.........the first domestic chickens were bred from these fowl more than 8,000 years ago in the region now divided into Thailand and Vietnam. People bred chickens first for cockfighting contests, later for eggs and meat.........
 
First, the Egg, but With a Scrambler

By Kathy Wollard
Kathy Wollard is a regular contributor to Newsday.

April 22, 2003

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? asks Jessica Bolz, a fifth-grader at Chestnut Hill Elementary School in Dix Hills.

Chicken or egg? Like a hall of mirrors at the carnival, each attempt at an answer just leads to another question. If the chicken came first, then didn't it hatch from an egg? And if the egg came first, wasn't it laid by a chicken? It's one of those questions that seems unanswerable.

Scientists agree on where chickens came from: In a sense, human beings "invented" them, just like they invented cows and pigs and other domesticated animals on Old MacDonald's Farm.

If chickens were interested in tracing their family trees, they would need to bone up on some DNA research done in Japan. Every chicken that ever lived can trace its ancestors, say researchers, to a particular subspecies of red jungle fowl in Thailand.

The male looks a lot like a storybook rooster. But the jungle fowl isn't identical to a farm chicken. Unlike chickens, female red jungle fowl have no combs. Another jungle fowl peculiarity: After mating season, males replace their bright red and orange ruff with a crop of dull, blackish feathers called "eclipse plumage." (To see a red jungle fowl in all its scarlet glory, visit the Web site http://www.centralpets.com/pages/critterpages/birds/wild _birds/WBD4315.shtml ).

Scientists think the first domestic chickens were bred from these fowl more than 8,000 years ago in the region now divided into Thailand and Vietnam. People bred chickens first for cockfighting contests, later for eggs and meat.

So the first official "chicken" pecked its way out of an egg laid by a bird that was not-quite-a-chicken. Depending on how you look at it, the egg - or the wild chicken - came first.

In creating the domestic chicken - and coming up with some 175 varieties - human beings also created a world where chickens rule the roost: There are more chickens than any other kind of domesticated bird.

And where did birds come from? Scientists think that a group of egg-laying feathered dinosaurs were probably the ancestors of today's birds. So if it weren't for dinosaurs, there wouldn't be any jungle fowl or chickens.

We've solved the riddle of where chickens came from. But there's still the question of where eggs came from.

Scientists say eggs - handy miniature incubators of life, nutrients already packed inside - evolved more than 1 billion years ago, in the oceans of Earth. When land animals evolved about 250 million years ago, their eggs had a tough covering to retain moisture on dry land. Egg-layers, such as amphibians, reptiles and insects, flourished. The first "land eggs" predated chickens by about 249,992,000 years.

So "the egg" may be one answer to the old riddle, but here's another, if a little longer: The chicken came after the bird, the bird came after the dinosaur, the dinosaur came after the egg. And the egg came long after the first single-celled bacteria, the prokaryotes, evolved in the oceans, 3.5 billion years ago.

Send questions to How Come?, Discovery Section, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY 11747- 4250, or e-mail to howcome@word-detective.com. If it's answered here, you'll receive ''How Come? Planet Earth'' by Kathy Wollard and Debra Solomon (Workman Publishing).

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

Source: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-dshow3248159apr22,0,2805285.story?coll=ny%2Dhealth%2Dheadlines


With All This Recently Claimed Concern About Animals, When Do These Legislators Have Time For Concern For Their Constituents Rights And Needs Under The Law? Or Does It Depend On Who Are The Constituents For Any Concern At All?
 
..........ratcheting up the maximum fine from $5,000 to $20,000..........


A Nonvoting Group Shows Political Clout
 There is no lack of state legislation to protect animals.

By Carla Hall, Times Staff Writer

This could be the year that ferrets win their freedom in California. No more sneaking into the veterinarian's office or supping surreptitiously on cat food. If state lawmakers approve, ferrets may be granted amnesty in the last place on the North American continent that still outlaws them.

And it's not just ferrets that could get new protection.

This also could be the year that California lawmakers ban the declawing of cats, prevent unweaned birds from being sold by pet stores and bar shelters from sending animals to research institutions. Another bill would make it a crime to keep calves and pregnant sows cramped in crates. And one piece of legislation would toughen the existing law against cockfighting, ratcheting up the maximum fine from $5,000 to $20,000.

Every year, the Legislature tackles a small complement of animal welfare bills. This year there have been at least 10, although some have already died in committee. And though the issues may be more quirky than weighty, they stir passions and provoke ribbing among lawmakers. Even howling, on occasion.

A couple of years ago, when Assemblyman Ken Maddox (R-Costa Mesa) presented a bill regulating dog breeding, he was greeted with bi-partisan barking on the Assembly floor. "It sounded like the inside of a kennel," he said. "Hey, as long as I got their votes." He did.

'Baseline Protection'

California is an animal-rights activist's dream. Measuring by legislation getting governors' signatures, "California is far and away the best state in the country," said Sara Amundson, deputy director and legislative director of the Doris Day Animal League, headquartered in Washington, D.C. "As far as baseline protection for animals goes, California is the best."

Last year, California became the second state to pass a bill requiring that anti-freeze contain a bitter-tasting agent to discourage pets, wildlife and children from drinking it. . A bill passed in 2000 made the state the first to bar manufacturers and testing companies from using animals for testing when a scientifically valid alternative method of testing is available.

"Very few states regulate research animals, circus animals, sanctuary animals, dealers and breeders," said Nicole Paquette, general counsel of the Animal Protection Institute, which is headquartered in Sacramento but lobbies for animal legislation across the country. Paquette said that when her group gets turned down in other states, "what we always hear is, 'Only in California.' ''

This year, if the ban on declawing passes, California will be the only state in the country with such a statewide restriction. If the bill banning confining crates for pigs and calves passes, California will be the only state to outlaw them for both kinds of animals, according to Gene Bauston, president of Farm Sanctuary, the group that brought the bill to its author, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley). New Jersey is considering a ban on 2-foot-wide crates for veal calves, and Florida recently banned gestation crates for pigs through a ballot initiative.

Usually, Democrats introduce animal bills. "Republicans are naturally regulation-averse," said Maddox, who owns a Pembroke Welsh Corgi named Millie. "I fit that category, but I have a soft spot for animals."

So do a lot of his colleagues. Animal bills cut across lines of party, gender and age to connect with the one thing that nearly every member of the Legislature is or once was: a pet owner.

"There's usually a personal connection," said Richard Katz, a former Democratic Assembly leader who spent 16 years in the Legislature and watched such bills come and go -- or, in the case of ferret legislation, never quite go.

This session, the mantle of ferret defender goes to Sen. Dede Alpert (D-San Diego), a 12-year veteran of the Legislature who previously sat in the Assembly. "I would hope I'm better known for work I've done in education than for this bill," she said.

But the animal lovers who watch her ferret bill and others affecting animals follow the process intensely and lobby hard. "They are just passionate," Alpert said. So are the people who oppose such legislation. Hunters were fervently against Assemblyman Joe Nation's bill to outlaw the hunting of mourning doves and white-winged doves. "We've gotten pretty nasty e-mails and calls," said Nation (D-San Rafael).

He hadn't seen his bill as controversial -- "You can't argue that people go out to shoot them and eat them" -- but he withdrew it before it reached the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. "I'm a political realist," said Nation, who estimated he didn't have the necessary committee votes.

Ellen Corbett, a Democratic Assemblywoman from San Leandro and the former mayor of that city, introduced a bill prohibiting the sale of unweaned baby birds from pet stores to the public. "I think how we treat our animals is part of how we show our humanity," she said. Even before the bill arrived in a committee, she had received 300 e-mails and letters in support of it, Corbett said.

She had introduced the measure after hearing "horror stories" of young birds mishandled by well-intentioned owners lacking the expertise to care for them. For instance, birds needing to be fed warmed food were sometimes accidentally scalded. "You're bringing home a very young bird that needs constant attention," Corbett said. Her bill is headed to the Assembly floor.

Declawing Cats

The bill this session that could have perhaps the biggest effect on pet owners -- and their furniture -- was introduced by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). It would forbid declawing of all cats in California, from house pets to lions. The procedure, called an onychectomy, amputates each of the cat's toes at the last joint. "It's not some aggressive manicure," said Jennifer Conrad, an exotic-animal veterinarian in Santa Monica who has repaired the feet of big cats, which are particularly crippled by the procedure, and who opposes declawing.

Conrad's work inspired the West Hollywood City Council to ban declawing earlier this month. The councilman who proposed the ban sent Koretz information about declawing at a time when Koretz, a former West Hollywood mayor and councilman, had been considering the issue.

"I found out how painful it could be for small cats," said Koretz, whose Web site identifies him as an opponent of animal cruelty. "Some cats totally change their behavior. They bite more, they stop using the litter box -- and it's because of the pain."

The California Veterinary Medical Assn. opposes legislation on the procedure, saying it is an issue between cat owner and veterinarian. Many veterinarians today counsel cat owners to try alternatives to declawing, but would rather declaw a cat than see its owner get rid of the pet.

"As a general surgeon who has done numerous declaws, I don't think this is any more painful than a spay or a neuter," said William Grant II, a second-generation veterinarian in Garden Grove and past president of the Southern California Veterinary Medical Assn. "What was done in declaws 30 years ago is light years away from now. They were doing things with dog-claw trimmers that had the potential for disfigurement. We use a laser in our practice, and these cats are walking the day we do the procedure."

Los Angeles veterinarian Elyse Kent said she insists on a consultation with any cat owner who seeks a declawing. "I have to know that the cat is an indoor cat. And it has to be for a legitimate reason. It can't be because they have a new leather couch," said Kent who runs the Westside Hospital for Cats.

One of the few reasons for declawing a cat, she said, is the presence of a person in the house who might get sick from a cat scratch. Normally, Kent simply shows cat owners how to trim nails or applies Soft Paws -- vinyl nail caps that can be glued over claws.

Koretz said he has no desire to compromise on the declawing bill. "A cat is a cat. If you want to have one, your furniture isn't going to be sacrosanct. Mine certainly isn't. In fact, I have a chair I've completely given over to the cat."

Koretz's other potentially controversial bill would prohibit shelters from selling or donating animals to institutions for research. The practice already is illegal in many cities and counties, including Los Angeles County.

Some opponents say the bill would double the number of animals to be killed, because it would mean that research facilities would turn to breeders for animals, and shelters would probably euthanize most of theirs.

Donald Klingborg, an associate dean at the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis, said live animals are essential for veterinary students practicing surgery, and most survive. A committee has to approve use of an animal for an operation that will result in euthanasia. "No animal death is taken lightly at this school," Klingborg said.

Koretz's third animal bill this session called for a ban on hunting bears by tracking them with hounds, which force the animals into trees so they can be shot. That bill didn't survive the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. "I get grief in general because I'm willing to do bills that might seem frivolous to some," said Koretz, who once introduced a successful bill to improve wages and working conditions for sheepherders. "I don't think animal cruelty is small and frivolous."

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) had no trouble with the resolution animal advocates asked him to sponsor this year that proclaimed Feb. 25 to be Spay Day USA -- a day for Californians to either spay and neuter their cats and dogs or contribute to organizations that provide such services. "It is about education so pet owners can be as responsible as possible," he said of the resolution, which recurs annually.

But Leno, an Assembly freshman and the owner of three parrots, had a tougher time with a bill that would have stiffened regulations on rodeos. It was voted down in committee.

Loni Hancock's bill making it a misdemeanor to confine a calf or a pregnant pig not only faces opposition from powerful agricultural groups, but also ventures into new territory: the treatment of animals raised for food. Hancock's bill doesn't require that animals roam free, but it does provide that they get a little more room to move. For instance, veal calves hemmed into crates -- immobilization makes for tender meat -- would have to be able to turn around and lie down in a natural position.

Hancock, who was an official in President Clinton's Department of Education, gave the Assembly's Committee on Public Safety a statement saying: "This bill prevents the most egregious cruelties endured by veal calves and breeding pigs" without prescribing how the animals must be raised. Having passed that committee, the bill faces the Agriculture Committee this week.

Beleaguered Ferret

No animal is a more perennial pet in Sacramento than the beleaguered ferret, which is illegal only in Hawaii and California. Most lawmakers who have carried the ferret bill have been treated as comic relief. Former Republican Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith's last-ditch efforts on behalf of ferrets one year were famously shot down by then-Speaker Willie Brown. "That bill is deader than that thing on his head," the speaker quipped, referring to the lawmaker's hairpiece, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Alpert said she recalled that incident well. "My husband is having a fit that I'm carrying this ferret bill -- because he thinks it only makes you look silly," she said. In the past, she voted against ferret bills, heeding the warnings of state Department of Fish and Game officials that feral colonies of ferrets might ravage farms and wildlife.

Alpert now says that has not happened where ferrets are legal. That's why she has corralled a bi-partisan group of senators as co-authors of the bill. It would bestow amnesty upon ferrets living in California as of July 2004, provided their owners buy licenses and have the animals spayed or neutered and vaccinated against rabies. The money raised from the license fees would fund an environmental impact report on ferrets.

How many ferrets live in the state is unclear. "Some say 100,000; some say 500,000. Of course, we don't know," Alpert said, "because they're criminals."

"Ferrets, for some reason, have become the cause celebre for critter law," said Maddox.
 
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-me-animalbills21apr21,0,1405134.story?coll=la%2Dnewsaol%2Dheadlines
 

 
Here Is Legislation That Attempts To Protect The Rights Of Citizens From Abuse With Justice........
 
.........a felony (punishable by up to three years in jail and a $10,000 fine) to disrupt animal agriculture, destroy farm facilities, "liberate" farm animals, or otherwise "damage" an animal enterprise...........
 
 
Know Your Eco-Terrorists

Oklahomans marking the eighth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing will be forgiven for having terrorism on the brain this month. As it is, government officials are warning Sooners that their state isn't necessarily any safer than on the day the Murrah Federal Building was destroyed.

So it's perhaps not all that surprising that Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry recently signed legislation giving law enforcement sharper teeth to fight eco-terrorism and animal-rights violence.

The law, which made it out of the state legislature with only three dissenting votes, makes it a felony (punishable by up to three years in jail and a $10,000 fine) to disrupt animal agriculture, destroy farm facilities, "liberate" farm animals, or otherwise "damage" an animal enterprise. It also covers vandalism and other crimes against "crop" farming -- which we presume would cover plantings of genetically-enhanced food varieties.

Keith Smith, who leads Oklahoma's chapter of the Sierra Club, complained to the Associated Press that this new law will protect large animal breeding operations, but noted that its original intent was to target "eco-terrorists like PETA." We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

Source: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1885


 
Could It Be $50,000 Fines For Feather Related Alleged Crimes Is Nothing More Than An AR Controlled.......
 

Tilting at justice
Debra Saunders

Americans who worship the criminal justice systems of Our Betters in Europe should take a long look at the slap-on-the-wrist sentence passed on the Netherlands' first political assassin since World War II.

Volkert van der Graaf, 33, shot candidate Pim Fortuyn, 54, five times at point-blank range nine days before the May 2002 Dutch election. Fortuyn was polling in second place. He might have become prime minister, if van der Graaf hadn't decided to settle the election with a gun.

Last week, a three-judge panel (there are no jury trials in the Netherlands) sentenced van der Graaf to 18 years in prison, with the expectation that he'll be released after serving 12 years.

The judges rejected the prosecution's bid for a life sentence because, they said, van der Graaf deserves a second chance to rejoin society. The judges also disagreed with the prosecution's contention that the assassination was an "attack on democracy," when it clearly was a violent attack on an election.

"What do you have to do to get a life sentence?" Fortuyn supporter Patricia Houdkamp complained to the Independent of London newspaper.

Some American newspapers have dubbed Fortuyn a "right-wing politician" -- which may have made his murder more palatable to some readers. Others tagged Fortuyn as "anti-immigrant." The one-note taglines don't tell the story, however. Fortuyn was a outspoken homosexual activist who wanted the Dutch government to pay more attention to the common man. Fortuyn also referred to Islam as a "backward religion," which he saw as a threat to Dutch's liberal attitude toward women and gays, and hence advocated a moratorium on immigration.

Van der Graaf used the immigration issue as a warm-hearted excuse for his cold-blooded deed. He compared Fortuyn to Adolph Hitler, charged that Fortuyn "abused democracy" and asserted that Fortuyn was scapegoating Muslims -- the "weak side of society" -- for self-aggrandizement.

Figure a man who would commit murder can't be expected to be above misrepresenting his politics. The fact is, the "weak side" van der Graaf chose to kill for are critters.

Fortuyn had supported re-legalizing the breeding of animals for fur. Van der Graaf, The Associated Press reported, was working up to 80 hours a week against commercial animal farming. On his website, van der Graaf called Fortuyn a threat because of his support for pig farming and fur breeding. Van der Graaf is an extremist who killed a human being to protest bacon.

Van der Graaf testified, the Times of London reported, "Normally, I find it morally reprehensible to kill someone." Normally? When the prosecution asked him if what he did was acceptable, van der Graaf answered: "At the time, I thought it was. Now I'm turning the question around in my head." Well, that should be a short journey.

This killer showed only the pretense of remorse, yet the Dutch judges pronounced van der Graaf as unlikely to kill again.

"There are a whole lot of Europeans who would disagree vehemently with that opinion and would sentence that guy to life in prison immediately," Hoover Institution fellow Dennis Bark noted.

True, but those aren't the voices leading the European Union herd.

Readers are aware that the Netherlands, like all EU countries, has no death penalty. But you may not know that the EU issued a policy paper that criticized life sentences and called for "moving toward keeping imprisonment to an absolute minimum." Van der Graaf's minimal sentence is in the spirit of the EU ideal.

The Dutch have imposed 21 life sentences in the last half century -- usually for unrepentant, high-profile serial killers. Van der Graaf is just an unrepentant, high-profile, political killer -- who murdered a man and an election.

A Fortuyn partisan told the Guardian, "Fortuyn was killed for his ideas -- think about that." Fortuyn was killed for his ideas, and his killer will be set free because of a judicial philosophy that fails to consider the consequences of setting violent people free.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Debra Saunders | Read her biography

Source:  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20030421.shtml
 
 
Want to take action about what you have just read?
Then write a letter to your Members of Congress or your local newspapers, who you can find by entering your ZIP code in the boxes below. Also make sure to tell your newspaper editors that they should carry your favorite conservative columnists!
NOTE: Columns will not be automatically attached to the emails you send through this tool.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20030421.shtml