HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: How often is culling needed?
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:36:57 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

A few weeks ago I posted the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 A common claim made by hunters is that, by culling herds to supportable 
levels, they're actually reducing the suffering and death incurred by the 
herd as a whole. I have some questions about this claim:
 
1. How many total species of animals are hunted in the US, and to which ones 
does the above claim apply?
 
2. Within those targeted species, what percentage of the hunting (measured by 
kills) is done in geographic areas where the claim applies?
 
3. If we combine these two criteria and only count kills of species that need 
culling done in areas where culling is needed, what percentage is this of all 
hunting kills? 
 
I know these are tough questions for which precise data may be unavailable, 
so I'd also be interested in educated guesses, especially if they're labeled 
as such.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Unfortunately, nobody answered any of the questions. This is most 
disappointing. These questions would seem to be quite fundamental to the 
claim that the "culling" aspect of hunting is "good" for animals, a claim 
that has consumed a significant amount of bandwidth on this newsgroup.

Can we conclude that culling constitutes only a small fraction of hunting 
kills and hence serves as a weak justification of hunting?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:55:23 GMT

>
>True.  And the adjacent cropland will only support so many deer.  When
>the supplies are exhausted, however, fertility will decline as fat
>tissue falls below a certain point.
>
>js> Consequently, they have recognised that, in the absence of natural
>js> predation (eg the European wolf) they are going to have to cull the
>js> deer themselves, or get someone to do it for them (but not as a sport).
>js> Only they don't consider that a pack of deerhounds (eg the Quorn hunt
>js> who own neighbouring land) is an acceptable substitute for a pack of
>js> wolves. The LACS advocate that the deer should be controlled by
>js> "marksmen using high powered rifles". THis is a very different position
>js> from that when they bought the land which argued that the deer would
>js> stabalise their numbers to that which the ground could support. They
>js> don't, they just expand their range (of course).
>
>You're promoting one half-truth as a substitute for another 
>half-truth.  Animal populations are, indeed, self-regulating.  And 
>animal populations will, indeed, expand their range if given the 
>opportunity to do so.  Your example demonstrates that the 
>creation and protection of stable, natural ecosystems isn't an 
>easy task when the areas in question are surrounding by man-made 
>environments like farms.  
>

No matter how large an area you establish, there will always be fringe areas.
What do you propose be done there? Fence it?

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:03:46 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Aug15234929@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (T
im Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.153140.42266@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.
edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>
>   > I enjoy your writing.  Could you tell me your reaction to people
>   > you know who purchase pre-killed meat from the supermarket?
>
>       I would speculate that most of such people are not
>   emotionally aware of the actual killing. ...
>
>I have heard this argument several times in regard to this questions
>and it strikes me as completely ridiculous.  It sounds like "people
>hte buy pre-killed meat don't really know an animal was killed".  Of
>course they do!  I have several non-hunters friends that are omnivours
>and are well aware of this debate.  They know that their steak used to
>be a cow but they just don't buy that killing animals and using them
>for meat is wrong.
>
>Give folks a bit more credit.  If it was that simple, why wouldn't a
>quick trip to a farm stop all (nonhunting) meat eating?
>
>tim
>--

Have to disagree with you on this one.  Of course, intellectually, they know
the meat is from an animal that was killed.  I've personally assisted in the
slaughter and butcher of sheep, goats, chickens, lizards, wild
boar, deer, and cattle.  Many of your non-hunting friends would be
incapable of eating meat after watching the slaughter--I've seen it happen to
confirmed meat eaters.  They'd get used to it after awhile--I would give your
friends credit for that.

Here's the irony: many of your omnivour friends probably consume much more
meat than you or other hunters (ie., are "responsible" for more deaths).
I wish the anti-hunters would think about this more often.

You, and me--because I've gone on record as having slaughtered animals I've
eaten--are viewed as Great Satans by our non meat eating anti-hunting friends.
Interesting; I eat considerably less meat than the average American.
With that meat that I do eat, I know exactly what the animal gave up for my
meal, how it looked and felt.  Most Americans--the vast majority-- don't.

**


**
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: They're coming for Ronald and you too...
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:06:10 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:

>     First they came for the deer,
>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a deer.
>     Then they came for the black bears,
>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a black bear.
>     Then they came for the cattle,
>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a cow.
>     Then they came for the hogs,
>           and I did not speak up, for I am not a pig. 
>     And then they came for me,
>           and there was no one left to speak up.
>
>                      - A humane human
>
>"It seems to me I've seen scary words like these somewhere before...."
>               -  John S. Van Etten     

Now Rob, you wouldn't be trying to quote me out of context here, would
you? ;-)


>Rob U, life is definitely worth living

At last, something on which we agree.  Cheers!


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:39:37 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.202746.5479@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
> 
>As we clear the ridgetop, we see an effeminate little twerp on his knees, 

I haven't done a careful survey of this, but I have noticed several
times now how hunters seem to think that anti-hunters are not "real
men" or somesuch ... just before he disappeared into killfile limbo,
Mike Linan was speculating about Russell's sexual orientation.

When we ask the hunters directly they deny that they think hunting
is "macho", and they start telling us that just thousands of the
sweetest girls are out there too, looking for things to shoot at.

But comments like the one above (yes, I know it is meant to be humour)
suggest to me that many hunters do indeed feel that deep down,
hunting is something to do with "manliness".

Could I make a suggestion? Let's put the words "moronic name calling"
in the header of all messages which consist mainly of moronic name
calling. Then my killfile can find them.
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 2 questions for the AR types
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:52:38 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Jim B. Powlesland writes:
>
>Just out of curiosity, I would like to know the AR position (or
>at least the position of an AR reading this) on two things:
>
>1) North American native culture.

A refreshing look at things.  Many people should become familiar with it just
to change their preconceptions on what they believe.

>2) rats (the rodent).

... are living creatures and should be treated as such.

Rob U, appears to be a living creature at times

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:00:23 GMT

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

[...]

>My posts are not always literal ... sometimes you have to read between the
>lines.  So, please, don't take me so literally when it is not my intention to
>be literal.  I've read many responses published here that offer critiques of
>what my post says literally, and then proceed to offer a critique of me,
>personally.  This is incorrect thinking.

And just how are we supposed to know when you are being literal and when
to read between the lines? I know you think you are being cute but all
any of the rest of us see is what you write.  What you write is a source
of vast amusement to some us and apparently a source of embarrassment to
those that nominally agree with your position.

Actually, you are pretty stupid if you think you can pass out gratuitous,
stereotypical insults and not expect people to take exception.  It is even
more evident when you claim what you have written isn't literal and complain
about getting personal critiques on it.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Date: 13 Aug 1992 08:12:32 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Aug12.140204.24068@informix.com> you write:
|> In article <9208111714.AA02594@alw.nih.gov> young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:
|> >
|> >I  find it astounding that a supposed animal lover could equate the taking
|> >of a wild animal for food to the brutal killing of a family member, no matter
|> 
|> Don't you love these euphemisms?
|> 
|> When you approve of it, it is "taking". When you disapprove of it, it
|> is "brutal killing".

When I "took" a deer this past archery season, it took the deer all of
five seconds to die.  This can be attributed to the hours of practice
that I completed.  The original post speaks of horribly wounding an animal
and then cancelling out its screams by slitting its throat and watching
it bleed to death.  The reason for horribly wounding the animal - "because
I'm not that good a marksman."  Call it how you see it and I'll do the 
same.
-- 
___________	
	jy
	young@heart.dcrt.nih.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:33:54 GMT

In article <viking.714017862@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>
>>Except that humans are hardly ever "put down" after sustaining one.  Plus I 
>>can't seem to find the human event that requires the athlete to carry 150 to
>>200 pounds on its back and jump over obstacles while taking "orders" from its
>>cargo......   :-)
>
>	I suggest joining one of our Armed Forces.  You will experience this,
>and much more, and not be treated in a "humane" manner during basic training.

I think we were talking about the Olympics.....  :-)   :-)

>As for the horses this references, most people who work a horse give that
>horse better treatment than the humans they interact with.  You can take
>that as a measure of horses, humans, or horse owners.  I don't care.
><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>

Yep.  I see this all the time.  Kind of an indictment about the "compassionate"
nature of the human beast........

Rob U, is the Army anything like grad school.........

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:13:28 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>My posts are not always literal ... sometimes you have to read between the
>lines.  So, please, don't take me so literally when it is not my intention to
>be literal.  I've read many responses published here that offer critiques of
>what my post says literally, and then proceed to offer a critique of me,
>personally.  This is incorrect thinking.

Gee, and when someone else does so, you go into orbit.  Nice job, DAC.  You've
done a fine job of convincing me you're on the straight and narrow this time,
how bout the rest of y'all, gang?

Let me point out a sobering item:  When you're an AR whacko, and even Russell
Lawrence doesn't come to your rescue with a 12,000 line quoted article, I'd say
your own side doesn't care for your tactics.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:32:10 EST
 <1992Aug13.234620.1345@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <1992Aug15.205425.3500@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug16.184201.1962@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug16.184201.1962@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>> Jim B. Powlesland writes:
>>>>>xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>>>>In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the
>>>>>human got medal and money, what did horse get?  --Zhigan
>>>>
>>>>The best feed, medical attention, etc. that money can buy. And,
>>>>if a stallion, going to stud full-time in his retirement.
>>> 
>>> ..... potentially crippling injuries ......
>>
>>The same can be said for the human athletes, any one that is involved in any
>>sport.
> 
> Except that humans are hardly ever "put down" after sustaining one.  Plus I 
> can't seem to find the human event that requires the athlete to carry 150 to
> 200 pounds on its back and jump over obstacles while taking "orders" from its
> cargo......   :-)
> 
> Rob U, maybe the biathalon???? (Honest, the gun TOLD me to)
> --

Strange to say, horses aren't very often 'put down' after sustaining serious
injuries.  I have friends who have spent literally thousands of dollars on
a mare, trying to save her life after serious injuries.  She currently is
semi-sound, a family pet who is greatly loved.  I also spent several months
and quite a lot of money on a horse I was GIVEN who had been very badly 
injured.  My vet made me promise that if I could not save him I would accept
the fact that he must be put to sleep due to the constant pain and suffering
he was having.  We all gave it our best shot but he had to be put down after
five months, we just couldn't fix his leg so that he wasn't in pain.  So,
don't 'put down' horse owners unless you have spent a few months in freezing
cold weather, pumping shots into horses, coaxing an ill one to eat, and also
spent sometime laying on a stall floor assisting a mare to foal.  
Horses are BUILT to jump over obstacles carrying 150 to 200 plus pounds.  And
as for doing it under orders, I have an old gelding here that jumps for the
fun of it, that's why all my fences are five feet tall!  Otherwise he would
be visiting the neighbors every chance he got.

Sue

> -       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
> -     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
> -      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
> -                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Shelter News
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:42:57 GMT


 
+SHELTER NEWS: 
 
Rising unemployment hits animals, too.  As recession reached New
York this past winter, the Bide-A-Wee Home Association's three
shelters on Manhattan and Long Island noted a 31% rise in animal
turn-ins.  In Canada, where recession struck harder and earlier,
the Toronto Humane Society reported a 33% increase in abandonments
and a 65% increase in cruelty cases during 1991.  The humane
society in Windsor, Ontario, had a 10% increase in turn-ins, while
turn-ins were up 30% at the municipal shelter in Yarmouth, Nova
Scotia. 

+ Fearing that recession could cause low income people to
postpone dog sterilizations, Pet Assistance/South Bay, a branch of
the Pet Assistance Foundation, offered free dog sterilizations to
residents of the South Bay district of Los Angeles throughout the
month of March.
 
The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 26 asked the county grand jury
to probe allegations of mismanagement by Animal Control Dept. head
Robert Rush.  Feb. 13, Los Angeles administrative officer Keith
Comrie recommended closing the 35-yr old San Pedro shelter, one of
six the city operates, because it would need $1.6 million worth of
repairs to stay open.  Replacing it would cost $1.9 million. 
 
The number of animals handled by the Los Angeles city shelters has
fallen from 132,254 in 1971 to 89,595 in 1991, largely due to the
work of the city's three spay clinics.  In 1971, only 11% of the
dogs received at the shelters had been sterilized; in 1991, 58.6%
had been. 
 
St. Lambert, Quebec, on Jan. 20 set a license fee of $25 for cats
and required that all cats carry identification at all times  with
a fine of $20 for violations plus $10 for each day an impounded cat
remains in custody.  Much of the money thus raised will go to the
Montregie SPCA.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!306!12!Amnet.News.Service
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: They're coming for Ronald.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:19:09 GMT


     First they came for the hunters,
           and I did not speak up, for I do not hunt.
     Then they came for the med school students,
           and I did not speak up, for I perform no experiments on animals.
     Then they came for the veal farmers,
           and I did not speak up, for hamburgers contain no veal.
     Then they came for Frank Perdue,
           and I did not speak up, for I raise no chickens.
     And then they came for me,
           and there was no one left to speak up.


                      - Ronald McDonald, clown


It seems to me I've seen scary words like these somewhere before....

John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:03:11 GMT

Robert Black writes:
rb> The evidence continues to mount that there are really two John 
rb> Van Ettens.  The first one - let's call him the Good John - has 
rb> recognized that animals have some rights and actually signs 
rb> petitions against unnecessary cruelty inflicted on geese to 
rb> fatten up their livers.  The Bad John comes up with drivel like 
rb> that below and in other postings which I read but lacked the time 
rb> to answer before their disappearance from this site.  

In article <5hhyf4_@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
jve> The only thing that I can think of which offended you in my
jve> "They're coming for Ronald" post was my use of the Rev. Neimollier's
jve> (sp?) oratory style to express my feeling to the 240+ million meat
jve> eaters in America that we must all stand together.  Was that it?  Did
jve> you think that I was somehow comparing the animal rights movement to
jve> Nazis?  Perish the thought, Bob.  We all know you AR folk are *not*
jve> Nazis.  Unlike ARs, the Nazis were a small group of people that forced
jve> their views on others, used divide-and-conquer techniques to gain
jve> power (hence Neimollier's quote), and were misguided enough to truly
jve> believe that the starvation, suffering, and death that they inflicted
jve> was all for a good cause.

I'm glad that you see quite a few differences between AR folks 
and nazis.  I'd like to return the compliment by pointing out 
some of the differences between your presentation above and the 
sort of presentation one could have expected from Hitler.  

Hitler usually began his orations with lamentations about the 
victimization of the superior aryan class at the hands of the 
"jews" and "communists" and "perverts" who were forcing their 
views on good germans by preventing them from exercising their
right to rule.  And, Hitler usually ended his speeches with rousing 
slogans about the need for "aryans" to stick together as "ein 
volk".  

You, on the other hand, have presented the "ein volk" [Animal 
Eaters Unite!]  argument first and the "victimization" arguments 
last.  In view of the inverse order of your presentation, I suppose 
we could say that your rhetoric is quite a bit different from 
Hitler's.  Congratulations.

I'm curious about one point, though.  Would you agree with Hitler 
that we'd be forcing our views on a set of powerful individuals 
if we prevent those individuals from forcing their views on 
others?  As an example, were we imposing on Jeffrey Dahmer by 
preventing him from consuming his chosen diet?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals