From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Sep13.221240.26348@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> by unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks):

> >> Scott Wood writes:
> >> >Because they do it under the guise of animal welfare.  And many people
> >> >who don't know any better send their money to these groups thinking they
> >> >are looking out for the interest of animals everywhere.
>  
> >Robert J Unglenieks writes:
> >> If preventing the needless slaughter of animals isn't animal welfare,
> >> what is?
> 
> Christopher Morton writes:
> >Who defines "needless"?  Ingrid Newkirk would consider a cure for AIDS 
> >developed using animals as needless.  An AIDS patient would probably 
> >disagree.
> 
> So are they hunting deer now to find a cure for AIDS.  The topic at hand was
> FFA's stand on black bear hunting and hunting in general.  To go after an animal
> for "sport" is needless.  To "manage" populations so that a viable crop is 
> around the next year for "management" is apparently needless.  To use an animal
> that is unable to develop full-blown AIDS also appears to be needless.  How 
> many potentially life-saving drugs have been discarded as useless because the
> animal "model" didn't work?

I see I struck a nerve.  That's good even though you sidestepped the obvious
point.  In every case, in determining "needless", the AR industry will totally
exclude the interests of humans.  That you apparently do not deny, although
you evade it.

Who says sport hunting is "needless"?  Who determines need?  "Apparently" 
needless?  I guess a continuing population of deer is also needless.  "Appears"
to be needless?  Let's cut to the chase.  If it WOULD make a difference, would
you STILL ban animal testing for AIDS?  I think I already know the answer.  I
DO already know Ingrid's answer.

> >> >When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
> >> >animals.  
> >> 
> >> Why is hunting the only option?  What are the different "types of hunting" ?
> >
> >Why is hunting NOT an option?
> 
> Why is it about the only option tried?  In a few instances you hear of re-
> locating animals, but that appears to be one of the least used.  All too
> often, the blown them away option is more "economic" or "feasible".

Of course it isn't.  But that's not the point, nor was it my question.  Once
again, why is it NOT an option?  Tell me which costs the taxpayer more, 
spending money to pay people to move deer from place to place, or allowing the
taxpayer to eliminate the problem him or herself, AND pay to do so, AND get
the value of the meat?

> >> If management policies were aimed at expanding available habitat, promoting
> >> decreased breeding of the species instead of providing resources for hunters,
> >> some of the problems could be SOLVED rather than put off for a few years....
> >
> >Expanding available habitat WHERE?  Are you willing to have your home or 
> >apartment bulldozed to make room for deer habitat?
> 
> How about allocating land taken by the State in foreclosures, drug arrests,
> etc. and convert them to wildlife habitats?  Why allow continued expansion
> of cities into rural areas while many of the inner cities are falling into
> ruin?  How about adopting Boulder, CO's "Open Space System"?  I find it oddly
> ironic that many suburbanites place large concrete or plastic deer on their
> lawns in place of the deer they have driven off.

So, you're telling me that you're going to relocate deer to the east side of
Cleveland and the West side of Chicago and put them up in former crackhouses?
OR are you going to FORCIBLY relocate humans to the inner cities.  I don't plan
to move to Cleveland from the suburbs and you CAN'T make me.  I won't LET you.

> >> Well, at least the animals appear to be smart.  Isn't the overabundance of
> >> elk an indication of a problem with the local ecosystem?
> >
> >Yes, not enough predators.  Since man is also a predator the situation is being
> >rectified.
> 
> To whose benefit, the animals' or the hunting clique?  Why is man now elevated
> to the status of "THE ONLY PREDATOR"?

Both.  The deer as a group benefit.  The hunters individually benefit.  The 
hunters as a class benefit.

> Rob U, why is man ONLY an animal when it benefits MAN?

Why is man ONLY an animal when an AR person's argument require it?



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals