Many people today have pets for pleasure and companionship. Nearly any animal can be a pet, such as hamsters, rabbits, birds, fish, frogs, horses, and even cats and dogs. Besides being a loving companion, pets serve many other purposes as in protecting homes, destroying vermin, and providing a means of transportation. The elderly and the childless couples can rely on a pet as an emotional outlet. In addition, pets can be kept for their beauty, rarity, or for the beautiful sounds that birds can make. Today pets are usually purchased from breeders, pet shops, or animal shelters rather then individually captured and tamed. All pets were made domestic, including cats. Cats are the second most popular pets in the world at this time. Of the two most popular pets, cats are the easiest to maintain and do not need to be taken out for exercise. Being small means cats are not big eaters and only have to eat one or two times a day. Cats can play with string, balls, and anything that may fascinate them. On the other hand, cats can be your companion while you sleep, read a book, or watch television. The life of a cat can be very interesting if you are willing to spend time with them and learn their personality. Every cat has its own personality. Cats can live to be 15 years old, and in that time a cat owner can find that a cat is a man's best friend. The origins of a cat can be very interesting, considering that the cat first began its life with the early Egyptians and other cultures. The domestic cat, the most popular cat of the cat family, is a very laid back cat, sleeping most of the day. Other types of cats like the tiger, lion, and the cheetah are some of the fiercest animals in the wild. Looking back in history, and comparing the earlier cats to modern day cats, we discover that today's cats do not eat to live, but live to eat. Where did cats come from? Cats were not around when dinosaurs existed, after they disappeared, hoofed animals evolved and led to saber-toothed cats (Rutherford 8). There are many additional subdivisions of cats in the world today. Pseudaulurus, the first true catlike animal, lived about 20 million years ago and roamed the forests of Europe and North America hunting for small mammals and birds (Brown 1147). Eventually, more cats began revealing themselves to the world and began living a dominant life. Two animals become similar when they are exposed to the same food sources and environment conditions (Rutherford 10). Many cats have approximately the same traits as each other, but the cheetah and the saber-tooths are completely opposite. The cheetah is the cat furthest from the saber-tooth's in having small canines to allow for the larger nasal opening that enables it to increase its air intake during a high speed chase (Tabor 10). There is not much evidence that shows how far cats date back that we know about. The earliest known remains of a leopard were found in Siwalik Mountains of India and date from about 1.5 million years ago (Brown 1148). Saber-toothed cats were one of the longest existing cats on earth. Some saber-toothed cats were still around only 13,000 years ago, so they survived as a subfamily for nearly 34 million years (Tabor 10). Panthers, Lynxes, leopards and other wild cats existed over 10,000 year ago (Rutherford 11). The transition of cats took place over a period of 50 million years; longer than any human has been around. Cats are truly one of the oldest animals still on this earth. The Egyptians were the first to realize the importance of cats. Cats began teaming with people about 2,000 BC in Egypt (Cats 1). There is evidence that points to small wild feline species having been tamed up to 8,000 years ago. Egyptian Pharaohs were the first to tame cheetahs, and from 1500 BC onwards, cheetahs and dogs were their hunting animals (Rutherford 15). Early Egyptian art verifies that cats were honored as female deity (Cats 1). Much of the Egyptian art appears to us as paintings on the inside of tombs, or wooden carvings of figures of cats. Eventually the Egyptians began linking animals with human traits (Rutherford 27). A lion-headed woman, Bastet or Bast, was one such icon. At Beni Hasan, an Egyptian archeological site, more than 300,000 mummified Bast cats were unearthed (Luke 20). There was no loss more painful then the death of a cat. At a cat's death, every member of the family shaved off their eyebrows in mourning (Rutherford 30). The booming of each and every great culture from the pharaohs to the British Empire is the claim of cats (Dempsey 1). A cat was one of the most respected animals in the Egyptian culture. Other cultures' opinions on cats varied from rodent vacuums to the rain makers. In China cats were believed to have the power to drive away all evil spirits and were kept in houses for that purpose (Henderson 67). Many superstitions still exist regarding cats. Black cats seem to cause bad luck, while white cats give off good luck (Levin 1). Despite those civilizations, cats never again arise as far as the Egyptian right of individuality (Steve 1). People still believe that cats can heal a person's soul. Japanese sailors sailed with tortoiseshell cats to protect them from ghosts and to give them warning of storms (Henderson 68). Christians despised the cat for depicting the image of Satan, such as a witch's black cat. Cats and Christianity came to Europe at the same time, from just about the same part of the world (Hofmann 13). All cats faced persecution from the early Church for their paganistic connection to cults (Luke 20). The Egyptians were not the only culture to reflect the cat in their art. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Indian art also depicted cats on vases, marble relics, coins, and sculptures (Cats 1). All cultures have different beliefs about cats, but many cultures apply the cat to everyday living. Domestic cats can be found in almost every home of a cat owner. Most cats are domestic unless bred otherwise. The domesticated cat appeared first in the Middle East more then 3500 years ago, though there is some evidence of a jawbone discovered on Cyprus in 1983 - that such cats existed in 6000 BC (Rutherford 11). On ships, cats were the mice catchers and other rodent eliminators. Cats even traveled to North America with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower (Coll 2). During the 1700's, explorers, colonists, and traders from Europe brought the domestic cat to the Americas (Cat 219). The transformation from wild to domestic came over a long period of time. Despite domestic living, our pet cats have retained many features of their wild ancestry (Tabor 8). Although cats have angelic faces, it was one of the last animals to be domesticated. After domesticating horses for transportation, cattle and swine for food, and dogs and leopards for hunting, man began a cautious relationship with the equally cautious domestic cat (Rutherford 11). From that time on cats began their growth in homes. As man thrived, so did the domestic cat, as a result of the massive increase in food supply for both house and feral animals (Tabor 9). Domestic cats are more popular in the home than any other specially bred cats, considering that creating special breeds did not catch hold until the mid-nineteenth century (Taylor 9). Domesticated cats have an astonishing popularity compared to any other cat in the wild or bred for cat shows. All types of cats come from the same, basic evolution. Cats are meat-eating, or carnivores, and great hunters; they have sharp, pointed teeth called canines and claws that can be retracted into their paws (Brown 1147). Cats have very keen senses, which allow them to stalk their prey. All cats have well-developed sight and very sharp hearing, which allows them to make successful hunting forays at dawn and dusk (Rutherford 14). Cats must be able to merge in with their environment, to flee the pursuer and pursue their target (Rutherford 18). Some characteristics of the cat outweigh others without competition. Cats have a strong sense of smell, which is used more for detecting and communicating with other animals than for hunting (Rutherford 14). All cats are linked to one another through their traits and characteristics, but no cat can beat the cheetah. The cheetah is the undisputed champion of sprinters in the animal kingdom; no other creature can surpass it for it's bursts of speed (Brown 341). Cats occupy all continental landmasses apart from Antarctica and Australia (Cats 1). Due to the cold in Antarctica no animal that is warm-blooded can survive on its own. Cats are found in more places over the world than any other animal. Most cats today live better lives then some American people. Today, the cat maintains its position as a respected, but rarely feared, member of the animal community (Currah 17). Other cultures respect and treat the cat with utmost dignity. In India today, the Hindu religion urges followers to provide food and shelter for at least one cat (Coll 1). Egyptians still pay their dues to the cat in Egypt. Almost everyone in Egypt owns a cat. Those who don't, still participate in the culture by leaving out table scraps for the roaming felines that happen to pass by (Reilly 43). Some Americans treat their cats as family members. Most cats are fed twice a day, and have dry food and water out the rest of the day to snack on. A stimulating video game can help entertain your indoor cat, giving their instincts a jump-start (Vanderheidn 18). The simplest things in everyday life can amaze a cat. By playing, the cat learns to put its abilities to full use, improve its intellect, and burns up excess energy (Mondadori 205). Breeding an animal was a way of getting the animal to its fullest ethnic group. Keeping and breeding pedigree cats has long since ceased to be the privilege of the wealthy (Verhoef 43). Most pet cats today do not die a natural death; their lives are ended by veterinarians who will put an end to a painful illness or a very old cat with many problems, and their owners are with them up to the end (Moyes 1,2). Superstition says that cats have nine lives because of all the mischief they can get into and how close they come to their demise. Cats are the easiest animals to live with, they are not messy eaters, keep themselves clean, and are easy to clean up after. Cats comfort you when you're down, and can amuse you with their many talents, like playing with a ball of string. Cats are truly mans best friend. Cats are not the latest trend, but have been around for millions of years. Egyptians worshiped them as goddesses. Many other cultures had luck and fortune superstitions regarding cats. World cultures took cats on boats or would have them in their homes just because of a superstition. The domestic cat is well known for its preciousness, and angelic faces. The domestic cat is the only cat that people consider having in and around their homes. Considering the size of wild cats', people would not want them as a pet or a security blanket. The modern day domesticated cat is one of the smallest cats, but can run and climb much faster and higher then we can. The modern day cat is used mostly for the purpose of a companion. Without a companion we humans have no one to tell our deepest desires, and most profound secrets, and cats can surely keep a secret. We have learned that the evolution of a cat did not just begin yesterday, but has been around for over millions of years. Cats did not just show up on someone's doorstep; we humans have developed a well-tuned, meat-eating beast. As a cat owner, I have been educated by this project as far back as 35 million years ago. Since cats are tied into the dinosaur era, not only did I learn about cats, but about dinosaurs too. As for the future, cats will still maintain the title as the second most popular pet. Possibly one day the cat will surpass the dog and become known as man's best friend. I believe that as cats gain popularity in today's society, they will eventually need to be walked on leashes; therefore, eliminating their freedom to roam outdoors. The possibility may come for cats to be licensed in the same way that dogs are. If you are planing on getting a cat, I suggest that you get it from the A.S.P.C.A. or from a nearby shelter. Many unwanted cats go to shelters and see their doom in eight days; that's unless someone comes by and adopts one. It would be a good idea to get your cat spayed or neutered, so that the pet population would be better controlled. This was an interesting project that not only took a tremendous amount of time and research, but also gave me a better understanding of the cat world. I enjoyed doing the research, typing, and a whole lot of brainstorming. It has definitely taught me organizational skills and file making. This project has given me a jump-start for college and will make researching a paper a little less of a challenge. I look forward to doing more research papers in college with the knowledge I have gained through this experience. BibliographyBrown, Andrew. Wildlife Encyclopedia. Tarrytown, New York: Webster's Unified, Inc., 1997. Cat. The World Book Encyclopedia. 1966. Cats. CD-ROM. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft, 1998. Cats in History and Art. 16 Feb. 00. Online. . Coll, Julie. The Feline: From Goddess to Pet. 17 Feb. 00. Online. . Currah, Ann. The Cat Compendium. New York: Meredith Press, 1969. Dempsey, James. Cat Lovers, Don't Read Any Further // Kitty Worship Pollutes Bastions of Civilization. Telegram & Gazette 4 Nov. 1998: 3. Proquest. Online. 25 Feb. 00. Henderson, G.N., and D.J. Coffey, ed. The International Encyclopedia of Cats. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Hofmann, Helga. The Natural Cat. Stillwater, Minnesota: Voyageur Press, Inc., 1994. Levin, Mark. Do Black Cats Cause Bad Luck? 15 Feb. 00. Online. . Luke, Amanda J., ed. The Evolution of the Cat. Cat Fancy Jan. 2000: 20. Mondadori, Arnoldo, ed. The Cat Fancier's Association Cat Encyclopedia. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993. Moyes, Patricia. How to Talk to Your Cat. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Patrick, Richard. The Treasury of Cats. London: Octopus Books Limited, 1972. Reilly, Jane W, ed. Cats in Egypt. Cats Jan. 2000: 42-44. Rutherford, Alice Philomena. ed. The Reader's Digest Illustrated Book of Cats. New York: The Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Ltd., 1992. Steve Dale's Pet World. 11 Feb. 00. Online. . Tabor, Roger K. Understanding Cats: Their History, Nature, and Behavior. Pleasantville, New York: Readers Digest, 1997. Taylor, David. The Ultimate Cat Book. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989. Vanderheidn, Heidi L., ed. Night at the Mew-vies. Catnip March 2000: 18-20. Verhoef, J. Esther. The Cat Encyclopedia. Buffalo, New York: Firefly Books, 1996.

Words: 2275

Cat Vs. Dog

The Cat Versus The Dog There comes a time in most everyone’s life when he or she decides to buy a pet. Some people go for the unusual and choose a bird, snake, or rodent. Most people, however, decide on the more common four-legged creatures like a dog or cat. Dogs and cats are very different animals and they have different attitudes, needs, and habits. Understanding these differences can help in the process of choosing between them. For unwavering love and loyalty, not to mention protection, a dog is the choice. Dogs will not question authority, and they will, after some training, do exactly what they are told to do. There are many species of dogs, and they come in large, medium, and small sizes. Smaller sizes like poodles and bichons for people who just need an extra friends and bigger dogs like rottweilers and mastiffs for those who are in need of further protection. Dogs require a lot of attention, and they will make sure their owners are aware of it. They need to be watched constantly and must be taken regularly for walks, because, as most owners know, a dog cannot be trained to do his business in a litter box. A dog will, however, respond instantly to his owner's every wish and will lie at or on that owner's feet anytime, anywhere. A dog is very much like a child in that it cannot be left alone in the house for too long. It will get bored easily and can, without too much effort, make your house look as if a tornado were just there. On the other hand, for ease of care, or peace and quiet, cats can be a better choice. Cats will not question authority; they won’t even listen to it. There are many species of cats, but their size will generally be the same for all breeds. They will only sleep on the bed if they want to, and will sleep at whichever end they choose. Cats are quite independent, and they do not require much attention over and above regular feeding and regular cleaning of the litter box. It is a comfort to the owner to know that the cat is simply there, and although a cat rarely responds to an owner's call, it will show affection by nuzzling or rubbing with its entire body. The purring sound a cat makes when it is content is one of the few indications of its love. Perhaps to compensate for their reticent nature, cats grow up quickly and are able to amuse themselves all day while their owners are away. They will only make a mess of the house if they are upset or sick. Cats and dogs make wonderful pets, and they both give many years of companionship. They are soothing to the soul, and they teach responsibility. The decision regarding which to choose, then, is one of duty. The pet owner must decide how much effort he or she wants to put forth. If a loyal, loving pet and trustworthy companion is desired, the dog is a good choice. If, conversely, quiet and low maintenance is more important, a cat is a better choice.

Words: 533

Are Viruses Alive

Are Viruses Alive? By Bo Howes The word virus means “poi-son” in Latin. Viruses are submicro-scopic intracellular parasites that consist of either RNA or DNA, and a protective coat of protein. It has caused countless diseases in vari-ous organisms. The term virus was first used in the 1890s to describe agents that caused diseases that were smaller than bacteria. The ex-istence of viruses was established in 1892, when Russian scientist Dimity I. Ivanovsky discovered microscopic particles later known as the tobacco mosaic virus. Over the years, scientists have debated whether viruses are alive. Some scientists argue that the virus is lifeless. On the other hand, other scientists argue that viruses are lifeforms and should be classified into a kingdom. However, many sci-entists have agreed that things must have seven characteristics of life to be considered alive. The character-istics of life are all living things are composed of cells, all organisms are organized at cellular and molecular levels, energy use, and response to the environment, growth, reproduc-tion, and adaptation. From research and observa-tion, scientists have found that vi-ruses can perform some of the life processes. They found that viruses have organization, the ability to re-produce, and adaptations. First, they found that viruses are generally organized and composed of a nu-cleic acid core, either RNA or DNA, surrounded by protein. Next, they found that viruses could reproduce. It does not reproduce by sexual or asexual production, but by injecting its genetic material into the nucleus of a living cell. Finally, they found out that viruses have adaptations. They have the ability to mutate into different strains to resist man-made drugs. In short, these are some views and facts about the virus. To this day, scientists are still fiercely debating whether viruses are alive. Should we consider them alive since they perform some life processes or simply consider them lifeless?

Words: 307

Animal Testing

Speaking Outline: Animal Testing Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience about the three major ways of how scientific experiments on animal is inhumane. Introduction I. Put yourself into an animal’s position. Imagine that you are being poked and probed by needles for the benefits of humans. II. Animals are being abuse more and more everyday in scientific experiments. III. I have pets and I’m against animal testing, so knowing that animals are used in research is appalling. IV. Some research and scientific experiments are impractical and immoral. Animals are being overly abuse. V. Today, I am going to discuss to you about the three major ways of how scientific experiments on animal is inhumane: there is unnecessary abuse, it is unethical, and most of the experiments are unneeded. Body I. The first major way of how scientific experiments on animals are inhumane is the unnecessary abuse. A. Animals are in an unnatural environment. 1. They are constantly being locked up, so they can’t grow normally like others in their species. B. Animals are injected with unnatural, man-made chemicals. 1. The Environmental Protection Agency plan to do a test to evaluate the effects of industrial chemicals on the human hormonal system by looking at animals reproductive system. a. Between 600,000 and 1.2 million animals will be killed for every 1,000 chemical tested. b. They estimated that between 5,000 and 87,000 chemicals would be tested. c. There’s a non-animal screening procedure called HTPS that could screen out many chemicals from the need for further testing, thereby saving many animals’ lives, but the EPA still intends to use animal testing. C. Radioactive materials are being used on animals. 1. Such radioactive materials are microwaves. a. In India, they would put bunnies in microwaves just to observe what would happen. 2. Animals are trained using electrical materials. a. Scientists train dogs using electrical shock. II. The second major way of how scientific experiments on animals are inhumane is unethical. A. Animals are living organisms and should be treated like humans. B. They don’t have a choice of whether they want to be tested or not. C. We wouldn’t want to be injected with chemicals and be physically abused, so why should they? III. The third major way of how scientific experiments on animals are inhumane is unnecessary. A. Animals are being killed by useless experiments that don’t even benefit humans. 1. One example is at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. They are doing useless lug experiments on dogs. a. They would remove 68% of those foxhound’s lungs and forced them to run on treadmills with masks placed over their faces. b. To fit the mask, the dog canine teeth are cut down. c. After exercises are completed, the dogs are killed and their lugs are examined. B. According to R. Hamlin, D.V.M. said, “The only conclusion I can reach is that tremendous pain and suffering are being inflicted upon helpless dogs under the guise of research, and the results being attained are admittedly of no benefits to mankind.” Conclusion I. In conclusion, animal testing should not be allowed, if not then at least limit it. It’s better saving some, than none at all. II. The abuse on animals are not necessary, it’s unethical, and most of the time useless to humans. III. Animal testing is cruel and merciless. IV. Treat animals as if they are humans since they are living souls too. Try to put yourself “in their shoes.”

Words: 579

Animal Testing

Please Read This Warning Before You Use This Essay for Anything (It Might Save Your Life) Animal Testing Using animals for testing is wrong and should be banned. They have rights just as we do. Twenty-four hours a day humans are using defenseless animals for cruel and most often useless tests. The animals have no way of fighting back. This is why there should be new laws to protect them. These legislations also need to be enforced more regularly. Too many criminals get away with murder. Although most labs are run by private companies, often experiments are conducted by public organizations. The US government, Army and Air force in particular, has designed and carried out many animal experiments. The purposed experiments were engineered so that many animals would suffer and die without any certainty that this suffering and death would save a single life, or benefit humans in anyway at all; but the same can be said for tens of thousands of other experiments performed in the US each year. Limiting it to just experiments done on beagles, the following might sock most people: For instance, at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, experimenters forced sixty-four beagles to inhale radioactive Strontium 90 as part of a larger ^Fission Product Inhalation Program^ which began in 1961 and has been paid for by the US Atomic Energy Commission. In this experiment Twenty-five of the dogs eventually died. One of the deaths occurred during an epileptic seizure; another from a brain hemorrhage. Other dogs, before death, became feverish and anemic, lost their appetites, and had hemorrhages. The experimenters in their published report, compared their results with that of other experiments conducted at the University of Utah and the Argonne National Laboratory in which beagles were injected with Strontium 90. They concluded that the dose needed to produce ^early death^ in fifty percent of the sample group differed from test to test because the dogs injected with Strontium 90 retain more of the radioactive substance than dogs forced to inhale it. Also, at the University of Rochester School Of Medicine a group of experimenters put fifty beagles in wooden boxes and irradiated them with different levels of radiation by x-rays. Twenty-one of the dogs died within the first two weeks. The experimenters determined the dose at which fifty percent of the animals will die with ninety-five percent confidence. The irritated dogs vomited, had diarrhea, and lost their appetites. Later, they hemorrhaged from the mouth, nose, and eyes. In their report, the experimenters compared their experiment to others of the same nature that each used around seven hundred dogs. The experimenters said that the injuries produced in their own experiment were ^Typical of those described for the dog^ (Singer 30). Similarly, experimenters for the US Food and Drug Administration gave thirty beagles and thirty pigs large amounts of Methoxychlor (a pesticide) in their food, seven days a week for six months, ^In order to insure tissue damage^ (30). Within eight weeks, eleven dogs exhibited signs of ^abnormal behavior^ including nervousness, salivation, muscle spasms, and convolutions. Dogs in convultions breathed as rapidly as two hundred times a minute before they passed out from lack of oxygen. Upon recovery from an episode of convulsions and collapse, the dogs were uncoordinated, apparently blind, and any stimulus such as dropping a feeding pan, squirting water, or touching the animals initiated another convulsion. After further experimentation on an additional twenty beagles, the experimenters concluded that massive daily doses of Methoxychlor produce different effects in dogs from those produced in pigs. These three examples should be enough to show that the Air force beagle experiments were in no way exceptional. Note that all of these experiments, according to the experimenters^ own reports, obviously caused the animals to suffer considerably before dying. No steps were taken to prevent this suffering, even when it was clear that the radiation or poison had made the animals extremely sick. Also, these experiments are parts of series of similar experiments, repeated with only minor variations, that are being carried out all over the country. These experiments Do Not save human lives or improve them in any way. It was already known that Strontium 90 is unhealthy before the beagles died; and the experimenters who poisoned dogs and pigs with Methoxychlor knew beforehand that the large amounts they were feeding the animals (amounts no human could ever consume) would cause damage. In any case, as the differing results they obtained on pigs and dogs make it clear, it is not possible to reach any firm conclusion about the effects of a substance on humans from tests on other species. The practice of experimenting on non-human animals as it exists today throughout the world reveals the brutal consequences of speciesism (Singer 29). In this country everyone is supposed to be equal, but apparently some people just don^t have to obey the law. That is, in New York and some other states, licensed laboratories are immune from ordinary anticruelty laws, and these places are often owned by state universities, city hospitals, or even The United States Public Health Service. It seems suspicious that some government run facilities could be ^immune^ from their own laws (Morse 19). In relation, ^No law requires that cosmetics or household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, by six^o clock this evening, hundreds of animals will have their eyes, skin, or gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed. Many animals will suffer and die this year to produce ^new^ versions of deodorant, hair spray, lipstick, nail polish, and lots of other products^ (Sequoia 27). Some of the largest cosmetics companies use animals to test their products. These are just a couple of the horrifying tests they use, namely, the Drazie Test. The Drazie test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits. They are preferred because they are docile, cheap, and their eyes do not shed tears (so chemicals placed in them do not wash out). They are also the test subject of choice because their eyes are clear, making it easier to observe destruction of eye tissue; their corneal membranes are extremely susceptible to injury. During each test the rabbits are immobilized (usually in a ^stock^, with only their heads protruding) and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of each rabbit. These substances can range from mascara to aftershave to oven cleaner. The rabbits^ eyes remain clipped open. Anesthesia is almost never administered. After that, the rabbits are examined at intervals of one, twenty-four, forty-eight, seventy-two, and one hundred an sixty-eight hours. Reactions, which may range from severe inflammation, to clouding of the cornea, to ulceration and rupture of the eyeball, are recorded by technicians. Some studies continue for a period of weeks. No other attempt is made to treat the rabbits or to seek any antidotes. The rabbits who survive the Drazie test may then be used as subjects for skin-inflammation tests (27). Another widely used procedure is the LD-50. This is the abbreviation of the Lethal Dose 50 test. LD-50 is the lethal dose of something that will kill fifty percent of all animals in a group of forty to two hundred. Most commonly, animals are force-feed substances (which may be toothpaste, shaving cream, drain cleaner, pesticides, or anything else they want to test) through a stomach tube and observed for two weeks or until death. Non-oral methods of administering the test include injection, forced inhalation, or application to animals skin. Symptoms routinely include tremors, convultions, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, or bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth. Animals that survive are destroyed (29). Additionally, when one laboratory^s research on animals establishes something significant, scores of other labs repeat the experiment, and more thousands of animals are needlessly tortured and killed (Morse 8). Few labs buy their animal test subjects from legitimate pet stores and the majority use illegal pet dealers. There are many stolen animal dealers that house the animals before, during , and after testing. These ^farms^ most frequently hold animals between tests while the animals recuperate, before facing another research ordeal. These so called farms in question are mainly old barn-like buildings used as hospitals and convalescent (recovery) wards are filthy, overcrowded pens. At one farm in particular dogs with open chest wounds and badly infected incisions, so weak that many could not stand, were the order of the day. These dogs were ^recuperating^ from open-heart and kidney surgery. Secondly, a litter of two-day-old pups were found in a basket, with no food provisions in sight (Morse 19). In every pen there were dogs suffering from highly contagious diseases. An animal^s road to a lab is seldom a direct one. Whether he^s stolen picked up as a stray, or purchased, there^s a de tour first to the animal dealer^s farm; There he waits- never under satisfactory conditions- until his ride, and often life, comes to an end at the laboratory (23). Every day of the year, hundreds of thousands of fully conscious animals are scalded, or beaten, or crushed to death, and more are subjected to exotic surgery and then allowed to die slowly and in agony. There is no reason for this suffering to continue (Morse 8). In conclusion, animal testing is inhumane and no animal should be forced to endure such torture. Waste in government is one thing; it seems to be an accepted liability of democracy. But the wasting of lives is something else. How did it ever get this way? BibliographyFox, Michael Allen. The Case For Animal Experimentation. Los Angeles: University Of California Press, 1986. Jasper, James M. and Dorothy Nelkin, eds. The Animal Rights Crusade. New York: Macmillion Inc., 1992, 103-56. Morse, Mel. Ordeal Of The Animals. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International, 1968. Sequoia, Anna. 67 Ways To Save The Animals. New York: Harper Collins, 1990. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House, 1975. OUTLINE I. Introduction II. Supporting evidence on testing A. Experiments funded by US government 1. Strontium 90 2. Irradiation by X-rays 3. Methoxychlor B. Background on laws in US C. Examples of tests 1. The Drazie Test 2. The LD-50 Test D. What the animals go through 1. Trip to the laboratory 2. Their stay at the lab 3. After the tests are done III. Conclusion

Words: 1732

Animal Rights Vs. Human Rights

Laboratory animals The use of laboratory animals is important to three main areas: biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals to extend their understanding of the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases. The research these people do isn¡¦t only for human benefit; it is also helping to develop veterinary techniques. The industry uses animals to test the effectiveness and safety of many consumer products, such as cosmetics, household cleaning products, pesticides, chemicals, and drugs. Educators, from elementary school all the way up to college, use animals as parts of the teaching process, including dissecting worms, and frogs in science classes to medical students using animals to learn surgical techniques. Scientists study animals to learn more about certain species: its history, its psychological and social behaviors, and its skills. If the animals are kept in captivity, they can be caused pain that isn¡¦t natural part of its environment. A number of organizations wish to replace and reduce the number of animals being used or, at the very least, lessen the pain. Rats and mice make up 85-90% of animals used in research, education, and testing. Rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, dogs, cats, and non-human primates are studied as well. Dogs and Cats make up about 1% of research animals. The certain animal depends on what is being studied. The majority of rats and mice are bred specifically for research. Half of the dogs and cats that are used are bred for that purpose too. Animal dealers are the primary source for the rest. Animal dealers must be licensed by the USDA, or the United States Department of Agriculture and have to obey the standards of care set up by the Animal Welfare Act. „h Alternatives to Animal Testing Alternative methods fall into three main categories, also known as the three R¡¦s: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replacement is when animals are replaced, either by absolute replacement, which is when an animal is completely replaced, or by relative replacement, just cells and tissues are used, instead of the whole animal. Replacement isn¡¦t always an option although, for those animals that do undergo testing, scientists try to lessen the pain and make the animals more comfortable. Replacement isn¡¦t considered an option anymore-it has become daily. A few years ago, when a woman wanted to find out whether or not she was pregnant, she had to stop at a laboratory and get a test that involved killing a rabbit. Nowadays, she can buy and over-the-counter kit that tests her for certain chemicals. Computers are a new high-tech method of replacement. For example, dissection on a computer model instead of real, live frogs, which I would prefer! People are becoming increasingly popular when it comes time for the needs for volunteers for new facial and skin products. Reduction is the second method involves ¡§sharing¡¨ research animals. For one example, if one scientist doing a study on the lungs of a sheep, when it comes time to kill the sheep he will allow the others to use his kidneys, liver or heart. Refinement being the third choice means to reduce any pain and suffering that the animal is going through. Techniques that are less hostile to the animal can also be considered refinement. Researchers can use ultrasound or an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to see what is going on inside the animal instead of cutting into it. The cosmetics industry, which 20 years ago tested all its products on animals has come so close to stopping using animals. Many companies have reduced the use of whole-animal testing by 80 ¡V 90%. Some have eliminated it completely. Since the 80¡¦s many companies have put serious amounts of money and effort into a search for alternatives for animal testing. Plus, most ingredients that are being used today have already been tested on an animal and have shown to be safe. „h What kinds of tests are being done? The chronic-toxicity tests assess the effects of long-term exposure, often at low levels, to certain subjects. Acute-toxicity tests evaluate the risk of short-term exposure, accidental contact with eyes, skin and indigestion. There have two different outcries of this test. The most public outcry of this test happened in the 1980¡¦s. One of them, the Draize eye test was one that used rabbits to estimate the ability of a test substance to irritate or damage the eye. This involves putting the solution into one of the rabbit¡¦s eyes. Then recording the changes in many different parts of the eye, as compared to the untreated eye over a week. Since then eye irritation tests have stopped by 87%. The protest in 1980 led to great changes in the cosmetics industry and caused many increased efforts toward the development of non-animal alternatives. Many companies no longer use the Draize test at all. The other test acute-toxicity test is called the LD50 test. LD50 means ¡§lethal dose 50 percent.¡¨ This test estimates the amount of the substance is needed to kill 50% of a group of rats or other test animals. The LD50 test has been banned in parts of Europe and the EPA no longer supports it. „h Arguments Against Testing on Animals Arguments against testing on animals question the morality, the necessity, or the validity of the studies. A couple of major questions could be: Do we have a right and a need for the tests? Do these tests actually tell us something useful? Animal Rights Advocates say animals have a right to their own life just as we do; that they are not ours to mess around with. When you think about this argument long enough, this argument also means we must maintain a vegetarian diet, not wearing leather or fur, and, at its most extremity, not keeping animals as pets. A moderate animal protection says that our responsibility toward animals is that we have a moral obligation not to cause then unnecessary pain. That argument isn¡¦t against all animal testing. Arguments against animal testing take many forms. One of them could be we can¡¦t rely on animal results anyway. Humans are completely different: physically and mentally. Just because one species reacts to a certain chemical in a certain way, doesn¡¦t mean another will act the same way. Furthermore, animals kept in unnatural conditions aren¡¦t going to give accurate results anyway. „h Arguments In Favor of Animal Testing Now again, you can argue in terms of morality, necessity, and validity. The concerns on this side of the argument are the needs to protect and to improve the quality of life. The gains and benefits for humans outweigh the cost of animal suffering. Someone who supports animal testing may care for animals but don¡¦t place them on an equal scale as humans. Research on animals may be necessary for more than a few reasons: to develop vaccines, treatments, cures for diseases; and to ensure new products ¡V that they won¡¦t blind, burn, or even kill us (which has happened many times, before safety testing was required by law). Animals make good research subjects, they are biologically similar to humans, and are susceptible to many of the same health problems. Some species make good models for human health or physiology. Most of what we know about the immune system comes from our study of mice, whereas what we know about the cardiovascular system has come from dogs! Many heart surgery techniques are learned from dogs too. Animals make better subjects than humans for another reason. Many species have relatively short life cycles, so they can be studied throughout their entire life. Scientists can control certain aspects of the environment: its diet, temperature, and lighting. ¡§Animals cannot be completely replaced just yet¡¨ Say many supporters of animal testing. „h Are there any benefits-- To Animals? To Humans? Many, many cures, treatments, techniques, and medicines have come to us because of animal experimentation. Immunizations against polio, mumps, measles, rubella, hepatitis, and so on have been made through animal research. Efforts to understand AIDS and Alzheimer¡¦s disease are ongoing. Animal research has played a big role in advances in veterinary medicine, including development of treatments for rabies and distemper. Pet owners now look for treatment for their sick dog or for a breath mint for their cat. Many people don¡¦t mind allowing their animal take part in tests and experiments. Research on things such as nutrition, housing requirements, or social behavior can help improve conditions for care for captive and domestic animals. Some research can contribute to habitat restoration and conversation efforts for many animals. „h ¡§Cruelty-free¡¨ & ¡§Not Tested on Animals¡¨ mean what? These two phrases can mean different things to many companies. The labels don¡¦t always mean the same thing because the government doesn¡¦t regulate the terms. ¡§Not tested on Animals¡¨ could mean that the product as a whole wasn¡¦t tested on animals, but its ingredients were. For example, they didn¡¦t put red lipstick on a dog, but they had tried colorless lipstick on the dog. Or it could mean that the company doesn¡¦t test on animals but buys its ingredients from other companies that test on animals. The FDA requires animal testing for pharmaceuticals and other products. This isn¡¦t a must for cosmetics and toiletries. These do have to be tested for customer safety, but not necessarily on animals. This is where you might see cruelty-free & not tested on animals. They must test on products manufactured for human use before it is sold to the public. This includes drugs and vaccines ¡V for people and animals ¡V cosmetics, shampoo, and other personal care products, food packaging, household cleaners, pesticides, chemicals, fabric treatments, and more. „h What can I do to help? One of the most important ways you can help is to find out and learn as much as you can about animal experimentation and tell someone about it. Make sure you inform them of the three R¡¦s: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. You could tell your friends, your parents, someone in charge. Or, hey, why not write letters to Congress asking them to enforce and support the ICCVAM Authorization Act. ICCVAM stands for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods. They are responsible for getting newly developed alternatives validated by the government. You can find out more about this at the John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) web site at Even if you aren`t voting age, your voice can make a difference. It isn`t enough just to protest against animal abuse. We also need to raise a new generation of scientists who deeply care and understand these situations, and who will work to develop and use alternatives to animal testing. You can make that happen. Bibliography*Altweb: Alternatives To Animal Testing On The Web *The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing *HSUS - Programs - Animal Research Issues-The HSUS Policy Statement: Pound Seizure *Government Guide: * Animal Rights - Myths, Lies, Terrorism, Anti-Humanity, the Real Agenda-Animal rights activists-animal testing cruelty-animal * APA search for Rat * Welcome to KAT's Purrfect Page!

Words: 1798

Animal Research

Experimenting with animals in the scientific field is causing a problem throughout America. Many Americans do not approve of the abuse and torture of the animals by scientists and other organizations. People do not want the victims of torture (animals) to suffer the side effects of medical testing or die. Things such as visual problems, abnormal sexual behaviors, hearing loses, or and deformities, are viewed as irreplaceable. Testing should be allowed to be done on a small percentage of animals and the human being tat want to take their places. True enough there has been over 10 million dogs a year destroyed by different groups, such as public pounds, animal shelters, and humane societies. But if animal testing is done within particular guidelines, America’s population will not decrease. Testing on a small percentage of animals would allow necessary testing to be done and will prevent the destroying of too many animals. Animals do have rights as being a living creature. That is why there are laws that protect them. The Federal Animal Welfare Act of 1966 ensures that research done on animals respects their well-being (King 696). This act was amended in 1970, 1976, and 1979 by the United States Congress. The United States Department of Agriculture has ordered periodic inspections of all all animal-research facilities (King 696). But they did void out research on animals completely. People that do not agree with animal testing should volunteer themselves for testing. How is civilization supposed to find cures for diseases, create better medicines, or develop in alternatives to physical abnormalities. Some people suggest testing on computers or modern technology. They are human-like as far as internally, if they do not like the use of animals they would have to use humans for testing. Would the disagreeing people like to volunteer to be subjects for testing. If one of the Animal Rights advocates were to become diagnosed with an incurable disease, they would want research done to help find a cure for the disease. Using animal testing could be beneficial to finding a cure for that person. Would he then approve the cause.

Words: 352

Animal Farm Book Report

Chapter 1(pgs.15-24) In first chapter, the reader is introduced to all of his wonderful animals. Obviously most of the chapter is intended to spark pity and a sense of sympathy for the poor, suffering farm animals, but the old Major's words are very telling. The wise old pig addresses the central conflict of the book, and of Orwell's intended meaning-- tyranny. The first (and seemingly only) dictatorship the animals must overcome is the rule of Mr. Jones and the other humans. The boar asserts, Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forever. Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. The speech, as intended, is very inspiring and encouraging to the tired, troubled farm animals. They even sing the words to old Major's dream five times in succession before Mr. Jones blasts the side of the barn with a shotgun. Unfortunately for the animals, the old Major's naivety is not revealed. The ideal society he proposes is of course only an ideal-- but the animals don't know this. Perhaps even the old sow himself is too caught up in emotion to understand the complexities of the solution he submits. Old Major does know a few things though. He boldly warns all of them, Your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest....we must not come to resemble him...No animal must ever live in a house or sleep in a bed, or wear clothes, or drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or touch money, or engage in trade. Ironically, Napoleon isn't present to hear the words of this prophet. The future only seems optimistic; even old Major seems content. Little does he know, the foreshadowing of his comments seem almost too obvious to the mindful reader. Toward the end of the section the animals vote on whether wild animals, like rats and rabbits, are going to be considered their friends or foes. They overwhelmingly agree that the rats and rabbits are to be friends, although Orwell doesn't say why. Chapter 2 (pgs.25-34) The second chapter is drenched with metaphors— most of which will not come to light until later in the novel. The first is old Major's death. This represents the end to the older regime, the initial revolution. Now someone else will have to step into authority. Secondly Orwell strangely describes a pig named Squealer. The name sounds fairly pig-like but his actions don't. Supposedly Squealer has a special ability to persuade others. Orwell boasts, ...he could turn black into white. Obviously a pig like this could be used by the right people (animals). Next, the author tells us about a peculiar raven named Moses, who is the especial pet of Mr. Jones. All the animals consider him a spy and hate him; they say he tells lies about Sugarcandy Mountain and does no work. Boxer and Clover, two cart horses, are described as the most faithful disciples of Snowball and Napoleon. Although they lack the intelligence of the pigs they serve, the horses can convince other animals to follow the cause using simple arguments. Orwell uses chapter 2 to really make Mr. Jones into a bad guy, although he admits that he was at one time a good master. Mr. Jones' main problem is that he drinks too much and neglects the farm. Even his men are idle and dishonest. Soon the animals are fed up with Jones (pardon the pun) after not being fed for over a day, so they organize and successfully carry out the long- awaited revolt. The animals rename Manor Farm Animal Farm yet agree not to live in the house. Yet some of the elite pigs have already adopted some of Man's ways; Snowball and Napoleon have suddenly taught themselves to read and write, and soon a list of 7 Commandments is written on the tarred wall. Unfortunately only a few of the animals can actually read the rules. This will come back to haunt them later. Orwell again closes with a eerie foreshadowing. After Snowball and Napoleon order the animals to work in the hay field, the milk which many of the lower animals asked to drink mysteriously disappears. Napoleon, however, dismisses the milk plea by proclaiming, The harvest is more important. Chapter 3 (pgs.35-43) Chapter 3 is uneventful for the most part although it does have a few more important metaphors. For one thing, the pigs are starting to emerge as the elite class of animals although all animals are supposed to be equal. Orwell narrates, The pigs did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others. Of course the rational is classic and easy to see through. Orwell continues, With their superior knowledge it was natural that they should assume the leadership. The not-so-hidden metaphor here is the evidence of a decline in standards. In other words, though you might think to yourself, Gee, who cares if the pigs supervise? It's only natural, like Squealer said, really that is exactly what Orwell wants you to think. One of his major messages is the idea that a few little white lies here and there do add up to a serious wrong. But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Most of the rest of this chapter is optimistic. The animals do for the most part live in Orwell's ideal society of socialism. Nobody stole, nobody grumbled over his rations, the quarreling and biting and jealousy which had been normal features of life in the old days had almost disappeared. Two more characters were described in detail. Boxer, the loyal horse is said to be the hardest worker. His answer to every problem, every setback, is 'I will work harder!' Old Benjamin, the donkey, is said to have changed his lifestyle little since the revolt. He seems indifferent to the whole thing. He says, Donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey. Mollie is the only animal who doesn't seem to fit in. She's always thinking about how she looks, etc. She only learns the letters in her name, unlike the others, who energetically learn the whole alphabet. Of course some learn better than others. The dogs and pigs know the most. Some of them are even learning black smithing and other human trades. Snowball and Napoleon start to fight and argue over everything. Both pigs enjoy the apples and milk only given to them. Of course this is just in the farm's best interest. Really pigs don't like the taste of milk and apples, but force it down in order to stay healthy and help supervise (haha). Chapter 4 (pgs.44-50) The fourth chapter is a look into the outside world. This is really more or less a reality check after so much narrative about the utopian lifestyle of Animal Farm. The passage does clear up a few questions any inquisitive reader would have about the outside world. I mean, wouldn't you think that the other neighboring farmers might think something's up if one day they see a bunch of pigs supervising horses plow a field? Anyway, Orwell explains, It was lucky that the owners of the two farms which adjoined Animal Farm were on permanently bad terms. Anyone considering the allegorical significance of Foxwood and Pinchfield might guess that they are really just deep metaphors for the nations bordering Russia. (More on this in the metaphor profile section--click on side links.) Anyway, these farmers just shrug off the animal rule as a gimmick and don't think much of it until they realized that the animals are actually being more productive than Jones had been. They also get a little nervous when they realize that the Animal Farm pigeons have gone to neighboring farms, teaching other animals the Beasts of England song and encouraging them to revolt. So the farmers next strategy is to criticize the farm, saying that the animals practiced cannibalism, tortured one another with red-hot horseshoes, and had their females in common. This symbolizes the outcry of America and other Western nations during the beginning stages of the cold war. Ridicule was really the only tactic they had left after being scared to death of the Soviet powers after World War II. The real action in the chapter is when Jones and his men try to recapture the farm. Napoleon and his pig allies had long expected this to happen, so they plan a very extensive defense strategy. When the Jones crew attacks, they were gored, kicked, bitten, and trampled on. So many of the men die, thus concluding the Battle of the Cowshed. The final metaphor is the reference to the shotgun of Mr. Jones. Really this part of the allegory is pretty neat. The pigs decide to prop the gun up, pointing it toward the gate from which Mr. Jones and his men attacked. In Russian terms, the gun may represent the Soviet decision to begin making nuclear weapons to later use on the United States. Chapter (pgs.51-62) Orwell's fifth chapter is an action-packed tale of two animals who leave the farm. First Mollie, who never was too fond of the whole idea of revolution since it meant she wouldn't have any more sugar lumps, is seen talking to a neighbor man and letting him stroke her nose. When confronted by Clover, she denies it, then runs away forever. None of the other animals ever mentioned Mollie again. Next, Orwell again addresses the enmity between Snowball and Napoleon. This time the two are arguing over Snowball's plan to build a windmill. But during the debate, something terrible happens. Instead of letting the animals decide whether or not to build the structure, Napoleon signals his private troop of attack dogs who chase Snowball off the stage and under the fence, never to be seen again. Soon Squealer is sent in to convince the animals that Napoleon really is a good leader, even though he tries to kill those who oppose him. Then he attempts to drum up more support for Napoleon with this propaganda: Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? The classic hypocrisy seen here is too hard to miss. If all animals are really equal, then wouldn't it be just as likely that Napoleon might make a mistake? Wouldn't it be easier to make the right decision when all the animals are collaborating instead of placing their lives in the hands of a tyrant? Besides who did Mr. Jones turn into anyway? Chapter 6 (pgs.63-72) Chapter 6 as a series of foreshadows. The first involves, of course, Napoleon. This time he is beginning to trade with the neighboring farmers, Foxwood and Pinchfield. The necessity comes from materials only humans can make. Nevertheless, the picture-perfect world the animals imagined had no conflicts like this. I mean, who could have imagined that Boxer might need new horseshoes? Well, ok maybe the animals were being naive. Anyway, Napoleon decides that he will conduct trade with the outside world. But some of the animals think that maybe this was once forbidden. Orwell explains, Once again the animals were conscious of a vague uneasiness. Never to have any dealings with human beings, never to engage in trade, never to make use of money— had not these been among the earliest resolutions passed at the first triumphant Meeting when Jones was expelled? All the animals remembered passing such a resolution; or at least they thought that they remembered it. The four young pigs who had protested when Napoleon abolished the Meetings raised their voices timidly, but they were promptly silenced by a tremendous growling from the dogs. Soon the animals have more reason to be uneasy. They notice that the pigs have recently begun to sleep in beds, which, of course, is one of the forbidden associations with humans. Muriel reads the commandments to the confused Clover from the barn wall and notices that one of them has been altered. Now it reads, No animals shall sleep in a bed with sheets. Again, Orwell explains, Curiously enough, Clover had not remembered that the Fourth Commandment mentioned sheets; but as it was there on the wall, it must have done so. Of course, Clover, the unsuspecting loyalist of Napoleon, simply thinks that everything is innocent. Toward the end of the reading, the windmill, which was Snowball's idea stolen by Napoleon, mysteriously collapses in the middle of the night. Of course, all the animals are upset that such a terrible event could make worthless the object for which they had labored so long. Napoleon and Squealer completely blame Snowball with no hesitation. Chapter 7 Chapter 7 continues Orwell's portrayal of the animals' plight. Animal Farm has seemed to have fallen on hard times. The crops are not as bountiful as before and the pigs are increasingly forced to trade with the outside world in order to get many of the supplies they need. ...Napoleon ordered the almost empty bins in the store-shed to be filled nearly to the brim with sand, which was then covered up with what remained of the grain and meal. On some suitable pretext Whymper was led through the store-shed and allowed to catch a glimpse of the bins. He was deceived, and continued to report to the outside world that there was no food shortage on Animal Farm. As Napoleon was deceiving the neighboring farmers he was also tricking his own animals. The scapegoat was again Snowball. Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball. In fact many of the claims begin to sound ridiculous to the objective mind. Of course, Squealer's mission is to keep everything subjective in the minds of the animals. The cornerstone of this chapter is the savage act of Napoleon. Bothered by their conscious, many animals come forward saying they had been told in a dream by Snowball to murder Napoleon or a similar such act. So Napoleon, with the help of his dogs, slaughters anyone who is said to be disloyal. ...the tale of confessions and executions went on, until there was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon's feet and the air was heavy with the smell of blood, which had been unknown there since the expulsion of Jones. To top it off, Napoleon outlaws Beasts of England, which had served as one of the only remaining ties between Animal Farm and old Major. Chapter 8 As with the sleeping beds, some of the animals think they remember something in the commandments against animals killing animals. But when Muriel reads the writing on the barn wall to Clover, interestingly, the words are, No animal shall kill any other animal without cause. To replace Beasts of England, Napoleon forces to animals to sing his own little self-worship song, called Comrade Napoleon. And to further distance the animals from their ties of respect and admiration for Snowball, Napoleon (with help from Squealer no doubt) tells them that really Snowball was no hero at the Battle of Cowshed, but in fact a coward who ran away from the danger. Napoleon goes on to say that the award Snowball received was really just a myth too. Once again some of the animals heard this with a certain bewilderment, but Squealer was soon able to convince them that their memories had been at fault. The inter-farm commerce continues with Napoleon's attempted sale of the firewood from a large tree cut down years ago. After playing games with Frederick and Pinchfield, the wise Napoleon decides to sell the fire-wood to Frederick. And what made it an especially wise move was the fact that he wouldn't except a check, which of course could bounce; so father Napoleon makes Frederick pay with real five-pound notes. Unfortunately for the animals these notes are forged. So in essence Mr. Frederick steals the wood. To make it even worse, Mr. Frederick and his men decide to attack the farm, and this time they bring more guns than sticks. After blowing up the reconstructed windmill with dynamite, Frederick and his men shoot and kill several animals with their rifles. It was a savage, bitter battle. Many animals die and still more are wounded. The men are, however, finally pushed back through the gates and Napoleon declares a victory. Somehow this battle doesn't seem quite as magical as the last one, but nonetheless, the Battle of the Windmill is still called a victory. Orwell goes on to say, It was a few days later than this that the pigs came upon a case of whisky in the cellars of the farmhouse. And surprise, surprise, Napoleon suddenly becomes sick and is said to be dying. Obviously, he has broken the commandment about drinking alcohol, and sure enough, after the hang-over the Leader is better and soon is perfectly fine. But to justify this little episode, arrangements to amend the rules are made. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess. Chapter 9 Orwell basically uses chapter 9 to continue the fall of Animal Farm and to foreshadow his dramatic conclusion in chapter 10. For example, the rations of the everyday lowly animals are again reduced by Napoleon and the elite. A too rigid equality in rations, Squealer explained, would have been contrary to the principles of Animalism. Of course this comment is taken totally out of context since the principles of Animalism guarantee equality of all animals. But the animals have been too well brainwashed by the pigs; the rules of the revolution have long since passed. Orwell writes, Truth to tell, Jones and all he stood for had almost faded out of their memories. Another not so startling however sad fact is the new rule about who has the right-of-way when a pig and another animal encounter each other on a path. The other animals are forced to stand to one side while the pigs, who were to have the privilege of wearing green ribbons on their tails on Sunday's can walk right by. (In regards to the ribbons, now Mollie doesn't seem so bad after all.) The next bizarre event is Moses' sudden and unexplained return. This raven and former friend of Mr. Jones now seems to feel right at home telling the animals about SugarCandy Mountainto keep them working. What links the parallel between Napoleon and Jones even further is the fact that Moses is paid by Napoleon in beer. ( For the symbolism of Moses and SugarCandy Mountain, click on the side links.) Last in the chapter is the touching yet destined death of Boxer. After working so long for his master (dictator) Napoleon, any reader could have guessed the outcome. The troubling part, however, is the way Napoleon and the pigs handle his death. Instead of letting him enter his leisurely retirement, they force him into a glue-making truck and then lie about it to the other animals. Squealer says that Boxer has died in a hospital bed, despite receiving the best possible care (obviously a lie). Chapter 10 Chapter 10 is Orwell's most dramatic and thought-provoking of the chapters. While the others seems to have at least a shred of comedy, chapter 10 is almost pure tragedy and metaphor for Russia. For more on the symbolism of characters and connection to Stalin and all of Russia, visit the character profiles and metaphors sections on the left. In the chapter review's, the main purpose is to provide a brief synopsis of each section without getting too into the symbolism, which may bore some readers, although it's really the most fascinating part of the book. The fall of the ideals of Animalism is summed up in Orwell's first page of the chapter. Squealer was so fat that he could with difficulty see out of his eyes. Chapter 10 takes place in the future and so there are some drastic changes. For example, Napoleon says with no hesitancy, The truest happiness lay in working hard and living frugally. This is a stark change from the beginning of the book when Napoleon is considered the generous leader who wants unlimited food for all! Even more disgustingly, the hypocrisy of the statement is obvious. For Napoleon, of all animals, doesn't work hard or even lift a finger anymore. Orwell goes on to state, Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer— except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs. The parallels between Jones and Napoleon are strengthened again when Orwell hints at the prospect of a new rebellion against Napoleon. Some day it was coming: it might not be soon, it might not be within the lifetime of any animal now living, but still it was coming. Even the tune of Beasts of England was perhaps hummed secretly here and there. And even more stunning (although one might have guessed it would happen sooner or later) is the sight of a pig walking on his hind legs. Even the sheep have been conditioned to it. They suddenly break out into a chant of Four legs good, two legs better! To top it off, the pigs break the ultimate rule about wearing human clothes. Even so, the animals are ignorant and very stupid. Orwell narrates, It did not seem strange when Napoleon was seen strolling in the farmhouse garden with a pipe in his mouth— no, not even when the pigs took Mr. Jones's clothes out of the wardrobes and put them on, Napoleon himself appearing in a black coat.... Lastly, Napoleon invites all the neighbors over to celebrate the success of Animal Farm, which is changed back to the name of Manor Farm. Orwell narrates, Mr. Pilkington once again congratulated the pigs on the low rations, the long working hours, and the general absence of pampering which he had observed on Animal Farm. The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. The closing paragraph is purely haunted. Orwell describes a human-like fight between the pigs and humans during the celebration. Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Words: 3831

Animal Cruelty

Jeff Albrecht Joseph Aimone Writing and Rhetoric 13 December 2000 Animal Cruelty One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even though no law requires them not to. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists, are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative methods Albrecht 2 are available. The anti-vivisectionists say we should not allow experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists, claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment, eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active life-style? Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information is going to be gained? Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal experimentation might never have become so controversial. Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70 Albrecht 3 million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and mice-suffer and die in the name of research. Animal tests for the safety of cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes or applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and skin irritancy levels. Other are force-fed massive quantities of toxic materials such as bleach or soap, in a hit-and-miss attempt to measure levels of toxicity. Since 1938, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required that each ingredient in a cosmetic be adequately substantiated for safety prior to being made available to the consumer. However, neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission ( a regulatory agency that oversees product safety, consumer complaints, etc.) requires firms to conduct animal testing of any cosmetic product. Cosmetic companies use animal tests to insure themselves against possible consumer lawsuits. If sued for liability, they can protect themselves by arguing that the cosmetic was adequately tested for safety with tests standard in the cosmetic industry. How placing a piece of lipstick in the eye of a rabbit to determine if it is safe Albrecht 4 for the consumer, boggles my mind. If someone placed a piece of lipstick in my eye, I do believe it would irritate my eye also. How in the name of God does this test prove it is safe for the consumer? I don't believe lipstick is gong to be used in the eye area, unless you are an illiterate that can’t read directions. The Draize Eye-Irritancy Test was designed to assess a substance's potential harmfulness to human eyes based on its effects on rabbits' eyes. This test was developed in the early 1940s by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This test is typically performed on six rabbits per substance tested. Technicians restrain each rabbit and place a measured amount of the test substance in the lower lid of one eye. Usually no anesthetics are given. the rabbits eyes are than examined at different intervals. If severe injury has resulted, the rabbits may be observed for signs of recovery for as long as twenty-one days. Technicians record signs of damage, such as redness and swelling of the conjunctiva (the sac covering the eyeball), inflammation of the iris, and clouding of the cornea. Using a standardized scoring scheme, the degrees of damage to the conjunctivia, iris, and cornea are compared to graded Albrecht 5 levels of irritations. Scores for each of these parameters are than totaled. Based on the total Draize score and the symptoms' duration, the test chemical is classified by the degree of irritation it causes: none, mild, moderate, or severe. At best, the Draize test yields a crude measure of a substance's irritancy; it is not designed to yield information about possible treatments or antidotes. the Draize is inhumane. Substances such as oven cleaners and paint removers cause obvious pain and suffering. Also, because animal and humans differ in medically important ways, results from the Draize test do not necessarily apply to humans. Rabbit eyes differ significantly from human eyes: rabbits possess a nictitating membrane (a third eyelid) and have a slower blink reflex, a less effective tearing mechanism and a thinner cornea than humans. These differences make rabbit eyes more sensitive than human eyes to some chemicals and less sensitive to others. The test is unreliable. Several laboratories may perform the test on the same chemicals and report different results. Manufactures argue that they conduct the Draize test to protect the public from unsafe products. Since 1986 Albrecht 6 legislation has been introduced in several states to limit or ban the Draize test for particular products (especially cosmetics), but no bill has yet passed. Another test I like to address is the Lethal Dose 50 Percent (L50) test. This test is a procedure that exposed animals to a particular chemical in order to yield an estimate of how poisonous that chemical would be to human beings. Substances tested can include drugs, cosmetics, household products, industrial chemicals, pesticides and the individual ingredients of any of these products. The test procedure requires between 60 to 100 animals to determine what constitutes a lethal dose of a particular substance. The test spans a time period from two weeks to sever years, depending on the amount of toxic chemicals in the product being tested. The animals are observed daily. Since chemicals are bitter-tasting and have an unpleasant smell, animals refuse to swallow them. The animals are then forced to swallow the substances in the form of capsules or pellets. they are also force-fed liquid chemicals by stomach tube, or through a hole cut in the animal's throat. Some animals die from the sheer bulk of the dosage administered or from the severe burns they Albrecht 7 receive in the throat and stomach from the chemicals used in products such as laundry bleach and detergents and cologne. There are variations to this test which include forcing the animal to breathe the substance or applying the substance to the shaved skin of the animal or injecting the substance into the body, usually the abdomen. The animals are not provided with painkillers because they may affect the test outcome. Millions of rats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs have been used in these tests, which purportedly assure the safety of cosmetics and household products. Many animals are still suffering in these useless tests right now. These tests are crude, cruel, and unreliable. Animals injured in acute toxicity and eye irritancy tests are never treated. If the animals do not die from the effects of the experiments itself, they are either killed or used for an autopsy, or, if they are not badly injured, recycled and used for additional tests. Since the animals are not treated, these tests provide little useful knowledge for the treatment of humans who are exposed to the harmful substances. Dr. Gil Langley, a scientific neuro-chemist, states that: Results (of animal tests) vary dramatically from laboratory to Albrecht 8 laboratory, between strains, sex, age, and species of animals, and extrapolation to humans in questionable.1 Animal tests have failed to provide the clear definition between harmful and harmless products that they were originally intended to provide. Therefore, regardless of animal testing, the consumer always becomes the so-called guinea pig for any new product. Alternatives to animal tests are available on todays market. Many companies are working in fierce competition and dozens of alternative are being developed. Newer and more sophisticated tests are gradually replacing the Draize test. These alternatives most often use test-tube, or in-vitro, methods based on the idea that what happens in the body's individual cells reflects what happens in intact organs such as the eye. Human cells can be used in such studies. In addition to in-vitro methods, other potential alternatives to the Draize test include tests that use computer programs, microorganisms and other organisms that can't experience pain, and chemical methods to analyze untested substances. Some of the new tools for assessing eye irritancy are: Neutral Red Assay- Irritants impair healthy cells' ability to take up neutral red dye. Albrecht 9 This test measures the degree of impairment, yielding an index of irritancy. Agarose Diffusion-Tiny paper discs are coated with a test chemical and placed on a layer of gelatin. The chemical diffuses through the gelatin and reaches an under layer of healthy cells. A ring of dead cells around the discs indicates irritation. Eytex- In this test kit, a specially formulated chemical mixture turns cloudy when exposed to irritants, mimicking the response of the cornea. Microtox- This test kit contains a bacterium that can emit light. Substances that inhibit this process are irritants. Topkat-A computer program estimates eye irritancy by comparing untested chemicals to similar chemicals of know irritancy. Most of these alternatives are being developed or improved at high-technology companies. Eytex at In Vitro International, Neutral Red Uptake Assay at Clonetics, Microtox at Microbies, and Topkat at Health Designs. Technical advances to eliminate LD50 testing are also available. More Sophisticated methods, such as in vitro techniques, are the beginning of the move in the right direction. In contrast to in vitro methods which use the whole animal, in vitro methods use only the cells or Albrecht 10 tissue of animals or humans. Animal cells can often be made to grow and divide indefinitely, thus sparing animals lives. When human cells are used ( they are commonly obtained from tissue routinely discarded after surgery), in vitro techniques are completely humane. Tests using human cells are more scientifically relevant than those procedures using whole animals or animal cells or tissue. Other approaches are also being developed, there are computer programs that estimate the LD50 score of an untested substance by comparing its chemical and structural properties to those of similar substances of know toxicity. Companies can also employ the simple method of selective formulation to avoid D50 testing while more sophisticated alternatives are being developed. Companies employing selective formulation use ingredients with safety profiles that have already been established and thereby avoid the need for any new testing. Clearly, animal testing is almost a thing of the past. But, until every animal is free from commercial testing, we have no time to rest on our laurels. Many companies still say that animal tests are the most likely to hold up in court if a human is injured by a cosmetic or Albrecht 11 household product and, for that reason, they will struggle to hold on to animal-based research. We need to continue to to find new and improved alternatives so that we may preserve the lives and dignity of animals, but can also ensure the consumer of product safety. Many manufactures such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have ceased animal tests. the fact that companies are supporting alternatives and reduce animal usage is a good sign but the fight is clearly not over. This project has educated me to be a more caring consumer and I will use buying power to pressure companies into banning animal testing within the commercial market. I have learned to write to companies that still test products on animals and let them know that I would not be buying their products and urge them to choose alternative instead. We must remember unseen they suffer, unheard they cry, in agony they linger, in loneliness they die. You can make a difference, you can be their voice.

Words: 2107

Alaskan Lynx

Lynx by Cody White Academic Orientation Mr. Keown period 7 December 19, 1997 With a pounce and a hop the speedy lynx chases the bleached white hare through the bushes. Poof! The hare disappears into the shiny white powder. Then the sly lynx picks up the scent of the hare and pounces toward the small hairball. The sharp elongated claws donÕt dig in, and the hareÕs long slender legs launch himself out of the hole and out of danger. The swift cat swings his claws around to hit the fast hare, but he hits the snow right under his back legs. The hare runs right between two willow trees and into a narrow opening which has a bunch of fallen willow trees. The hare has escaped from the lynx this one time, but the lynx will find other food. The lynx is a pale brown to brownish grey with black streaks on its neck, forehead, and on the back. It has a short tail, long tuffed ears, long slender legs, wide feet for control in the snow, and long very soft fur. The lynx will grow to be 30 to 40 inches long, and 24 to 28 inches high from feet to shoulders. They usually weight 15 to 45 pounds. When you see the lynx, at first sight, it looks gaunt and lanky, but it is really fast and muscular. The back legs are longer than the fore legs for better pouncing ability. ÒFrom the front the lynx looks royal with its hair on its face coming out to two pointsÓ (Myers 136). The lynx is closely related to the bobcat, which populates the north American region. The bobcat does not have big fluffy paws, or is not as big as the lynx in relative size. They have two different food varieties. The lynx eats hares ,and also may prey on small deer, dall sheep, grouse, mice. Rarely they feed on fish. On the other hand bobcats feed on grouse , fish, and other small rodents. Lynx chase and still hunt their prey. They chase hares or they stay up on cliffs and branches, and waiting to pounce on the animal as it goes by. The lynx ranges from Alaska, all the way across Canada. The lynx are usually found in climax forests and dense undercovers. They are usually found where hares are abundant. If there are no hares in the vicinity, they travel out into the tundra to find food. ÒLynx breed during March and April. The gestation period is 60 days longÓ ( Myers 135) . They will have from 1- 4 kittens each year. They usually have dens, where they keep their kittens, in hollow trees or under a pile of brush. The kittens stay with the female until well into the next winter. The kittens donÕt open their eyes until 10 days after birth. They also only nurse for 3 to 4 months. When the population of the hares are up the litters of 2 to 4 kittens have a lot better chance to survive in the wilderness with their parents. When food is not abundant the female lynx might not have a litter at all that year or not until the hares have come back. Lynx usually are silent, but the males make a screeching noise to find a mate during breeding season. The weird thing about the lynx is when it is in a trap. It doesnÕt make a sound. It sits there calmly accepting its death. The Lynx are sly creatures that prowl at night to find their food. That is usually the reason why people donÕt see the lynx out in the wilderness a lot. The lynx are sensitive to bright light, because their eyes are made to see at night. Adult males usually hunt alone, not in packs like wolves.The females usually hunt with their family if the kittens are old enough to go along. The kits hunt with their mother and learn skills from her until they leave in the fallowing winter. The huge feet of the lynx give it superb agility in the snow. The lynx has been known to chase down slow clumsy fox that has slim and slender feet that donÕt give them any leverage on top of the snow. Trapping lynx is not particularly easy. Trappers use both snares and traps on the lynx. An abundant number of hares means there will be a lot of lynx that year. In the years when lynx are abundant, a good trapper may take a dozen in a month. The fine fur of the lynx is used to make fine coats, collars, coat trimmings, jackets, hats, and muffs. The average cost of a lynx pelt is $125 ( a nice large male coat with good dark colors). ÒEvery year trappers take from $8,000 to $10,000 in money from lynx peltsÓ (Reader 52). My family (Jacob , Dad, and I) use cubbyÕs to catch our lynx. A cubby is a den made out of sticks with one trap on the ground and the bait in the back. A cubby is usually 4 feet high and 3 feet wide so the lynx has a pretty good chance of getting his foot caught in a trap. We usually use ptarmagin wings Which were shot earlier in the year. Trappers in the small villages of Alaska eat the pale lynx meat that tastes like veal (they say). When the trapper gets the fur, he usually puts it in a bag with flea killer to get rid of all the bugs on the lynx's pelt. The population of lynx vary all over the state as the population of hares move, the lynx follow. The population of lynx may vary from the climate and the water sources to the dense under cover of forests. One place in the Tanana Valley may have all the things that a lynx needs so there will be lots of kits born and the population will increase. Ten miles from that spot there may be no lynx because of the lack of resources. Most of the lynx are caught in the Upper Tanana-White River country and south to the Alaska Range. This report I found was really interesting, and even though I trap lynx there is lots that I donÕt know about these sly creatures. These tricky mammals have lots of things that amaze me like they may eat big animals like dall sheep and deer. Overall I think that lynx are one of my favorite animals in Alaska. Bibliography1.ÒAlaska,ÓNational Geographic, (May 1994) vol.185,p.89. 2. ÒLynx,Ó Alaska Mammals, (December 1981) vol.8, p.52. 3. ÒLynx,Ó CollierÕs Encyclopedia, P.F. Collier & Jon LTD.,1983, vol.15,

Words: 1090

African Elephant

The common name is the African Elephant, the scientific name is Loxodonta Africana, the phylum is Vertebrata, the class is Mammalia, the order is Proboscidea, and the family is Elephantidae. The Closest Relatives to the African Elephant are: the Asian Elephant, mammoths, primitive proboscidean (mastodons), sea cows, and hyraxes. Scientists believe that the African Elephant evolved from one of its closest relatives, the Sea Cow. The geographical location and range of the African elephant covers all of central and southern Africa. In Ethiopia there are isolated populations that exist around Lake Chad in Mali and Mauritania. Also in Kenya, Rhodesia, Tanzania, Zambia, Uganda, Zaire, and in National parks located in South Africa, as well as several other countries. African Elephants, originally, were found in all of the Sub-Saharan African habitats except desert steppes. Elephants still occupy diverse habitats such as: temperate grassland, tropical savanna and grass lands, temperate forest and rainforest, tropical rainforest, tropical scrub forest, and tropical deciduous forest despite their drastic decline in numbers. However, their migratory patterns and habitat use have changed, due to the fact that they are restricted to protected areas. The elephant can exist in many types of environments but it prefers places that have many trees and bushes, which the elephant needs both for food and shade. They also like warm areas that have plenty of rainfall. This ensures plenty of food, shade, and water. The elephant prefers a habitat of mixed woodland and grassland which gives them an opportunity to eat a variety of vegetation. African Elephants are considered herbivores, they are both browsers and grazers; they will eat rough sticks, stems and leaves of plants as well as grasses, sedges, and fruit. Their favorites are mangoes, berries and coconuts. An elephant eats up to 500 pounds of vegetation every day and drinks up to 50 gallons of water daily. Elephants must consume these giant quantities of food, due to their poor digestive system. The small intestine is 82 feet long, the large intestine 21 feet long, and the rectum adds a further 13 feet. The problem with the digestive tract lies in their gut; elephants have too few symbiotic bacteria. These are the organisms which help break down the cellulose of plant cell walls by producing enzymes called cellulases. The most remarkable feature of the elephant’s digestive system is its 5 feet long appendix, bigger than the stomach. Proteins, starches, and sugars are digested in the appendix. The elephant will excrete almost 200 pounds a day of semi-digested food. Elephants live together in strong family units which might have as few as two or as many as twenty members. When the group gets too big, it splits up; but the groups stay in close contact. Elephant life revolves around this unit which is usually headed by the oldest female. The family offers protection, aid, comfort, and teaching to all of its members. Within the units are cows, calves, and bulls. The male bulls are very solitary and most of the time travel only with other males, except during mating season when the bulls travel with the pack looking for a mate. The males remain with the family unit until they are about fourteen and then leave the family to join the other males. The African elephant usually gives birth to one calf every four years. The gestation period is approximately twenty to twenty two years. The newborn calf, which weighs 200-300 pounds and stands about three feet high, is cared for by all of the females in the pack, not just by the mother. The calf may nurse as long as eight years, or until its tusks are too long for the mother. It takes about 14 to 15 years for an elephant to fully mature. They grow to about 10-13 feet tall and 7.5 meters in length and weigh as much as 7 tons. The family will remain together throughout their lives. The elephant’s body has many special features which it has adapted throughout the centuries to help it survive in its environment. The most important part of the elephant’s body is its trunk. An elephant uses its trunk for many things. With it, the elephant can pick up objects that weigh as much as 600 lbs. This powerful trunk is also used to beat off attacking animals and sometimes mother elephants use their trunks to swat their babies. The trunk, which is very flexible, can curl over the elephant’s head so that the elephant can give itself showers and dust baths. The trunk also curls towards the elephant’s mouth so it can eat and drink. At the end of the trunk the elephant has finger-like projections similar to the human thumb and forefinger. With this the elephant can pick up small objects. Baby elephants often suck their trunks just like human babies suck their thumbs. The nostrils at the tip of the trunk are highly sensitive, an elephant can detect a water source from as far as 12 miles away, and detect the reproductive status of another elephant from some distance. The elephant also has tusks which can dig up roots and help the elephant dig at dried up river beds for water. They also help the elephant fight off attackers. The tusks are made of ivory and this is why the elephants are being poached. Poachers can earn $5,000 for just 40 pounds of ivory tusks. Another unusual part of the elephant’s body is its huge ears which can be four feet wide in the male African elephant. With their huge ears the elephant can swat bugs, look fierce, and keep itself cool. Although the ears are so big the elephant has poor hearing and rely on their sense of smell. Since the elephant cannot sweat to release heat, they must have another means of releasing their body heat. The elephant will repeatedly beat its ears along the side of its head. When they do this the blood in its ears cools and the cool blood is then circulated to the rest of the body. The wrinkles in their skin help to increase the surface area of the elephant, which helps in cooling, and mud and water are also trapped under the wrinkles, further helping the elephant to keep cool. The elephant has four molars on each side of its mouth. The molars of adult elephants are the size of bricks. There They get six new sets of molars in a lifetime. They get their last set when they are about 45 years old, and after those fall out the elephant will starve to death. Elephants are highly intelligent animals. They have very large and well-developed brains and excellent memories. Elephants have strange habits and ways of communication. One means of communication is trumpeting. They have different tones of trumpeting which indicate different moods, such as playfulness and excitement. Trumpeting is also used to frighten off attackers. Their most important way to communicate is what is called “stomach rumbles” although the sound actually comes from its throat. Scientists have found fifteen types of rumbles indicating different things. One rumble means for the herd to move on, loud rumbles are used to greet family members and other rumbles help them locate each other. Scientists even think that elephants communicate long-distance with these rumbles, which are infrasound, low frequency waves which travel many miles. Elephants can hear and produce low notes in the region of 14-16 Hz, well below the range of the human ear. Elephants often communicate a lot when they are grieving over the death of a family member. Because the family is so important, young elephants are very upset when others die. Elephants have been known to bury their dead with twigs and leaves and stay by the “graves” for many hours. In 1930 there were five to ten million elephants in Africa but because of poaching and some natural disasters (fires, droughts) their numbers were reduced to about 1.3 million by 1976 and to about 600,000 now. The African elephant was really threatened by hunters and poachers during the years 1978-1989 and was declared an endangered species in 1989. CITES currently lists the African elephant on appendix I, meaning all trade regarding this animal is prohibited. However, since 1989 it has been making a strong comeback because of the efforts of many people and countries to protect them. In some African countries they are now so over-populated in the lands left available to them that scientists are trying to invent a form of birth-control for elephants. Hunting of the elephant is banned but poaching for ivory is still widespread. In 1989 a stack of 3,000 confiscated tusks are worth about $3 million dollars was burned by Kenya’s president. Kenya is one of the many countries taking steps to save the elephants. In Tsavo East National Park in Kenya a group called the Anti-poaching Rangers patrol the park. Their job is to follow the shoot-to-kill order issues by the president. BibliographyGaeth, A.P. “The Developing Renal, Reproductive, and Respiratory systems of the African Elephant Suggest an Aquatic Ancestry.” Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Volume 96, No 10. May 11, 1999 pg. 5555-5558 This primary source gave us information on the ancestry of the African Elephant, such as their closest relatives. It also told us the endangered status of the animal. Groning, Karl., and Martin Saller. “Elephants” A Cultural and Natural History KONEMANN 1999. This source gave us information on all aspects of the elephant’s physical composition, specifically the digestive system, and homeostatic mechanisms. Hoare, Richard E., and Johan T. Du Toit. “Coexistence between People and Elephants in African Savannas” Conservation Biology Volume 13, No 3. June 1999 pg. 633-639 This primary source gave us details on elephant population in regards to human settlement. Moore, Tara. The Endangered Species Elephants. pp. 15-20, 27-32. Champaign, IL: Garrad Publishing Company 1982. This source delt with some of the basic facts about the elephant, such as their diet and geographical location and range. Norton, Boyd. The African Elephant: Last Days of Eden. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press, 1991. This source gave us information on population figures, poaching, natural disasters, and birth control methods. Overbeck, Cynthia. Elephants. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1983 This source gave us information on the family groups of elephants, and on their methods of communication, and also detail about their tusks, and trunks as defensive mechanisms.

Words: 1493