New research published by a Queen’s University Belfast academic has shown that crabs not only suffer pain but that they retain a memory of it.

The study, which looked at the reactions of hermit crabs to small electric shocks, was carried out by Professor Bob Elwood and Mirjam Appel from the School of Biological Sciences at Queen’s and has been published in the journal Animal Behaviour.

Professor Elwood, who previously carried out a study showing that prawns endure pain, said his research highlighted the need to investigate how crustaceans used in food industries are treated.

Hermit crabs have no shell of their own so inhabit other structures, usually empty mollusc shells.

Wires were attached to shells to deliver the small shocks to the abdomen of the some of the crabs within the shells.

The only crabs to get out of their shells were those which had received shocks, indicating that the experience is unpleasant for them. This shows that central neuronal processing occurs rather than the response merely being a reflex.

Hermit crabs are known to prefer some species of shells more strongly than others and it was found that that they were more likely to come out of the shells they least preferred.

The main aim of the experiment, however, was to deliver a shock just under the threshold that causes crabs to move out of the shell, to see what happened when a new shell was then offered.

Crabs that had been shocked but had remained in their shell appeared to remember the experience of the shock because they quickly moved towards the new shell, investigated it briefly and were more likely to change to the new shell compared to those that had not been shocked.

Professor Elwood said: “There has been a long debate about whether crustaceans including crabs, prawns and lobsters feel pain.

“We know from previous research that they can detect harmful stimuli and withdraw from the source of the stimuli but that could be a simple reflex without the inner ‘feeling’ of unpleasantness that we associate with pain.

“This research demonstrates that it is not a simple reflex but that crabs trade-off their need for a quality shell with the need to avoid the harmful stimulus.

“Such trade-offs are seen in vertebrates in which the response to pain is controlled with respect to other requirements.

“Humans, for example, may hold on a hot plate that contains food whereas they may drop an empty plate, showing that we take into account differing motivational requirements when responding to pain.

“Trade-offs of this type have not been previously demonstrated in crustaceans. The results are consistent with the idea of pain being experienced by these animals.”

Previous work at Queen’s University found that prawns show prolonged rubbing when an antenna was treated with weak acetic acid but this rubbing was reduced by local anaesthetic.

The findings are both studies are consistent with observations of pain in mammals.

But Professor Elwood says that in contrast to mammals, little protection is given to the millions of crustaceans that are used in the fishing and food industries each day.

He added: “More research is needed in this area where a potentially very large problem is being ignored.

“Legislation to protect crustaceans has been proposed but it is likely to cover only scientific research.

“Millions of crustacean are caught or reared in aquaculture for the food industry.

“There is no protection for these animals (with the possible exception of certain states in Australia) as the presumption is that they cannot experience pain.

“With vertebrates we are asked to err on the side of caution and I believe this is the approach to take with these crustaceans.”

Reposted from Queen’s University Belfast.

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The Milgram experiments from the early 1960′s are classic (but shocking) studies that demonstrated the “sheeple-ness” of people everywhere. In the experiments — which have been replicated numerous times across multiple cultures, races and age ranges — subjects willingly engaged in administering extremely painful electric shocks to other human beings for no reason other than the fact they were ordered to do so by an apparent authority figure.

These studies have long demonstrated the “do what I’m told” mentality of approximately 70 percent of the population. Only 30 percent of the study subjects refused to torture fellow human beings when so ordered.

Now, this famous study has been replicated at Santa Clara University in California. It’s important to understand that in none of these studies were humans actually being tortured or given electric shocks, but the study subjects believed they were administering such torture because the apparent recipients of the electric shocks were actors who screamed in pain to coincide with the apparent delivery of the electric shocks.

The true “subjects” of the study were actually the people recruited to administer the electric shocks. But as is common in many psychological experiments, they were told they were simply taking part in the study of the other person (the person being shocked), and they had to administer electric shocks to that person if they answered questions incorrectly. Meanwhile, the study “enforcer” (one of the true researchers running the whole thing) would command the administration of such electric shocks at increasingly painful levels, starting at low voltage and increasing the voltage well beyond 150 volts (which can be lethal).

The real reason why most people are willing to do whatever they’re told

What’s amazing about these experiments is the astonishing willingness of people to deliver shocks above 150 volts to victims who are writhing in pain, screaming and begging for them to stop. Using nothing more than the application of verbal authority, these study subjects continued to torture and apparently cause great pain and suffering to another human being.

For many years, psychologists speculated the original studies must have somehow been flawed. Humans beings couldn’t be so cruel and gullible, could they? But now this repeating of the study immediately clobbers any debate on the subject and forces us all to confront the terrible reality: Most human beings of all ages, races, religions, cultural upbringings and professions will actively torture, harm and even kill fellow human beings if ordered to do so.

Why is this important to understand? Because it explains the sheeple effect that’s so dominant in society today. Why do consumers obey apparent authorities so blindly? Why do they do what they’re told even when it goes against all common sense and their own ethics?

You might hear many scientists offer a conventional explanation for this phenomenon, where they’re talking about the power and leverage of authority symbols (such as the study researcher wearing a white lab coat) or the transmission of implied authority through voice commands and body language, but I have a different explanation for what we’re seeing here.

My explanation is far simpler: Modern society trains human beings to be mind slaves, not independent thinkers.

You were raised to be a mind slave

Think about it: From the very first day you go to kindergarten, you’re punished for getting out of line (literally), talking out of place, expressing your own ideas or refusing to follow commands. This psychological brow-beating goes on for thirteen years, and it’s enforced by most parents, counselors and other authority figures.

In fact, the primary point of school is not to teach children things that are really true (American history, for example, is a laughable collection of outrageous lies and distortions), but rather to create an obedient mind slave that can function in society. By the time the average child graduates from high school, they may not know how to read or write, but they sure know how to do what they’re told.

For many, this continues through college and graduate school. Medical schools, for example, are advanced brainwashing institutions where independent thinkers are rejected from the system long before they can practice medicine.

Only the arts or the theoretical sciences encourage free thinking, and that’s why you’ll find the most free-minded people in areas like theoretical physics, fine arts, dance, music, poetry and so on. (There are exceptions in every area, of course. I’m just talking about general trends.)

The delusional behavior surrounding holidays

The cultural madness surrounding holidays is a perfect example of brainwashing en masse. On command, people all across America will obey their commercial masters and go Christmas shopping. They’ll put up Christmas lights and props and trees. And a few days later, they’ll take them all down again. Ten months later, the same yards that used to host symbols of Jesus, angels and religious symbols will be replaced with images of bloody skeletons, vampires, decapitated human bodies and supernatural spirits.

Apparently nobody thinks this is strange other than myself and a few other free thinkers. I watch may neighbors with amazement as they cart off the bloody vampire props, store them away in their garages, and light up their yards with angels and Biblical scenes. These people have no idea they are totally brainwashed into following a system of commercial exploitation called “holidays.”

You name the holiday, and there’s a whole different system of commercially-motivated brainwashing behind it: Easter, Valentine’s day, Fourth of July, New Year’s Day, etc. On each holiday, the people obediently buy what they’re told, drink what they’re told, put up the props in their yards that they’re told, and even run around knocking on doors begging for candy because that’s what they’re told to do.

It’s utterly amazing to observe. I’m not saying we can’t celebrate the Christmas holiday for what it really stands for, or spend quality time with family, or bless each other in whatever religious tradition we hold true. Those are all legitimate times of gathering, or celebration, or giving thanks. What I’m talking about is the commercial massploitation of the sheeple and how willingly people go along with the whole thing of spending money and decorating their yards with the appropriate symbols that merely serve as signs that demand other people get in line and follow suit.

I seriously considered putting up Halloween decorations this Christmas, because my neighbors erected a carnival of flashing lights and motorized reindeer so obnoxious that, in my mind, it was just begging to be contrasted with a scene of decapitated human bodies and bloody zombies taken from somebody’s stored Halloween props. But I couldn’t bring myself to actually BUY any of that stuff, and I figured the whole message would be wasted on the mindless neighbors anyway. But I reserve the right to try this next year! In fact, I’d love to see somebody do this and post a video of it on YouTube.

Seriously, folks: Why is it okay to have symbols of dead bodies and supernatural spirits in your yard on October 31st but not December 31st? Free thinkers don’t have to follow the commercial calendar, didn’t you know? We can put holiday props in our yards whenever we want, and they don’t have to match YOUR holiday expectations.

Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer. Had a very shiny… decapitated head? I’ll bet 99% of the people on the ‘net don’t even know where Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer came from. He was invented by the Macy’s department store as a clever story designed to sell more stuff! Every time we sing that song, it’s like singing a commercial. Let’s all go Christmas caroling and sing TV commercial jingles, shall we?

Truly, holiday behavior reveals the best examples of insanity in modern society. And it’s all happening right in front of your (shiny?) nose, oblivious to the common man (and woman).

Are you a free thinker, or an “obedient worker?”

The Milgram experiments merely prove that America’s brainwashing education system is very, very good at producing what George Carlin called obedient workers. These obedient workers do what they’re told, pay their taxes and will even follow orders that make no sense — like Bush and Obama urging people to go out and spend more money in order to “help the economy.”

It’s senseless advice for a nation where the savings rate is already zero, but the 70 percent who are obedient workers also turn out to be obedient spenders and consumers.

Needless to say, NaturalNews is only read by the 30 percent who would walk out of the Milgram experiment. We are the independent, free-minded thinkers who evaluate each situation on its own merits, paying no special attention to the mad ramblings of apparent authority figures. In fact, the typical NaturalNews reader would blatantly refuse to administer electric shocks to another human being in any experiment. Unless, of course, the recipients of those electric shocks happened to be drug company CEOs, but that’s a different experiment altogether. (That’s also a joke. I don’t condone the use of violence against fellow human beings; even criminals.)

The upshot of all this is one, important realization: About 70 percent of the people around you are dangerously obedient to even the most insane directives given by apparent authority figures. And if properly motivated, they would even torture YOU as long as they were told to do so.

To invoke the philosophy of The Matrix, about 70 percent of the people are still plugged in to the system, and until their minds are freed, they are potentially a danger to the 30 percent who can actually think for themselves. A good rule of thumb is to never be caught with too many 70-percenters around you. Hang with the 30-percenters.

Most people greatly overestimate their mental independence

There’s another fascinating element to all this: Virtually everyone thinks they would never administer the electric shocks if they took part in the Milgram experiments. But when faced with the aggressive verbal demands of the researcher, they give in and punch the shock button anyway.

Just like most authority figures in modern society, the study researchers use clever psychological tactics to try to convince people they have to push the button. They’ll claim that if they don’t cooperate, the study will be ruined, or thousands of dollars will be lost, or the apparent “patient” will be somehow harmed by not receiving the proper correction stimulus. The researchers use every verbal tactic they can think of.

It’s a lot like President Bush standing at a podium and talking about yellow cake uranium, or issuing a “terr” threat, or using all kinds of verbal scare tactics that are completely fictitious. The point is not to inform you but rather to alter your behavior so you do what they want. Not coincidentally, about 70 percent of the American people were also strongly in favor of the War on Iraq following the 9/11 attacks.

I can’t wait to read the haters and flamers post negative comments to this story, because what they’re actually doing is demonstrating the depth of the brainwashing they have embraced as 70-percenters. People who are brainwashed into obeying orders will aggressively defend the very system that brainwashed them. Any person threatening to think for themselves gets slammed, criticized or verbally abused in much the same way that the Milgram experimenters verbally abused the study subjects to cajole them into obeying.

Authority is all in your head

The relevant point in all this is to realize that the whole scheme of authority in the modern world is artificially constructed. Authority exists only in your mind, not in the real world. For example, when people drive on the roads, they’re afraid to cross the yellow lines (or white lines). Why? Because in their minds, the lines represent borders that cannot be crossed due to the fear of being reprimanded by authority. This is true even when crossing the lines makes sense!

You see this behavior all the time in modern society. At Costco, people just wait at the exit for some lame worker to check their receipt and mark it with a pen. People actually line up like cattle even after they paid for their stuff! I just walk out the door with the stuff I paid for, utterly ignoring the silly “receipt checkers” who keep screaming “Sir! Sir! Sir!” What I’ve learned is that after three or four screams, they just shut up and go back to the line of sheeple. Just slap on a pair of headphones, crank up your iPod and walk right out of the store, folks. Why are you giving up your Constitutional rights and submitting yourself to illegal search and seizure for a cart full of stuff you just paid for? (Moooooo!)

Same thing at Wal-Mart. If your bags set off the security device, don’t be an idiot and actually stop and let them search your bags like you’re some kind of criminal! And yet more than 90% of the people will do exactly that! (More Moooooo!)

Just keep walking. You didn’t steal your stuff, did you? Then what are you stopping for? The fact that the security alert sounds off is Wal-Mart’s problem, not your problem. You have nothing to do with their security glitches. Just pretend you’re deaf and couldn’t hear the thing anyway. If they accost you, use lots of sign language that emphasizes the use of the middle finger.

Behavioral psychologist Pavlov proved that he could make a dog drool by ringing a bell. Wal-Mart has proven that you can make a human being stop and turn around by sounding a similar bell at the exit door. Amazing!

You’ll also find that most people tend to walk on the official pathways when they enter or leave buildings. They don’t take the shortest path; they take the “official” path, which may be much longer.

And don’t get me started talking about television commercials. There’s a great example of highly-effective brainwashing that nobody even seems to notice. People who watch TV will swear up and down that the commercials don’t affect them at all, and then they’ll go to the store and buy exactly the same brand names advertised to them on television.

It’s downright hilarious.

It’s not hilarious that they’re brainwashed. That’s just sad. What’s hilarious is that people have been brainwashed into thinking they’re NOT brainwashed even while they are! “The terrorists hate freedom,” we’re told, which implies that we’re all free. Oh really? Then why do all my neighbors do exactly the same thing on every holiday? Why are they as predictable as a line of puppets strung up to the same control device?

The Milgram experiments simply prove that the vast majority of people are really sheeple who will do what they’re told, even with zero awareness of being influenced.

So if you’re a true free thinker, consider yourself fortunate: You’re already in the top 30 percent of all the people in the country.

By the way, standard IQ tests don’t take into account anything resembling real-world intelligent that would involve thinking for yourself. A person can have an IQ of 170 and still be a total robot zombie that does exactly what they’re told by anyone with sufficient authority status.

I’d rather hang with a high school dropout who has some real-world street smarts than an over-educated yes man who’s little more than a puppet for the mind controllers.

People live their entire lives in a state of perpetual hypnosis

By the way, as a side note, every time we run a story on NaturalNews about hypnosis, we get a few pieces of hate mail from people who claim hypnosis is evil and based on some sort of occult witchcraft.

What they don’t realize is that the very beliefs they are demonstrating in their emails to us are perfect examples of hypnosis! (The belief that “hypnosis is evil,” for example, is a hypnotically-induced belief usually programmed into somebody by an authority figure in a competing belief system that sees hypnosis as a threat to their own authority.)

Most people walk through their whole lives hypnotized and rarely, if ever, snap out of it long enough to think for themselves. The Milgram experiments demonstrate a very effective form of command hypnosis, by the way, which has been proven again and again to work on 70 percent of the population.

Most people are running around hypnotized most of the time. And some of them are medicated at the same time, which makes for a rather psychotic combination: Medicated and hypnotized!

Needless to say (but I’m gonna say it anyway), typically the most easily hypnotized people end up finding career paths in law enforcement, the military or government jobs where following orders is readily accepted. Again, there are exceptions to this (in fact, we’ve got some awesome NaturalNews readers in the military stationed in Iraq right now), but generally speaking, the easily-brainwashed seek professions that are compatible with doing what you’re told while disengaging your brain.

I don’t know why people tend to get so uptight about this topic, by the way. I’m just telling you the way it is, and I’m not sugar-coating it. The majority of the people are actually sheeple in disguise. And that means the majority of the U.S. voters are, in fact, the very same people who would be willing to torture a fellow human being if ordered to do so!

Now you know why watching politicians seems to hurt so much.

By the way, I’ve authored a book that teaches you how to stop being a commercially-exploited mind slave and protect your mind from the seduction of consumerism. It’s called Spam Filters for Your Brain and you can get it here: http://www.truthpublishing.com/spamfilt…

If you value the freedom of your own mind, you’ll love this book. It’s strictly for the 30-percenters who can think for themselves.

Reprinted from NaturealNews.

Although it was a crucial part of humans’ survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters does not need for subsistence.(1) Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.(2,3)

Less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts, yet hunting is permitted in many wildlife refuges, national forests, state parks, and on other public lands.(4) Forty percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as many animals illegally.(5,6)

Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8) Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again; 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year.(10) A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)

Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals like wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer-caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create-also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter.

Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs-often called “wildlife management” or “conservation” programs-that are designed to boost the number of “game” species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.

Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward “reduced predator impact,” which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill.(12) The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (i.e., decimating large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest in order to “produce habitat needed by ruffed grouse.”(13)

In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the number of moose for hunters by “controlling” the wolf and bear populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of miles away from their homes; two were shot by hunters within two weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their homes.(14) Wolves have been slaughtered in order to “let the moose population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters.”(15) In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly and photos of suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public.(16)

Nature Takes Care of Its Own
The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their own survival-if they are left unaltered. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal whom they would like to hang over the fireplace-including large, healthy animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant poaching is believed to have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa, and in Canada, hunting has caused bighorn sheep’s horn size to fall by 25 percent in the last 40 years; Nature magazine reports that “the effect on the populations’ genetics is probably deeper.”(17)

Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease can be tragic, but they are nature’s ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength level of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting an animal because he or she might starve or become sick is arbitrary and destructive.

“Sport” hunting not only jeopardizes nature’s balance, it also exacerbates other problems. For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer and elk between states for the purpose of hunting is believed to have contributed to the epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife agencies millions of dollars to “manage” deer and elk populations.(18) The fatal neurological illness that affects these animals has been likened to mad cow disease, and while the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim that CWD has no relationship to any similar diseases that affect humans or farmed animals, the slaughter of deer and elk continues.(19,20)

Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic “game” animals who, if they’re able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native wildlife and established ecosystems. After a group of nonnative wild boars escaped from a private ranch and moved into the forests of Cambria County, Pa., the state of Pennsylvania drafted a bill prohibiting the importation of all exotic species of animals.(21)

Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in “canned hunts.” These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a “trophy.”

Canned hunts are becoming big business-there are an estimated 1,000 game preserves in the U.S.(22) Ted Turner, who owns more land than any other landowner in the country, operates 20 ranches, where hunters pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and turkeys.(23)

Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of these ranches operate on a “no kill, no pay” policy, so it is in owners’ best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who are familiar with animals’ locations and habits, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying “feeding stations” that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait.

Only a handful of states prohibit canned hunting, and there are no federal laws regulating the practice at this time.(24) Congress is considering an amendment to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act that would prohibit the transfer, transportation, or possession of exotic animals “for entertainment or the collection of a trophy.”(25)

‘Accidental’ Victims
Hunting “accidents” destroy property and injure or kill horses, cows, dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. In 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney famously shot a friend while hunting quail on a canned-hunting preserve.(26) According to the International Hunter Education Association, there are dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in the United States every year-and that number only includes incidents involving humans.(27) It is an ongoing problem, and one warden explained that “hunters seem unfamiliar with their firearms and do not have enough respect for the damage they can do.”(28)

A Humane Alternative
There are 30 million deer in the U.S., and because hunting has been an ineffective method to “control” populations (one Pennsylvania hunter “manages” the population and attracts deer by clearing his 600-acre plot of wooded land and planting corn), some wildlife agencies are considering other management techniques.(29,30) Several recent studies suggest that sterilization is an effective, long-term solution to overpopulation. A method called TNR (trap, neuter, and return) has been tried on deer in Ithaca, N.Y., and an experimental birth-control vaccine is being used on female deer in Princeton, N.J.(31,32) One Georgia study of 1,500 white-tailed deer on Cumberland Island concluded that “if females are captured, marked, and counted, sterilization reduces herd size, even at relatively low annual sterilization rates.”(33)
What You Can Do
Before you support a “wildlife” or “conservation” group, ask about its position on hunting. Groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, and the World Wildlife Fund are pro-sport-hunting or, at the very least, they do not oppose it.

To combat hunting in your area, post “no hunting” signs on your land, join or form an anti-hunting organization, protest organized hunts, and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas. Call 1-800-448-NPCA to report poachers in national parks to the National Parks and Conservation Association. Educate others about hunting. Encourage your legislators to enact or enforce wildlife-protection laws, and insist that nonhunters be equally represented on the staffs of wildlife agencies.

References
1) National Research Council, “Science and the Endangered Species Act” (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995) 21.
2) Grant Holloway, “Cloning to Revive Extinct Species,” CNN.com, 28 May 2002.
3) Canadian Museum of Nature, “Great Auk,” 2003.
4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2001) 5.
5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 80.
6) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, “Poaching Is a Serious Crime,” May 2003.
7) Stephen S. Ditchkoff et al., “Wounding Rates of White-Tailed Deer With Traditional Archery Equipment,” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1998).
D.J. Renny, “Merits and Demerits of Different Methods of Culling British Wild Mammals: A Veterinary Surgeon’s Perspective,” Proceedings of a Symposium on the Welfare of British Wild Mammals (London: 2002).
9) Spencer Vaa, “Reducing Wounding Losses,” South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 2004.
10) E.L. Bradshaw and P. Bateson, “Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus),” Animal Welfare 9 (2000): 3-24.
11) John Swinconeck, “Controlled Hunt May Be Solution to the Excess of ‘Deer at Our Doorstep,’” York County Coast Star 27 Jun. 2002.
12) Bob Marshall, “Is Predator Program Enough?” Times-Picayune 2 Mar. 2003.
13) Dave Golowenski, “Grouse Numbers Go Up if Trees Come Down,” The Columbus Dispatch 20 Feb. 2003.
14) “Hunters Shoot Two Relocated Bears,” Associated Press, 9 Jun. 2003.
15) Joel Gay, “McGrath Wolf Kills Fall Short,” Anchorage Daily News 25 Apr. 2003.
16) Joel Gay, “Governor Takes Heat From Hunters Expecting Aerial Wolf Control,” Anchorage Daily News 8 Apr. 2003.
17) John Whitfield, “Sheep Horns Downsized by Hunters’ Taste for Trophies,” Nature 426 (2003): 595.
18) U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Makes $4 Million Available to State Wildlife Agencies for Strengthening Chronic Wasting Disease Management,” news release, 15 Apr. 2003.
19) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, “Chronic Wasting Disease,” Nov. 2002.
20) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Media Relations, “Fatal Degenerative Neurologic Illnesses in Men Who Participated in Wild Game Feasts-Wisconsin, 2002,” news release, Feb. 2003.
21) Judy Lin, “Pennsylvania Worried About Wild Boar Escape,” Associated Press, 17 Mar. 2002.
22) “Reps. Farr, Shays Introduce Bill to Can Canned Hunts,” U.S. Fed News 7 Oct. 2004.
23) Audrey Hudson, “Greens Cut Turner a Break; Critics Question His Stewardship of Western Land,” The Washington Times 20 Jan. 2002.
24) National Conference of State Legislatures, “Environment, Energy, and Transportation Program: Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife,” Apr. 2003.
25) U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 5242, Session 108, introduced 7 Oct. 2004.
26) Dana Bash, “Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter,” CNN.com, 12 Feb. 2006.
27) International Hunter Education Association, “Hunter Incident Clearinghouse,” 2006.
28) Tom Harelson, “1998 Deer Gun Season Report,” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 8 Dec. 1998.
29) “Deer Eating Away at Forests, Nationwide,” Associated Press, 18 Jan. 2005.
30) Andrew C. Revkin, “States Seek to Restore Deer Balance,” The New York Times 29 Dec. 2002.
31) Roger Segelken, “Surgical Sterilization Snips Away at Deer Population,” Cornell News 19 Mar. 2003.
32) “Princeton’s Deer Hunt Coming to a Premature End,” Associated Press, 21 Mar. 2003.
33) James L. Boone and Richard G. Wiegert, “Modeling Deer Herd Management: Sterilization Is a Viable Option,” Ecological Modeling 72 (1994): 175-86.