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.