Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 25, 2000)
OPINION THE BATTALION hey dart in and out of the bushes, tend to shy away from people and hunt down food anywhere they can find it. Perhaps they have been MELISSA JOHNSTON America in Vietnr he Vietnam War was theta which America has everts ne United States got inwfe 165 and withdrew in 1973.’ immunist forces captures id the war ended. An est® illion U.S. military personne the war and about 58,000[ thousand deaths roposal to kill ralcatsatA&M mpletely off; |CAT can die problem hearing all the talk about how they may be on their last lives at Texas A&M. No, they are not graduating seniors — they are feral, or wild, cats. Hundreds of these homeless cats wander the University campus, and the problem of what to do with sident Johnson sent the und troops to Vietnam in fiber of U.S. military pen iked at 543.400 four yea' se-fire was arranged in, 3 and the last American’: ps left two months later thousand military perse GABRIEL RUENES/Tm: Battalion them has continued to be an issue for the administra tion and pest control. Just a few weeks ago, some wildlife experts gathered to discuss the feasibility of one solution — kill ’em all. According to these experts, two of whom are faculty at A&M, euthanasia is a viable way to keep the campus cat population down. They believe that feral cats are unnatural predators who are wreak ing havocion other wildlife in the community. Thankfully, this feline euthanasia plan has not been officially proposed to University administra tors. And there is no reason that administrators should ever hear the proposal — it is clearly not the best solution to the problem. A better solution is already in action — one that is not even funded by the University. In 1998, students, staff'and faculty at A&M started a group called the Aggie Feral Cat Alliance of Texas (AFCAT). The in tent of this group is not only to help control and pro vide care for the feral cat population on campus, but also to educate the Bryan-College Station community on the responsibility of caring for pets. The origin of this so-called problem is not the cats that roam the campus, but the irresponsible pet owners who al lowed them to wander off into the community, or worse, deserted them. Many of the cats currently on campus may have been bom in the wild, but they are offspring of cats that were deserted. They should not be punished for what is essentially the.fault of some one too preoccupied to take care of a pet. AFCAT, however, is willing to care for those cats that are left behind by irresponsible owners. In Au gust 1998, the volunteers of AFCAT implemented a formal management program funded by a private grant called Trap, Test, Vaccinate, Alter and Release (TTVAR). Designed to help them learn more about feral cats and monitor the cat population on campus, the program involves testing the trapped cats for dis eases, vaccinating and spaying or neutering them, and then releasing them to their capture spot. By August 1999, 126 cats had been trapped and man aged by the project. Twenty-one were adopted by loving families, and 17 were euthanized due to fe line leukemia or feline immunodeficiency virus. The remaining cats were released back on campus to be tracked and given daily care by AFCAT volunteers. Through this program, the cats are prevented from Page 13 contributing to campus overpopulation and are kept from unnecessary extermination. In a report released by AFCAT in August 1999, Bill Shepherd, the supervisor of A&M’s Physical Plant - Pest Control stated he was pleased with the TTVAR program and its results. He also stated he had received “significantly fewer” calls about cats than he had in the year prior to TTVAR’s initiation. The program is evidently successful to some extent, and perhaps it should be under consideration for Uni versity funding before a euthanasia plan is even con sidered. If administrators are having trouble rational izing this expense, they should think about the benefit they would be providing the cats as well as the benefit to students and staff at the College of Vet erinary Medicine. Students have the opportunity to gain clinical and surgical experience by helping with the TTVAR program, and they also continue to learn about the habits and interactions of feral cat popula tions. If all these cats were to be exterminated, stu dents would lose this opportunity to extend their learning beyond the classroom. AFCAT is modeled after a renowned program at Stanford, which was founded in 1989 as a humane al ternative to the proposed eradication of about 500 cam pus cats. Since the start of the program, the Stanford feral cat population has steadily declined, and is now less than one-third its original size. There is also a simi lar group at the University of Texas called the Campus Cat Coalition, which emerged from the outrage of the university community after 14 cats were captured and exterminated over the 1994 Christmas holidays. It is obvious by the interest in, and continuing growth of, groups like AFCAT that programs like TTVAR should be given every opportunity to contin ue. In the meantime, residents of the University and surrounding community should keep in mind that owning pets is a big responsibility that must be taken seriously, lest their cute new kittens become the most recent additions to A&M’s cat population. AFCAT can only do so much with private funding, and with influential experts beginning to consider ideas like eu thanasia, programs like AFCAT — and even the cats themselves — might really be on their last lives. Melissa Johnston is a senior English major. y figures are for December sir| was for June, and 1969.wWnef A cell phone proposal waste of time Department of Defense mt™ !1or the Aggie who is H constantly on the go, Ebwning a cellular )ne is a godsend. After all, ones today are the ibodiment of convenience 'Mficiency. However, it is pretty ob- xrting of farnw (MS' ms flit'many cell phone their homes. be* do not fully recog- u ithdrew today from at yetk responsibilities of ownership — in partic- uh of I l,uare. Iieeiitci., i^jm, discrete and respectful to others when ’ ™ trapped in I * P , rn i uht, lien wood said. B;:Ir eircellph .? i n . e ; . . ,. inn this irresponsibility is only one of the many \No the govemnienl IS0ns P ro P osa l by the Residence Hall Asso- lorter.s were behind St: tiotl (RHA) to implement a “wireless campus” ib attack on the oflkeoffP 0us ly flawed. , only independent news: produced two weeks ago, the pro- 11 explosive device shattofel calls for each student living on > window of a gallery adjSmps to be given a cell phone. On es of The Daily \m,« tips calls would be free, while off- sharply criticalofthegouWjg an d i on g distance calls would ot clamping down onpo ^charged to the student’s wireless x. No one was injured. J[; ssentially? this p ]an wou jd e ij m j_ k i ast was oik p jethe need for land phone lines in the 'internationally, satdln* C£hal)s _ l , KC ',. , . ... While this idea of a “wireless cam- — t m i one ay s u Hi. m ^ p rett y coo j t j ie practicality of this at last week. The sender, ' . . ’ ' ^ psal is questionable. jEirst of all, the proposal is practically ipts to ridicule President lor morc in - class interruptions ■nuch effort does it take to turn off a cell r editorial policy thattfe®! before g° in g int0 a lecture or an exam? N ot he Revival of African Con- overage of political vi( the class to recover its concentration. By not practicing proper etiquette, the careless student is essentially saying to the rest of the class, “I don’t care about wasting your time.” The situation is already bad, and image how much worse it could be if the proposal is imple mented. By voluntarily doling out thousands upon thousands of cell phones, the RHA and the De partment'of Residence'Life would be pouring fuel onto an alfeady sizable fire. Also, the proposal overlooks the existing cam pus telephone infrastructure. Not only are there an abundance of phone lines already available in every dormitory, there are also a large number of toll-free public phones strewn about campus. For instance, frequently visited locations such as the Commons Lobby, the Memorial Student Basically, any student who absolutely has to make a phone call on-campus would have little trouble locating a toll-free phone — therefore nullifying a major concern of the proposal. hut no one feels safeintlPif but cell phone interruptions in classes are t that the paper wouldcotf Commonplace. It is a familiar series of nois- rent opinions. a sharp chirp cutting through the lecture lithe frantic rustling through a book bag and Jsnbarrassed whispers into the phone about lit is a bad time to talk. Of course it is a bad time — any hope of the iss paying attention to the professor is shat- Hat this point as everyone’s head turns and Ilhes for the guilty party. Depending on the ganor of the professor, it takes anywhere a few seconds to a couple of minutes for That J S C HOOl Center, Evans Library and the Student Computing Center have toll-free phones on their grounds. In addition, Texas A&M University Police have a system of 41 “blue-light” emergency phones placed at strategic locations throughout Campus. These toll-free phones are easily identi fied by their 12-foot poles and blue lights. Basically, any student who absolutely has to make a phone call on campus would have little trouble finding a toll-free phone — therefore nul lifying one of the major concerns of the proposal. Furthermore, most students living in a dormi tory have no practical need for a cell phone. Think about it — phone lines, answering ma- MAIL CALL chines and email accounts are already at their disposal. The few students who do need a cell phone usually have a compelling reason — whether it be keeping in constant touch with their jobs, their student organizations, their sig nificant others or their parents. Accordingly, these students have probably already purchased cell phones and wireless ac counts on their own. Thanks to the explosion of digital wireless networks in recent years, the cost of owning a cell phone has plummet ed to an affordable level — therefore explain ing the abundance of cell phones already be ing used on campus. Considering this, the proposal becomes moot because the students who most need cell phones already have them. Finally, the proposal fails to settle many unresolved issues that a “wireless campus” would raise. “Although cell phones would be convenient, there are far too many un seen complications to consider a pro posal yet,” said Thomas Coulboume, a sophomore English major and resident of Hotard Hall. “Problems [include] time in setting it up, limitations on usage, course reg istration and interruption during class and events.... There are too many things up in the air.... We want some thing more definite.” Other unaddressed issues include how the project will be specifically funded, how stu dents who already have cell phones can be ex empted from the program and how the system can be tested on a trial basis. Although it is full of admirable intentions, the proposal before the RHA is laced with potential land mines. There are simply too many complica tions and unanswered questions for a “wireless campus” to be possible at this point. David Lee is a junior economics and journalism major. f Ipok ENV IRoHNIEHTAL-Flu<a IT. J Stale needs authority over childcare centers nto the Air Force OfW n of the OfficerTrainins Jr Force officer with rting pay, medical and nagement and travel r more bn how to qualify eer soaring with the 'Training School, call ; or visit our website at >m ihinese weapon purchases logical isponse to Mark Passwaters’ April 19 column. going ur trip more enjopl at s also a backpack ■d for air travel by i Creek It makes no sense for other nations not to buy new defense tech- Dlogy while Uncle Sam keeps on building its high-tech weapon arsenal. It is a fact the Chinese and the Americans are similar in the sense attheyboth can experience an emotional state known as fear. Our su rlier weapons are the very reason why China wants to acquire a more phisticated weapons and defense technology, like the one they par ed from Israel. “Slapping Israel's face” because they “are willing to sell weapons jems that may lead to the deaths of many Americans” will not pre- other nations from buying and selling weapons in order to match ieUS military power. If we don't want many Americans to die, than stop wilding weapons that can intimidate or kill many non-Americans. David Hendrawirawan Class of '01 kOC disrespectful to student views On April 18,1 went to a forum on the proposal of dropping early reg- ition for students who work. Members from the Academic Opera- ns Committee spoke of their support of the proposal. ! was disappointed in their attitude towards our need as students Jvork. Early registration is a benefit for those who juggle work and Pool. Whether the AOC supported this action or not, I feel that their attitude was disrespectful to those who organized this meeting. They interrupted students and were aggressive and rude. Worst of all, when one student pleaded about the importance of her continuing working, a member of the AOC responded by stating that it was her choice to work. The student responded by stating that without working she could not attend Texas A&M at which the AOC member denied her claim on financial status. Whether this proposal passed or not, I would like the administration to acknowledge that some students don’t have enough money through scholarships, loans or parents to pay for tuition and board. These stu dents are not impoverished, they are doing something to prevent pover ty which is a combination of work and education. Sadly, the students who should be rewarded instead were treated with something other than respect. Maria Chavez Class of '03 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion ■ Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com T hanks to the ef forts of George W. Bush, a 1997 Texas law gave church-run child-care centers a separate li censing procedure from other businesses. Under the 1997 law, the Texas Association of Christian Child-Care Agencies Inc. was given authority to license faith-based child-care providers. This law took away authority from the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services when dealing with faith-oriented centers. Howeverm, a problem has arisen. Two people were recently arrested because of abuse allegations at Roloff Homes, a facility for troubled youths run by People’s Baptist Church in Corpus Christi. The facility is one of six religious youth centers that have been approved under the 1997 law. There is something very wrong when troubled children have to deal with potential child abuse. Although it is impossible to completely eliminate such problems, apply ing two different sets of standards to chil dren’s homes simply based on religion is asking for trouble. All children’s homes should be licensed by the state; to approach the situation any other way is blatantly hypo critical. In addition, the lack of accountabili ty measures for faith-based centers is danger ous for the children in question. It is interesting to note that People’s Bap tist Church closed Roloff Homes in the 1980s after being faced with the choice of coming under state license or shutting down. Roloff Homes reopened after Bush helped pass the 1997 law. Roloff Homes’ apparent problem with state investigation should have warned all officials involved that it had prob lems with strict regulation. Mike Jones, Bush spokesperson, argues, “There’s strict scrutiny and accountability. The faith-based organizations have to meet the same high standards as any other organi zation.” If this is true, then why did Roloff Homes reopen only after it was removed from state jurisdiction? Apparently, someone was led to believe standards and inspections would be more lax. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services is currently investigat ing Roloff Homes. However, there is really not much more the department can do. Spokesperson Josh Allen stated, “We have investigative authority, but we don’t have regulatory authority.” Allen was not sure whether the agency could shut down Roloff Homes, although it can make recommenda tions for improvements. There is something seriously flawed about this scenario. The state has little power to protect its youngest citizens — the children in these church-run homes. Making recommen dations does absolutely no good without au thority to back up the suggestions. Roloff Homes has a history of disliking government authority, as illustrated by the past closing and reopening. It is highly un likely it will abide by any suggestions the Texas Department of Protective and Regula tory Services decides to make. The Texas Association of Christian Child-Care Agencies showed irresponsibili ty in relicensing Roloff Homes. Licensing children’s homes that have a history of clos ing rather than submitting to state authority is not a step in the right direction for any as sociation. In this action alone, the Texas As sociation of Christian Child-Care Agencies showed greater leniency than a state organi zation might have. Although most children’s homes, faith- based or otherwise, are well-run organiza tions, there will always be exceptions. A strong central authority that applies the same set of rules to everyone is needed for the sys tem to be fully functional. Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore journalism major.