HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:04:11 GMT

In <Btwv9I.1p8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

	I'm going to take you slightly out of context here Russ,
just to show one data point that is of value.

>rl> I suppose thunder would also scare the hell out of them.  Would it
>rl> be smart to be afraid of thunder?

	Thunder and gunshots sound entirely different.  Trust me on this,
I still have a reflex that puts me on the ground whenever I hear a gunshot,
but I'll sleep through a thunderstorm, and in fact rather enjoy the sound
of thunder in the evenings.  It is foolish to not think deer can distinguish
between the two.

>As an example, you seem to think that the dozens of deer in a 
>particular area that hear the sounds of a particular set of 
>gunshots are supposed to know, by some strange means, that each 
>of these thundering noises has some sort of lethal significance.  
>If deer are as critically astute as you seem to believe, it seems 
>to me that they'd realize after one or two explosions that no 
>real harm was done.  

	I think you're assumming that the deer don't determine that the
consequences of these noises are death to a member of the herd.  I cannot
draw a distinction between the smell of a wolf and the death of a fellow
herd-member and the sound of a gun and the death of a herd member when it
comes to the mental processes of a deer that interpret danger.  Ask any
bowhunter -- deer often run at the mere sight of the hunter, let alone
when an arrow is shot their way.  It's obvious they have no natural
predators like arrows, but it's not unlikely for them to fear humans and
attribute a greater range to our weapons.  Herbivores in Africa will
keep a greater distance between themselves and a cheeta than they will
a lion, if Marlin Perkins is to be believed.  I'd say this says something
about their ability to evaluate a potential threat.  Given the range of a
rifle or shotgun, outside of smelling distance may be the minimum.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Voting Results
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:09:52 GMT


There have been no votes in the last week, so I will assume the
voting has ended.  The votes are one of the following:

   Yes -- continue sending the news messages.
   No  -- stop sending the news messages.

The "Yes" vote won by a 2 to 1 margin.  The totals are:

   Yes -- 6 votes
   No  -- 3 votes


Here are all of the votes that I received:

Wed, 12 Aug 92 8:37:07 EDT
todd%refrig@mathcs.emory.edu -- No

Tue, 11 Aug 92 22:32:21 -0400
vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) -- No

Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) -- Yes

Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
linda@wpg.com -- Yes

Wed, 12 Aug 92 08:35:29 -0600
cwillsch@ops.agsci.ColoState.EDU -- Yes

Wed, 12 Aug 92 06:55:17 PDT
uunet!informix.com!proberts (Paul Roberts) -- Yes

Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:21:21 EDT
nobody@Kodak.COM (Robert Black (x37236)) -- Yes

Wed, 12 Aug 92 14:41:32 -0400
Tara McDermott <tara@socrates.umd.edu> -- Yes

12 Aug 1992 17:15:34 -0300
John Robinson <ROBINSON@AC.DAL.CA> -- No
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 12:34:53 GMT

In article <BtznHC.49x@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes a 
  whole bunch of stuff which is totally unrelated to the question at hand.
  We will, therefore, simplify the discussion to its most basic questions
  which Russell has, thus far, refused to answer:

[...]

	1. What is this "meaning" that you seem to think conveys some magical
		"status" to living creatures and which makes it acceptable
		to kill and eat one but not another?

	2.By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
		species based on sentience/sapience?

	3. Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
		of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to 
		synthesize glucose?"

  Please note that the subject of this thread begins with the word "SHOULD,"
  not "CAN."

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:37:25 GMT

	Wasn't the original gripe something about Ferrell's posts taking
up too much bandwidth?

	This whole group is in need of a good enema.  (apologies to
Samuel Clemens)

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 07:57:50 GMT

In article <BtpJL5.46p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It's true that hooved mammals may be incapacitated, not only on 
rl> ice, but on crusted, windblown snow as well.  And it's also true 
rl> that wolves will often attempt to drive vulnerable deer onto such 
rl> terrain.  However, wolf-prey experts like Farley Mowat have pointed 
rl> out that healthy prey animals will typically stand their ground rather 
rl> than allow themselves to be driven into compromising positions.  

From article <17m8mrINNaq9@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Would it be correct to believe that someone like Mowat (who most probably
ml> knows more than any of us about wolves) knows all there is to know about
ml> wolves and can not be wrong in his assumptions?  

We're not talking about assumptions here;  we're talking about 
observations.  Be that as it may, I'm sure that Mowat would be the 
first to admit that all observers are fallible to some extent. 
Still, it would clearly be irrational and/or dishonest for us to 
accept empirical observations that conveniently suit our hopes and
wishes while rejecting observations that do not.  

ml> Do deer stand their ground when confronted by a *pack* of wolves?  Do 
ml> you doubt that a pack of wolves say half a dozen or so could and would
ml> kill a heathly deer if they were hungry?  

How hungry would the pack have to be before the individual 
members would risk serious injury or death?  The fact that the 
"pack", as an abstract entity, might be destined to prevail in 
such an encounter doesn't diminish the bone-breaking impact of 
those pointy hooves.   How hungry would a human hunter have to
be before taking such a risk?

ml> Would it be "couragous" for the deer to "stand his ground" rather 
ml> than run in such a situation?  

I suspect there are some cases where running might be the best
strategy, but on the whole, running is not the best policy in
defending one's person against wolves or dogs. 

ml> Kicking tail and running may not be courageous in your view but 
ml> let's not forget that if that is what a deer has to do to survive 
ml> it would be wise to do so.  Would it be courageous for a deer to 
ml> stand it's ground if under attack by a grizzly?  Perhaps.  

Nope. :-)  There's quite a size differential between wolves and
grizzlies.  The sort of impact that would send a wolf flying and
yelping through the air would cause little or no damage to a large 
bear.

ml> But, 
ml> in light of the instinct to survive, it might be viewed as stupid 
ml> as well.  If so, why would you not expect a deer to be viewed as 
ml> stupid if it stands it's ground when matched against the human 
ml> animal that will "win" the encounter nearly every time?  
ml> Courageous?  Perhaps.  Stupid?  Yes.  

How is the deer supposed to learn that humans will win such encounters
every time?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Lawrences obsession with fat levels (Re: Self Regulating Populations)
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:05:53 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

I wrote:
>js> I do not dispute that
>js> an animal in poor condition is less likely to breed. 

and in a prize example of gobbledegook which would provide a year's
material for the Plain English Society, Lawrence asks me:

>Are you one of the few remaining individuals who still believe 
>that added fatness is a requirement for health?  If not, why 
>would you assume that the dysfunction of ovulatory cycles because 
>of lower body fat is a sign of poor condition?  

Huh?

>Frankly, it seems 
>to me that an individual with 16% body fat may be just as 
>healthy, perhaps more healthy, than an individual with 18% body 
>fat, yet one may be fertile and not the other.  If I'm not 
>mistaken, thinner individuals are also able to utilize fat more 
>effectively in time of famine, and often endure better in time of 
>famine.  

>Our understanding of the role of body fat in regulating fertility 
>was aided enormously by studies involving olympic athletes with 
>low body fat, notably marathon runners.  [You know what bad 
>condition they're in.] There's some evidence to suggest that male 
>fertility as well as female fertility is affected when levels of 
>body fat are lower.  

To which I say: 1) I haven't mentioned fat, I mentioned poor condition.
2) Hang on a moment! All along you've been argueing that lower fat
levels reduces fertility. Now you say it increases it. Can it be both?

--Jonathan
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:18:21 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <1992Sep4.144540.14063@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
kw> For example, I think that one of the first things mama deer 
kw> teaches her fawns is to beware of human scent;  the fawns 
kw> probably don't know why, only that mama always acted like it was 
kw> something to be avoided.  Similarly, I believe that their fear of 
kw> gunfire is a learned reaction, for the reasons described above.  

Several posters have commented that some deer appear to be perfectly
friendly to humans when/where hunting is not allowed, yet nowhere
to be seen by the close of hunting season.  Do you think the female
deer could teach it's infant to make such a critical distinction
between hunting season and non-hunting season?   Can you think of
another reason why the friendly deer are nowhere to be found by the
close of the season?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:05:24 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes to Christopher Morton:

>Do you agree with John that it would be ethically acceptable for
>aliens to hunt humans for sport simply because they might have
>the power to get away with such actions?  Or, would you be able to 
>name one or two reasons why such hunting might not be good?

What are you talking about, Russell?  I never said anything like this.
I said that it would be ethically acceptable to the aliens to hunt
humans, and that what Russell Lawrence or I thought didn't really
matter, since the aliens would be in control.  Please stop putting
words in my mouth.


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: Voting Results
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:51:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <=hsyygq@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>     I still find it amusing that people are so scared to openly
>express their vote on such an issue. 

What makes you think that if someone didn't send you a cc of their vote, it was
because they were "scared"? This just doesn't make any sense at all; why would
anyone be "scared" to let you know that they support Ferrell?

As far as I can see, Ferrell supporters have been quite open about their 
support.

One good reason not to send you a copy of my vote: to do so implies that I
accept your suggestion that Ferrell's vote-counting is not to be trusted,
but yours is.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:47:40 GMT


Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> There's that "natural predators" thing again.  Seems strange that 
ja> folks who care so deeply for other animals continue to set us 
ja> apart from them.  Predation by man is as natural as any other, 
ja> whether the animals are wild or domestic should make no 
ja> difference ethically.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Can you see a distinction between industrial polution and 
rl> hurricanes, or forest fires and nuclear holocaust?  Or, would you 
rl> say that all of these phenomena are "natural"?  

From article <1992Aug25.133704.29795@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> Russell, I'm surprised.  This is not up to standards for you.  
ja> Surely you're not serious.  On the outside chance you are: Of 
ja> course not.  

In what sense, then, do you consider human predation (using man-made
tools) to be a "natural" activity?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:39:20 GMT

In article <BtCqvw.Br@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> BTW, I've met some amputees with total kidney failure who might be 
rl> described as "incomplete" organisms, yet we surely wouldn't 
rl> discount their lives, as you've discounted the lives of 
rl> brain-dead humans.  And why?  Because their brains still work, 
rl> Rich.  They're sentient and sapient, and hence, their lives are 
rl> just as meaningful as yours or mine in spite of the fact that 
rl> they'd be history in a few days without dialysis hardware.  

From article <1992Aug24.191936.8524@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
kb> And you can thank the existence of these sentinent, sapient amputees
kb> lives to a kidney dialysis machine which was tested with animals 
kb> before the FDA would approve its use on humans, Russ.  Just wanted
kb> to point this out.

Is this true?  The use of artificial kidneys dates back to 
1946, but the Medical Device Amendment to the Pure Food and Drug 
Act wasn't passed until 1976.  I may be mistaken, but I don't
think the FDA was responsible for regulating the marketing of 
medical devices prior to that year.  Were you basing your 
assumptions on some ideological theory perhaps? 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
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, 28 Aug 1992 15:43:52 GMT

In article <BtoFzI.Fpy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>ja> There's that "natural predators" thing again.  Seems strange that 
>ja> folks who care so deeply for other animals continue to set us 
>ja> apart from them.  Predation by man is as natural as any other, 
>ja> whether the animals are wild or domestic should make no 
>ja> difference ethically.  
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Can you see a distinction between industrial polution and 
>rl> hurricanes, or forest fires and nuclear holocaust?  Or, would you 
>rl> say that all of these phenomena are "natural"?  
>
>From article <1992Aug25.133704.29795@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>ja> Russell, I'm surprised.  This is not up to standards for you.  
>ja> Surely you're not serious.  On the outside chance you are: Of 
>ja> course not.  
>
>In what sense, then, do you consider human predation (using man-made
>tools) to be a "natural" activity?
>

If I may answer a question with a question: at what point in history did man's
predation become unnatural? Is any tool unacceptable? Is a knife, spear, or 
bow ok, but a gun not? Keep in mind that chimps have been observed using sticks
to extract termites from a mound and (I think) even as weapons. Should we start
a movement against such "unnatural" behavior by chimps?
   In all honesty, I consider predation by man to be natural in and of itself
and choice of weaponry a separate issue. 
 
Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: News Briefs
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:12:15 GMT


GROUP NEWS AND ACTIONS:
 
The Ethical Science Education Coalition has formed to encourage the
abolition of dissection in Connecticut schools; PO Box 16376,
Stamford, CT, 06905; 203-968-9280
 
======
 
Californians for Ethical Treatment of Animals has set up a hotline
for activists in the inland and desert areas of southern
California; 714-360-9310.
 
======
 
The Japan Anti-Vivisection Assn. welcomes contact with US groups:
Rm. 602, High Rise Yoshino #2, 3-37-6 Nagasaki, Edogawa-ku, Tokyo
134, Japan.
 
======
 
Tracing back recent accusations by pet breeders' newsletters and on
the Compu$erve Pet Forum, the ANIMALS' AGENDA has found no evidence
that animal rights activists have anywhere at any time released
show animals form cages, let alone under circumstances that might
put the animal at risk.  Breeders seem to be circulating these
stories wherever breeding bans are close to passage.
 
======
 
Of 2,061 cats (of all ages) surveyed recently by the Morris Animal
Foundation, 325 died within one year - 94 from kidney disease, 39
from feline leukemia, and 21 from feline infectious peritonitis. 
Of 2,050 dogs, 625 died - 97 from kidney disease, 66 from heart
failure.  Of 1,102 horses, 79 died - 28 from colic.
 
 From: Animals Agenda - PO Box 345
 Monroe, CT 06468.  Issue: 12/91
 
 < AmNet News Service PO Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO  80525 >
  << BBS: 303-223-1297 * New York City node 212-724-6826 >>
   <<< Fax: 303-225-0919 FIDO: FTC 306/12  NYC 278/716 >>>



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: gowdar@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Prasad Veeranna Gowdar)
Subject: Re: Ducks Unlimited fiasco
Reply-To:  ()
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:21:02 GMT

Los Angeles Times covered the Ducks Unlimited's fiasco at Oak Hammock Marsh
on June 4, 1992 - Cover Story - Column 1

I should clarify that there was no independent impact statement performed by 
the Federal Government of Canada.

A judge in Manitoba commented "..I am bound to remark that the government has 
invited the perception that it was draining dry the well of meaning of words 
in a single minded effort to slake the thirst of Ducks Unlimited for a head 
office on the marsh."


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:28:26 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> In the original article, I specifically asked whether or not it's
rl> hypocritical for a man who justifies hunting because of the threat
rl> of deer starvation to turn around and advocate practices that enhance
rl> the probability of starvation.  
rl> 
rl> Such people do, indeed, exist, although you may not be one of 
rl> them.  Do you consider their position to be hypocritical?  

In article <sdyy3_m@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Russell, please produce a person that justifies his or her hunting
jve> *solely* on the grounds that it helps cut down starvation.  And make
jve> sure that this person *also* advocates practices to enhance
jve> starvation.  This little image you've conjured up is bullsh--, old
jve> friend.  These people exist only in your mind.

Why should it matter if the threat of deer starvation is their only 
excuse for hunting?  The fact remains that it's hypocritical to cite
such an excuse while advocating policies that obviously contribute to
overpopulation in the first place.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: HUNTING; RABIES
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:58:01 GMT


HUNTING; RABIES; TRAPPING
 
The Animal Rights Alliance of South Carolina has asked the state
House Ethics Committee to investigate possible violations of state
anti-cruelty laws by Bamberg representative Tom Rhoad.  Opposing a
bill that would bring the penalties for cruelty in South Carolina
into line with the national norms, Rhoad obtained amendments that
specifically exempt from the cruelty statutes any activity
connected with hunting and/or birds, including poultry.  "If my
bird dog goes into a covey two or three times, a few shots of
number nine won't hurt him," Rhoad told the legislature, describing
how he deliberately shoots dogs to enforce obedience.
 
The mid-Atlantic raccoon rabies pandemic reached Staten Island on
March 12, the closest advance yet to New York City.  The pandemic,
begun in 1977 by hunters and trappers who released rabid raccoons
from Florida in an attempt to restock their neighborhood in
Virginia, has already spread past New York into southern
Connecticut, and has gone as far north as Ithaca and Watkins Glen,
N.Y. 
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: May 1992
 
 *  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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals