HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:03:05 GMT

Speciesism is a very awkward word to say and it seems to imply something
similar to anthropocentrism, but the implications of biocentrism,
which is the opposite of anthropocentrism, and the views of animal
liberationists are different.  

In simpler terms, this post is a critique of animal
liberation theory from the perspective of someone who who believes that
nonhuman animals and the biosphere have inherent value (and rights to
life).  The animal liberationists are still guilty of speciesism in a
paternalistic way.  This speciesism manifests itself most obviously
in the call to vegetariansim.

The implication of the word speciesism is that we view our species above
others in value, when we shouldn't.  Fine.  The problem is that in nature
animals "take" other animals for their needs and for self defense.  When
animal liberationists call for vegetarianism, they are essentially
claiming a moral superiority to the "wild" animal kingdom, and therefore
placing themselves above it.  Although very different from those who
view nonhuman animals as existing for our pleasure and enjoyment, this is
still a form of speciesism, or anthropocentrism.

I once met a vegetarian who considered vegetarianism as the next step
in moral evolution.  Only time can judge her attitude, but she certainly
was a "speciesist", or anthropocentrist.  Morality may be a reason for
vegetarianism (for morality is within the individual), but it is not
non-speciesist.

Since the killing of other animals for self defense is a part of nature,
the use of animals for crucial medical research could be seen as not
contradicting biocentrism.  The use of animals for cosmetic research
or other forms of scientific research would not be biocentric, since killing
for vanity, fun or other gratuitous reasons is not done in nature.

There are a variety of reasons that people choose not to eat meat:
health, morality (re feedlots, etc.) and ecology.  It seems to me
that biocentrism (or anti-speciesism) is not an honest one.

The views above follow those of a movement known as deep ecology.  Deep
ecologists see the use of animals for vital needs as acceptable since
it is a part of nature.  No ecosystem without predators can be
considered natural or healthy.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:13:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BMrEIz.D8C
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Apr13.121437.5011@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <BMIH43.BFr@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>> 	You seem not to have read what I've written above.  That
>> "older deer [may] recognize the signs of opening day fever prior to the
>> commencement of the hunting season and take cover" is but one possible
>> interpretation.  I've outlined others above which was the purpose of
>> my post in the first place!.  The data as I've described "suggest"
>> nothing unique about mechanism.  Please reread above.
>
>I read it and I understood it.  You're right, it is only one possible 
>interpretation.  I think it is the most reasonable one.

	Well it's good to  see that you're basing you interpretation
on well researched data and not on hearsay/hunting lore :-)

	[...]
>> 	Has _your_ to date still unsubstantiated claim that deer
>> become "almost totally nocturnal" "been reproduced and corroborated in
>> other areas"?  
>
>Based on what I've read, I would say yes.  Since my information on this 
>topic however has the status of lore, not verified scientific fact, I 
>suspect it would be difficult to tell for sure.

	"Lore" is great stuff.  It can be used to support anything.
-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
From: lycaon@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Gerald Hough)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Wolves vs Men
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:10:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

Deer in the wild are conditioned to flee quickly moving objects.  This 
means humans, cars, predators, etc.  A hunter that is lying in wait for
a buck or deer to wander by most likely will not trigger the deer's
flight instinct.  Even if the deer catches the scent of the hunter,
most of the time the deer will not react unless the hunter moves.  
We also can safely say that slow movement, if perceived to be near the
animal can also trigger flight, if the deer sees this as stalking
behavior.  SO, in some ways, the hunter does have an unfair advantage
over the wolf in that killing can be done without the hunter ever
physically moving.
    A few years ago, in one of the European countries (Germany I think)
they determined that the number of deer in their forests were above the
amount that the forest could safely hold, and that the overcrowding was
causing a subsequent rise in animal stress and disease.  THey instituted
a plan whereby hunters, in camouflaged trenches and overhangs, laid in
wait as troughs of food were wheeled out to the other end of the field.
Deer approached the troughs, and after an initial skittish testing, began
to eat.  The hunters, priding themselves as marksmen, began to shoot the
deer.  They did not use silencers.  And the front line of deer dropped
dead.  The rest did not flee, even through the noise of the gunshots, since
(apparently) there were no clear predatory cues, and they kept eating even
as their fellows were being cut down.  When the set quota had been reached,
the hunters got out of their trenches, and the deer dispersed quickly.
They carted off the dead deer to the nearest slaughterhouses and packaged
them up for local sale.  Quite efficient, I do say.
	My point is, that if you do not elicit the flight response in your
prey, by action mostly, you do have a much greater success rate than the
wolf, who only catches 5% of what he chases...

--Jerry

ps- Sorry the first post got chewed up....  Account's as reliable as my car..

_____________________________________________________________________
| Gerald E. Hough II		|Collects:KaTeBushSistersOfMErcyCure|
| Wolf Park researcher		|ClannadKitaroNikKershawDuaneEddyELO|
| Battle Ground, IN		|Likes:RushTheWomblesDuaneEddyChurch|
|>>Insanity is time-consuming<< |UltimateSexRenNStimpyWolvesNYC-n-LA|
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:39:41 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <altar.703266920@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
...
> True enough, but which interest group, when conflicts occur, is going
> to get the most attention?  That's right, the one which can exact the most
> political and economic pressure.  Making the DNR directly dependant
> upon hunting licence fees exerts a considerable amount of economic/political
> pressure, to say the least.  Better if the hunting fees went into 
> general federal reserves, but I don't think hunters would like that idea?
> And why not; the reason is obvious.

Interesting you feel this way.  When I wrote a letter to the DNR here 
complaining about the ban on Sunday hunting, I was haughtily told that only 
about 10-15 percent of the population hunts and that the other 85-90% wants 
one day a week in which they can go in the woods would fear of being shot 
(this is almost an exact quote).  Now, this sounds really plausible on the 
surface, but remember they are referring to hunters by *population* and the 
population includes *all* individuals.  Most of the hunters I know are 
husbands and fathers.  So it would be more appropriate to assess the 
situation on the basis of the number of *households* that are involved in 
hunting.  Assuming four people / household (lots of folks here have more 
than two kids, but lets assume just two for argument's sake) and this 
10-15% jumps to 40-45% of households that are involved in hunting.  The 
point of this is that the DNR here is *actively* trying to downplay the 
importance of hunters.  Far from pandering to hunters, we are treated as a 
barely tolerated minority by the DNR when the truth is far far different.

-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A.V day and rights demo
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:21:07 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <ac.48@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna) writes:

> ...  says that it's more appropriate to say "animal 
> experimentation" rather than "animal research", since the latter would 
> excessively flatter what actually happens) make life for the animals hell.  
 
Similarly, it's been pointed out that calling them Laboratory Animals is a 
poor choice of words - it tends to imply that they inherently belong in a lab 
environment. I don't have a better alternative, however. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:19:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: osnome.RIGG.92Apr13091922
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca's message of 13 Apr 92 05:56:24 GMT

In article <altar.703144584@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

   [Deleted]

	      Reasons why former hunters did not purchase
	       a hunting licence in New Jersey in 1981.

   [Deleted]

     So guys,
   don't blame us if your numbers are declining, blame this "sport"
   for being uninteresting and yourselves for finding better things
   to do.

First, I'd like to commend you on posting scientific studies.  It is
much nicer to discuss "facts and figures" than rhetoric.

Now, I'd like to ask why you thought this was so earth shattering?  I
have tried a zillion recreational activities, most of which I no
longer do..  The reason why I don't do them anymore is that I have
found better ways to spend my time.  Does this say that all those
other activities were too easy and unrewarding.  Perhaps.  However, a
better explanation is that they simply didn't appeal to _me_.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Aspiring shrinks
Date: 4 Apr 92 17:48:11 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <ri5i0INN9nc@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>
>No Russell.  I don't think I need to explain anything to you anymore. [...]
>                                                                  So go
>on you jolly way.  Think what you will about your burgoning manhood and 
>hunter because in the long run, it doesn't really matter.
>

Mike,

 If you are tired of the discussion, do feel free to raise the
average intelligence of this newsgroup ..... by unsubscribing.

Paul

(I shouldn't have said that, should I? Oh well, just this once ...)
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:50:08 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <BMAwz3.IEF@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.144103.4831@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <=_xt5n-@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>>> In article <rcoppINN9fg@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Apr1.015813.12388@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>>>From article <r7gvqINNhsv@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>>[...stuff removed...]
>>
>>> It isn't obvious, and there may not even be any such effects yet.  _Yet_
>>> In fact, before all the hunters started saying deer were forced to be
>>> nocturnal, I wasn't aware of any species-wide deleterious effects of
>>> hunting.  In any case, the fact that it may be harmful to deer warrants
>>> some investigation, and changes to hunting practice if it proves to
>>> actually be so.
>>
>>If *you* were a hunter you would have realized that deer are predominantly 
>>nocturnal as it is.
> 
> 	Well, you're a hunter but you are apparently unaware that deer
> (at least white-tails and I think mule deer; what species are you
> talking about?) are NOT "predominantly nocturnal" at least as
> evidenced by activity, rather during winter months their activity
> peaks before sunset, during other months activity may peak at about
> sunset with significant activity preceding and after sunset, in
> addition to peaks in activity around sunrise.

I am speaking specifically of whitetails.  According to the Dept. of Nat. 
Resources here, their peak activity is somewhat before sunset and somewhat 
after sunrise.  They have a dormant period from around midnight until 
an hour or so before sunrise.

> 
>>The become somewhat more so during hunting season.
> 
> 	The implication being that the deer which become "almost
> totally nocturnal" do so because of hunting?  Reference, please.
> Actually I'd like a reference for deer being "predominantly nocturnal"
> as well.  By "predominantly nocturnal" I assume that you mean that
> (nocturnal activity)/(diurnal activity) > 1.0 for deer.  Is that what
> you are saying?

When I say they become almost totally nocturnal I do not mean that they 
don't move at all during the day and I do not mean that they spend all day 
sleeping.  What I mean is that they do *most* of their moving around after 
sunset and before sunrise.  Other than an occaissional stretch of the legs, 
they tend to stay in their beds where they have ample cover and warning of 
intrusions.

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough in my original statements....
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:08:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Apr9.145008.4917@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <BMAwz3.IEF@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr6.144103.4831@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>If *you* were a hunter you would have realized that deer are predominantly 
>>>nocturnal as it is.
>> 
>> 	Well, you're a hunter but you are apparently unaware that deer
>> (at least white-tails and I think mule deer; what species are you
>> talking about?) are NOT "predominantly nocturnal" at least as
>> evidenced by activity, rather during winter months their activity
>> peaks before sunset, during other months activity may peak at about
>> sunset with significant activity preceding and after sunset, in
>> addition to peaks in activity around sunrise.
>
>I am speaking specifically of whitetails.  According to the Dept. of Nat. 
>Resources here, their peak activity is somewhat before sunset and somewhat 
>after sunrise.  They have a dormant period from around midnight until 
>an hour or so before sunrise.

	That sounds pretty in line with what I've read and with my
experiences with deer.  However it cannot be remotely considereded
"predominantly nocturnal".

>> 	The implication being that the deer which become "almost
>> totally nocturnal" do so because of hunting?  Reference, please.
>> Actually I'd like a reference for deer being "predominantly nocturnal"
>> as well.  By "predominantly nocturnal" I assume that you mean that
>> (nocturnal activity)/(diurnal activity) > 1.0 for deer.  Is that what
>> you are saying?
>
>When I say they become almost totally nocturnal I do not mean that they 
>don't move at all during the day and I do not mean that they spend all day 
>sleeping.  What I mean is that they do *most* of their moving around after 
>sunset and before sunrise.  Other than an occaissional stretch of the legs, 
>they tend to stay in their beds where they have ample cover and warning of 
>intrusions.
>
>Perhaps I wasn't specific enough in my original statements....

	Now that's an understatement :-)

	Doing most of their moving about before sunrise and after
sunset is a far cry from being "almost totally nocturnal".  Beir and
McCullough describe data from the annually hunted herd they studied:
"In the morning, the activity peak occurred just after sunrise in all
seasons.  In contrast, the peak in evening activity started before and
continued past sunset in spring, summer and fall and ended at or near
sunset in winter."
	I would still like a reference for deer shifting their
activity to *mostly* before sunrise and after sunset in response to
hunting pressure,  but it seems I won't be getting one.
-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
eb3@world.std.com

-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: ethics and rec.hunting
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:21:53 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Science, Uni of Sydney, Australia

About a week ago this was posted to rec.hunting:

> For the past month, a woodpecker has been coming around between
> 7:00 a.m. - 8:15 a.m. and pecking the hell out of my house.  I
> already tried putting up owl decoys and stuff like that but that
> only worked temporarily.  I want to kill the woodpecker but I can't
> very well run out of my house and shoot it because my neighbors might
> see me and report me or something like that. Does anybody have any
> ideas on how I can put some sort of trap on my roof to catch Woody?

Now woodpeckers are all protected species, some are even endangered,
and its illegal to either trap or kill them. Also its likely to be
unnecessary, the larger woodpeckers tend to be timid and scaring the bird
a few times will discourage it.

Now you'd expect an outcry from all these ethical hunters because

a) The only thing stopping the poster from shooting a protected,
   species is fear of discovery - hardly ethical.
b) The poster wants help in illegally trapping a protected species.
c) The unidentified woodpecker might even be a threatened species.

But the three replies were:

1) a joke
2) a suggestion that the poster check for termites
3) a recollection from someone who (when younger) was going to
   shoot a pair of Pileated Woodpeckers (threatened in many areas)
   for the same reason but didn't when saw how pretty they were
   and instead scared them off.

Instead the raging debate in rec.hunting was whether it was ethical to shoot
an Elk that is a kilometre away.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mnowosel@ernie.UVic.CA (Michael  Nowoselski)
Subject: Boiling Lobsters
Originator: mnowosel@ernie
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 20:13:19 GMT

I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but....

   ...aren't lobsters canibalistic(sp?)?


Who will protect smaller lobsters from the cruelty of
being eaten alive by larger lobsters?
     
Just a question.


		-- Michael


Sometimes nature can be so darn cruel.
From: liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:25:04 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <p+4t76k@rpi.edu> schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.165745.24877@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley) writes:
>>
>As do you.  You say it is ok to modify animal lifestyles, and by
>taxicabs, human lifestyles, too.  

Gee, you are so perceptive. Traub was the one whining about the
poor deer lifestyle interruptions. I (and now you) pointed out
his inconsistency.

>
>So, other than to avoid modifying your own precious lifestyle (since
>you said modification of human lifestyles is ok), what is your
>justification for hunting?
>
>E.S. 

Try as I might, I just can't create the desire or need to justify
my lifestyle to a stranger. Especially one who is so obviously
bummed by what he perceives (but doesn't really know) is my 
lifestyle. You, on the other hand, should justify your 
denigration of my (perceived) lifestyle. If I was doing the same
to you, being an ethically sincere person, I would feel compelled
to justify my attack on you.

jerry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: hunting myth #3
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:18:45 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr3.095415.4769@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.093808.18725@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar31.111202.4667@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar28.090948.9740@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Mar27.091440.4572@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>>A sense of security and a sense of satisfaction are both large parts of 
>>>>>hunting.  But the biggest reason for hunting is because it is *FUN*. :-)
>>>> 
>>>> I seem to remember I found squashing snails was fun when I was eight
>>>> years old. I grew out of it.
>>>
>>>Interesting.  I wonder if one could argue that the AR faction is motivated 
>>>by feelings of regret and guilt at their own past actions of cruelty.  I 
>>>wonder if investigating some of them along these lines might turn up 
>>>anything interesting.....
>>>
>> I didn't mention regret or guilt and it was not my reason for giving up
>> animal produce.
>
>No you didn't, but given your statement above I think it is fair to point 
>out that your stated motivations are probably nothing more than an attempt 
>at rationalisation of *your* actions, which kinda leaves you hoisted by 
>your own petard, so to speak.
>

I'm confused as to how your childish enjoyement of killing creatures
represents a rationalisation of my actions.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:28:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.095634.4813@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <RIGG.92Apr1175122@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>> In article <72287@netnews.upenn.edu> barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>>    In article <1992Apr1.104056.4697@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>    >1) What was the estimated population of deer in what is now the 
>>    >continental U.S. prior to establishment of the British colonies?
>> 	   15-40 million animals.
>>    >2) What happened to the deer population when exposed to unchecked market 
>>    >hunting?
>> 	   300-500 thounsand animals just before the 1900.
>>    >3) What is the current deer population?
>> 	   12-20 million.
>> 
>> I have never seen numbers like this.  I have read in numerous places
>> that there are far  more deer now than when the Colonists landed.
>> What are your sources for those numbers?
>
>The numbers in 2 are at least close I think.  Last I heard current reports 
>place the population size in 3 around 25 million.

	Please cite one of these "current reports".

>Where the numbers in 1 
>are coming from I have no idea.

	See my response to Tim's question.

-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals