29-OCT-2003 16:44:55.80 To: IN%"Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov", IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations Cindy Dehorning is carried out as a 'routine procedure' on cattle. Whether local anaesthetics and post-operative pain relief is provided depends on the age/size of the animal and the country it's being done. Here, cattle can be dehorned up to 6-12 months of age (or more) without any anaesthesia etc. The reason for such a wide variation in ages is that our welfare code stipulates that preferably they should be dehorned at less than 6 months of age, or at first muster. This latter caveat means that animals can be considerably older than 6 months when they are first handled. I have never observed an animal drop dead at the time of dehorning, but have experienced deaths due to excessive blood loss post-dehorning. If animals can be dehorned early in life then there is the potential to cause much less stress and pain through the use of caustic pastes (not sure these would work on beef calves, as there is the potential to burn the cow when the calves suck) and cautery that do not create the large open wounds that such devices as 'scoop dehorners' do. You may have seen a posting I sent some weeks back querying horn development in cattle - and the reason I asked was because of the dehorning issue; there's the potential to cause much less pain and stress if you can dehorn before the horn-producing tissue attaches to the skull. However, I guess I have some problems promoting this idea, because this would condone dehorning - my ultimate aim is not to dehorn at all, but to breed polled cattle!! Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov [mailto:Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov] Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 4:33 AM To: jwillard@turbonet.com; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca; Petherick, Carol Subject: RE: more on mutilations Janice, When we subscribe to this defeatist attitude that there is no acceptable alternative, we inhibit our ability to find a suitable alternative, as well as excuse ourselves form any moral or ethical responsability for causing negative states in our animal kin. I beg to differ in the opinion that we are "stuck" with any particular method. If we accept this as the only pracitcal solution, we have no motivation to investigate novel methods that are less invasive and stressful. I think a better choice of words would be "for lack of a reliable alternative, we chose to de-horn." It it incumbant upon those of us which seek to utilize animals to serve our needs to find humane alternatives. Regardless of the costs. I firmly believe there is always a choice. It may not be practical or cost effective, but there is always a choice. I am curious about this de-horning, since I am unfamiliar whith the technique. Are the animals being de-horned anesthitized during the procedure and provided proper pain management post proceduraly? I am familiar with cattle biology and know that the horns have a rich supply of nerves. In light of this, I am assuming that this is quite painful. As Vivian mentioned, one animal actually "dropped dead" during such a procedure. While the absolute cause of death is unknown w/o necropsy, it is safe to assume that stress and trauma from this procedure was a contributing factor. Those of us who manage animals have a moral duty to treat these animals with dignity and respect, as Konrad has been quoted. I always ask, "would we do this to a human?". And if not, why not? Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Janice Willard [SMTP:jwillard@turbonet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:46 PM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca; Petherick, Carol > Subject: Re: more on mutilations > > Hi Carol, > > > With goats, we are > stuck with de-horning. > > Janice > > Janice Willard, DVM, MS > > > > ********************************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%"stammwood@rcn.com" 29-OCT-2003 16:51:40.28 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: early memory of traumatic experiences There appears to be evidence emerging that PTSD in humans can lead to permanent biochemical changes that affect the immune system: PTSD linked to enhanced cellular immune response Women suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) appear to have greater cell-mediated inflammatory reactions than those without the condition, say researchers. "Individuals with PTSD have disturbances of both of the major stress-response systems in the body: the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and the sympathoadrenomedullary system," note Margaret Altemus (Weill Medical College, New York, USA) and colleagues. As both of these processes have effects on the immune system, the team hypothesized that regulation of the immune system may be disturbed in individuals with PTSD. To investigate, they measured the immune responses to a delayed-type hypersensitivity skin test of 16 women with PTSD due to childhood sexual or physical abuse to a delayed-type hypersensitivity skin test. The responses of these participants were compared with those of 15 women who did not have a history of abuse, other trauma, or psychiatric disorders. In addition, HPA axis activity was assessed by examination of circadian salivary cortisol levels and a single time point measurement of plasma cortisol. The researchers found that women with PTSD had enhanced delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, with a mean erythema response diameter on the forearm of 5.99 mm, compared with just 2.90 mm in women without PTSD. In contrast, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to circadian measures of salivary-free cortisol, although plasma cortisol levels tended to be lower in women with than without PTSD (217 mmol/l vs 293 mmol/l). Altemus et al note in the American Journal of Psychiatry that their findings are compatible with previous reports of higher plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and activated T lymphocytes in individuals with PTSD. "Greater inflammatory responses may contribute to a variety of medical illnesses that have been associated with PTSD," they conclude. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1705-1707 This discussion has caused me to wonder if traumatic stress can cause PTSD in domestic domestic animals and can similar long term effects. Cissy Petherick, Carol wrote: > Anna > You may recall that a similar theme was discussed at the ISAE congress this year. In my paper I must have made some comment about 'surgical procedures' best being performed on young animals. Jan Ladewig queried this in relation to how this may affect welfare. I responded that it probably had minimal effects on welfare at the time (ie the procedure still hurt like hell), but that maybe the lack of memory/reduced memory for the episode would be beneficial in the future because the relationship between the animal and humans was less likely to be affected (less stress and fear of humans because of the lack of association between humans and pain). However, from what you say, perhaps this interpretation is wrong, and young animals do form very strong memories. I know Dan Weary, Joe Stookey and Chris Bell planned to investigate this 'memory' in young animals earlier this year, and wonder what they found. > > There are, however, other very good reasons for conducting 'surgical procedures' on young animals - they are smaller, weaker and are therefore easier to restrain - which should cause less stress. Being smaller, generally the wounds that are inflicted are smaller and hence tissue damage is reduced - which should cause less pain and stress. In the case of dehorning - if done young enough the process is much less invasive, doesn't cause bleeding and result in open wounds. > > Carol > > Carol Petherick > Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences > Department of Primary Industries > > Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 > Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 8:44 PM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: early memory of traumatic experiences > > In relation to the discussion below, I remember reading that by using > non-verbal ways of assessing memory one can actually find that emotional > memories are formed (and remain) very early in human infants. The example I > recall was the memory of having been circumsized (male) as an infant without > anaesthesia. (Arguments for doing this at all, and for doing it in neonates > resemble arguments in favour of tail docking in dogs). I'm not quite sure > about the original reference, but one interesting reference I found during a > quick search is indicated below. The reseaerchers found that babies who had > been circumsized without anaesthesia reacted stronger to the pain at routine > vaccination at 4 months of age than babies who had not been circumsized or > had been circumsized with local anaesthesia. > > Anna > 1.. Taddio A, Koren G et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain > response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet, Vol. 349: Pages > 599-603 (March 1, 1997) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stine B Christiansen" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:03 AM > Subject: Vedr.: tail docking > > > >>Hi All, >> >>Mary, could you provide a reference for this?: >>"The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws >> > at birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult > dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and memory > power that would make the op a traunatic experience." > >>I have a reference claiming that the level of pain (in relation to tail >> > docking) may actually be greater in newborn puppies because their neural > development is not yet complete (ie in contrast to what is commonly > believed). (Wansbrough, RK: Cosmetic tail docking of dogs. AVJ, vol 74, no 1 > July 1996, pp59-63) > >>Our Animal Ethics Council discussed tail docking a few years ago and found >> > very limited scientifc information. Except for five hunting breeds cosmetic > tail docking has been banned in Denmark since 1991. There are - to my > knowledge - no reports in Denmark that non-hunting dogs suffer from more > tail injuries than dogs from other breeds. As for allowing tail docking of > the hunting breeds the argument is that it is the better choice of two > evils. In short our Council recommended a total ban on tail docking, ie for > all breeds, as injuries can be prevented by other, more humane initiatives > such as breeding for better tail strength or avoid using the dog in > ways/vegetation knowing to cause harm. Those who can read Danish and are > interested in the report can find it at (Udtalelse om halekupering): > >>http://www.jm.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=50862 >> >>FYI according to the European Convention on the protection of pets tail >> > docking for cosmetic or convenience reasons is prohibited (13. November > 1987, chap. 2, art. 10 and explanatory report). > >>Finally, for those interested in the medical, ethical and other arguments >> > concerning tail docking I can recommend reading the chapter "Should the tail > wag the dog" in: The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice by > F. Barbara, Ph.D. Orlans (Editor), Tom L. Beauchamp (Editor), Rebecca > Dresser (Editor), David B. Morton (Editor), John P., Ph.D. Gluck (Editor), > Oxford University Press 1998. > >>Stine >> >> >>Stine B. Christiansen >>cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. >> >>Det Dyreetiske Råd/The Danish Animal Ethics Council >>Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk >> > Assessment > >>Den Kgl. Veterinær- og Landbohøjskole/The Royal Veterinary and >> > Agricultural University > >>Bioetik/Bioethics >>Grønnegårdsvej 8 >>1870 Frederiksberg C >>Copenhagen >>Denmark >> >>tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 >>fax: +45 3528 3022 >>e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk >> >> >> >>>>>mary doran 29-10-03 04:11 >>> >>>>> >>My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an >>intact tail. >>However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction >> > that > >>happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. >>Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she >>often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. >>I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very >>enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections >>often as a result. >>I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. >>It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it >> > is > >>for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be >> > removed.There > >>is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. >>Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching >> > the > >>front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the >> > dew > >>claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. >>The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws >> > at > >>birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult >>dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and >> > memory > >>power that would make the op a traunatic experience. >>Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. >>On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is >>actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly >>painful. >>I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at >> > birth. > >>15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There >> > was > >>alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. >>I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it >> > was > >>hanging off by a piece of bone. >>It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result >>is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over >>eventually. >>I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner >>anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little >>fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. >>We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we >> > have > >>not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed >>centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems >> > encountered > >>through these procedures not being carried out at birth. >>However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these >>'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has >>become a hobby or pasttime. >>I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds >>such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and >> > suffers > >>so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. >>I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in >>dogs. >> >>Sincerely >>Mary Doran >> >>He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. >>He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. >> > > ********************************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%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 29-OCT-2003 16:58:01.66 To: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided This sounds to me like an excuse not to try to do anything and change things! If we simply leave everything to the individual there would be anarchy. Why do you think we live in a society that has rules, regulations and laws? Why and how do you think those rules, regulations and laws get changed? We learn more (much of that learning from others) and attitudes, beliefs and moral standards change. Yes, we do differ in opinions on things and yes, people are entitled to their opinions and yes, we can agree to disagree - but when it comes to putting those thoughts/ideas/beliefs into action there are some things about which there is consensus - and they provide the basis for our ethical conduct. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 8:29 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided I am glad to see how many people here are concerned about animal welfare but I am a little disturbed by how much of the bandwidth is being consumed by it. I think to some extent it is stifling and diluting other exchanges which are more on topic. If this debate had a reasonable chance of coming to a resolution I would think it fine to just let it run its course or even participate in it. As it stands, it seems unlikely to reach any resolution and more likely to just be an exercise in emotional rhetorical posturing. Simply to have a fruitful debate we would have to first agree on fundamentals that none of us are likely to address because they are so fundamental. Questions like, what is good? Why do ethics exist? Why care about that which is not self? What is the goal of ethics? What is the relative importance of principle and pragmatics? How do we judge outcomes? In what significant ways are humans and animals alike and different? As a whole, I think this group only has expertise in the last question, and even there I am sure there will be a lot of disagreement among the informed. I am under the impression that most people here respect the importance of scholarship and know that ethical philosophy is a topic that a lot of brain power has already been devoted to. Unless, we want to spend the time creating informed consensual opinions on all these questions, I feel that this debate will only wind up being a superficial, exasperating and divisive struggle. I think it is safe to say that most people in here care about the welfare of animals. Perhaps we can just agree that leaving to each individuals conscience and practical experience is essentially the best that we can hope for. ********************************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%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 17:17:08.75 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Historically formal ethics was excusively offered by philosphy depts; probably still is! Well then where are those arguments? And where is the research? The propaganda put out by some of my colleagues was not of a publishable standard yet somehow was published...it would not have passed introductory ethics though may have obtained a pass in politics. I think you are confusing veterinary ethics with veterinary politics. Ethics is NOT spelled P_O_L_I_T_I_C_S! Why don't any practicing veterinary ethicists display a basic education in ethics? I think you are very confused about what ethics is. Why not take a course in basic ethics at one of the main universities and find out? None of us should ever think we know it all. A veterinary degree, even a PhD does NOT confer ethics capabilities. I am constantly amazed that the public would ask doctors etc to comment on humanities issues for which they have no education. The humanities including memes is a whole other body of knowledge. Ethics is a whole different academic area too and I am yet to see one of my veterinary colleagues display a good understanding of it (exception: Steven Lindsay seems to in his publications). How can they when they lack the basics? Trainers lack the basics to practice in certain veterinary behavioural matters.....so too vets (even PhDs) lack the basics to practice ethics, yet they do, and rather badly. Check your facts. Formal ethics is offered by the philosophy department of any major university. Last I looked it was offered exclusively there. Certainly historically it is owned by philosophy depts. You might be surprised at how much good quality rational thought goes down there, and most importantly it is impartial, or at least a good effort is made to be impartial. Ethics is about argument form amongst other things. My veterinary colleagues could certainly stand to brush up on that. Psychologists believe that many people are incapable of understanding high level ethics arguments. It is all too easy, and perhaps natural, to fear criticize blacken and try to ban social practices that are foreign. Almost any practice can be made to look foolish unnecessary or cruel by an outsider. Wearing a tie is one of the most foolish unhealthy even cruel practices I have seen yet males in my sub-tropical society wear them en masse. I would love to have a true ethical discussion about tail docking but fear that while I am practicing ethics you will be practicing politics. Also, ethical discussions benefit from some good quality empirical research of which there is none. But I will throw in one word for discussion and see what happens. AMPUTATION: Humans understand this word on its own to mean the removal of an arm or leg. We naturally apply the word to ourselves and we do not have tails (anthropomorphisation). The word does not apply to removal of a tail, not in its original meaning. To amputate an arm or a leg is crippling. This happened a lot during wars etc. The word "amputation" sends cold shivers down the spine. It has extreme negative crippling connotations. To apply this word to tail docking is an act of rhetoric as opposed to logic. Rhetorical argument is a very weak political argument form. Do we use the word "amputation" when discussing the removal of an ear or a cancer? No. Then why use it when referring to tail docking? Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:23 PM To: Geiger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures The suggestion that ethics is "owned" (meaning it is to be addressed/practiced only) by persons in philosophy departments is one of the more astounding statements I have witnessed in recent years. Slavery, etc. are not less acceptable today simply because they are "plainly wrong." There are strong and supportable moral arguments as to why these types of exploitation are wrong, and it took generations for these moral arguments to overwhelm those individuals in society who wished to maintain these practices because of their "dearly held beliefs." Similarly, today there are such arguments as to why tail docking is not a defensible practice. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:40 PM To: 'Ray Stricklin' Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures My argument is just that people's dearly held beliefs should not be disposed of summarily. These are what keep the ground under one's feet. There is no solid research on the subject of tail docking that I am aware of. The so-called research is patently biased and relies exclusively on unpublished data, which can not be criticized; how convenient and also unsound. If a mere fraction of the money spent on propagandizing the public against tail docking, were spent on funding impartial PhD scholarships (supervised in part by those with more impartiality than most of my colleagues seem capable of. The philosophy dept "own" academic ethics and must be involved in these issues. At least they bring some impartiality to bear on a heated topic) then we would all be in a better position to decide on the issue of tail docking now, instead of being just plain propagandised. People have always tattooed others in their social group, circumcised, pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social traditions and serve as social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie evil as the propaganda tells us. Certain practices such as slavery, radical female circumcision, racism, are plainly wrong. It is very hard to decide exactly where to draw the line between such practices and less harmful societal traditions (such as tattooing, less radical circumcisions, piercing etc etc). Just how tolerant should we be as a society? We have absolutely no idea of what the welfare consequences of banning tail docking will be. It could well be that in certain breeds their tails become a health liability. We simply do not know, and yet the dog breeders are being forced into this mass experiment. The solid unbiased research must precede such decrees; even then it could be done in a manner involving all stakeholders. Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:34 PM To: Geiger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans controlling animals Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in his text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially from generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it is powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with tail docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair and unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making an academic comment! ------------------------------------- R. Dawkins, of course, was the person who coined the term meme. Memes have become the subject of a number of books and at least one journal. I, for one, am pleased that the concept has even made its way into dog training info - even if Dawkins' ideas (memes) may have mutated into a form not completely representative of what he originally intended. Dawkins indeed has argued that there are "good" memes and "bad" memes - maybe not with the terms good and bad. But certainly he has argued that "false replicators" can have enormous negative consequences - and thus, should be eliminated. (He often attacks the major religions of the world as sources of "bad" memes. And he most certainly would argue that these traditions such be eliminated - regardless of the number of generations that have continued their replication.) But let's take the contention above that the human practice of "cutting off the tails of animals" can be considered to be a meme. Simply labeling such a practice as a meme is not a supportable basis for arguing that it should be continued. And certainly arguing that it is a "tradition" is not a basis, for if we had used this criterion alone, we would never have acted to eliminate slavery, implement women's suffrage, etc. So yes, maybe it can be argued that "cutting off the tails of animals" is a meme. But it is a deleterious meme. And just as selection pressure can be brought upon deleterious genes, so must (or should) cultural and educational pressures be brought to bear upon the deleterious memes in order to stop their replication. Otherwise, the peoples (and animals) of the world will continue to have all the problems of our current existence. Thus, indeed I would argue that societal selection pressures must/should/will act on this deleterious meme such that the traditional practice of cutting off the tails of animals be eliminated. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 17:29:29.61 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Harm caused to other beings is NOT the mark of whether or not they are morally wrong. Tattooing, piercing, circumcising all cause harm yet are widely practiced and tolerated. Also the question of short term harm for some long term benefit arises. Most surgery would cause short term harm for some perceived long term benefit. I have noticed that at the same time tail docking was officially banned by Minister Paliscez, the RSPCA reversed their position on breed specific legislation. They went from opposing it to supporting it. Politics? Furthermore, the previous minister for agriculture would not ban dubbing in fowl because he was a fowl breeder ie an "insider" to the social practice. Politics! Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 12:30 AM To: D.B. Cameron; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures No one on this list has equated tail docking with slavery. The comparison is between bringing about the end of two separate and greatly different practices, but nevertheless practices that each are harmful to other beings. And the topic is especially pertinent when the practices in question each are defended by persons who benefit from the continuation of the status quo. I believe no one would disagree with the statement that, "cheating on exams and murder are both wrong." I also believe no reasonable person would try to convert this statement into an argument that "cheating on exams is equivalent to murder." And as for the relevance in professional discussions of comparing progress in the treatment of humans to improving animal welfare, there have been numerous articles - not to mention books - written on this topic. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: D.B. Cameron [mailto:orion1432@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:20 PM To: wrstrick@umd.edu Subject: Re: humans including animals in their social structures It amazes me to see, on a professional forum, human slavery equated with canine tail docking. Please. DBC On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:23:03 -0500 Ray Stricklin writes: > The suggestion that ethics is "owned" (meaning it is to be > addressed/practiced only) by persons in philosophy departments is > one of the > more astounding statements I have witnessed in recent years. > > Slavery, etc. are not less acceptable today simply because they are > "plainly > wrong." There are strong and supportable moral arguments as to why > these > types of exploitation are wrong, and it took generations for these > moral > arguments to overwhelm those individuals in society who wished to > maintain > these practices because of their "dearly held beliefs." Similarly, > today > there are such arguments as to why tail docking is not a defensible > practice. > > W.R. Stricklin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:40 PM > To: 'Ray Stricklin' > Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures > > > My argument is just that people's dearly held beliefs should not be > disposed of summarily. These are what keep the ground under one's > feet. > There is no solid research on the subject of tail docking that I am > aware of. The so-called research is patently biased and relies > exclusively on unpublished data, which can not be criticized; how > convenient and also unsound. If a mere fraction of the money spent > on > propagandizing the public against tail docking, were spent on > funding > impartial PhD scholarships (supervised in part by those with more > impartiality than most of my colleagues seem capable of. The > philosophy > dept "own" academic ethics and must be involved in these issues. At > least they bring some impartiality to bear on a heated topic) then > we > would all be in a better position to decide on the issue of tail > docking > now, instead of being just plain propagandised. > People have always tattooed others in their social group, > circumcised, > pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social traditions and > serve > as social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie evil as the > propaganda tells us. Certain practices such as slavery, radical > female > circumcision, racism, are plainly wrong. It is very hard to decide > exactly where to draw the line between such practices and less > harmful > societal traditions (such as tattooing, less radical circumcisions, > piercing etc etc). Just how tolerant should we be as a society? > We have absolutely no idea of what the welfare consequences of > banning > tail docking will be. It could well be that in certain breeds their > tails become a health liability. We simply do not know, and yet the > dog > breeders are being forced into this mass experiment. The solid > unbiased > research must precede such decrees; even then it could be done in a > manner involving all stakeholders. > Jackie Perkins > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:34 PM > To: Geiger; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: humans controlling animals > > > > Steven Lindsay has a great discussion on the subject of memes, in > his > text on dog training. A meme is an idea that is inherited socially > from > generation to generation. It is not neccessariy true or good, but it > is > powerful and binding as is a gene. For example when dealing with > tail > docking, we are opposed by memes for tail docking. I think it unfair > and > unkind to just dispose of other people's memes quickly. Deeply held > traditions are as real as blue eyes. Come on...crucify me for making > an > academic comment! > > ------------------------------------- > > R. Dawkins, of course, was the person who coined the term meme. > Memes > have > become the subject of a number of books and at least one journal. > I, > for > one, am pleased that the concept has even made its way into dog > training > info - even if Dawkins' ideas (memes) may have mutated into a form > not > completely representative of what he originally intended. > > Dawkins indeed has argued that there are "good" memes and "bad" > memes - > maybe not with the terms good and bad. But certainly he has argued > that > "false replicators" can have enormous negative consequences - and > thus, > should be eliminated. (He often attacks the major religions of the > world as > sources of "bad" memes. And he most certainly would argue that > these > traditions such be eliminated - regardless of the number of > generations > that > have continued their replication.) > > But let's take the contention above that the human practice of > "cutting > off > the tails of animals" can be considered to be a meme. Simply > labeling > such > a practice as a meme is not a supportable basis for arguing that it > should > be continued. And certainly arguing that it is a "tradition" is not > a > basis, for if we had used this criterion alone, we would never have > acted to > eliminate slavery, implement women's suffrage, etc. > > So yes, maybe it can be argued that "cutting off the tails of > animals" > is a > meme. But it is a deleterious meme. And just as selection pressure > can > be > brought upon deleterious genes, so must (or should) cultural and > educational > pressures be brought to bear upon the deleterious memes in order to > stop > their replication. Otherwise, the peoples (and animals) of the > world > will > continue to have all the problems of our current existence. > > Thus, indeed I would argue that societal selection pressures > must/should/will act on this deleterious meme such that the > traditional > practice of cutting off the tails of animals be eliminated. > > W.R. Stricklin > > > > > > > ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM Animal Behavior Clinic < \ / > 15353 N. Bloomfield Road Nevada City, CA 95959 ! ! 530.265.9341 .. Ships are safe in harbor . . . But that is not what ships are for. From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 17:43:42.35 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Due process not followed I am constantly surprised at the ingenuity of some research projects and have every confidence that ethical research could have been conducted into tail docking, if only the chance was offered. Research performed by the humanities was also essential. Banning Tail docking may have been indicated, we will never know. The whole point is that the matter was never really looked into. The decision was made at the beginning and argued towards. Unacademic unsound approach. To use vernacular; bully tactics. Jackie PErkins -----Original Message----- From: Robin Walker [mailto:coape@nildram.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:58 AM To: Applied Ethology Network Subject: RE-More on mutilations When the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ruled that docking should not be performed by its Registered Members I complied. I am bound by a code of ethics, which is not optional. To be so bound is be professional and to be worthy of trust. It was highly inconvenient, as I had performed this act when asked in the past. Among those denied this service were old clients who had come to me after operations, which were sometimes fatal, attended by undue haemorrhage and damage by chemical cautery. As a matter of interest, historical as it now is, the technique I devised addressed the complaints and mishaps of the past. At around 2 to 3 weeks of age, fit and likely pups were operated upon in this manner. The dam was out of earshot of the pups crying. The technique was to crush the tail at the required length with the jaws of piglet tooth cutters with the cutting edges filed flat. The closure was slow so as not to cut by rather crush in the manner of a burdizzo. The piercing alarm call resembled that emitted by a pup what was being squashed or hurt by any means. The jaws on the clippers there held closed to a full two minutes by the clock. The crying invariable ceased after a short time. For about a minute and a half there would be no sound and the puppies would seem to be asleep. The redundant tail was then twisted with a rotary movement very slowly until detached. The pressure of the closed clipper was maintained for a few more seconds prior to release. There would be no bleeding or further crying. Returned to the warm box the pups slept. By 1990 there were only a half dozen "breeders" in my Practice as I had effectively expelled those who required elective caesarians, bred extremely deformed types and were of a mind to dictate to me their terms and fees1 My last and longest client was a breed of Pembroke Corgis who was insistent that my method was the best she had encountered. Furthermore, she convinced me that puppies "mutilated" (if you wish) in this manner could be identified by a straight "top-line". The alternative method favoured by home dockers and I must say, by the malcontents and rebels of my profession after the Ruling, was the rubber band. The banded pups do indeed have a different profile to the rump. The lower spine is curved downwards. It my sincere belief that the discomfort of protracted iscaemia can induce a postural deformity at a time when the pups are growing very fast indeed. Finally, I was convinced that a lengthy period of pain and a slowing of growth attended the use of the agricultural banding technique. Since "the Ruling", I have not performed this and now describe it as a curiosity or relic of the past. Why do it at all? The very small number of injured tails (or claws for that matter) in my records and recollection of 40 years cannot be stretched to justify routine ablation of tails or dewclaws. Latterly the Practice abounded with natural undocked dogs of all types. The simple issue here is the tyranny of custom and fashion. (The postural deformity theory could have been tested by recording, and measurement. Perhaps there are unreconstructed barbarians who would undertake such a study!) Robin Walker From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 17:48:45.64 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: customs Ear pricking has never been performed in Australia hence is not a social custom. Tail docking was performed for hundreds of years and should have been duly researched. Apparently only aborigines and migrants are entitled to due process. Jackie PErkins -----Original Message----- From: Michael Appleby [mailto:mappleby@hsus.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:05 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: docking, mutilations Dear All =A0 Victoria's mention of boxers reminds me of Bernie Rollin's story that he himself got a boxer as a pup, and did not get its tail docked or its ears 'pricked' - indeed having a boxer with natural tail and ears, contrary to custom,=A0was part of his motivation for getting a boxer at all. He was walking the dog one day and was confronted by a woman who roundly criticized him for 'letting the side down'. When he defended his position as being for the dog's benefit, she made a final, strident comment before striding off: "It's in their nature to have their ears pricked." =A0 Mike 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=20 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 18:03:10.32 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Your horses probably do not form part of your social group, but domestic dogs certainly do. Their relationship is ambiguous between conspecific and interspecific. Tail docking is no more drastic than tattoing, circumcising, or piercing all of which are widely done to conspecifics in human societies. We do not know if tail docking was worth banning or not. It was done summarily without proper consideration or research. In some Scandinavian and European countries the routine desexing of pet dogs is banned. How is desexing less of an ethical issue than tail docking? Jackie PErkins -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:15 AM To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures I wonder when it was that our society started thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I have been hearing a lot lately about the mutilation of monkeys, just so they could become pets. They are pulling out all of their teeth and cutting off their tail so that a diaper fits better. These are things that I had no idea was being done until I got a computer and got on the Pheonix Exotics list. I didn't stay on that list very long. Life is so sad for some animals out there. CeAnn --- Andy Beck wrote: > >People have always tattooed others in their social > group, circumcised, > >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social > traditions and serve as > >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie > evil as the propaganda > > >tells us.< > > > In what way is there any connection, ethical or > otherwise, between what > people choose to do to themselves and the > involuntary removal of a useful > body part from a member of another species? Either > there is a clear train of > logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by > dint of lack of > critical reasoning. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 18:15:58.18 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: research?? What "sufficient research"? Do you mean the "research" citing lots of unpublished data? OR the patently rhetorical research? One thing is certain; there has been no good quality or comprehensive research done on the issue of tail docking and more certainly none done by sociologists or the humanities. Those against tail docking are too confident of their position to need anything like research nor to involve humanities experts. Ps Please do not post any references for rubbish "research"!=20 Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz]=20 Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:05 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dew claws Mary I am surprised you think I do not understand =96 was there anything so complex that that would be likely? Dew claws is a separate issue =96 and I think there is no ethical = question as they are liable to tearing =96 which results in pain - therefore = removing them in a controlled manner under anaesthesia, even though it may cause some pain post-op, to prevent the much worse pain of a tear is quite ethical. This is quite different to tail docking. Even so, it would clearly be better to breed so that this becomes unnecessary. Sufficient studies have been carried out on tail docking =96 as you must surely now be aware. Therefore there is no quick judgement going on here. My response was based entirely on awareness of these findings =96 not on emotion. My dogs assist me with all farm work =96 removing feral cattle and, on occasion, pigs (fence and pasture damage), rounding up and removing neighbours sheep (except when with lambs at foot as the dogs tend to be a little hard and inexperienced for such gentle work), moving groups of horses and protecting our plants and fruit trees from possums - quite varied work, and a great deal of it out of line of sight or direct control. Please =96 no further FLAMES =96 the practice is somewhat out of place = on this list and, in my case, merely makes me bin the posting as juvenile. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =A0 -----Original Message----- From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 5:36 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: dew claws You misunderstand me Andy. I did not at any point say that ANY practise should be continued. Perhaps a less emotional response with clearer reading of my exact words would have allowed you to see that I relayed factual accounts of my own experience ,and that my main point was this.. =A0 <"We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth."> =A0 So allow me to explain=A0 further what I am implying here if you did not understand what i meant. I beleive that before taking such a step as to ban a particular practise=A0 scientific research should=A0be carried out to see IF any of these practises are justified. By 'not researched properly'=A0 what I mean is controlled long term studies following both groups of collies that are' de-clawed' a birth and also those remaining intact. The fact that=A0I relayed my own personal experience to be shortly followed by you with your OWN anecdotal experience verifys my point that without studies and facts it will be impossible to assert what is best for the breed in a non-emotional way. =A0 I am very interested to know where you work you collies with sheep. Do you take part at trial standard? Or farm work only? IF farm work, what size flocks and type=A0of land do you work. I attend alot of trials here in the UK with border collies, and I am also studying to be an animal behaviour therapist based on an ethological approach combined with operant conditoining methods.=A0 =A0I have started a survey among the regular competitors of the sport = and although it is not yet completed I have to say=A0that so far the trend among most ISDS registered working border collie breeders appears to be that removal of front dew claws is the preferred approach. The difference between you an I, it appears is that you carried out a practise of docking without questioning its validity and then stopped whereas I chose NOT to have invasive removal at birth only to discover there was a possibility of a real problem developing as a result. I do not see why you are talking about emotional knee jerks as you seem to be having on while accusing me of doing so. =A0 SO I suggested critical analysis BEFORE banning a practise as this seems a bit backwards to me. Naturally, if the study showed that removal of front dew claws was uneccessary and unrelated to following 'accidental' ripping of dew claws then I would be very happy that it was discontinued. I am wanting the best for the breed. Not sure exactly what your point is. =A0 Let me know what exactly=A0it is that you disagree with. =A0 Sincerely =A0 Mary Doran =A0 He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 18:22:35.74 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals I do not think Descartes or Watson believed animals had no feelings; no soul in a religious sense perhaps, but then most religion still believes this to this very day! Reading Descartes or Watson and superficially understanding them may lead one to this conclusion. Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov [mailto:Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:54 PM To: wrstrick@umd.edu; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Human controlling animals Ray, Thank you for addressing this issue. I was a bit horrified by the insinuation of this comment. Indeed, it has been a long uphill struggle for ethologists to dispell the Descartian and Watsonian beliefs. If there is any doubt of an animals cognitive capacity, see CeAnn's post for a touching form of enlightenment. Yes, it is based on an observed interpretation, but isn't that ethology is all about? Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Stricklin [SMTP:wrstrick@umd.edu] > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:57 PM > To: Michael Edward Uffenbeck; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: Human controlling animals > > Michael, > > Note 7: I would hope that animal trainers would, in fact, not agree with > this point! For basically _no_ biologist today, ethologist or otherwise, > would accept that animals are simply a product of stimulus and response. > In > fact this is an idea that grew primarily from the wrong headed thinking of > North American workers in a now defunct discipline of psychology commonly > referred to as Behaviorism. Probably the most noted contribution that > ethology has made in total is the elimination of this idea (meme) from > science. > > - and this was exactly the mistake made by Descartes. > Thankfully, this view is no longer presented as a valid moral argument > relative to animals. And almost no one today in biology would argue that > animals are not sentient creatures. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 29-OCT-2003 19:06:10.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: research?? The word used was studies - nor did I "post any references for rubbish "research"!" (in fact I did not post any references at all) But being = well aware of your entirely unpleasant and sharp-tongued lack of manners will leave you to rave on alone. I would think the comment referring to Aborigines is well out of place - perhaps it might be appropriate to an all Australian audience but even = then it sounds like sour grapes - I am used to rednecks making the same kinds = of comment in NZ with regard to Maori - do we have a little problem with = racism perhaps - as well as a penchant for crying politics - or is this just general undirected venom at a wicked world? What is your problem? Spare me any further vitriol; placing you back in the auto delete bin ;) Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =20 -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au]=20 Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 1:15 p.m. To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: research?? What "sufficient research"? Do you mean the "research" citing lots of unpublished data? OR the patently rhetorical research? One thing is certain; there has been no good quality or comprehensive research done on the issue of tail docking and more certainly none done by sociologists or the humanities. Those against tail docking are too confident of their position to need anything like research nor to involve humanities experts. Ps Please do not post any references for rubbish "research"!=20 Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz]=20 Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:05 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dew claws Mary I am surprised you think I do not understand =96 was there anything so complex that that would be likely? Dew claws is a separate issue =96 and I think there is no ethical = question as they are liable to tearing =96 which results in pain - therefore = removing them in a controlled manner under anaesthesia, even though it may cause some pain post-op, to prevent the much worse pain of a tear is quite ethical. This is quite different to tail docking. Even so, it would clearly be better to breed so that this becomes unnecessary. Sufficient studies have been carried out on tail docking =96 as you must surely now be aware. Therefore there is no quick judgement going on here. My response was based entirely on awareness of these findings =96 not on emotion. My dogs assist me with all farm work =96 removing feral cattle and, on occasion, pigs (fence and pasture damage), rounding up and removing neighbours sheep (except when with lambs at foot as the dogs tend to be a little hard and inexperienced for such gentle work), moving groups of horses and protecting our plants and fruit trees from possums - quite varied work, and a great deal of it out of line of sight or direct control. Please =96 no further FLAMES =96 the practice is somewhat out of place = on this list and, in my case, merely makes me bin the posting as juvenile. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =A0 -----Original Message----- From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 5:36 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: dew claws You misunderstand me Andy. I did not at any point say that ANY practise should be continued. Perhaps a less emotional response with clearer reading of my exact words would have allowed you to see that I relayed factual accounts of my own experience ,and that my main point was this.. =A0 <"We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth."> =A0 So allow me to explain=A0 further what I am implying here if you did not understand what i meant. I beleive that before taking such a step as to ban a particular practise=A0 scientific research should=A0be carried out to see IF any of these practises are justified. By 'not researched properly'=A0 what I mean is controlled long term studies following both groups of collies that are' de-clawed' a birth and also those remaining intact. The fact that=A0I relayed my own personal experience to be shortly followed by you with your OWN anecdotal experience verifys my point that without studies and facts it will be impossible to assert what is best for the breed in a non-emotional way. =A0 I am very interested to know where you work you collies with sheep. Do you take part at trial standard? Or farm work only? IF farm work, what size flocks and type=A0of land do you work. I attend alot of trials here in the UK with border collies, and I am also studying to be an animal behaviour therapist based on an ethological approach combined with operant conditoining methods.=A0 =A0I have started a survey among the regular competitors of the sport = and although it is not yet completed I have to say=A0that so far the trend among most ISDS registered working border collie breeders appears to be that removal of front dew claws is the preferred approach. The difference between you an I, it appears is that you carried out a practise of docking without questioning its validity and then stopped whereas I chose NOT to have invasive removal at birth only to discover there was a possibility of a real problem developing as a result. I do not see why you are talking about emotional knee jerks as you seem to be having on while accusing me of doing so. =A0 SO I suggested critical analysis BEFORE banning a practise as this seems a bit backwards to me. Naturally, if the study showed that removal of front dew claws was uneccessary and unrelated to following 'accidental' ripping of dew claws then I would be very happy that it was discontinued. I am wanting the best for the breed. Not sure exactly what your point is. =A0 Let me know what exactly=A0it is that you disagree with. =A0 Sincerely =A0 Mary Doran =A0 He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 29-OCT-2003 19:12:31.89 To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided I am not questioning the validity of the animal welfare debate, I am=20 questioning the utility of the debate as it manifests or is likely to manife= st itself=20 here. Has anything been accomplished by the debate thus far? Have any novel=20 conclusions been reached? Any consensus arrived at? Anyone's behavior change= d? I=20 am not advocating anarchy. There are already standards of animal care that=20 have been established by professional committees and law makers which=20 veterinarians and scientific researchers are bound by. I doubt that anyone h= ere violates=20 those standards. In a message dated 10/29/2003 2:57:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20 Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au writes: This sounds to me like an excuse not to try to do anything and change things= !=20 If we simply leave everything to the individual there would be anarchy. Wh= y=20 do you think we live in a society that has rules, regulations and laws? Why= =20 and how do you think those rules, regulations and laws get changed? We lear= n=20 more (much of that learning from others) and attitudes, beliefs and moral=20 standards change. =20 Yes, we do differ in opinions on things and yes, people are entitled to thei= r=20 opinions and yes, we can agree to disagree =E2=80=93 but when it comes to pu= tting=20 those thoughts/ideas/beliefs into action there are some things about which t= here=20 is consensus =E2=80=93 and they provide the basis for our ethical conduct. =20 Carol =20 Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences=20 Department of Primary Industries =20 Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 29-OCT-2003 20:50:01.37 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: desexing is a mutilation too Desexing described in detail would sound just as brutal! Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Robin Walker [mailto:coape@nildram.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:58 AM To: Applied Ethology Network Subject: RE-More on mutilations When the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ruled that docking should not be performed by its Registered Members I complied. I am bound by a code of ethics, which is not optional. To be so bound is be professional and to be worthy of trust. It was highly inconvenient, as I had performed this act when asked in the past. Among those denied this service were old clients who had come to me after operations, which were sometimes fatal, attended by undue haemorrhage and damage by chemical cautery. As a matter of interest, historical as it now is, the technique I devised addressed the complaints and mishaps of the past. At around 2 to 3 weeks of age, fit and likely pups were operated upon in this manner. The dam was out of earshot of the pups crying. The technique was to crush the tail at the required length with the jaws of piglet tooth cutters with the cutting edges filed flat. The closure was slow so as not to cut by rather crush in the manner of a burdizzo. The piercing alarm call resembled that emitted by a pup what was being squashed or hurt by any means. The jaws on the clippers there held closed to a full two minutes by the clock. The crying invariable ceased after a short time. For about a minute and a half there would be no sound and the puppies would seem to be asleep. The redundant tail was then twisted with a rotary movement very slowly until detached. The pressure of the closed clipper was maintained for a few more seconds prior to release. There would be no bleeding or further crying. Returned to the warm box the pups slept. By 1990 there were only a half dozen "breeders" in my Practice as I had effectively expelled those who required elective caesarians, bred extremely deformed types and were of a mind to dictate to me their terms and fees1 My last and longest client was a breed of Pembroke Corgis who was insistent that my method was the best she had encountered. Furthermore, she convinced me that puppies "mutilated" (if you wish) in this manner could be identified by a straight "top-line". The alternative method favoured by home dockers and I must say, by the malcontents and rebels of my profession after the Ruling, was the rubber band. The banded pups do indeed have a different profile to the rump. The lower spine is curved downwards. It my sincere belief that the discomfort of protracted iscaemia can induce a postural deformity at a time when the pups are growing very fast indeed. Finally, I was convinced that a lengthy period of pain and a slowing of growth attended the use of the agricultural banding technique. Since "the Ruling", I have not performed this and now describe it as a curiosity or relic of the past. Why do it at all? The very small number of injured tails (or claws for that matter) in my records and recollection of 40 years cannot be stretched to justify routine ablation of tails or dewclaws. Latterly the Practice abounded with natural undocked dogs of all types. The simple issue here is the tyranny of custom and fashion. (The postural deformity theory could have been tested by recording, and measurement. Perhaps there are unreconstructed barbarians who would undertake such a study!) Robin Walker From: IN%"mplonsky@uwsp.edu" "Plonsky, Mark" 29-OCT-2003 21:58:22.33 To: IN%"MEUFFE99@smumn.edu" "Michael Edward Uffenbeck" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Conditioned Taste Aversion Try this site: http://ctalearning.com/ Take care, Mark --- Mark Plonsky, Ph.D. 715-346-3961 wk --- Psychology Dept. 715-346-2778 fx --- University of Wisconsin 715-344-0023 hm --- Stevens Point, WI 54481 mplonsky@uwsp.edu --- http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/mp -----Original Message----- From: Michael Edward Uffenbeck [mailto:MEUFFE99@smumn.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 1:03 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Conditioned Taste Aversion First, I want clarify in my earlier statement it was only meant as a consideration not to teach. I do not claim to be a expert by any means. I used philosophy, because without language it is difficult to discriminate action from understanding. The Thomas Aquinas view of objects are they are the forms which can only be understood through the senses ("sensible soul"). This is then in harmony with the intellectal soul. He argues a person has only one soul. The reason I'm writing this message to see what anyone can tell me about conditioned taste aversion. The problem I have encounter in my study of the topic is devising a method where detection of the conditioning agent avoided. I believe this more on the topic and I agree I went on limb before. From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 29-OCT-2003 22:08:41.88 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Desexing is less of an ethical issue because it is not done for mainly/purely cosmetic reasons; it is less of an ethical issue because there are many positive aspects to desexing and the positives are believed (by those who make the rules) to outweigh the negatives. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 10:02 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Your horses probably do not form part of your social group, but domestic dogs certainly do. Their relationship is ambiguous between conspecific and interspecific. Tail docking is no more drastic than tattoing, circumcising, or piercing all of which are widely done to conspecifics in human societies. We do not know if tail docking was worth banning or not. It was done summarily without proper consideration or research. In some Scandinavian and European countries the routine desexing of pet dogs is banned. How is desexing less of an ethical issue than tail docking? Jackie PErkins -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:15 AM To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures I wonder when it was that our society started thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I have been hearing a lot lately about the mutilation of monkeys, just so they could become pets. They are pulling out all of their teeth and cutting off their tail so that a diaper fits better. These are things that I had no idea was being done until I got a computer and got on the Pheonix Exotics list. I didn't stay on that list very long. Life is so sad for some animals out there. CeAnn --- Andy Beck wrote: > >People have always tattooed others in their social > group, circumcised, > >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social > traditions and serve as > >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie > evil as the propaganda > > >tells us.< > > > In what way is there any connection, ethical or > otherwise, between what > people choose to do to themselves and the > involuntary removal of a useful > body part from a member of another species? Either > there is a clear train of > logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by > dint of lack of > critical reasoning. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ********************************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%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" "Virginia Bowen" 29-OCT-2003 22:33:31.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals Another "observed interpretation" of my own... I have, for the last several weeks, been playing a "game" with my two miniature donkeys (trying to use the idea of "enrichment"). When I place their hay out in their enclosure every morning, I also move their toys around, normally "hiding" them or placing them in some unusual place like inside their feed tub underneath the hay, or under a few sticks that I prop up around the ball. On two occasions now I have come out either later that evening or the next morning and found one of their toys placed in a different, but very similar, location. Once it was their cat litter jug placed neatly on it's bottom inside one of their feed tubs. Another time they put their ball in their water tank. It appears to me that they are most definitely "communicating" back to me by consciously placing their toys in a place where I might have, but didn't. These are all places they had never put their toys before I started the "games". On a side note, one of the donkeys, a very shy one who never played with toys and was wary of humans, has started playing with toys a lot since I started this. Not entirely sure what to think of that. I know what I *want* to think (that she feels a connection with me through this "game") but I know that's more than likely wishful thinking on my part. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov [mailto:Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:54 AM To: wrstrick@umd.edu; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Human controlling animals Ray, Thank you for addressing this issue. I was a bit horrified by the insinuation of this comment. Indeed, it has been a long uphill struggle for ethologists to dispell the Descartian and Watsonian beliefs. If there is any doubt of an animals cognitive capacity, see CeAnn's post for a touching form of enlightenment. Yes, it is based on an observed interpretation, but isn't that ethology is all about? Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Stricklin [SMTP:wrstrick@umd.edu] > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:57 PM > To: Michael Edward Uffenbeck; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: Human controlling animals > > Michael, > > Note 7: I would hope that animal trainers would, in fact, not agree with > this point! For basically _no_ biologist today, ethologist or otherwise, > would accept that animals are simply a product of stimulus and > response. In fact this is an idea that grew primarily from the wrong > headed thinking of North American workers in a now defunct discipline > of psychology commonly referred to as Behaviorism. Probably the most > noted contribution that ethology has made in total is the elimination > of this idea (meme) from science. > > - and this was exactly the mistake made by Descartes. Thankfully, this > view is no longer presented as a valid moral argument relative to > animals. And almost no one today in biology would argue that animals > are not sentient creatures. From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" "Virginia Bowen" 29-OCT-2003 22:59:35.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Here is an honest question that I hope can get answered here. I have, in the last few months, begun to question not just what we do to our non-human companions in the sense of physical alterations (I can actually still agree to arguments for neutering/spaying but certainly not tail docking/ear clipping) but also in their physical environments. Specifically I have begun to worry about/question the practice of keeping equine in small, one horse, confined stalls. From what I've learned so far, the practice started as a convenience for human handlers -- meaning they didn't have to venture out to the pasture and try to walk down a mount. Yet equine are clearly animals meant for large territories and herd-based social structure. I have come to be very, very uncomfortable with the stalling practice. My quandary/question is how do you politely yet persuasively approach people who keep equine in those conditions to get them to change their minds? Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:15 PM To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures I wonder when it was that our society started thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I have been hearing a lot lately about the mutilation of monkeys, just so they could become pets. They are pulling out all of their teeth and cutting off their tail so that a diaper fits better. These are things that I had no idea was being done until I got a computer and got on the Pheonix Exotics list. I didn't stay on that list very long. Life is so sad for some animals out there. CeAnn --- Andy Beck wrote: > >People have always tattooed others in their social > group, circumcised, > >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social > traditions and serve as > >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie > evil as the propaganda > > >tells us.< > > > In what way is there any connection, ethical or > otherwise, between what > people choose to do to themselves and the > involuntary removal of a useful > body part from a member of another species? Either > there is a clear train of > logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by > dint of lack of > critical reasoning. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 30-OCT-2003 01:48:11.94 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology (E-mail)" CC: Subj: shade for horses Does anybody have any data on or personal experience of how much shade (in terms of m2, quality, design) should be provided to paddocked horses? This is for a sub-tropical environment (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) with a group of (10?) horses in a paddock with no natural shade (that's all I know). I acknowledge that this is a simplistic query and probably can't be given a straightforward answer, but I wondered if anybody had any ideas. I've done a literature search, but haven't been able to find any recommendations. Thanks in anticipation. Carol "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Gandhi Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries PO Box 6014, Central Qld Mail Centre N. Rockhampton Queensland 4702 Australia Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au Website www.dpi.qld.gov.au Call Centre 13 25 23 ********************************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%"dmills@lincoln.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 30-OCT-2003 04:58:22.07 To: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" "Virginia Bowen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures This is a very valid concern steeped in tradition and the process of = change depends on a variety of strategies. Individuals are not going to = listen to a stranger and the source of the information is critical to = changing people's opinions and beliefs. There is a whole psychology on = this field but I wont go into it here. We have done a lot of work in = trying to improve equine housing in particular and have a lot of = evidence to point to the problems that arise from social isolation and = dietary management regimes. Whilst we publish in scientific journals, = this has little effect on changing things for the better and I think it = is every scientists obligation in this field if they are serious about = improving animal welfare rather than just academic study to ensure = their work gets into the public domain. In fact following an = international meeting of equine behaviour and welfare scientists last = year we issued a statement to this effect, but it was sadly largely = ignored by the popular press. There is sometimes a problem with popular = writing as there can be a tendency to extend the claims beyond the data = and to potentially do harm as a result so if you're the scientist but = not the writer, make sure you get to see copy before it goes to press. = Its amazing how the popular press can have such an impact, and we are = grateful to them for highlighting the work we have been doing on = cribbing and weaving and I honestly believe things are starting to = change. its a long haul though. the other route is through the students = we teach who we hope go out and remember what we say and o will bring = about change bottom up. Individual horse organisations like the BHS in = the UK have a vital role and they are becoming much more aware of both = their responsibility and position to bring about such change. If a horse = were a pig, there would probably be an outcry for legislation to protect = its welfare given the way it is managed, but because it is owned by well = meaning people the suffering often goes unseen. This is why I got = interested in companion animal welfare - well-meaning ownership does not = equate to a well-managed animal. Our biggest problem is finding funding for such work as without a public = outcry there is little incentive from major sponsors to invest in the = area- that's politics and that's life, I guess Daniel S. Mills BVSc PhD ILTM MRCVS Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare Animal Behaviour, Cognition & Welfare Group University of Lincoln, Dept of Biological Sciences, Riseholme Park, Lincoln, U.K. LN2 2LG tel 44 (0)1522 895356 email dmills@lincoln.ac.uk web page: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/dbfs/staff/d-mills.htm -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net] Sent: 30 October 2003 04:37 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Here is an honest question that I hope can get answered here. =20 I have, in the last few months, begun to question not just what we do to our non-human companions in the sense of physical alterations (I can actually still agree to arguments for neutering/spaying but certainly not tail docking/ear clipping) but also in their physical environments. Specifically I have begun to worry about/question the practice of keeping equine in small, one horse, confined stalls. From what I've learned so far, the practice started as a convenience for human handlers -- meaning they didn't have to venture out to the pasture and try to walk down a mount. Yet equine are clearly animals meant for large territories and herd-based social structure. =20 I have come to be very, very uncomfortable with the stalling practice. My quandary/question is how do you politely yet persuasively approach people who keep equine in those conditions to get them to change their minds? =20 Virginia Murrieta, CA =20 "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:15 PM To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures I wonder when it was that our society started thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I have been hearing a lot lately about the mutilation of monkeys, just so they could become pets. They are pulling out all of their teeth and cutting off their tail so that a diaper fits better. These are things that I had no idea was being done until I got a computer and got on the Pheonix Exotics list. I didn't stay on that list very long. Life is so sad for some animals out there. CeAnn --- Andy Beck wrote: > >People have always tattooed others in their social > group, circumcised, > >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social > traditions and serve as > >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie > evil as the propaganda > > >tells us.< >=20 >=20 > In what way is there any connection, ethical or > otherwise, between what > people choose to do to themselves and the > involuntary removal of a useful > body part from a member of another species? Either > there is a clear train of > logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by > dint of lack of > critical reasoning. >=20 > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 30-OCT-2003 05:16:24.85 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dew claws You misunderstand me Andy. I did not at any point say that ANY practise should be continued. Perhaps a less emotional response with clearer reading of my exact words would have allowed you to see that I relayed factual accounts of my own experience ,and that my main point was this.. <"We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth."> So allow me to explain further what I am implying here if you did not understand what i meant. I beleive that before taking such a step as to ban a particular practise scientific research should be carried out to see IF any of these practises are justified. By 'not researched properly' what I mean is controlled long term studies following both groups of collies that are' de-clawed' a birth and also those remaining intact. The fact that I relayed my own personal experience to be shortly followed by you with your OWN anecdotal experience verifys my point that without studies and facts it will be impossible to assert what is best for the breed in a non-emotional way. I am very interested to know where you work you collies with sheep. Do you take part at trial standard? Or farm work only? IF farm work, what size flocks and type of land do you work. I attend alot of trials here in the UK with border collies, and I am also studying to be an animal behaviour therapist based on an ethological approach combined with operant conditoining methods. I have started a survey among the regular competitors of the sport and although it is not yet completed I have to say that so far the trend among most ISDS registered working border collie breeders appears to be that removal of front dew claws is the preferred approach. The difference between you an I, it appears is that you carried out a practise of docking without questioning its validity and then stopped whereas I chose NOT to have invasive removal at birth only to discover there was a possibility of a real problem developing as a result. I do not see why you are talking about emotional knee jerks as you seem to be having one while accusing me of doing so. SO I suggested critical analysis BEFORE banning a practise as this seems the most scientific and ethical thing to do. The many shepherds that I know who rely on the health and high performance and happiness of their stock dogs for their livlihood may perhaps be justified in their practises, but lets get some solid facts before jumping to conclusions. Naturally, if the study showed that removal of front dew claws was uneccessary and unrelated to following 'accidental' ripping of dew claws then I would be very happy that it was discontinued. I am wanting the best for the breed. Not sure exactly what your point is. Let me know what exactly it is that you disagree with. Nice to meet you =) Sincerely Mary Doran He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 30-OCT-2003 08:38:18.95 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: on discussing ethics - and where to discuss Who is allowed to discuss ethics? Some postings on this list have suggested the subject should be left to the philosophy departments. I disagree with that, and take the present discussion on dehorning, taildocking etc as an example. I can only speculate on what would have been discussed if only people with a pure philosophy background had participated, but I would imagine the debate had focused on the nature of an animal, whether or not it has a 'right' to be left untouched and whether or not it will suffer from being subject to intervention. I'm pretty convinced we would not have learnt that horns play a role in heat regulation in goats, that it is possible to breed for polledness (?) in cattle but not in goats, that there seems to be very little formal research on tail docking, that sheep and cattle dogs use their tails and dew claws when working. All these aspects are important in a discussion of the ethics of dehorning, taildocking etc. I'm arguing this because my ethical position is at least partly consequentialist and I believe in a discussion one needs to look not only at theoretical aspects but also at the practical consequences of any theoretical conclusion. Having said that, I think the most rewarding and most correct discussions would come out of a dialogue between philosophers and scientists and others with practical knowledge of the issues at stake. This is why some of us on this list actually engage in such collaborations, as well as seek to complement our scientific background with some basic knowledge of ethics (or the other way around). Fortunately, the later isn't as difficult as it may seem. There are courses to take and there are good books to read. And there's no lack of opportunities to practise one's argumentation skills in discussions such as the one going on on this list. And having said that; I wonder if this discussion should find another forum than the applied-ethology list? ASAB, The Association for Animal Behaviour has recently set up a list called Animal Welfare, which has so far had little activity but which seems to be a more appropriate forum. More information from the website http://www.societies.ncl.ac.uk/asab/mailinglists.html or at the end of this message. Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 animal-welfare This mailbase list has just begun and it aims to discuss issues on animal welfare (science, ethics,etc.), including legislation, political actions, charities, etc. The aim is to bring together a group of people that are not necessarily experts on animal welfare but need this space to communicate between members of organizations (not necessarily academic) and advertise what they are doing and their goals. It is also a space to bring the academic world to outside the University and reach people with other backgrounds who are interested in the welfare of animals. To subscribe, send an email to: jiscmail@jiscmail.ac.uk writing in the body: join animal-welfare FIRSTNAME LASTNAME . From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 30-OCT-2003 08:39:13.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Hi Virginia - further to what Daniel has already written I think there is also a case for educating the public with regard to the behavior of horses kept in social groups. And in this respect there would appear to be some change taking place. The majority of the articles I now write are commissioned by the popular press, and I'm very pleased (not to say relieved after years without any real income!) to say that the demand is steadily increasing - so much so that my work is now translated into four languages apart from English. I think the way in which this works is that the social behavior of horses, once explained, is in many ways sufficiently similar to our own that it becomes easier for readers to relate to, and feel empathy with, the misery of horses kept in social isolation - and hopefully to question traditional management methods. There is a large body of work that has been done on the impact of social isolation in people (generally within the world's prison systems) and there are some compelling similarities in the post isolation behavior of, for example, solitary confinement prisoners and stud stallions. I totally agree that writing these things up for a public audience is fraught with the dangers of straying from the data - but there is room to utilise comparative psychology and to hypothesise if it is made clear that this is what is being done. Where good supportive data exists the job is made that much easier. Of course this is only a supporting strategy for the work done at centers such as Lincoln - but perhaps it offers that very important conduit to the popular media, and, with careful collaboration, might also help to air the findings of academic work in a format that the public is responsive to. Hopefully the management methods used at the equine ethology project I run here (and no doubt elsewhere also) may also help to dispel some of the myths that serve as a basis for keeping horses isolated from each other. I think there is also a very good case for ensuring that ethics is not a subject that is confined to academia - and that public attitudes to the use and management of animals are challenged where possible. Change the thought - change the practice. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Mills [mailto:dmills@lincoln.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 10:14 p.m. To: Virginia Bowen; Applied Ethology List Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures This is a very valid concern steeped in tradition and the process of change depends on a variety of strategies. Individuals are not going to listen to a stranger and the source of the information is critical to changing people's opinions and beliefs. There is a whole psychology on this field but I wont go into it here. We have done a lot of work in trying to improve equine housing in particular and have a lot of evidence to point to the problems that arise from social isolation and dietary management regimes. Whilst we publish in scientific journals, this has little effect on changing things for the better and I think it is every scientists obligation in this field if they are serious about improving animal welfare rather than just academic study to ensure their work gets into the public domain. In fact following an international meeting of equine behaviour and welfare scientists last year we issued a statement to this effect, but it was sadly largely ignored by the popular press. There is sometimes a problem with popular writing as there can be a tendency to extend the claims beyond the data and to potentially do harm as a result so if you're the scientist but not the writer, make sure you get to see copy before it goes to press. Its amazing how the popular press can have such an impact, and we are grateful to them for highlighting the work we have been doing on cribbing and weaving and I honestly believe things are starting to change. its a long haul though. the other route is through the students we teach who we hope go out and remember what we say and o will bring about change bottom up. Individual horse organisations like the BHS in the UK have a vital role and they are becoming much more aware of both their responsibility and position to bring about such change. If a horse were a pig, there would probably be an outcry for legislation to protect its welfare given the way it is managed, but because it is owned by well meaning people the suffering often goes unseen. This is why I got interested in companion equate to a well-managed animal. Our biggest problem is finding funding for such work as without a public outcry there is little incentive from major sponsors to invest in the area- that's politics and that's life, I guess Daniel S. Mills BVSc PhD ILTM MRCVS Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare Animal Behaviour, Cognition & Welfare Group University of Lincoln, Dept of Biological Sciences, Riseholme Park, Lincoln, U.K. LN2 2LG tel 44 (0)1522 895356 email dmills@lincoln.ac.uk web page: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/dbfs/staff/d-mills.htm -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net] Sent: 30 October 2003 04:37 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures Here is an honest question that I hope can get answered here. I have, in the last few months, begun to question not just what we do to our non-human companions in the sense of physical alterations (I can actually still agree to arguments for neutering/spaying but certainly not tail docking/ear clipping) but also in their physical environments. Specifically I have begun to worry about/question the practice of keeping equine in small, one horse, confined stalls. From what I've learned so far, the practice started as a convenience for human handlers -- meaning they didn't have to venture out to the pasture and try to walk down a mount. Yet equine are clearly animals meant for large territories and herd-based social structure. I have come to be very, very uncomfortable with the stalling practice. My quandary/question is how do you politely yet persuasively approach people who keep equine in those conditions to get them to change their minds? Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:15 PM To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: humans including animals in their social structures I wonder when it was that our society started thinking that it was OK to mutilate animals. I have been hearing a lot lately about the mutilation of monkeys, just so they could become pets. They are pulling out all of their teeth and cutting off their tail so that a diaper fits better. These are things that I had no idea was being done until I got a computer and got on the Pheonix Exotics list. I didn't stay on that list very long. Life is so sad for some animals out there. CeAnn --- Andy Beck wrote: > >People have always tattooed others in their social > group, circumcised, > >pierced, etc etc etc. These are important social > traditions and serve as > >social adhesive. Tail docking is not prima facie > evil as the propaganda > > >tells us.< > > > In what way is there any connection, ethical or > otherwise, between what > people choose to do to themselves and the > involuntary removal of a useful > body part from a member of another species? Either > there is a clear train of > logic or the issue is confused - intentionally or by > dint of lack of > critical reasoning. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 30-OCT-2003 08:39:14.25 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Historically formal ethics was excusively offered by philosphy depts; probably still is! At 09:15 30/10/03 +1000, Geiger wrote: >AMPUTATION: Humans understand this word on its own to mean the removal >of an arm or leg. Or projecting body part - according to my understanding of the word. According to my desk dictionary (Chambers, 1998), "amputate" has the wider meaning: "to cut off (e.g. a limb)". >We naturally apply the word to ourselves and we do not >have tails (anthropomorphisation). The word does not apply to removal of >a tail, not in its original meaning. Do you have a source for the original meaning? The word appears to be from the Latin amputare, from amb- around, and -putare to lop. >To amputate an arm or a leg is >crippling. This happened a lot during wars etc. The word "amputation" >sends cold shivers down the spine. It has extreme negative crippling >connotations. For me, it has a mainly clinical connotation. >To apply this word to tail docking is an act of rhetoric >as opposed to logic. Well, that depends! >Rhetorical argument is a very weak political >argument form. Agreed - we should all try to avoid lapsing into that mode. >Do we use the word "amputation" when discussing the >removal of an ear or a cancer? No. Removal of an ear is an amputation; removal of a cancer is probably not. The difference here is that an ear is a normal part of protruding anatomy. (Think: Is "Bobbitting" amputation?) >Then why use it when referring to >tail docking? Because that is what it is? Francis From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 30-OCT-2003 08:48:40.96 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Historically formal ethics was excusively offered by philosphy depts; probably still is! A question raised below asks, "Where other than philosophy departments is ethics taught today?" The answer is, "There are attempts to introduce ethics in essentially every department of an up-to-date university!" Check out of some of the hits from GOOGLE with the key words "ethics" and "NSF" (NSF is the USA National Science Foundation, which funds a number of grants each year with the mission of introducing of ethics into "all" science, medical and engineering courses.) Below are a few examples of funded projects: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/1998/Mar98/bioethic.htm CORVALLIS - Oregon State University has received a grant from the National Science Foundation to hold a National Bioethics Institute this summer to help faculty from OSU and from around the country integrate ethics into their science courses. Only 30 faculty will be admitted into the institute - about half from OSU and the rest chosen from applications around the country. The institute is one of three that the National Science Foundation will fund on bioethics during 1998-99, according to Courtney Campbell, director of OSU's Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment. "The relationship between ethics and science is becoming more pronounced - and is under greater scrutiny - than ever before," Campbell said. "It is important to discuss these issues with students, but when ethics professors go into a science classroom, they don't necessarily have the credibility with students, and it gives the appearance that ethics are peripheral to the 'regular' curriculum. "What we hope to do is begin training science faculty how to integrate the teaching of ethics throughout the curriculum." Among the topics planned: ethical issues surrounding biotechnology, the renewed interest in land ethics and natural resources, treatment of animals, and the role of religion. http://www.cse.nd.edu/~kwb/nsf-ufe/ The field of "Ethics and Computing" encompasses a lot of territory. Courses in this area may be taught in programs such as Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Electrical Engineering. Material in this area may be taught as a stand-alone course and/or as modules in courses throughout the curriculum. Whatever teaching responsibility you have related to this area, the materials here should help you to teach ethics and computing in a way that provides rigorous, relevant and effective learning experiences for your students. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/sdest/start.htm The Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science, and Technology (SDEST) program contains two components: Ethics and Values Studies, and Research on Science and Technology. The program announcement is NSF 01-152. Target dates for submitting proposals are February 1 and August 1. In SDEST, the Ethics and Values Studies (EVS) component focuses on developing and transmitting knowledge about ethical and value dimensions associated with science, engineering, and technology -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:16 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Historically formal ethics was excusively offered by philosphy depts; probably still is! Well then where are those arguments? And where is the research? The propaganda put out by some of my colleagues was not of a publishable standard yet somehow was published...it would not have passed introductory ethics though may have obtained a pass in politics. I think you are confusing veterinary ethics with veterinary politics. Ethics is NOT spelled P_O_L_I_T_I_C_S! Why don't any practicing veterinary ethicists display a basic education in ethics? I think you are very confused about what ethics is. Why not take a course in basic ethics at one of the main universities and find out? None of us should ever think we know it all. A veterinary degree, even a PhD does NOT confer ethics capabilities. I am constantly amazed that the public would ask doctors et From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 30-OCT-2003 09:26:55.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Horns, ethics and research I have been made aware of info Joe Stookey had put together on using polled bulls. I also wish to draw attention to a statement at the site which I am in complete with - and it reads: "From a scientist’s perspective it is clear that we do not need additional scientific studies to resolve some animal welfare issues. On some issues the scientific information is already quite clear and it is highly unlikely that new or additional research would overturn a previous finding. A case in point would be the issue of dehorning cattle. It appears that there is sufficient evidence (and no contrary evidence) to make a sound recommendation to the beef industry regarding dehorning of cattle. The question is whether the industry will embrace the recommendation." This position as a whole is one, I believe, has much broader application than to the issue of horns alone - and I think Joe would probably agree. The site is: http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/articles/dehorn.html From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 30-OCT-2003 11:10:35.72 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Human controlling animals The position of Lorenz and other ethologists represented a paradigm shift relative to the views of either Descartes or Watson. No one familiar with the literature would attempt to argue otherwise. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:22 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Human controlling animals I do not think Descartes or Watson believed animals had no feelings; no soul in a religious sense perhaps, but then most religion still believes this to this very day! Reading Descartes or Watson and superficially understanding them may lead one to this conclusion. Jackie Perkins From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:14:48.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations, genetic mutuliation Andreas Briese wrote: > > Hallo Anna, > > would you say, that genetic manipulation to adopt animals to specific > husbandry conditions is different in relation to more "manual manuipulations" > like tail dockking, dehorning, debeaking? It all comes down to the blind hens > case, isn't it? > > Andreas > > p.s. > I suppose, a pathozentric utilitarian would agree that reducing pain by > reduction of pain receptors is a fine idea. Many utilitarian arguments seem > persuasiv, but this is always "repellent" for me personally. Since my own position on these things appears to have been misunderstood, owing I suppose to lack of clarity on my own part, let me say that I quite agree, in principle, with the above evaluation. The devil is, however, in the details, which is why I keep arguing for examination of each case on its (entire) merits - of which "utility" is of course only one part, which will appear differently to different observers depending on their perspectives ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:14:56.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: more on mutilations Andy Beck wrote: > > "Highlands have the unusual trait of natural rotation - they spend 3-4 days > in one area and then move to a completely different area of the ranch. When > I timed the "recall practice" to coincide with an anticipated move they no > longer left the boundaries... a point at which we co-existed in peace." > > Thank you for a great example of applied ethology. I think this rotation may > be more common than thought - but confinement generally prevents the > expression of this behavior. Given a sufficiently large area horses appear > to do something quite similar. I think I have observed things like that in a herd of Arabian broodmares free to roam on about 2000 acres of varied natural semiarid landscape (in southwestern Spain). Has any work been done on the mechanisms by which this is accomplished? Is there a built-in behavioral tendency to vacate an area where they have been for some days? Are they using olfactory cues to recognize where they have not recently been? Many wild ungulates, especially those of open country where forage is often highly seasonal, are more or less migratory. The migrations of the Serengeti bovids are of course legendary. Not being an ungulate biologist I am ignorant of the details, and would be most interested to learn what is known about the proximate mechanisms controlling those movements, or the smaller scale ones of Highland cattle, horses etc. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:15:03.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: early memory of traumatic experiences Anna Olsson wrote: > In relation to the discussion below, I remember reading that by using > non-verbal ways of assessing memory one can actually find that emotional > memories are formed (and remain) very early in human infants. The example I > recall was the memory of having been circumsized (male) as an infant without > anaesthesia. (Arguments for doing this at all, and for doing it in neonates > resemble arguments in favour of tail docking in dogs). I'm not quite sure > about the original reference, but one interesting reference I found during a > quick search is indicated below. The reseaerchers found that babies who had > been circumsized without anaesthesia reacted stronger to the pain at routine > vaccination at 4 months of age than babies who had not been circumsized or > had been circumsized with local anaesthesia. AFAIK the original, historical-cultural reasons for circumcision have always been of a religious or tribal-identity nature (sometimes those two are not easy to disentangle ). In the U.S. that seems to have been transmuted into an (IMO rather questionable) "hygienic" argument which continues to be used in the face of what is AFAIK fairly convincing evidence that it is not valid. The psychology of genital mutilation is a fascinating topic, on which I am (alas?) not competent to expatiate - it is certainly one of those areas where the ostensible and the real reasons for doing something can be very different. I dare say that is also true of 95% of the mutilations performed on dogs. The other 5% are (at least IMHO) not so easily disposed of, and are one reason I am generally opposed to *blanket* prohibitions. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:15:05.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided > "Petherick, Carol" wrote: > > This sounds to me like an excuse not to try to do anything and change things! > If we simply leave everything to the individual there would be anarchy. Why > do you think we live in a society that has rules, regulations and laws? Why > and how do you think those rules, regulations and laws get changed? We learn > more (much of that learning from others) and attitudes, beliefs and moral > standards change. The premise here is that humans are basically amoral. I beg to disagree. It is a favored belief of moralists that "moral training" and plenty of rules are indispensable for the survival of society. We do, to be sure, exercise great ingenuity in devising systems of rules intended to ensure that *all* members of a given society behave the way most of them do anyway. Perhaps those are really necessary, perhaps not. Humans are spontaneously cooperative, caritative and various other positive things ... along with contentious, selfish and various other things our moral system values less highly. What is considered "good" and what "evil" (or at least "less good") varies rather widely from one society to another, though there are certain basics which to this observer do seem rooted in our genetically based, "instinctive" behavioral equipment. We are not so unique as we sometimes seem to think - many primates, and for that matter quite a few non-primates, live in more or less cooperative societies. Homo sapiens does seem to have taken that to a higher degree, which is perhaps the foundation of our unique, now world-threatening evolutionary success. Those traits were there, I would argue, before they were codified in the form of moral laws. > Yes, we do differ in opinions on things and yes, people are entitled to their > opinions and yes, we can agree to disagree – but when it comes to putting > those thoughts/ideas/beliefs into action there are some things about which > there is consensus – and they provide the basis for our ethical conduct. The ability to reach consensus is one of the more interesting aspects of human biology . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:15:33.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking mary doran wrote: > My uncle ahd a great Dane for 12 years.It was British bred dog and had an > intact tail. > However she regularly would bang it on doors...walls...any obstruction that > happened to be near her when she wagged her tail. > Due to the nature of the exaggerated bone joints in a great danes tail she > often had bleeding bits and scabs as a result of enthusiastic wagging. > I have heard similar things about breeds that wag their tails very > enthusiastically and that some working dogs used to get tail infections > often as a result. I know of several Greyhounds which injured their tails in a similar manner, sufficiently that partial amputation was eventually required. I would not wish to advance that as an argument for prophylactic tail docking in Greyhounds! It is my understanding, however, that in certain breeds of working hunting dogs the likelihood of similar injury to an undocked tail is very high. My knowledge of that is, to be sure, second hand (statements made to me by an experienced owner and breeder of the animals in question) because I have not myself owned an undocked individual of those breeds. The person (unfortunately now deceased) who made the statements was an individual for whose knowledge, intelligence, thoughtfulness and empathy I had great respect. > I also want to comment on the removal of dewclaws on dogs at birth. > It is a misconception at least in the breed of the border collie that it is > for cosmetic reasons that the dew claws on front legs would be removed.There > is a very real reason that it can be best to remove these dew claws. > Working sheepdogs due to the nature of their work are prone to catching the > front dew claws on sheep and obstacles when working.This can lead to the dew > claw being ripped away from the body which is extREMELY painful. > The main reaosn that SOME breeders of working dogs remove front dew claws at > birth is that a puppies healing powers are SO much stronger than an adult > dogs, and their brains have not developed the neuron capability and memory > power that would make the op a traunatic experience. > Within 2 days the wound is almost compeltely healed. > On the other hand if the dew claw is pulled as an adult by this time it is > actually joined to the bone in the dogs legs and can be excrutiatingly > painful. > I work my own collies ,but i did NOT want their dew claws removed at birth. > 15 months later while working sheep my dog pulled a frot dew claw.There was > alot of blood and he was in alot of pain. > I also had to have him put under anaesthetic to remove it properly as it was > hanging off by a piece of bone. > It took several weeks of care before he was back to normal and as a result > is a litle nervous sometimes of his work.Which i hope he will get over > eventually. > I decided to have the other one removed at the same time he was udner > anaesthetic, and im convinced that if he had had them off with as little > fuss as possible as a pup it would have saved him alot of suffering. > We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have > not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed > centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered > through these procedures not being carried out at birth. In sighthounds removal of the "front dewclaws" is rather customary. The reason commonly given is "it makes a smoother looking leg" - in other words, pure cosmetics. I have for 32 years been coursing game with sighthounds (Salukis) with intact "dew claws" and in that time have observed only one minor injury, a broken nail which grew back in due course. I have also handled in the field several Salukis of the same breeding whose "dew claws" had been removed because in their former country of residence (Switzerland) that used to be required as a condition of obtaining a racing license. Those dogs often returned from a course with minor abrasions and lacerations of the metacarpus, apparently caused because without the missing first digit their feet skidded across the ground when turning. In other words, intact "dew claws" serve an important functional purpose in those hounds: they grip the ground when turning. I put "dew claw" in quotation marks because AFAIK the term is properly applied to an atavistically present first digit on the *hind* legs, which is always an anomaly (even though prescribed by the standard of certain breeds, especially French herding and guardian dogs) and sometimes causes problems. No wild canid has a hind first digit. The first digit on the forelimb is, however, present in all wild canids (except the African hunting dog, Lycaon pictus) and IMO from a strictly functional point of view should not be removed, at least not from sighthounds coursing game. In many dogs the nail of the front first digit wears as fast as it grows. In others it does not, and after some time may grow into a hook shape. Such a nail is likely to become caught and cause the kind of injury Mary described. A little timely attention with a nail clipper will, however, usually prevent such accidents. At least I have found that to be the case in sighthounds. Hard running on more or less abrasive natural surfaces will usually keep the nails (including that of the first digit) worn down to a reasonable length. A well kept lawn does not, however, provide that kind of wear, and since the first digit is deployed only when galloping, walking the dog on pavement does nothing to keep it worn down . > However the questoin remains should we still be breeding some of these > 'workin' breeds whose function in society is no longer a real one and has > become a hobby or pasttime. > I more strongly disagree with continuation of the breeding of some breeds > such as the bulldog which has severe health problems from birth and suffers > so much pain as a result of not being able to breathe properly. > I personally think it is cruel to continue breeding such deformities in > dogs. As you probably know, this is a very real concern among some dog breeders and organizations, and some kennel clubs (notably in Scandinavia and in the Netherlands) are addressing the issue and proposing to prohibit the breeding of certain breeds if the standards (or breeding practices) are not changed so they do not result in the production of crippled animals. It's a hotly contentious issue, as you may imagine, and has recently occupied a great deal of bandwidth on the "canine genetics" lists. The working Bulldog of yesteryear was much less extreme in conformation and did not have the health problems of its modern descendant. Many if not most of the problematic exaggerations have arisen through show ring competition after a breed had ceased to have a working purpose whose demands could keep extremes in check. Darwin's discussion of "sexual selection" is relevant . It may be unwise to base these arguments on the issue of "pain." "Pain" is an emotion-laden word and very useful in enlisting opposition to practices one wishes to attack. As we all know from our own experience, however, sensations of pain are very subjective, profoundly influenced by other behavioral and psychological factors. Animals are no different in that respect. That an animal's conformation poses significant risk to its health and even its life, should be a sufficient reason for discouraging the breeding of such conformation, regardless of whether or not it can be shown to cause "pain." John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:15:37.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Andy Beck wrote: > Cindy - could I ask how a loosely attached dew claw that is never in contact > with the ground could aid lateral balance? I agree that some dew claws are > well placed and firmly attached and are used for such things as holding > bones or biscuits - but in my experience these rarely cause problems. In my experience "loosely attached" dew claws that are "never in contact with the ground" are found only on the animal's hind legs (the true "dew claw") where they are always a genetic anomaly (the hind first digit having been suppressed millions of years ago during evolution of the Canidae) even though prescribed by the standards of certain breeds (some breed standards, e.g. Great Pyrenees, Briard or Beauceron, prescribe a *double* rear dewclaw). Most of them are floppy and not actually attached by bone to the rest of the foot structure (I have seen two exceptions to that, where a tiny rear first digit, its external part only 2 mm long, was supported by a tiny but fully formed metatarsal bone etc.). The front first digit by contrast usually has a complete bony structure (at least in the breeds I'm most familiar with) and always makes contact with the ground when the animal is galloping. During the canine gallop the carpal joint hyperextends by about 90 degrees so the entire metacarpus lies flat on the ground with the so-called "stop pad" in ground contact. In other words, a galloping dog is momentarily plantigrade in front. It is during that phase of movement that the first digit provides lateral stability, especially in preventing the forepaw from skidding outward during a sharp turn. I would have thought this was common knowledge but if not can easily provide photos or video showing it. > Before this continues - I have not stated that dew claws are of no use - > neither that I believe dew claws should not be removed - or that they should > - I assume this would be a judgement call best made by a Vet on a case by > case basis. The issue was tail docking, which I firmly believe to be > ethically wrong - so why not keep it there rather than going off at a > tangent? I agree, but legislation which prohibits any "removal of body parts" obviously applies to "dew claws" too. I'm not sure the ethical issues are really so very different. In both cases we are dealing with removal of a normally functional body part, which under certain circumstances, but not under others, may be liable to significant painful injury if not removed. I don't wish to appear dense, but where's the difference? Many veterinarians are not, I'm afraid, sufficiently familiar with the realities of working dogs to have a valid opinion on such matters. At least in this country, the overwhelming majority of patients in the average practice are obese family pets whose greatest athletic achievement is jumping on or off the sofa. Those of us with high performance working dogs often travel hundreds of miles to find a veterinarian truly knowledgeable about their needs. In the sighthounds with which I am most familiar I am opposed to the removal of "dew claws" (front first digits) because they are functionally useful and because I disapprove of *any* unnecessary surgery, ablation or what have you. It is not quite by accident I have chosen a breed which does not "require" any such things. I am, however, not prepared to insist categorically on non-removal of "dew claws" in other breeds where I simply do not know enough about the details to have a valid opinion. That is, I would (personally speaking) argue against it, but not necessarily wish to issue a blanket prohibition. Some dogs have front first digits which stick out in a rather unfunctional-looking way and might well be liable to injury - I simply do not know because I have no experience of such animals. It should be possible to breed away from such conformation, but if the "dew claws" are routinely removed such selection would be difficult . Some dogs, as I mentioned before, will develop an overgrown, hook-like nail on the front first digit. That is often the result of insufficient exercise or inappropriate substratum, but whatever the cause, the hooked nail is indeed at risk of getting caught - on fencing, on sheep's wool, on the lure line at lure coursing trials - and causing a minor but bloody and painful injury. The obvious remedy is to trim the nail before it reaches dangerous proportions. > I also contend that it is, at best, irresponsible to continue breeding from > animals that produce physically dysfunctional progeny (usually for trivial > reasons of style or fashion)- and am more than willing to argue in support > that contention. I do not disagree with that at all. The tricky part is finding agreement on what is "physically dysfunctional" when it is not style or fashion, but traditional and perhaps highly specialized functional considerations which lie behind the breeding. I must unfortunately also mention that IMO it is very often not the actual original function, but conformation ring criteria based on more or less inaccurate understanding of that function, which result in the kinds of physical deformity to which I think we all object. The example of the modern Bulldog was mentioned. In its modern, exaggerated and IMO deformed version the breed bears little resemblance to the animal once used for bull baiting. Unfortunately that example is far from being unique. It can in fact be argued that given sufficient time show ring selection will *always* lead to exaggeration of "type" and to concomitant loss of functionality. As I mentioned before, Darwin's comments on "sexual selection" are relevant to that situation . An example, which may stand for many: the Dachshund is an achondroplastic dwarf breed whose bizarre conformation might easily conjure up the epithet "cripple" in the mind of an unwary, wolf-oriented observer. I have come to know the original, in Germany, as an extremely competent and versatile hunting dog to which the term "cripple" is not at all applicable. In the hands of show breeders, however, particularly in the U.S., the visibly distinctive traits of short legs and long body have become greatly exaggerated, leading to a host of unpleasant orthopedic problems. The "sausage dog" is a creation of the show ring, not of the hunting field. You will even find books on canine structure containing remarkable (and inaccurate) statements about the function of Dachshund conformation - for example, that they rest on their sternum while digging, pushing the earth sideways in the manner of a mole - which seem to "justify" the conformation extremes, extremes which are just as much anathema to anyone seriously interested in Dachshunds as hunting dogs, as they must be to anyone interested in animal welfare. The Dachshunds with which I hunted in Germany were much less extreme in conformation than the "sausage dogs." They had no orthopedic problems, but on the contrary were tough indestructible hunting dogs who could go all day in the field, could live in a city apartment where keeping a large hunting dog would have been impracticable, could at need be carried in a hunter's rucksack to the scene of their work ... very far indeed from being "cripples" or from suffering because of their conformation. They were bold, lively, cheerful, energetic, indefatigable and wonderful hunting companions. At that they didn't even belong to me, but were borrowed from hunter friends for the occasion - usually, flushing rabbits out of thick brush for my Goshawk to catch. They knew their job and did it well, and joyously. I did also see in Germany many grossly obese, pampered-pet Dachshunds, and those did sometimes have orthopedic problems. Appropriate husbandry is always also a part of these equations. I would in fact agree that the structure of many Dachshunds is "physically dysfunctional" if they get too little exercise and eat too much Sachertorte with whipped cream. That is, however, not really a healthy lifestyle for any dog (it's not too great for humans either ). John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-OCT-2003 12:15:37.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: tail docking Andy Beck wrote: > Quite why it might be necessary to raise the issue of vegetarianism in > relation to tail docking I am unclear - unless to tangentially imply that > the view I expressed is representative of the extreme end of animal rights - > and so dismiss validity? Not at all, I always find your posts thoughtful and reasonable. If it appeared I was attributing extreme positions to yourself, I apologize profoundly. Such was not at all my intention. My post, which began as a response (rather than a reply) to one of yours, wandered onto other ground, prompted by other posts, and I did not make that sufficiently clear. > If there are such hunting dogs then my feeling is that breeding physically > dysfunctional animals (for this is surely what it amounts to?) is unethical. > Surely there are other hunting breeds that might do the same work? The owners say no. I am not competent to make that judgement. On the basis of relatively little information I am inclined to think it is the nature of the work (searching for game in dense thickets) rather than the nature of the breeds, except that those dogs are bred precisely for that work and are better at it than others. Since my principal source of first hand knowledge has recently died of cancer I'm not sure I'm in a position to conduct further discourse on the subject, supported by actual observation rather than by my own speculations which are probably no better than anyone else's . I do think "physically dysfunctional" is a somewhat extreme way of describing animals which in the way they have traditionally been used and managed (which includes docking) are superbly functional and productive in their allotted sphere of activity - an activity which they are not only supremely capable, but also supremely desirous of performing. I was trying to suggest, here and in the rest of my post, that these things may not necessarily be quite so cut and dried as they may appear to someone who is not actually directly involved in the particular activity concerned. It is often thought the various hunting dogs are somewhat interchangeable. I would suggest that is very far from being the case. There are some rather general-purpose hunting dog breeds, to be sure, but there are also some remarkable specialists whose functions could not be performed easily or efficiently by any other breed. The relevant knowledge is, to be sure, rarely to be found among those who breed such animals primarily for competition in the conformation ring. The real working-dog people are often not very visible in that venue; but it is (at least in my view) their knowledge which is really relevant to these issues. Some of the things a really skilled huntsman can do with an equally skilled and appropriately bred dog are hardly believable unless you have witnessed them. > As far as I am aware fighting with dogs is generally illegal throughout the > civilised world - so why offer this in support of docking? Are you saying > you support dog fighting also? Is it not the case that dogs use their tails > both for social signalling and for balance? Why then would an applied > ethologist be supportive of docking? Fighting with dogs is illegal anywhere I know about ... but that does not stop people from doing it. I certainly do not support it. I also do not support, however, the banning of certain breeds because of their (often wildly inaccurate) public image or their association with fighting. I don't believe I said I was supportive of docking. I am not. The point I was trying to make is that even such a seemingly obvious issue may not be quite so black and white as might at first appear. It is for example an unpleasant fact of modern life that guard dogs still have a role to play. The reasons for docking such an animal might not be entirely frivolous. I'm not competent to make that evaluation, and neither I suspect is anyone else not directly in contact with actual guard-dog practice. Dogs certainly use their tails for social signalling, and also for balance. Mine use them as an aid in executing high speed turns and might be significantly handicapped by losing their tails ... though the very few cases of accidental loss I happen to know about didn't seem to affect the animal's function very much - quite contrary to my own expectation. I must also say that long ago, when docking was not a public issue, I owned or lived with dogs of several docked breeds. They were all docked before I acquired them (I have never docked a dog, nor made the decision to have it done). If any of them suffered a social handicap, it was not at all obvious. They were all happy, well adjusted, outgoing and socially competent. That has, I believe, much more to do with how they are kept, with husbandry in the wider sense, than with whether or not parts of their tails or ears were removed in puppyhood. I find it difficult to imagine a more exuberantly communicative animal than the Dobermann bitch I once owned. She herself was certainly unaware of any social handicap from being cropped and docked, nor did I encounter anyone, human or canine, who found her gestures difficult to interpret. AFAIK it is by now well established that while dogs have a more limited repertoire of social expression movements than do wolves, a smaller "vocabulary" if you will, they are much more plastic in the use and especially the interpretation of communicatory gestures. I think that has some bearing on estimating the amount of "social communicatory handicap" one imposes on a dog by removing most of its tail. > If it is your view that what I have written is "simplistic or > Categorical" please address the points specifically rather than by way of a > generalised disclaimer tagged on to the end. I don't think that about anything you have written. That was more a reaction to some other things that have been said in this forum. I do not apologize for stating my opinion on the subject, but I do apologize for doing so in connection with a post from yourself which in no way merited the comment. My post was in fact addressed to several different messages which have appeared here, and it seems I didn't make that sufficiently clear. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 30-OCT-2003 12:30:20.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" Subj: RE: desexing is a mutilation too At 12:49 30/10/03 +1000, Geiger wrote: >Desexing described in detail would sound just as brutal! Jackie, Wouldn't it depend on whether or not the procedure caused evident pain? The likely degree of short- and long-term pain must surely be a factor to be taken into account when evaluating the "ethics" of a surgical body-alteration procedure. Assessment of pain in animals is very tricky, but certainly of interest to applied ethologists, I would imagine. What is the current opinion on tail-docking of horses? Francis From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 30-OCT-2003 12:44:22.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Social behavior of Jakals Does anyone on the list know of anyone who is studying the social behavior of Jackals? I would be very interested in comparing their social behavior to the social behavior of the coyote. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 30-OCT-2003 16:12:24.73 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided -----Original Message----- From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:52 PM To: Applied ethology list Subject: Re: IMHO the ethics debate is misguided > "Petherick, Carol" wrote: > > This sounds to me like an excuse not to try to do anything and change things! > If we simply leave everything to the individual there would be anarchy. Why > do you think we live in a society that has rules, regulations and laws? Why > and how do you think those rules, regulations and laws get changed? We learn > more (much of that learning from others) and attitudes, beliefs and moral > standards change. The premise here is that humans are basically amoral. I beg to disagree. It is a favored belief of moralists that "moral training" and plenty of rules are ------------------ I do not agree that arguing for change equates to an argument that humans are amoral. Prior to implementation of review of research proposals through "Animal Care and Use Committees" (also called "Ethical Committees" in some countries), individual researchers had total choice/control in determining the treatment of research animals - and the experimental procedures to which the animals were subjected. I would argue that ACUC's have served a very useful role - with the major benefit being better welfare conditions for research animals. And I certainly would _not_ argue that improvement in research animal welfare came about because researchers are amoral and had to have controls imposed upon them. Rather, we humans are each prone to argue for self-serving interests - even when we believe that we are being "objective." Accordingly, I do not believe that any person who stands to gain in some manner or profit financially from a given animal procedure or treatment is in the best position to make the proper decision regarding the animal's welfare. Further, when it comes to ethical choices in general, I believe that "committee" decisions are far better than those based on that of an individual person - an individual professional opinion or otherwise. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 30-OCT-2003 18:57:24.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: tail docking Hi John - I have a Jack Russel bitch that stands approx 275mm at the shoulder - I have measured her dew claws on the front legs and they are 35mm above the next toe - and as far as I can tell do not (cannot) come into contact with the ground. She has torn both, one twice, while possum hunting in dense scrub - and I wonder if it would not have been kinder to have had them removed as the tears seem pretty painful. So, is there an ideal max height above the nearest toe that breeders should be aware of and aim for? Seems to me that if the dew claw were lower and in contact it would be less likely to catch and tear. So far, on each occaision that damage has occurred I have merely kept the area clean and applied a healing salve - but must admit to finding removal potentially more ethical as the claw does not come into contact and would seem to fulfil no function in this case. I very much doubt this could ever be said of tails. Perhaps where breeds have a sensitive tail protectors could be fitted as with horse tails during transport? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, 31 October 2003 5:56 a.m. To: Applied ethology list Subject: Re: tail docking Andy Beck wrote: > Cindy - could I ask how a loosely attached dew claw that is never in contact > with the ground could aid lateral balance? I agree that some dew claws are > well placed and firmly attached and are used for such things as holding > bones or biscuits - but in my experience these rarely cause problems. In my experience "loosely attached" dew claws that are "never in contact with the ground" are found only on the animal's hind legs (the true "dew claw") where they are always a genetic anomaly (the hind first digit having been suppressed millions of years ago during evolution of the Canidae) even though prescribed by the standards of certain breeds (some breed standards, e.g. Great Pyrenees, Briard or Beauceron, prescribe a *double* rear dewclaw). Most of them are floppy and not actually attached by bone to the rest of the foot structure (I have seen two exceptions to that, where a tiny rear first digit, its external part only 2 mm long, was supported by a tiny but fully formed metatarsal bone etc.). The front first digit by contrast usually has a complete bony structure (at least in the breeds I'm most familiar with) and always makes contact with the ground when the animal is galloping. During the canine gallop the carpal joint hyperextends by about 90 degrees so the entire metacarpus lies flat on the ground with the so-called "stop pad" in ground contact. In other words, a galloping dog is momentarily plantigrade in front. It is during that phase of movement that the first digit provides lateral stability, especially in preventing the forepaw from skidding outward during a sharp turn. I would have thought this was common knowledge but if not can easily provide photos or video showing it. > Before this continues - I have not stated that dew claws are of no use - > neither that I believe dew claws should not be removed - or that they should > - I assume this would be a judgement call best made by a Vet on a case by > case basis. The issue was tail docking, which I firmly believe to be > ethically wrong - so why not keep it there rather than going off at a > tangent? I agree, but legislation which prohibits any "removal of body parts" obviously applies to "dew claws" too. I'm not sure the ethical issues are really so very different. In both cases we are dealing with removal of a normally functional body part, which under certain circumstances, but not under others, may be liable to significant painful injury if not removed. I don't wish to appear dense, but where's the difference? Many veterinarians are not, I'm afraid, sufficiently familiar with the realities of working dogs to have a valid opinion on such matters. At least in this country, the overwhelming majority of patients in the average practice are obese family pets whose greatest athletic achievement is jumping on or off the sofa. Those of us with high performance working dogs often travel hundreds of miles to find a veterinarian truly knowledgeable about their needs. In the sighthounds with which I am most familiar I am opposed to the removal of "dew claws" (front first digits) because they are functionally useful and because I disapprove of *any* unnecessary surgery, ablation or what have you. It is not quite by accident I have chosen a breed which does not "require" any such things. I am, however, not prepared to insist categorically on non-removal of "dew claws" in other breeds where I simply do not know enough about the details to have a valid opinion. That is, I would (personally speaking) argue against it, but not necessarily wish to issue a blanket prohibition. Some dogs have front first digits which stick out in a rather unfunctional-looking way and might well be liable to injury - I simply do not know because I have no experience of such animals. It should be possible to breed away from such conformation, but if the "dew claws" are routinely removed such selection would be difficult . Some dogs, as I mentioned before, will develop an overgrown, hook-like nail on the front first digit. That is often the result of insufficient exercise or inappropriate substratum, but whatever the cause, the hooked nail is indeed at risk of getting caught - on fencing, on sheep's wool, on the lure line at lure coursing trials - and causing a minor but bloody and painful injury. The obvious remedy is to trim the nail before it reaches dangerous proportions. > I also contend that it is, at best, irresponsible to continue breeding from > animals that produce physically dysfunctional progeny (usually for trivial > reasons of style or fashion)- and am more than willing to argue in support > that contention. I do not disagree with that at all. The tricky part is finding agreement on what is "physically dysfunctional" when it is not style or fashion, but traditional and perhaps highly specialized functional considerations which lie behind the breeding. I must unfortunately also mention that IMO it is very often not the actual original function, but conformation ring criteria based on more or less inaccurate understanding of that function, which result in the kinds of physical deformity to which I think we all object. The example of the modern Bulldog was mentioned. In its modern, exaggerated and IMO deformed version the breed bears little resemblance to the animal once used for bull baiting. Unfortunately that example is far from being unique. It can in fact be argued that given sufficient time show ring selection will *always* lead to exaggeration of "type" and to concomitant loss of functionality. As I mentioned before, Darwin's comments on "sexual selection" are relevant to that situation . An example, which may stand for many: the Dachshund is an achondroplastic dwarf breed whose bizarre conformation might easily conjure up the epithet "cripple" in the mind of an unwary, wolf-oriented observer. I have come to know the original, in Germany, as an extremely competent and versatile hunting dog to which the term "cripple" is not at all applicable. In the hands of show breeders, however, particularly in the U.S., the visibly distinctive traits of short legs and long body have become greatly exaggerated, leading to a host of unpleasant orthopedic problems. The "sausage dog" is a creation of the show ring, not of the hunting field. You will even find books on canine structure containing remarkable (and inaccurate) statements about the function of Dachshund conformation - for example, that they rest on their sternum while digging, pushing the earth sideways in the manner of a mole - which seem to "justify" the conformation extremes, extremes which are just as much anathema to anyone seriously interested in Dachshunds as hunting dogs, as they must be to anyone interested in animal welfare. The Dachshunds with which I hunted in Germany were much less extreme in conformation than the "sausage dogs." They had no orthopedic problems, but on the contrary were tough indestructible hunting dogs who could go all day in the field, could live in a city apartment where keeping a large hunting dog would have been impracticable, could at need be carried in a hunter's rucksack to the scene of their work ... very far indeed from being "cripples" or from suffering because of their conformation. They were bold, lively, cheerful, energetic, indefatigable and wonderful hunting companions. At that they didn't even belong to me, but were borrowed from hunter friends for the occasion - usually, flushing rabbits out of thick brush for my Goshawk to catch. They knew their job and did it well, and joyously. I did also see in Germany many grossly obese, pampered-pet Dachshunds, and those did sometimes have orthopedic problems. Appropriate husbandry is always also a part of these equations. I would in fact agree that the structure of many Dachshunds is "physically dysfunctional" if they get too little exercise and eat too much Sachertorte with whipped cream. That is, however, not really a healthy lifestyle for any dog (it's not too great for humans either ). John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"oryctolagus@earthlink.net" "oryctolagus" 30-OCT-2003 19:56:59.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: What about "ear docking" in rabbits done in the name of molecular biology? Why is everyone so upset about tail docking and removal of dew claws, when = molecular biologists in mainland China and here in the USA have been busy d= oing such industry-supported things as attaching a baby rat's head to the s= ide of an adult (both lived) and in rabbits, removing the rabbit's ear and = growing new human shaped ear on a cartilage matrix where the rabbit-ear use= d to be? (this has been done in at least two instances by molecular biologi= sts). The one Lady business owner who displayed such a rabbit at a convent= ion went on to be a Dean at a prominent California Business college ( http:= //members.aol.com/salaned/writings/engineer.htm from a former molecular bi= ologist (Salk Institute among others: http://members.aol.com/salaned/cyberp= lace.html) She founded the company Advanced Tissue Sciences, displayed a = rabbit at a bioartificial organs conference which had a human ear grafted i= n place of its own ear. The other instance of a rabbit having a human ear= grown on its body was by Cao Yilin, a Shanghai researcher who is also head= of the Laboratory of Soft Tissue Engineering at America's University of Ma= ssachusetts (he's now back in China). Shouldn't there be more biologists and ethicists *screaming* about the ethi= cs in the tissue regeneration research fields? There is stuff going on the= re that makes Frankenstein look tame; and, the scientists in the field seem= apparently proud of it. Would such a law protect rabbits used in molecula= r biology research? Aren't these very famous, very prestigious molecular b= iologists "amoral"? They hold high respected posts in their communities. = The lady doctor above is revered for her work in childrens' burn therapy. = =20 H.Mcmurray=20 -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck Sent: Oct 30, 2003 5:56 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: FW: tail docking > - I assume this would be a judgement call best made by a Vet on a case by > case basis. The issue was tail docking, which I firmly believe to be > ethically wrong - so why not keep it there rather than going off at a > tangent? I agree, but legislation which prohibits any "removal of body parts" obviously applies to "dew claws" too. I'm not sure the ethical issues are really so very different. In both cases we are dealing with removal of a normally functional body part, which under certain circumstances, but not under others, may be liable to significant painful injury if not removed. I don't wish to appea= r dense, but where's the difference? Many veterinarians are not, I'm afraid, sufficiently familiar with the realities of working dogs to have a valid opinion on such matters. At least in this country, the overwhelming majority of patients in the average practice are obese family pets whose greatest athletic achievement is jumping on or off the sofa.=20 Those of us with high performance working dogs often travel hundreds of miles to find a veterinarian truly knowledgeable about their needs. In the sighthounds with which I am most familiar I am opposed to the remova= l of "dew claws" (front first digits) because they are functionally useful and because I disapprove of *any* unnecessary surgery, ablation or what haveJoh= n --=20 Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de" "Umstaetter, Christina" 31-OCT-2003 04:09:32.83 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: AW: desexing is a mutilation too Hallo Francis, there is a german book from 1938 about the east friesian horsebreeding for the military. The military stated that the tail docking should be banned by law because of the stress of the horses due to flies etc. and injuries based on an increase of kicking. They used the horses for draught work. If someone really has a problem with the long hair during work, than it could be plaited. Christina ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Dr. Christina Umstatter Technische Universitat Munchen Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan Department fur Biogene Rohstoffe und Technologie der Landnutzung Lehrstuhl fuer Landtechnik Am Staudengarten 2 D-85354 Freising-Weihenstephan Tel: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3884 Fax: +49 (0)8161 / 71-3895 christina.umstaetter@wzw.tum.de http://www.tec.wzw.tum.de/landtech/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Francis Burton [mailto:F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2003 19:32 An: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Cc: Geiger Betreff: Re: desexing is a mutilation too At 12:49 30/10/03 +1000, Geiger wrote: >Desexing described in detail would sound just as brutal! Jackie, Wouldn't it depend on whether or not the procedure caused evident pain? The likely degree of short- and long-term pain must surely be a factor to be taken into account when evaluating the "ethics" of a surgical body-alteration procedure. Assessment of pain in animals is very tricky, but certainly of interest to applied ethologists, I would imagine. What is the current opinion on tail-docking of horses? Francis From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 31-OCT-2003 08:14:28.72 To: IN%"oryctolagus@earthlink.net" "oryctolagus", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What about "ear docking" in rabbits done in the name of molecular biology? No animal research in the USA can be conducted within an institution that receives federal funds from _any_ source (research or otherwise) unless that research is approved by an Animal Care and Use Committee (ethical committee). Clearly, researchers investigating skin regeneration, etc. in animals have as their goal improving the lives of humans, some of whom have suffered major burns including the complete loss of an ear. These researchers are not simply altering animals for gratuitous reasons. In each and every instance, they (and the committee members who approved the research) have weighed the costs and likely benefits for this research and presented it in the form of a research protocol to the ethical committee. A research protocol in the USA follows a format that is basically an ethical argument that, to be approved, must demonstrate that the likely benefits that will accrue are greater than the harm that will be caused to the animals. And indeed, there are a number of bioethicists who are very actively writing (but thankfully not screaming) about many topics involving animals, including the impact of biotechnology, research issues, etc. The overwhelming majority of cases involving removal of a dog's tail, dew claw, etc. are acts that are conducted for no purposes other than those that are gratuitous. In short, the animal's body is manipulated in a manner considered to be more pleasurable to human sight, to fit more closely to the standard that is considered "appropriate" for the breed type, etc. Regarding the grafting of heads, I know there was work done by the Chinese that dates back into the 1950's, maybe 1960's, with monkeys. I know of no recent work with rabbits or any other species - and I have seen no reports of any such work ever done in the USA. However, even _if_ such work is being done in China and the USA, in _no_ way does the wrongness of those actions justify another wrong act that is being done by someone else. The argument that tail docking is acceptable because scientists are doing a greater harm to animals does not stand. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: oryctolagus [mailto:oryctolagus@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:57 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: What about "ear docking" in rabbits done in the name of molecular biology? Why is everyone so upset about tail docking and removal of dew claws, when molecular biologists in mainland China and here in the USA have been busy doing such industry-supported things as attaching a baby rat's head to the side of an adult (both lived) and in rabbits, removing the rabbit's ear and growing new human shaped ear on a cartilage matrix where the rabbit-ear used to be? (this has been done in at least two instances by molecular biologists). The one Lady business owner who displayed such a rabbit at a convention went on to be a Dean at a prominent California Business college ( http://members.aol.com/salaned/writings/engineer.htm from a former molecular biologist (Salk Institute among others: http://members.aol.com/salaned/cyberplace.html) She founded the company Advanced Tissue Sciences, displayed a rabbit at a bioartificial organs conference which had a human ear grafted in place of its own ear. The other instance of a rabbit having a human ear grown on its body was by Cao Yilin, a Shanghai researcher who is also head of the Laboratory of Soft Tissue Engineering at America's University of Massachusetts (he's now back in China). Shouldn't there be more biologists and ethicists *screaming* about the ethics in the tissue regeneration research fields? There is stuff going on there that makes Frankenstein look tame; and, the scientists in the field seem apparently proud of it. Would such a law protect rabbits used in molecular biology research? Aren't these very famous, very prestigious molecular biologists "amoral"? They hold high respected posts in their communities. The lady doctor above is revered for her work in childrens' burn therapy. H.Mcmurray From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 31-OCT-2003 09:38:51.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: humans including animals in their social structures "Petherick, Carol" wrote: > Desexing is less of an ethical issue because it is not done for mainly/purely cosmetic reasons; it is less of an ethical issue because there are many positive aspects to desexing and the positives are believed (by those who make the rules) to outweigh the negatives. I am surprised at this. Desexing is done for reasons of convenience, to prevent reproductive activity in herds of livestock, to render meat animals more amenable to mass production systems such as feedlots, and in heavily propagandized form in the U.S. ostensibly to combat the "pet overpopulation problem" which on closer examination turns out to be a "disposable pet" problem, as part of an effort to shift the onus of responsibility for abandoned pets from their owners (where IMO it ought to reside) to breeders, any and all breeders, as part of a larger campaign whose publicly stated objective is the complete elimination of domestic animals. Desexing of dogs as young as six weeks is heavily promoted and has become almost commonplace. It is constantly stated that early desexing has "no effect" on the animal, although it does in fact affect their growth and adult conformation significantly, especially in males, by delaying the closure of the epiphyses. Early desexing is supported by many breeders for the sake of control over their genetic material. The effect on a breed population's genetic structure of removing from consideration, as possible reproducers, of the vast majority of animals at an age when their potential can only be guessed at, has not so far received the attention that IMHO it deserves. Many breeders claim to be able to determine, at birth or shortly thereafter, which puppies are "show quality" and which are "pet quality" and therefore unworthy of reproduction. As a breeder of performance-tested animals I certainly cannot do that. You don't in fact know what you have until the animal is several years old - durability being one of the major selection criteria - and it is therefore of prime importance that as many as possible of each generation remain intact as potential producers, and are tested in actual performance. It is not really difficult to prevent unwanted reproduction, if you are paying the least attention, and I therefore follow the Scandinavian (etc.) practice of desexing an animal only in case of dire medical necessity (pyometra or testicular cancer, both of which have fortunately been very rare in my experience). At least in the context of pet or companion animals, the alleged health benefits of desexing seem to be largely illusory. Desexing makes some conditions less likely - a castrated male cannot develop testicular cancer - and other conditions (e.g. bone cancers) more likely so the net overall "health benefit" is practically nil. According to the studies I have seen, desexed female dogs (but not males) may apparently live slightly longer than intact ones, but not in better health. Desexing seems if anything slightly to reduce the longevity of males. I fail to see why reasons of convenience, or of commercial profitability, should have a higher moral status than "mainly/purely cosmetic" ones? I might grant them a higher *practical* status, but not a higher *ethical* one? John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 31-OCT-2003 12:06:10.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: IN%"ingvar.ekesbo@hmh.slu.se" Subj: Fw: desexing is a mutilation too What is the current opinion on tail-docking of horses? Francis *********** END REDIRECTED MESSAGE *********** I must admit my ignorance on the rational of tail-docking in horses. I know there is an argument about the potential risk of draught horses getting their tail stuck in machinery. But for all I that I know that problem is overcome simply by cutting the hairy part of the tail as short as possible, without harming the muscle portion. There were several breeders of Belgian Draught Horses in my family in southern Sweden until the late 1960's and I've seen hundreds of photos of these horses. Quite characteristic is that all the horses born in Sweden had their tails intact. The odd one with a docked tail would always be a Belgian import. Nevertheless, these horses were used in daily farmwork on my step-grandfather's farm. Tail-docking in horses must have been prohibited far earlier than it was in dogs - if Professor Emeritus Ingvar Ekesbo is still on this list he will know. Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 31-OCT-2003 13:36:08.48 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Mary and Andy Andy and Mary wrote: But being well aware of your entirely unpleasant and sharp-tongued lack of manners will leave you to rave on alone. =====as interesting as it may be to watch people flail at each other in public, (interesting esp. to ethologists and anthropologists) I wonder if either realize both are guilty of the above indictment, as we all have been from time to time? You do this publicly to get others on your side? To correct the possible perception of others that you are anything like the other's description? Understandable motives. We all want to be right and want to be accepted. Not possible all the time, though de-stressing occurs when disagreements are presented as team members--I like to think of this group as a team debate for applied ethology and relevant issues. Virtual-time adversaries are often more verbally caustic because there's rarely any chance for escalating to deed. I still have 30 messages to go, so maybe things are de-stressed by now. Jo (Pollyanna) -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 1:15 p.m. To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: research?? What "sufficient research"? Do you mean the "research" citing lots of unpublished data? OR the patently rhetorical research? One thing is certain; there has been no good quality or comprehensive research done on the issue of tail docking and more certainly none done by sociologists or the humanities. Those against tail docking are too confident of their position to need anything like research nor to involve humanities experts. Ps Please do not post any references for rubbish "research"! Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:05 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dew claws Mary I am surprised you think I do not understand – was there anything so complex that that would be likely? Dew claws is a separate issue – and I think there is no ethical question as they are liable to tearing – which results in pain - therefore removing them in a controlled manner under anaesthesia, even though it may cause some pain post-op, to prevent the much worse pain of a tear is quite ethical. This is quite different to tail docking. Even so, it would clearly be better to breed so that this becomes unnecessary. Sufficient studies have been carried out on tail docking – as you must surely now be aware. Therefore there is no quick judgement going on here. My response was based entirely on awareness of these findings – not on emotion. My dogs assist me with all farm work – removing feral cattle and, on occasion, pigs (fence and pasture damage), rounding up and removing neighbours sheep (except when with lambs at foot as the dogs tend to be a little hard and inexperienced for such gentle work), moving groups of horses and protecting our plants and fruit trees from possums - quite varied work, and a great deal of it out of line of sight or direct control. Please – no further FLAMES – the practice is somewhat out of place on this list and, in my case, merely makes me bin the posting as juvenile. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz   -----Original Message----- From: mary doran [mailto:mary@fusiondesignuk.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 5:36 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: dew claws You misunderstand me Andy. I did not at any point say that ANY practise should be continued. Perhaps a less emotional response with clearer reading of my exact words would have allowed you to see that I relayed factual accounts of my own experience ,and that my main point was this..   <"We should not be TOO quick to judge practices of animal husbandry if we have not researched properly the original reasons why these practices developed centuries ago, or if we ourselves have not experienced problems encountered through these procedures not being carried out at birth.">   So allow me to explain  further what I am implying here if you did not understand what i meant. I beleive that before taking such a step as to ban a particular practise  scientific research should be carried out to see IF any of these practises are justified. By 'not researched properly'  what I mean is controlled long term studies following both groups of collies that are' de-clawed' a birth and also those remaining intact. The fact that I relayed my own personal experience to be shortly followed by you with your OWN anecdotal experience verifys my point that without studies and facts it will be impossible to assert what is best for the breed in a non-emotional way.   I am very interested to know where you work you collies with sheep. Do you take part at trial standard? Or farm work only? IF farm work, what size flocks and type of land do you work. I attend alot of trials here in the UK with border collies, and I am also studying to be an animal behaviour therapist based on an ethological approach combined with operant conditoining methods.   I have started a survey among the regular competitors of the sport and although it is not yet completed I have to say that so far the trend among most ISDS registered working border collie breeders appears to be that removal of front dew claws is the preferred approach. The difference between you an I, it appears is that you carried out a practise of docking without questioning its validity and then stopped whereas I chose NOT to have invasive removal at birth only to discover there was a possibility of a real problem developing as a result. I do not see why you are talking about emotional knee jerks as you seem to be having on while accusing me of doing so.   SO I suggested critical analysis BEFORE banning a practise as this seems a bit backwards to me. Naturally, if the study showed that removal of front dew claws was uneccessary and unrelated to following 'accidental' ripping of dew claws then I would be very happy that it was discontinued. I am wanting the best for the breed. Not sure exactly what your point is.   Let me know what exactly it is that you disagree with.   Sincerely   Mary Doran   He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. _________________________________________________________________ Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From: IN%"oryctolagus@earthlink.net" "oryctolagus" 31-OCT-2003 14:22:49.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAZ conference, Glascow (Univ. Federation for Anim. Welfare and Animal Training) This is a cross-post from the USA Animal Behavior Society Newsletter=20 ---------------------------------------------------- Advances in the Science and Application of Animal Training The 13th Annual Conference of the International Society for Anthrozoology. = Held in conjunction with the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Sa= tellite meeting to IAHAIO 2004 http://www.glasgow2004ad.com/ 6th October 20= 04, Glasgow **First Announcement and Preliminary Call for Papers** *Aims* Humans use animals in many ways =E2=80=93 they are farmed, kept as pets, us= ed as experimental subjects and exhibited within zoos. An integral part of = any successful relationship with these animals requires their ability to in= tegrate into their captive, anthropocentric, environment and to behave in a= way that conforms to our expectations. Failure to adapt to this environmen= t can have a profound impact on the welfare of the animal, and may result i= n its ill-health, rejection or death. Training has long been recognised as an important component in the successf= ul adaptation of companion animals, their inclusion in sporting events and = other recreational activities. An extensive folk literature exists relating= to the training of these animals. Knowledge and practice based upon scient= ific principles, such as classical conditioning and instrumental learning m= ay also be employed. Less recognised is the contribution relevant training = can have on the management and husbandry of other animals eg. on farm, in z= oos and the laboratory. This meeting aims to discuss recent developments in learning theory and rel= ated fields, in the methodologies and techniques of training. It will also = consider the application of these for practical training of animals. It see= ks to bring together veterinarians, animal scientists, ethologists, psychol= ogists, animal trainers and others who work with animals to share knowledge= and good practice. It hopes to encourage a wider consideration of the ways= training can be used to improve the husbandry, management and welfare of a= nimals. *Details* The meeting will be held on 6th October at Scottish Exhibition and Conferen= ce Centre, Glasgow. The provisional layout for the meeting is as follows: Invited papers from keynote speakers, plus submitted abstracts from recent = research studies addressing the following areas 1. The science of learning, including recent developments in learning theory and behaviour systems theory, mathematical principles of reinforcement, and holistic integration of biological and psychological approaches to training. 2. Advances and innovations in training and conditioning techniques (welfare based integration of positive and negative conditioning in training, shaping, jackpotting and clicker training). 3. Applying advances in theory and technique to the practical training of animals, including companion, farm, zoo, aquaria, laboratory, shelter and assistance animals and those used in sporting events. The role of the carer/owner in successful training programmes. 4. Welfare and ethical implications of training: use and abuse. The role of the trainer, clinical animal behaviourist. *Call for Papers* We are inviting submission of abstracts for oral and poster presentations I= f you would like to present a paper at the Symposium, please indicate your = intention by filling in the form overleaf and sending a proposed title as s= oon as possible and by 1st December 2003 at the latest. The deadline for s= ubmission of abstracts is 30th January 2004. It is intended that the proceedings of the Symposium will be published as a= special edition of the journal Anthrozo=C3=B6s; the deadline for receipt o= f full papers selected for inclusion will be 6th October 2004. **Instructions for Abstracts** *Registration* If you are interested in attending or contributing to the 2004 Glasgow conf= erence and wish for further details and a full registration form, please co= ntact: Dr Deborah Goodwin, Lecturer in Applied Animal Behaviour, University of Southampton, School of Psychology, Animal Behaviour Programme, New College Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BG, UK. Tel: +44 (0)23 597 272; Fax: +44 (0)23 597306; Email: dg1@soton.ac.uk **Timetable:** *Monday 1st December 2003 Deadline for submission of abstract titles *Frida= y 30th January 2004 Deadline for submission of complete abstract *Early Mar= ch 2004 Final notification of acceptance sent to contributors *Wednesday 6t= h October 2004 ISAZ Conference. Registration from 09:00hrs. Contributors submit papers for inclusion in proceedings. -------------- Advances in the Science and Application of Animal Training 6th October 2004, Glasgow, Scotland UK In conjunction with the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Science = in the Service of Animal Welfare --__--__-- From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" 31-OCT-2003 14:28:11.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: A washingtonpost.com article from: wrstrick@umd.edu You have been sent this message from wrstrick@umd.edu as a courtesy of wash= ingtonpost.com=20 =20 Personal Message: I would hope that there is a near consensus that these (training based) la= rge cat shows should be stopped. =20 It's Still a Wild World for Trained Big Cats =20 By Shankar Vedantam =20 =20 Although the house cat has been domesticated for hundreds of generation= s and several thousand years, try training one to fetch your slippers.=20 =20 Cat owners know that their pets are not easily trained to perform tricks t= o win affection or even treats, and that tabbies do not usually place soci= ability above their own company. But no cat needs to be taught to flick out= its paw to grab at an object flying by. =20 It is the same with the great cats -- tigers, lions, panthers -- but more= so. You can raise a tiger cub in the company of humans, train it to intera= ct with people and teach it to perform stage tricks. After years of systema= tic effort, it may seem that the tiger has been removed from the wild. =20 But that does not mean the wild has been removed from the tiger. =20 In the aftermath of the recent tiger attack on Roy Horn, an illusionist a= nd performer of the Siegfried & Roy duo, many have wondered why a tiger th= at had been raised by humans from birth and trained so well would turn on i= ts master and nearly kill him before hundreds of spectators.=20 =20 It is almost certainly the wrong question. As experts have known for centu= ries, animals have deeply ingrained temperaments, personalities and instinc= ts. =20 "The genes that contribute to normal behaviors in tigers have been tamed i= n your cat," said John Wright, a professor of psychology and a certified an= imal behaviorist at Mercer University in Macon, Ga. Despite intensive trai= ning of tigers, he said, "there is a genetic history that has been adaptive= for them in the wild which suggests when there is a chance to establish a = predator-prey relationship -- do so. =20 "You cannot overcome in one or two generations what the genes have learned= over thousands of years," he said. =20 Tigers instinctively know how to be tigers. Nurture can teach animals how = to adapt to situations, and learning is especially important for species su= ch as humans that skillfully adapt to new environments. But no animal is a = blank slate that can be turned into an altogether different creature. =20 Tigers' latent capacity for violence is perhaps what draws people to pay h= undreds of dollars to watch them perform stage tricks -- but among Siegfrie= d & Roy's many illusions, the greatest may have been the notion that these = powerful predators were tame. =20 "They are not really social animals," said Joanne Oliva-Purdy, an applied = animal behaviorist in Leadville, Colo. "They don't have the restraints of s= ocial animals not to harm those in the same group -- a tiger is a solitary = animal, so anything in the environment could be open to attack."=20 =20 Unlike dogs or humans, who need and depend on the company of others and fr= equently set aside their own interests for the benefit of the group, tigers= answer only to themselves. Although some trainers boast of controlling the= se animals for long periods -- in circuses, magic shows and theme parks -- = there is a long history of tigers' turning on human handlers and killing or= maiming them. =20 It is partly for this reason that most tiger behavior experts and conserva= tionists decry the use of wild animals as entertainment -- and suggest that= it is dangerous for the people involved, demeaning to the animals and bad = for conservation.=20 =20 "I call this a public spectacle that is close to pornographic," said Micha= el Fox, a Washington veterinarian and ethologist -- a scientist who studies= animal behavior, usually in the wild. "Putting these magnificent creatures= on stools and making them do tricks -- it's simply a display of human domi= nation. It's perverse." =20 On Oct 3 in Las Vegas, Horn had just come onstage with a white tiger name= d Montecore. Things quickly went wrong -- some reports suggest the tiger w= as distracted by something in the audience -- and Horn tried to intervene. =20 The tiger whirled on Horn, who tried to hold the animal at bay with his mi= crophone. A moment later, Montecore had Horn by the neck and was dragging h= im offstage, where the tiger was subdued by handlers. Horn has received in= tensive medical attention and surgery.=20 =20 It is not clear what caused the tiger to become agitated. Wright suggested= a variety of hypotheses, ranging from "someone in the second row may have = had a pheromone [chemicals believed to play a role in signaling between an= imals] that made the cat more aroused," to a movement on the stage or in th= e audience that stimulated the cat's predatory instincts.=20 =20 Mel Sunquist, an associate professor of wildlife ecology and conservation = at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said that Montecore's leap at = Horn's neck was "hard-wired" tiger behavior. =20 Sunquist said he knows of many examples in which tigers have launched att= acks almost instinctively, like the housecat that goes after the feather wh= ipping by its face. For example, one trainer was walking beside an animal w= hen he tripped and fell. The tiger was at the man's throat in a blur; the b= ite killed him instantly. =20 Sunquist said he once walked into a tiger facility with his daughter -- sh= e was about 3 years old and unsteady on her feet. The tigers, all safely lo= cked away, looked sound asleep when the toddler came by.=20 =20 "Within a second, every tiger was on its feet and studying this small chil= d," Sunquist said. "That motion told them, 'easy prey.' " =20 Robert Baudy, a tiger trainer and owner of Savage Kingdom, a breeding faci= lity in central Florida, said people are drawn to the "extreme beauty of th= e big predators."=20 =20 Baudy used to train tigers for shows and movies, and has had several close= calls. On one occasion, he said in an interview, he was training a Siberia= n tiger to leap from one pedestal to another -- known as the "long jump." =20 It was a hot September day in Florida, and trainer and tiger were inside a= large cage. A bodyguard stood outside, controlling the door in the event o= f an emergency. The tiger, named Chilly, made a few leaps but then stopped = in its tracks. Baudy touched the animal with his whip. The next instant, th= e tiger leaped at him and knocked him to the ground.=20 =20 "I was in a state of shock," Baudy said. "I could hear my bones being cru= shed and my flesh being torn. Thanks to God or my genes, I never lost consc= iousness. I screamed the tiger's name, and he turned me loose."=20 =20 When Baudy looked to see why his bodyguard was not leaping into the cage t= o save him, he saw that the man had fled in fright.=20 =20 Skin from Baudy's left arm was draped over his fingers, his right arm was = broken and blood spurted from an artery. The trainer said he sensed the tig= er was going to attack again, so he inched backward to the door. The moment= he closed the latch, the tiger launched itself at him again, knocking the = cage so violently that Baudy was hurled to the ground outside. Still bleedi= ng, the trainer put his arm in a tourniquet and drove four miles for help.= =20 =20 Tales such as this, especially when such incidents occur in public, have = prompted many animal rights advocates to demand an end to the practice of t= eaching wild animals to perform tricks.=20 =20 "For the well-being of their handlers and for the emotional well-being of = the spectators, especially children, this whole business should be outlawed= ," Fox said. =20 =20 =20 Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to=20 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=3DA214= 98-2003Oct26&sent=3Dno&referrer=3Demailarticle =20 =20 Visit washingtonpost.com today for the latest in: News - http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=3Demailarticle Politics - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/?referrer=3Demaila= rticle Sports - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/sports/?referrer=3Demailartic= le Entertainment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/eg/section/main/index.= html?referrer=3Demailarticle Travel - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/travel/?referrer=3Demailartic= le Technology - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/technology/?referrer=3Dem= ailarticle Want the latest news in your inbox? Check out washingtonpost.com's e-mail n= ewsletters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=3Dadmin/email&referrer=3Demai= larticle =A9 2003 The Washington Post Company From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 31-OCT-2003 15:04:23.66 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: A washingtonpost.com article from: wrstrick@umd.edu Thank you so much for the Washington Post article. It reminded me of visiting the Carnivore Preservation Trust in NC a few years ago. The owner of the facility asked me if I knew the differance between working with wolves and working with the big cats. When I said "no", he said "The big cats look at humans as prey." CeAnn --- wrstrick@umd.edu wrote: > You have been sent this message from > wrstrick@umd.edu as a courtesy of washingtonpost.com > > . ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From: IN%"michael.meredith@btconnect.com" 31-OCT-2003 16:17:40.78 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology Posting" CC: Subj: Trained Pigs - Entertainment, Tragedy, Symbiosis or Education? Winston Churchill once famously remarked that... "A dog looks up to you, and a cat looks down on you, but only a pig treats you as an equal." Having spent several decades in the company of these three (I suppose I should say four) species I can certainly resonate with the grain of truth in what this remarkable leader had to say. Certainly one only has to go into an average gift shop or children's library to see our fascination with (and anthropomorphism of) swine. Pigs are not of course exactly equal to humans.... On the credit side, they seem to be rather less prone to self-righteousness than the average homo sapiens of my (listserve?) acquaintance. To be truthful, I have not actually bothered to gather, and meticulously record, lots of quasi-objective data before drawing this conclusion - it derives mainly from my own self-righteousness!] On the debit side (of the Sus scrofa account) many humans seem to be much more capable of altruistic, socially responsible and/or ethical behaviour (not to be confused with projection of over-vamped emotions or God-like omnipotent aspirations to control the world) than the average suiform I have met. However, one area of behaviour where I suspect that humans and pigs do have a lot in common is in their enormous adaptability and in their propensity for exploration and experimentation. No doubt these characteristics have enabled them to survive over the millennia, colonising a very wide range of environments and subsisting on an incredibly wide range of diets. Another common area of mutually popular behaviour is "play" or "entertainment" - be it self-centred or in partnership with others. I was intrigued to see recent reports of an (allegedly-mutual) entertainment for pigs and humans in Australia and moved to write a short news item on this for the American Association of Swine Practitioners. Not having seen this spectacle, I feel I am in no position to form an opinion as to whether it constitutes mutual play, symbiosis, dastardly exploitation of God's creatures by man, or dastardly exploitation of human protection and care by pigs. see http://www.aasv.org/news/story.php?id=823 What do you think?... Oh yes! - That reminds me of another huge difference between ourselves and pigs... pigs invest so much more time in living in the moment ("just getting on with life") - i.e. living fully and holistically each moment of the day. We humans invest our energy heavily into thinking, analyzing and making judgements, worrying about tomorrow, regretting and ruminating about the past. Are those Aussie pigs just entertaining us? Or have they got something to teach us? Have a great weekend! Mike Meredith www.sunflower-health.com From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 31-OCT-2003 17:34:13.85 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: A washingtonpost.com article from: wrstrick@umd.edu I'd like to thank you as well for posting a very interesting article. It reminded me of two incidents I observed while visiting area zoos. In one case, the tiger (which is hand-raised from 3 days of age) immediately went into "stalking mode" when a visitor with a noticeable limp walked by its cage. The second incident, at a different zoo, also involved a hand-raised tiger, this one much better socialized to humans than the other. As a wheelchair-bound visitor was pushed past its enclosure it suddenly went "crazy," leaping at the bars in attack. In neither case did the zoos' visitors do anything to instigate the animals' behaviors, other than of course, be themselves. Vivian Singer-Ferris Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. www.kerwoodwolf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from: wrstrick@umd.edu You have been sent this message from wrstrick@umd.edu as a courtesy of washingtonpost.com Personal Message: I would hope that there is a near consensus that these (training based) large cat shows should be stopped. It's Still a Wild World for Trained Big Cats By Shankar Vedantam From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 31-OCT-2003 19:56:36.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: What about "ear docking" in rabbits done in the name of molecularbiology? Ray Stricklin wrote: > The overwhelming majority of cases involving removal of a dog's tail, dew > claw, etc. are acts that are conducted for no purposes other than those that > are gratuitous. In short, the animal's body is manipulated in a manner > considered to be more pleasurable to human sight, to fit more closely to the > standard that is considered "appropriate" for the breed type, etc. There we are in complete agreement. My earlier comments addressed that small minority of cases in which other arguments can plausibly be advanced, namely the prevention of greater injury. The potential for injury to "dew claws" is often put forward as a reason for removing them from newborn puppies. For the breed I know best, because I work with them on a daily basis, I am prepared to argue firmly that this is a rationalization, and that in the interest of function (as well as of an intact animal, something I personally value very highly ) the "dew claws" should not be removed (but the nail should be trimmed if it does not wear appropriately). I do in fact make that argument, long and loud, whenever the subject comes up in breeder circles. I would welcome it if the AKC, with reference to breeds supposed to be shown in a "natural" condition, would add the stipulation that all body parts must be present . I am, however, not prepared to be quite so categorical in respect of other breeds, and other working conditions, because I simply don't know enough about the details there. > Regarding the grafting of heads, I know there was work done by the Chinese > that dates back into the 1950's, maybe 1960's, with monkeys. I know of no > recent work with rabbits or any other species - and I have seen no reports > of any such work ever done in the USA. There are some remarkable "urban legends" about what goes on in research laboratories ... > However, even _if_ such work is being done in China and the USA, in _no_ way > does the wrongness of those actions justify another wrong act that is being > done by someone else. The argument that tail docking is acceptable because > scientists are doing a greater harm to animals does not stand. Of course not. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 31-OCT-2003 21:00:21.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: rotation grazing John Burchard wrote: I think I have observed things like that in a herd of Arabian broodmares free to roam on about 2000 acres of varied natural semiarid landscape (in southwestern Spain). Has any work been done on the mechanisms by which this is accomplished? Is there a built-in behavioral tendency to vacate an area where they have been for some days? Are they using olfactory cues to recognize where they have not recently been? ------------------------------------------------------------------ I think there has to be an innate mechanism in operation - but perhaps a generalized one rather than anything very specific - which I guess would be predictable to some extent since, if the trigger/response set were too inelastic, it would not be sufficiently adaptive over a wide range of environments. Of the two harem groups here one shows evidence of a rotation lasting several days (the duration depending on pasture availability) while the second, a group consisting entirely of home-bred individuals, show a daily rotation - so that, for example, it is possible to predict where they might be at onset of dusk or in mid-morning. So, perhaps the behavior is a mixture of genes and memes? Without switching the two group territories to see if the behavior changes it would be difficult to judge to what degree culture might be a factor. The rotation appears to accelerate during times of low feed - such as over the past September and early October, which hit a 35 year record for rain and resulted in serious ground saturation over approx two thirds of the farm, so one might hypothesise that the function of the behavior is to limit overgrazing of any one particular area as far as might be possible. I think there have been some suggestions that the rotation may limit internal parasite infection - but my feeling is that the rotation would need to be of extended duration - and that even then might only work if the weather, and ground, conditions were dry enough over the period required to destroy microfilarial worms and parasite eggs on the pasture before the group returned. It may also be that this type of rotation allows opportunity for the range to be extended by 'pathfinder' type individuals during times of pasture shortage - a scenario in which small forays can be made beyond the 'learnt' perimeter in search of new grazing. There are well laid olfactory markers (dung piles) allowing rapid transit over difficult ground - say between a grazing 'lawn' and watering area - even during hours of full darkness and no moon. These markers are subject to fresh additions of dung to keep routes current, or are neglected where a route is no longer in use, so the idea that dung could serve as an olfactory 'diary' entry seems quite reasonable also. Despite having observed the behavior over the last 12 years or so I am no closer to any feeling of certainty about it! Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz