<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>It will be interesting to keep tabs on Africa and how the entry of that
virus may play out -- for the chickens, for the wildlife, for the
people.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It may well be that lower density, active, self-foraging backyard chickens
might be naturally healthier and more immune (both the individuals and the
population structure) to incubating massive outbreaks of new viruses, in
contract to the sterilized and overcrowded stacked poultry farms in more
industrialized countries. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We have already had at least one avian virus scare in the form of West Nile
a few years back. There were a few bumps, but overall the wild birds
and humans survived it together. It is here to stay and not going
away, along with Lyme disease, LaCrosse encephalitis, and various other "bugs"
lurking in our backyards. The best defenses are still maintaining
good health, knowing the symptoms, taking sensible precautions, and developing
vaccines and medicines for those susceptible unfortunates who do become
ill. These defences have application for the poultry industry as well as
for the human population. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regarding your statement Lee: "We all hope that the tracking and
prevention measures now being taken are effective and can spare the world from
an unimaginable catastrophe. If they are not, we all know that rational answers
won't be enough."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Maybe it's just the relative brevity of my generation's historic
perspective, but it does seem to me that in past years the culture is slipping
away from tolerance and understanding and more toward strong-arm alarmist
reactionary urges. You may well be right -- rational answers won't be
enough, and emotional appeals might be dismissed as simple whinings of bleeding
hearts -- worst case scenario would be a public panic of "get the birds before
they get you" and suffering the inevitable grating media references to Alfred
Hitchcock, etc, etc. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So I think the best approach might be to appeal to "sanity." That
covers and ammeliorates both the emotional and rational side of things. In
the long run, drastic measures will only be counter-productive. Any
information on what species of birds might eat mosquitoes, flies or ticks, not
to mention lawn grubs and boxelder bugs? The notion of the "balance of
ecology" might have emotional appeal in tranquil times, but it also has a
tangible practical side that could be brought to bare, with both a logical and
emotional thrust of its own. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Debbie Antlitz</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>