Subject: RE: question re sheep tail docking From: Ray Stricklin Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:55:37 -0400 To: Rexxie1@aol.com, applied-ethology@usask.ca Marlene, Regarding your question about “ways to help lambs of breeds that do not meet the genetic standard…” - the need for tail docking of lambs can be lessened by altering some production practices. For example the type of feedstuffs fed to sheep affects the amount of manure around a sheep’s tail region and thus impacts the likelihood of a fly strike. Also, the reproductive cycles of some breeds are less photo-sensitive and these ewes can be bred for fall lambing – resulting in lambs being marketed before they experience a fly season (in some regions of the world). However, a producer would need to have more supplemental feed but would also benefit from the higher prices paid for lambs marketed during the spring season. And rather than changing the policy on tail docking, AWI might wish to consider developing certain opportunities for “Exception to Policy” (as has been developed in the oversight of research animal care programs). Thus, a sheep producer could file an exception request and be required to provide detailed plans for which sheep (market lambs versus breeding stock, etc.) to be included and a statement as to why the exception is requested, details related to how, when and by whom the tails will be docked, etc. A review committee could be established and charged with determining the merits and costs of each request. And if you include sheep producers on the review committee, I think you are likely to find them typically quite demanding and not accepting of requests based on unsound reasons. And any granted exception could be time limited – one, two or three years in length, for example. Regarding an issue you did not ask about in your message below – you use the phrase “selection for hybrid vigor” a couple of times. Technically, one cannot select for hybrid vigor. Instead, a hybrid is produced only when two unlike individuals are mated. Hybrid vigor only results from outbreeding – and generally, the amount of hybrid vigor obtained in the F1 is proportional to the degree of genetic difference between the two parents. Marlene, you might wish to consider employing some statement to the effect that AWI encourages “sheep producers to choose breeds and use selection practices that will result in individuals that are genetically adapted to the environmental conditions in which the sheep will live. Thus, the breeding plan for the herd should emphasize general vigor in the sheep’s behavior, health, and well-being; not just emphasis on traditional production traits such as growth, reproduction, etc. Accordingly, AWI encourages commercial sheep breeders to make optimal use of crossbreeding in their mating strategies because of the numerous production benefits including animal well-being that hybrid vigor brings forth to both the individual animal and the animal owner. Within the USA, sheep breeders can contact their state university Cooperative Extension Service for details related to the benefits and implementation strategies for the various crossbreeding programs known to be beneficial in sheep production.” (And I might point out that relative to some of the previous discussions on APPLIED ETHOLOGY in the preceding statement, I have used the term “production” in the broadened sense. As such, the term production as used is inclusive of those traits of interest/benefit to the animal owner and also includes those traits that could be said to be of importance to the animal itself, i.e., its welfare.) And without going into detail herein, I think scientists need to be careful in their statements about “things natural” and “things unnatural.” In fact a large percentage of the morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits of domestic animals – including those of Homo sapiens – could be said to be “unnatural.” And some are things of great merit; e.g., one could argue that true altruism of humans is an unnatural behavior. Additionally, there are many things that are “natural” that are quite harmful to what one would consider to be “good animal welfare.” As quick examples, when a new alpha male takes over in some species, it is “natural” for him to force copulate causing expulsion of fetuses and even sometimes he kills off the infants present – a genetically adaptive strategy of nature that allows him to rebreed the females. Understanding things natural is helpful to us humans to provide animals with better states of welfare – but in some instances that means that we humans need to provide the animals with protection from things natural. And Marlene, I do not mean to imply that you would endorse the development of human mores or even animal use standards based on laws of nature alone for I expect that you agree with me on the preceding points as I have listed them. I also do not mean to imply there is not a place for hair sheep. Rather, my point is that I think that we in the academic world should avoid statements such as wool not being natural to sheep, etc. especially when such statements are used to be implicitly normative. I say this because by using reasoning that is based only on “things natural,” one would conclude that cows should be bred to possess horns because polledness is not natural to cattle! Hope that this is helpful. Best regards, Ray Stricklin University of Maryland College Park From: Rexxie1@aol.com [mailto:Rexxie1@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:39 AM To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Cc: HalversonAWI@aol.com Subject: question re sheep tail docking Dear all, According to Western Maryland Research and Education Center/Maryland Cooperative Extension, it is "unnatural for sheep to have wool. The wild ancestors of modern sheep breeds (Mouflon, Urial, and Argali) all had (have) long coarse hair, covering their short, downy undercoat, which under domestication became wool. Sheep tails also became longer and thicker as a result of selection." http://www.sheepandgoat.com/articles/hairsheepprodmktg.html. Animal Welfare Institute has a husbandry standards program with specific standards for farms under the program with respect to rearing of sheep. The aims of our program are not to create legislation but to provide standards that apply to a somewhat more exclusive number of farmers who want to market to niches that value their specific, high welfare methods and philosophies of operation. For farmers who do not want to or cannot comply with the standards we set, there are other available certification programs. Our aim is to provide husbandry standards that are based on the natural, biological and behavioral characteristics of animals. They include a basic requirement for sound genetics that contribute to the animals' ability to cope with and thrive in their environments. For example, "herd genetics must be selected for both hybrid vigor and the animals' adaptation to the climate and pasture environment on the farm" and "no animal shall be bred for any characteristic that endangers the health or well-being of the animal or his/her offspring" and "conservation or development of breeds or strains (within breeds) that promotes hybrid vigor, improves grazing ability, and avoids animal welfare problems is encouraged under this program." Our husbandry program has prohibited the docking of sheep's tails (as well as pigs' tails and cows' tails) and, together with the requirements regarding genetics above (which tend to favor hair sheep, or short tailed breeds, such as Norwegian or Icelandic sheep), has pretty much excluded from our program farmers who raise breeds/strains of sheep for which tail docking would be required for good welfare. We have been challenged on this aspect of our sheep husbandry standards by a few producers who want to be covered by our program but do not want to change their genetics and feel that tail docking is a requirement in order that their sheep have good welfare (by avoiding fly strike). Our questions to the list are: Are there ways to help lambs of breeds that do not meet the genetic standard above thrive without mutilations? To what extent has the raising of various breeds of sheep in regions of the world where they may not be native or for more exotic wools or fiber created welfare problems from fly-strike that in turn necessitate tail docking? Would it, to any extent, promote overall sheep well-being if, by continuing to hold to our no-tail docking standard, farmers were encouraged to breed sheep who could thrive without being tail docked? We will have to make our own decision on this, of course, but input from the list would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Marlene Halverson See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Subject: Re: question re sheep tail docking From: Rexxie1@aol.com Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:19:57 -0400 (EDT) To: wrstrick@umd.edu, applied-ethology@usask.ca CC: HalversonAWI@aol.com Thank you so much, Ray, for the thorough and informative response. I also got a very helpful answer from Carol Petherick. It is so good to know one can come to a list like this and get such thoughtful feedback. Marlene In a message dated 10/15/2007 10:56:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, wrstrick@umd.edu writes: Marlene, Regarding your question about “ways to help lambs of breeds that do not meet the genetic standard…” - the need for tail docking of lambs can be lessened by altering some production practices. For example the type of feedstuffs fed to sheep affects the amount of manure around a sheep’s tail region and thus impacts the likelihood of a fly strike. Also, the reproductive cycles of some breeds are less photo-sensitive and these ewes can be bred for fall lambing – resulting in lambs being marketed before they experience a fly season (in some regions of the world). However, a producer would need to have more supplemental feed but would also benefit from the higher prices paid for lambs marketed during the spring season. And rather than changing the policy on tail docking, AWI might wish to consider developing certain opportunities for “Exception to Policy” (as has been developed in the oversight of research animal care programs). Thus, a sheep producer could file an exception request and be required to provide detailed plans for which sheep (market lambs versus breeding stock, etc.) to be included and a statement as to why the exception is requested, details related to how, when and by whom the tails will be docked, etc. A review committee could be established and charged with determining the merits and costs of each request. And if you include sheep producers on the review committee, I think you are likely to find them typically quite demanding and not accepting of requests based on unsound reasons. And any granted exception could be time limited – one, two or three years in length, for example. Regarding an issue you did not ask about in your message below – you use the phrase “selection for hybrid vigor” a couple of times. Technically, one cannot select for hybrid vigor. Instead, a hybrid is produced only when two unlike individuals are mated. Hybrid vigor only results from outbreeding – and generally, the amount of hybrid vigor obtained in the F1 is proportional to the degree of genetic difference between the two parents. Marlene, you might wish to consider employing some statement to the effect that AWI encourages “sheep producers to choose breeds and use selection practices that will result in individuals that are genetically adapted to the environmental conditions in which the sheep will live. Thus, the breeding plan for the herd should emphasize general vigor in the sheep’s behavior, health, and well-being; not just emphasis on traditional production traits such as growth, reproduction, etc. Accordingly, AWI encourages commercial sheep breeders to make optimal use of crossbreeding in their mating strategies because of the numerous production benefits including animal well-being that hybrid vigor brings forth to both the individual animal and the animal owner. Within the USA, sheep breeders can contact their state university Cooperative Extension Service for details related to the benefits and implementation strategies for the various crossbreeding programs known to be beneficial in sheep production.” (And I might point out that relative to some of the previous discussions on APPLIED ETHOLOGY in the preceding statement, I have used the term “production” in the broadened sense. As such, the term production as used is inclusive of those traits of interest/benefit to the animal owner and also includes those traits that could be said to be of importance to the animal itself, i.e., its welfare.) And without going into detail herein, I think scientists need to be careful in their statements about “things natural” and “things unnatural.” In fact a large percentage of the morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits of domestic animals – including those of Homo sapiens – could be said to be “unnatural.” And some are things of great merit; e.g., one could argue that true altruism of humans is an unnatural behavior. Additionally, there are many things that are “natural” that are quite harmful to what one would consider to be “good animal welfare.” As quick examples, when a new alpha male takes over in some species, it is “natural” for him to force copulate causing expulsion of fetuses and even sometimes he kills off the infants present – a genetically adaptive strategy of nature that allows him to rebreed the females. Understanding things natural is helpful to us humans to provide animals with better states of welfare – but in some instances that means that we humans need to provide the animals with protection from things natural. And Marlene, I do not mean to imply that you would endorse the development of human mores or even animal use standards based on laws of nature alone for I expect that you agree with me on the preceding points as I have listed them. I also do not mean to imply there is not a place for hair sheep. Rather, my point is that I think that we in the academic world should avoid statements such as wool not being natural to sheep, etc. especially when such statements are used to be implicitly normative. I say this because by using reasoning that is based only on “things natural,” one would conclude that cows should be bred to possess horns because polledness is not natural to cattle! Hope that this is helpful. Best regards, Ray Stricklin University of Maryland College Park From: Rexxie1@aol.com [mailto:Rexxie1@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:39 AM To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Cc: HalversonAWI@aol.com Subject: question re sheep tail docking Dear all, According to Western Maryland Research and Education Center/Maryland Cooperative Extension, it is "unnatural for sheep to have wool. The wild ancestors of modern sheep breeds (Mouflon, Urial, and Argali) all had (have) long coarse hair, covering their short, downy undercoat, which under domestication became wool. Sheep tails also became longer and thicker as a result of selection." http://www.sheepandgoat.com/articles/hairsheepprodmktg.html. Animal Welfare Institute has a husbandry standards program with specific standards for farms under the program with respect to rearing of sheep. The aims of our program are not to create legislation but to provide standards that apply to a somewhat more exclusive number of farmers who want to market to niches that value their specific, high welfare methods and philosophies of operation. For farmers who do not want to or cannot comply with the standards we set, there are other available certification programs. Our aim is to provide husbandry standards that are based on the natural, biological and behavioral characteristics of animals. They include a basic requirement for sound genetics that contribute to the animals' ability to cope with and thrive in their environments. For example, "herd genetics must be selected for both hybrid vigor and the animals' adaptation to the climate and pasture environment on the farm" and "no animal shall be bred for any characteristic that endangers the health or well-being of the animal or his/her offspring" and "conservation or development of breeds or strains (within breeds) that promotes hybrid vigor, improves grazing ability, and avoids animal welfare problems is encouraged under this program." Our husbandry program has prohibited the docking of sheep's tails (as well as pigs' tails and cows' tails) and, together with the requirements regarding genetics above (which tend to favor hair sheep, or short tailed breeds, such as Norwegian or Icelandic sheep), has pretty much excluded from our program farmers who raise breeds/strains of sheep for which tail docking would be required for good welfare. We have been challenged on this aspect of our sheep husbandry standards by a few producers who want to be covered by our program but do not want to change their genetics and feel that tail docking is a requirement in order that their sheep have good welfare (by avoiding fly strike). Our questions to the list are: Are there ways to help lambs of breeds that do not meet the genetic standard above thrive without mutilations? To what extent has the raising of various breeds of sheep in regions of the world where they may not be native or for more exotic wools or fiber created welfare problems from fly-strike that in turn necessitate tail docking? Would it, to any extent, promote overall sheep well-being if, by continuing to hold to our no-tail docking standard, farmers were encouraged to breed sheep who could thrive without being tail docked? We will have to make our own decision on this, of course, but input from the list would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Marlene Halverson See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: peterhaskins Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:23:37 +1000 To: ethology From: "Rick Bogle" > E. Wayne seems to feel his own ability to devine public opinion superior to > others. This member of the public is appalled at the idea of training dogs > by allowing them to chase down captured wild animals. > > Rick Bogle Unfortunately the CeAnne's original got deleted before I looked at the attachemnt, BUT -- I agree. All animals deserve to be free of unnecessary harassment. If you had kept squirrels, rats, rabbits, pigeons, cats, possums, etc, etc, as pets you would know that they are as as capable of suffering as a dog or a human. I think even Wayne would object to using native or slave children to 'bait' the dogs (as has been done in the past) though in the past these peoeple were not considered to possess the capacity for sufferring either physically or emotionally as the "superior" white race. (Speaking of which, there is a good article from The Onion which I haven't got time to chase up now, but will later.) I am on a discussion list that seems to have taken a turn to discussing gun dog training. Now although the people are vehemently against 'coercive' training (ear pinches, electric collars, etc) as they are 'cruel to the dog', they seem to see no problem with using pinioned live birds thrown into the air again and again for the dog to retrieve. The whole thing gives me the heeby-jeebies. Jenny Haskins Coffs Australia PS CeAnne, could you please repost the link to the article? Thanks, Jenny Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: peterhaskins Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:43:46 +1000 To: ethology ----- Original Message ----- > I think even Wayne would object to using native or slave children to 'bait' the dogs (as has been done in the past) though in the past these peoeple were not considered to possess the capacity for sufferring either physically or emotionally as the "superior" white race. (Speaking of which, there is a good article from The Onion which I haven't got time to chase up now, but will later.)> Here's The Onion article. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/64237 Enjoy :-) Jenny Subject: SV: Why should we study animals? Re: Introducing myself From: Randi Helene Tillung Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:46:01 +0200 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca CC: 'applied-ethology' Dear everyone! The discussion started by Juliana is very interesting and I think maybe it applies to us all? I have the feeling that ethology have a low status. Even within the profession of animal welfare I have come across people (vets) who are not familiar with ethological terms, and even not familiar with ethology at all. In Norway you will have a better chance to work with animal welfare if you are a vet, and less if you have studied ethology. (Although it is slowly changing) Ethologists could sit down and cry over it. Or we could be angry about it. :) But most important we have to look at how we can raise the status of the profession and spread knowledge. What experiences do you have from your countries about what has contributed to raising the status? What professions are ethologists employed in? What does the study consist of? What should it consist of? Any country where ethology has its own status following legislation or practice? What can ethologists do to raise awareness on what they do/know? What works best? What does not work? Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung Subject: Ban live Bait Dog Training From: Cecilia Lambert Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:54:16 -0700 (PDT) To: applied-ethology@usask.ca The IDNR is proposing a new rule to try to stop the selling of live coyotes, all year round to be sold to dog trainers. This is blood sport at it's worst. Sometimes, the coyotes are evem maimed before leaving the traps they were caught in. This makes it easier for the dogs to bring them down to tear them apart. Please help us support the IDNR in getting this rule passed. Make your comments to: jkane@nrc.in.gov Your comments will be presented by her in her presentation before the Natural Resource Committee. Please help us. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:37:29 -0500 To: peterhaskins CC: ethology I figure that the rules of Predation are similar to those rules applied in "love" and "war"...at times there are no applicable rules. How fortunate are we that the sages harking from Australia and yet more distant lands such as New England, Wisconsin, and the Left Coast aspire to evangelize the unrepentant socially impoverished savages of Indiana. Yea, bring the gospel of totalitarian government to all of Redneckian Usonia! Send the Light! Meddle! Tax 'em! Send ignoramuses in small vehicles! Root 'em out! Less bread! More Taxes! peterhaskins wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > I think even Wayne would object to using native or slave children to 'bait' the dogs (as has been done in the past) though in the past these peoeple were not considered to possess the capacity for sufferring either physically or emotionally as the "superior" white race. (Speaking of which, there is a good article from The Onion which I haven't got time to chase up now, but will later.)> > > Here's The Onion article. > http://www.theonion.com/content/node/64237 > > Enjoy :-) > > Jenny > > Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Emily Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:09:26 -0500 To: "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: peterhaskins , ethology IMHO anyone wishing to take part in a debate with this tone can do so person-to-person rather than involving my inbox and those of every other list member. E. On 16/10/2007, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > I figure that the rules of Predation are similar to those > > rules applied in "love" and "war"...at times there are > > no applicable rules. > > > > How fortunate are we that the sages harking from Australia and yet more > > distant lands such as New England, Wisconsin, and the Left Coast aspire to > > evangelize the unrepentant socially impoverished savages of Indiana. > > > > Yea, bring the gospel of totalitarian government to all of Redneckian > > Usonia! > > > > Send the Light! Meddle! Tax 'em! > > > > Send ignoramuses in small vehicles! Root 'em out! > > > > Less bread! More Taxes! > > > > > > > > peterhaskins wrote: >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > I think even Wayne would object to >> > > using native or slave children to 'bait' the dogs (as has been done >> > > in the past) though in the past these peoeple were not considered to >> > > possess the capacity for sufferring either physically or emotionally >> > > as the "superior" white race. (Speaking of which, there is a good >> > > article from The Onion which I haven't got time to chase up now, but >> > > will later.)> >> > > >> > > Here's The Onion article. >> > > http://www.theonion.com/content/node/64237 >> > > >> > > Enjoy :-) >> > > >> > > Jenny >> > > >> > > > > Subject: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: cindy schulze Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT) To: Emily CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit non-humans. Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it serves no purpose except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. Cindy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/10/2007, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > I figure that the rules of Predation are similar to those > rules applied in "love" and "war"...at times there are > no applicable rules. > > How fortunate are we that the sages harking from Australia and yet more > distant lands such as New England, Wisconsin, and the Left Coast aspire to > evangelize the unrepentant socially impoverished savages of Indiana. > > Yea, bring the gospel of totalitarian government to all of Redneckian > Usonia! > > Send the Light! Meddle! Tax 'em! > > Send ignoramuses in small vehicles! Root 'em out! > > Less bread! More Taxes! > Cindy Schulze "I think I have found the missing link between animals and civilized man. It is us." - Konrad Lorenz Click on the "Feed an Animal in Need" button at http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ and give food to an animal living in a shelter or sanctuary -- at no cost to you. Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: peterhaskins Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:43:12 +1000 To: ethology > IMHO anyone wishing to take part in a debate with this tone can do so person-to-person rather than involving my inbox and those of every other list member.> > E. Please don't! There is no call for such language either on OR off list! Cheers all, Jenny Who is proud to be an Australian even though it sometimes feels that we are simply the southernmost State of the USA Subject: Re: Ban live Bait Dog Training From: peterhaskins Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:48:03 +1000 To: Cecilia Lambert CC: ethology Hi CeAnn, Here are the URLs for the Australian States Animal Welfare or Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts. I don't know but they might help you in your mission to have live animal baiting prohibited in Indiana -- and hopefully elsewhere. [Note to Wayne: Australia is not a little country inhabited by yokels. We have the second highest standard of living after Sweden (I believe): our Universities are excellent and up along there with Oxford and Cambridge; we have turned out Nobel Prize winning Scientists -- our successes are not limited to Sport. ] Cheers all, Jenny Coffs Australia Consolidated Acts NSW http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poctaa1979360/ Note Section 18 *** Consolidated Acts Victoria http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ Prevention of Creulty to Animals Act 1986 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/poctaa1986360/ Note Section 13 *** Consolidated Acts South Australia http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1985 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/poctaa1985360/ Note Section 13 *** Western Australian Consolidated Acts http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ Animal Welfare Act 2002 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/awa2002128/ Note Section 19 *** Northern Territory Consolidated Acts http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/ Animal Welfare Act http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/awa128/ Note Section 21 *** Queensland Consolidated Acts http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/acapa2001229/ Note Section 20 *** Tasmanian Consolidated Acts http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/ Animal Welfare Act 1993 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/awa1993128/ Note Sections 10 and 11 From: Cecilia Lambert Subject: Ban live Bait Dog Training The IDNR is proposing a new rule to try to stop the selling of live coyotes, all year round to be sold to dog trainers. This is blood sport at it's worst. Sometimes, the coyotes are evem maimed before leaving the traps they were caught in. This makes it easier for the dogs to bring them down to tear them apart. Please help us support the IDNR in getting this rule passed. Make your comments to: jkane@nrc.in.gov Your comments will be presented by her in her presentation before the Natural Resource Committee. Please help us. CeAnn Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Zen Trainer Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:16:35 -0500 To: cindy schulze CC: Ethics List Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit non-humans. Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it serves no purpose except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. Cindy Schulze ~~~~~~~~ Oh, I think we tend to just ignore that sort of stuff. For me I am just glad that for once, it's not Tennessee that's in the "News of The Weird". It's even a northern state! I have noticed that Australia (and other countries as well) seem to be quite a bit ahead of the US on animal welfare. I don't think it's an overreach to state that the general public would be horrified to learn of this practice. Just look at the Vicks case. While there were animal rights groups involved, it was the general public that was in an uproar. Your basic, football playing, beer drinking public. While sharing public sentiment with Legislators is always a good tactic, there is also another way to go. That would be to provide factual evidence of *why* live bait dog training isn't a good idea. Providing legislation from other states and countries. As someone else stated there are health concerns. I question the efficacy. It seems ludicrous to have to convince someone that this might not be a humane practice, but we see that even here on this list there are those who seem fine with it and want no interference. I find that baffling but have given up trying to understand the "they are just animals" point of view. I have found however that swaying legislators involves a many pronged approach. When the majority has science and finances on their side (as in profit motivation), they rule!! Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:51:02 -0500 To: Zen Trainer CC: cindy schulze , Ethics List I dont own a dog nor a gun. I dont go to dog fights and have never done so. I dont recommend that anyone in my family should get involved with dog fighting. I also dont have any use for coyotes and I do advise and warn that their numbers be dramatically curtailed (no pun here). These matters are locally sovereign and should be decided at the local city/township/county level, not at the state level or national level, and certainly not at any sort of international interference with the way that people want to live in their own niche. Vick is a victim. Another result of the post 19th amendment madness or should I say, more accurately, Hysteria. The same sort of hysteria that brings us the new KKK in Indiana, the Krazy Koyote Krusaders (KKK). Whenever y'all have dealt with the last bit of human suffering in your world, then start worrying about the first dog and the first wild animal. Yes you have the right to keep a pet and the right to help others. But y'all want to take away the rights of humans to provide for some mutt or coyote and that is Perversion. A human is of infinitely more worth than a dog. Excuse me for needing to point this out. If there really are 20 million mutts in animal shelters, they could be used at once to provide 200 million pounds of high quality animal protein for human consumption. (with appropriate inspections and processing). Consider also the wasted feed and time and energy resources in storing these mutts that could be directed to useful purposes. If there is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating a pig, there is nothing wrong with likewise consuming a dog or a horse or any other creature. That's about all I have to say about this. E. Wayne Johnson, DVM Zen Trainer wrote: > > > > Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and > sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose > of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit > non-humans. Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it serves no purpose > except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. > Cindy Schulze > ~~~~~~~~ > Oh, I think we tend to just ignore that sort of stuff. For me I am > just glad that for once, it's not Tennessee that's in the "News of > The Weird". It's even a northern state! I have noticed that > Australia (and other countries as well) seem to be quite a bit > ahead of the US on animal welfare. > I don't think it's an overreach to state that the general public > would be horrified to learn of this practice. Just look at the > Vicks case. While there were animal rights groups involved, it was > the general public that was in an uproar. Your basic, football > playing, beer drinking public. > While sharing public sentiment with Legislators is always a good > tactic, there is also another way to go. That would be to provide > factual evidence of *why* live bait dog training isn't a good > idea. Providing legislation from other states and countries. As > someone else stated there are health concerns. I question the > efficacy. It seems ludicrous to have to convince someone that this might not > be a humane practice, but we see that even here on this list there > are those who seem fine with it and want no interference. > I find that baffling but have given up trying to understand the > "they are just animals" point of view. I have found however that > swaying legislators involves a many pronged approach. When the > majority has science and finances on their side (as in profit > motivation), they rule!! > Tracy B Ann > www.zenpaws.com > "The Politics of Dogs" > www.radiofreenashville.org > Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: "E. Wayne Johnson" Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:59:45 -0500 To: Zen Trainer CC: cindy schulze , Ethics List hysteria A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into paroxism or fits. E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > I dont own a dog nor a gun. I dont go to dog fights and have never done so. > I dont recommend that anyone in my family should get involved with > dog fighting. I also dont have any use for coyotes and I do advise > and warn that their numbers be dramatically curtailed (no pun here). > > These matters are locally sovereign and should be decided at the local city/township/county level, not > at the state level or national level, and certainly not at any sort of international interference > with the way that people want to live in their own niche. > > Vick is a victim. > > Another result of the post 19th amendment madness or should > I say, more accurately, Hysteria. > > The same sort of hysteria that brings us the new KKK in Indiana, > the Krazy Koyote Krusaders (KKK). > > Whenever y'all have dealt with the last bit of human suffering in your world, > then start worrying about the first dog and the first wild animal. > > Yes you have the right to keep a pet and the right to help others. > But y'all want to take away the rights of humans to provide for some mutt or coyote > and that is Perversion. > A human is of infinitely more worth than a dog. > Excuse me for needing to point this out. > > If there really are 20 million mutts in animal shelters, they could be used at once > to provide 200 million pounds of high quality animal protein for human consumption. > (with appropriate inspections and processing). > > Consider also the wasted feed and time and energy resources in storing these mutts that could > be directed to useful purposes. > > If there is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating a pig, there is nothing wrong with likewise consuming > a dog or a horse or any other creature. > > That's about all I have to say about this. > > E. Wayne Johnson, DVM > > Zen Trainer wrote: >> >> >> >> Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and >> sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose >> of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit >> non-humans. Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it serves no purpose >> except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. >> Cindy Schulze >> ~~~~~~~~ >> Oh, I think we tend to just ignore that sort of stuff. For me I am >> just glad that for once, it's not Tennessee that's in the "News of >> The Weird". It's even a northern state! I have noticed that >> Australia (and other countries as well) seem to be quite a bit >> ahead of the US on animal welfare. >> I don't think it's an overreach to state that the general public >> would be horrified to learn of this practice. Just look at the >> Vicks case. While there were animal rights groups involved, it was >> the general public that was in an uproar. Your basic, football >> playing, beer drinking public. >> While sharing public sentiment with Legislators is always a good >> tactic, there is also another way to go. That would be to provide >> factual evidence of *why* live bait dog training isn't a good >> idea. Providing legislation from other states and countries. As >> someone else stated there are health concerns. I question the >> efficacy. It seems ludicrous to have to convince someone that this might not >> be a humane practice, but we see that even here on this list there >> are those who seem fine with it and want no interference. >> I find that baffling but have given up trying to understand the >> "they are just animals" point of view. I have found however that >> swaying legislators involves a many pronged approach. When the >> majority has science and finances on their side (as in profit >> motivation), they rule!! >> Tracy B Ann >> www.zenpaws.com >> "The Politics of Dogs" >> www.radiofreenashville.org >> > Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Emily Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:02:10 -0500 To: "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Zen Trainer , cindy schulze , Ethics List Dear Mr. Johnson Would you care to explain what relevance this post has to a scientific ethology list? If the answer is "none" you might refrain from elaborating any further. Specialists in, and enthusiasts of, the science of animal behavior (ethology) might reasonably be assumed to be neither convinced by, nor interested in this argument. We are all, I am sure, familiar with the idea that indifference to suffering in animals will allow us to be more compassionate to people. I find it neither convincing nor relevant to this list. Perhaps placing your ideas in some kind of scientific or evidence based context might elevate the subject from a rant to a captive audience to a basis for discussion and mutual education. E. On 17/10/2007, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > Whenever y'all have dealt with the last bit of human suffering in your > > world, > > then start worrying about the first dog and the first wild animal. Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Emily Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:03:54 -0500 To: "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Zen Trainer , cindy schulze , Ethics List Can someone please remove this user from the list? On 17/10/2007, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > hysteria > > > > A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the > > emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power > > correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the > > emotions, becomes the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls > > into paroxism or fits. Subject: RE: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Daniela Sharma Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:12:26 -0400 To: 'Ethics List' I'm sorry Dr. Johnson, that your passion for a topic has caused you to attack people who don't agree with you, and apparently women, based on your last statement. If you can't stay on topic and leave the personal insults alone, perhaps you should re-examine your argument and your emotions. Kind regards, Dr. Sharma -----Original Message----- From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj@insightbb.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:00 AM To: Zen Trainer Cc: cindy schulze; Ethics List Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training hysteria A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into paroxism or fits. E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > I dont own a dog nor a gun. I dont go to dog fights and have never > > done so. > > I dont recommend that anyone in my family should get involved with > > dog fighting. I also dont have any use for coyotes and I do advise > > and warn that their numbers be dramatically curtailed (no pun here). > > > > These matters are locally sovereign and should be decided at the local > > city/township/county level, not > > at the state level or national level, and certainly not at any sort of > > international interference > > with the way that people want to live in their own niche. > > > > Vick is a victim. > > > > Another result of the post 19th amendment madness or should > > I say, more accurately, Hysteria. > > > > The same sort of hysteria that brings us the new KKK in Indiana, > > the Krazy Koyote Krusaders (KKK). > > > > Whenever y'all have dealt with the last bit of human suffering in your > > world, > > then start worrying about the first dog and the first wild animal. > > > > Yes you have the right to keep a pet and the right to help others. > > But y'all want to take away the rights of humans to provide for some > > mutt or coyote > > and that is Perversion. > > A human is of infinitely more worth than a dog. > > Excuse me for needing to point this out. > > > > If there really are 20 million mutts in animal shelters, they could be > > used at once > > to provide 200 million pounds of high quality animal protein for human > > consumption. > > (with appropriate inspections and processing). > > > > Consider also the wasted feed and time and energy resources in storing > > these mutts that could > > be directed to useful purposes. > > > > If there is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating a pig, there is > > nothing wrong with likewise consuming > > a dog or a horse or any other creature. > > > > That's about all I have to say about this. > > > > E. Wayne Johnson, DVM > > > > Zen Trainer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and >> >> sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose >> >> of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit >> >> non-humans. Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it >> >> serves no purpose >> >> except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. >> >> Cindy Schulze >> >> >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~ >> >> Oh, I think we tend to just ignore that sort of stuff. For me I am >> >> just glad that for once, it's not Tennessee that's in the "News of >> >> The Weird". It's even a northern state! I have noticed that >> >> Australia (and other countries as well) seem to be quite a bit >> >> ahead of the US on animal welfare. >> >> I don't think it's an overreach to state that the general >> >> public >> >> would be horrified to learn of this practice. Just look at the >> >> Vicks case. While there were animal rights groups involved, it was >> >> the general public that was in an uproar. Your basic, football >> >> playing, beer drinking public. >> >> While sharing public sentiment with Legislators is always a >> >> good >> >> tactic, there is also another way to go. That would be to provide >> >> factual evidence of *why* live bait dog training isn't a good >> >> idea. Providing legislation from other states and countries. As >> >> someone else stated there are health concerns. I question the >> >> efficacy. It seems ludicrous to have to convince someone >> >> that this might not >> >> be a humane practice, but we see that even here on this list there >> >> are those who seem fine with it and want no interference. >> >> I find that baffling but have given up trying to understand the >> >> "they are just animals" point of view. I have found however that >> >> swaying legislators involves a many pronged approach. When the >> >> majority has science and finances on their side (as in profit >> >> motivation), they rule!! >> >> Tracy B Ann >> >> www.zenpaws.com >> >> "The Politics of Dogs" >> >> www.radiofreenashville.org >> >> > > Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Rexxie1@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:51:39 -0400 (EDT) To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, applied-ethology@usask.ca There is a difference between a quick, merciful death and a prolonged and tortured one. If it is deemed necessary to rid an area of coyotes and for some reason it is impossible to humanely trap and relocate them, then the merciful death is surely preferred. The willingness to view other living creatures as mere means to one's own ends without regard for their own purposiveness and merit is surely at the root of both human and animal suffering. Vick was a victim of his own ignorance, as his subsequent apparent repentance claiming he did not know that society heavily frowned on behaviors such as his indicates. Even NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote to Vick "Your admitted conduct was not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible. Your team, the NFL, and NFL fans have all been hurt by your actions." Marlene Halverson In a message dated 10/17/2007 8:51:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ewj@insightbb.com writes: I dont own a dog nor a gun. I dont go to dog fights and have never done so. I dont recommend that anyone in my family should get involved with dog fighting. I also dont have any use for coyotes and I do advise and warn that their numbers be dramatically curtailed (no pun here). These matters are locally sovereign and should be decided at the local city/township/county level, not at the state level or national level, and certainly not at any sort of international interference with the way that people want to live in their own niche. Vick is a victim. Another result of the post 19th amendment madness or should I say, more accurately, Hysteria. The same sort of hysteria that brings us the new KKK in Indiana, the Krazy Koyote Krusaders (KKK). Whenever y'all have dealt with the last bit of human suffering in your world, then start worrying about the first dog and the first wild animal. Yes you have the right to keep a pet and the right to help others. But y'all want to take away the rights of humans to provide for some mutt or coyote and that is Perversion. A human is of infinitely more worth than a dog. Excuse me for needing to point this out. If there really are 20 million mutts in animal shelters, they could be used at once to provide 200 million pounds of high quality animal protein for human consumption. (with appropriate inspections and processing). Consider also the wasted feed and time and energy resources in storing these mutts that could be directed to useful purposes. If there is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating a pig, there is nothing wrong with likewise consuming a dog or a horse or any other creature. That's about all I have to say about this. E. Wayne Johnson, DVM Zen Trainer wrote: > > > > Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and > sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose > of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit > non-humans. > Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it serves no purpose > except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. > Cindy Schulze > > > ~~~~~~~~ > Oh, I think we tend to just ignore that sort of stuff. For me I am > just glad that for once, it's not Tennessee that's in the "News of > The Weird". It's even a northern state! I have noticed that > Australia (and other countries as well) seem to be quite a bit > ahead of the US on animal welfare. > > I don't think it's an overreach to state that the general public > would be horrified to learn of this practice. Just look at the > Vicks case. While there were animal rights groups involved, it was > the general public that was in an uproar. Your basic, football > playing, beer drinking public. > > While sharing public sentiment with Legislators is always a good > tactic, there is also another way to go. That would be to provide > factual evidence of *why* live bait dog training isn't a good > idea. Providing legislation from other states and countries. As > someone else stated there are health concerns. I question the > efficacy. > > It seems ludicrous to have to convince someone that this might not > be a humane practice, but we see that even here on this list there > are those who seem fine with it and want no interference. > > I find that baffling but have given up trying to understand the > "they are just animals" point of view. I have found however that > swaying legislators involves a many pronged approach. When the > majority has science and finances on their side (as in profit > motivation), they rule!! > > Tracy B Ann > www.zenpaws.com > "The Politics of Dogs" > www.radiofreenashville.org > > See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training/E Wayne From: doggiepause@comcast.net Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:40:59 +0000 To: Emily , "E. Wayne Johnson" CC: Zen Trainer , cindy schulze , Ethics List I just delete all his messages unread. Why encourage him with arguments that he obviously relishes? Judy Gee Doggie Pause ltd. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Emily > Dear Mr. Johnson > > Would you care to explain what relevance this post has to a scientific > ethology list? If the answer is "none" you might refrain from > elaborating any further. > > Specialists in, and enthusiasts of, the science of animal behavior > (ethology) might reasonably be assumed to be neither convinced by, > nor interested in this argument. We are all, I am sure, familiar with > the idea that indifference to suffering in animals will allow us to be > more compassionate to people. I find it neither convincing nor > relevant to this list. > > Perhaps placing your ideas in some kind of scientific or evidence > based context might elevate the subject from a rant to a captive & gt; au dience to a basis for discussion and mutual education. > > E. > > On 17/10/2007, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > > Whenever y'all have dealt with the last bit of human suffering in your > > world, > > then start worrying about the first dog and the first wild animal. Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: Janice Willard Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:41:42 -0700 To: cindy schulze , Emily CC: 'ethology' I have been on this list for a number of years and watched the preceding scenario play out countless times: some person ( or a few people) with a particular agenda and in-your-face attitude come on the list and create uncomfortable conditions with rude and outlandish statements. The last time this happened, it nearly destroyed the list, most of the scientists left (and this list had been unique in that it was a place where scientists and others who worked with animals could rub elbows and discuss issues from their own experience and knowledge base) and the list has barely recovered. Recently it showed a tiny inclination towards recovery with some interesting questions posted and thoughtful discussion. Then we get another member come along taking part in overstated, outlandish opinions and ad hominum attacks. The list is unmoderated and the list owner has chosen, at least in the past, to let the group police itself. One way that this happens is that people get disgusted and leave. This helps the individual who left but does nothing to help the group, as these bullies are usually emboldened by the thought that they have chased off people who don't agree with them. The other approach is that, once you have determined that a particular member is making comments deliberately designed to hurt and malign other people, *You simply don't respond to them!!!* (The same technique works for attention seeking dogs). Any attention, even negative attention only serves to reinforce the behavior. These kinds of people thrive on the attention they get, the number of people they can jerk around and get upset. The way for this list to survive is for reasonable members to recognize when one of these destructive individuals has come onto the list and stop playing with them. If their comments disturb you, send them to the trash bin unread. Don't engage them in reasonable debate, because they have no intention of being reasonable. Hopefully they will get bored and go elsewhere or (a long shot, but it might happen) they may learn appropriate behavior and re-enter our discussions with newly learned manners and respect. We self-moderate by not responding to people who are being deliberately antagonistic. Yes, it is difficult when the comments made can be so inflammatory, but of course that is their intent, to inflame (and we play right into them by getting upset). Once you realize that, you can shut this person out by not even noticing what ridiculous things they have to say and never giving them the positive strokes of responding to them. Try it. Janice ----- Original Message ----- From: cindy schulze To: Emily Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:55 PM Subject: Ban Live Bait Dog Training Is there no moderator for this group to ban such unproductive and sarcastic posting? Maybe I am mistaken but I thought the purpose of this group was to share ideas and knowledge in order to benefit non-humans. Such disrespect should not be tolerated as it serves no purpose except to humiliate others who dare to share their ideas. Cindy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/10/2007, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > I figure that the rules of Predation are similar to those > rules applied in "love" and "war"...at times there are > no applicable rules. > > How fortunate are we that the sages harking from Australia and yet more > distant lands such as New England, Wisconsin, and the Left Coast aspire to > evangelize the unrepentant socially impoverished savages of Indiana. > > Yea, bring the gospel of totalitarian government to all of Redneckian > Usonia! > > Send the Light! Meddle! Tax 'em! > > Send ignoramuses in small vehicles! Root 'em out! > > Less bread! More Taxes! > Cindy Schulze "I think I have found the missing link between animals and civilized man. It is us." - Konrad Lorenz Click on the "Feed an Animal in Need" button at http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ and give food to an animal living in a shelter or sanctuary -- at no cost to you. Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: Ban Live Bait Dog Training From: LyndhurstPark@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:06:02 -0400 (EDT) To: jwillard@turbonet.com, cindysharkbait@yahoo.com, rattitude@gmail.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca I totally agree with your sentiment. It was not so long ago that this forum was on the verge of being abolished for this very reason. Many academics left to join scientifically based sites, at a great loss to this forum. It has taken all this time for some form of interesting debates to be re-established. There are many sites for people who wish to discuss animal topics on a more general footing. This site was initially academically based and the founder had the insight to then allow experienced trainers/ behaviourists that did not hold academic qualifications. Further interference by people who do not come under either of the above categories will pose a real risk of further interested parties leaving and the site becoming virtually useless. Regards Gordon. Subject: job opportunities-positions as farm auditors From: Rexxie1@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:38:36 -0400 (EDT) To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Job opportunies. The Animal Welfare Institute has openings for farm auditor/advisors for its expanding Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) husbandry standards program. Farms belonging to this program are able to use the AWA seal to market their products. At this time, we are especially looking for auditor/advisors with applicable knowledge and experience for dairy, beef, sheep, goat, laying hen and meat chicken farms. Duties: Inspect and verify compliance of participating farms with AWA husbandry standards. Also make initial (prequalifying) visits to farms that have applied for approval to ascertain current state of compliance and recommend additional measures farmers must take to qualify, if needed. Auditor/advisors report to the AWA program director and work closely with the AWA coordinator to maintain up to date farm records. For each farm visit, auditor/advisors will complete an audit report, recommend improvements if needed, and submit completed forms to the AWA coordinator. Auditor/advisors will assist AWA program scientists and veterinarians by identifying areas where farmers need assistance and proactively work to ensure animal well-being on AWA farms and during all aspects of production on farms. Auditor/advisors will maintain thorough and up-to-date records on all farms under their purview and schedule at least one (more if needed) return inspection to verify continued compliance with AWA standards and assist farmers with compliance, as needed. Job requires extensive travel to farms across the U.S. and, potentially, Canada; ability to conduct detailed on-farm inspections in various terrains, weather, and climate conditions; working with farmers and individuals involved in food production; and reporting to and working with AWI office staff. Auditor/advisors may telecommute from current locations or move to the Institute's Washington, DC or Northfield, Minnesota locations. Requirements: Include strong knowledge of animal biology, nutrition and behavior, as regards individual animals and at herd or flock level, with a concentration in species being audited. Advanced degree in animal science, biology, behavior and/or animal welfare preferred. Knowledge of all aspects of animal husbandry including breeding, growing, transport and slaughter and practical knowledge of management of extensive rearing systems. In exceptional cases, at least six years on-farm experience in a high welfare system with the species being audited or an undergraduate degree with on-farm experience in systems promoting welfare of the species of the species being audited and/or prior auditor training and experience may substitute for an advanced degree. Upon hiring, all auditor/advisors will complete auditor training at AWI expense. Thorough familiarity and comfort with the requirements and rationale of the AWA program. Good communication skills, especially ability to communicate well with and maintain a respectful attitude toward farmers during on-farm audits. Ability and willingness to function as part of a team and independently when called for. References from 3 individuals who know the applicant's work. U.S. citizenship required, or appropriate current worker's visa. Valid drivers license. Salary and benefits: Salary depends on education and experience. Benefits for fulltime staff include health, dental, and vision insurance and retirement benefits. Interested persons should email vivian@awionline.org, explaining their interest and background and requesting a job application. Thank you. Marlene Halverson Animal Welfare Institute See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Subject: Cat questions (change of subject...) From: catbehavior@cox.net Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:46:48 -0400 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Good day to all, I am a graduate student in Psychobiology in the United States. I am in the beginning stages of my master thesis studying attachment and stress in cats in animal shelters, and have a couple of questions that I would like to poll the list about. 1. I have found limited studies on the noninvasive physiological measures of stress in cats, and wonder if anyone has any suggestions of studies on this. I have read couple of studies with urinary cortisol (Graham, Carlstead, McCobb), and 1 with salivary measures of cort (McCune) and several on behavioral measures (McCune, Kessler & Turner, Gourkow, McCobb), and many on felids and zoo stress. Are there studies examining other physiological measures? (fecal, heart rate...?) 2. I may use JWatcher to score some of the activity, in addition to a behavioral measure. Has anyone had much experience in the use of this software? Any thoughts, experiences, or suggestions would be welcome. 3. Measuring stress in any animal can be difficult, but cats present some unique challenges. One theory I have heard (don't remember where now..) is that cats have adapted to stressors by downregulating the production of cortisol in response to a stressful event. Is there any scientific literature to support this? or was it all just a bad dream before my Mid Term exams? Thank you to all in advance, Kitty Subject: Hysteria From: peterhaskins Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:07 +1000 To: ethology *hysteria* Of all psychiatric disorders hysteria has the longest and most chequered history . . . The symproms that have been cited most often are: hallucinations, somnambulism, finctional anaesthesia, functional paralysis and dissociation, symproms whic don't fit with each other particularly well. The problems with general classifications like this with such an array of symptoms are enormous. The lack of understanding of teh disorder may, quite possibly, due to thr fast that there is no single disorder here. "Penguin Dictionary of Psychology", 3rd Ed, Arthur S Reber & Emily Reber, Penguin Books 2001 Of course the first definition of hysteria was a "wandering uterus". Cheers, Jenny Coffs Subject: Re: Cat questions (change of subject...) From: Zen Trainer Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:39:14 -0500 To: catbehavior@cox.net CC: Ethics List There is a yahoo discussion group called Shelter Trainers (I think, if I am wrong I will repost). I know that Becky Schultz who runs one of the largest shelters in the country have been doing some studies on shelter stress. She might be a very good resource. Myrna Milani would be a very good resource. I meant to say that before when someone mentioned cats. I remember several of her books including detailed histories of cats in our society. (She may be on this list...) Roger Caras also wrote many many books about cats and other animals. Janet and Steven Alger have written articles about cats in shelters: ~1999" Cat Culture, Human Culture: An Ethnographic Study of a Cat Shelter" Society & Animals 7 199-218 ~2003 Cat Culture: The Social World of a Cat Shelter. Temple University Press. Domestic Cat: The Biology of It's Behavior, ed. Dennis Turner and Patrick Bateson. Cambridge University Press, might also be helpful. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org Good day to all, I am a graduate student in Psychobiology in the United States. I am in the beginning stages of my master thesis studying attachment and stress in cats in animal shelters, and have a couple of questions that I would like to poll the list about. 1. I have found limited studies on the noninvasive physiological measures of stress in cats, and wonder if anyone has any suggestions of studies on this. I have read couple of studies with urinary cortisol (Graham, Carlstead, McCobb), and 1 with salivary measures of cort (McCune) and several on behavioral measures (McCune, Kessler & Turner, Gourkow, McCobb), and many on felids and zoo stress. Are there studies examining other physiological measures? (fecal, heart rate...?) 2. I may use JWatcher to score some of the activity, in addition to a behavioral measure. Has anyone had much experience in the use of this software? Any thoughts, experiences, or suggestions would be welcome. 3. Measuring stress in any animal can be difficult, but cats present some unique challenges. One theory I have heard (don't remember where now..) is that cats have adapted to stressors by downregulating the production of cortisol in response to a stressful event. Is there any scientific literature to support this? or was it all just a bad dream before my Mid Term exams? Thank you to all in advance, Kitty Subject: Re: Cat questions (change of subject...) From: Vanner Boere Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:41:39 -0200 To: catbehavior@cox.net CC: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Dear Kitty I and my MSc student (Giovana Mazzotti) finished a research on psychological acute cat stress. We are finishing the translation to english to publish an article. In short, we concluded that functional tympanic temperature (fTT) is a good non-invasive method, to avaliate stress in cats. We found a strong correlationship between cortisol levels and fTT. Other physiological parameters fail in to correlate. It is according to literature in other species. If you want we could send a draft copy of the manuscript in portuguese for you in advance. We can send the master thesis of Giovana (in portuguese) too. Best regards Vanner Vanner Boere Laboratory of Neuroethology Department of Physiological Sciences Institute of Biology University of Brasilia 70910900 - Brasilia - DF - Brazil ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Subject: animal welfare in germany From: hilit Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:19:02 +0200 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Hello, Is anyone in the list familiar with animal welfare/applied ethology departments in universities in France/Germany? Thanks, Hilit finkler Tel aviv University Israel