HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:06:41 GMT

From article <RIGG.92Aug31162942@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Now, "without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing", please
tr> provide some documented proof that prey animals can regulate their
tr> poplations.

In article <BtvF76.D9v@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> See Frisch, Rose. "Fatness and Fertility".  _Scientific American_,
rl> March, 1988.  

From article <RIGG.92Aug31230131@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> This article makes no such claims!  The author simply found that lower
tr> fat levels can reduce fertility.  There is no logical reason to
tr> extrapolate that simple fact to the much more substantial statement
tr> that prey animals can regulate their populations.  

Again, let's assume that the caloric intake of the deer 
population (1N) in a given region amounts to 5,000 calories per 
day/individual.  And let's assume that this figure provides 
sufficient energy to meet the daily needs of the deer, plus 
sufficient excess calories to permit the average individual to 
build and maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the 
caloric intake, and hence fatness, if the population were to 
increase to 2N or 4N?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to 
me that the average caloric intake per capita would decline as 
the population steadily increases above 1N.  Do you agree with
me that fatness would decline as the caloric surpluses steadily
diminish? 

If estrus/menses cycles cease to function when adipose tissue 
falls below a certain point, say 17% body fat, please explain 
how/why you think the population would continue to "explode"
if/when the available calories/capita are insufficient to maintain 
17% body fat.  

One more point: As I've mentioned previously, I've seen at least 
two references in hunting texts and magazines which specifically 
addressed the fact that deer "harvests" (aka fertility) can be 
increased by means of forest management practices that increase 
the amount of food available to deer in the spring and summer 
months, ie more food means more fat, which means more fawns.  Now 
let's suppose that a game manager has taken advantage of these 
practices in order to produce plenty of singletons among one year 
old adolescent does and a bountiful "crop" of twin fawns among 
the older females.  If the increased population produces the 
threat of starvation the following winter, would it be reasonable 
for the game manager to cite the threat of starvation as a 
rationale for sport hunting?  Or, would you agree with me that 
such a rationale is flimsy and transparent?  

-- 
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: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:55:55 GMT

From article <Btx4xJ.92C@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> Ah yes!  I knew you'd get around to equating Blacks and animals.  
cm> Never fails.  How IS David Duke by the way?  

As quoted from <Btxn5v.9st@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
rl> I'm not equating blacks and animals.  I'm pointing out that 
rl> existing laws and existing standards of social acceptability are 
rl> not, in themselves, a valid determinant of ethical goodness or 
rl> badness.   The fact that Dred Scott was the legal property of
rl> his owner didn't mean that his enslavement was a "good" thing.

From article <Bu0v3I.1qq@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> The hell you aren't.  Your entire specious argument is based on 
cm> accepting the premise of slaveholders and White supremacists.  
cm> You cannot accept PART of the argument, it's all or nothing.  The 
cm> two are inextricably bound together.  But I doubt that bothers 
cm> you all that much anyway.  

Would you mind specifying the "premise" of slaveholders that you think
I'm advocating?

rl> Now please answer my questions:  Would you have agreed with Taney
rl> that rights ought to be based on existing laws?  Or, would you have 
rl> agreed with Rousseau that laws ought to be based on philosophical 
rl> arguments?
rl> 
rl> I'm looking forward to a logical, non-circular response.

cm> No, you're looking for a response that countenances the belief 
cm> that Blacks and non-human animals are equivalent moral agents.  I 
cm> refuse to provide one.  

No, I'm not asking you to countenance such a notion.  Rather, I'm 
asking you if you agree or disagree with the archaic notion
that the concept of rights should always be derived from existing 
laws, rather than from philosophical arguments.  Would you have 
agreed in principle with the illiberal position of Justice Taney?  
Or, would you have agreed with JJ Rousseau's liberal view that 
laws affecting rights ought to change in accordance with our 
expanding vision of the truth?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:20:51 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:10:39 GMT

In article <BtwyLs.2Gn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   From article <RIGG.92Sep1123238@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> Could you elaborate?  What would the populations be for the next 5 or
   tr> 10 years?  

   I thought my question was clear enough.  If fertility begins to
   rapidly decline as fat content falls below a particular level,
   why would fertility remain high when the caloric intake is marginal?

I have read about numerous examples where unchecked herd have
undergone extremely cyclic trends:
overpopulation-starvation-overpopulation-disease...  All I am asking
is for you to fill in the following table:

Year  Herd Size   # of births    Condition of ecosystem
-------------------------------------------------------
0       1N         aN            balanced plant and animal life
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Assume a= 0.5  (0.5N are females having an average of 1 live birth).
Since a is the cornerstone of this analysis, feel free to provide your
estimate and logic for determining it.

I'll think how I would complete the table while waiting for your reply.

 
   tr> I have never said the population would increase to infinity.  Rather,
   tr> it would initially increase quite substantially until the food supply
   tr> was severely damaged (ie. _everything_ below 6 feet would be gone) and
   tr> then starvation, disease, or a slightly worse than usual winter would
   tr> ravage the herd.  The population would drop but the the food supply
   tr> would take many years to recover.  The result would be a perpetually
   tr> diseased, sickly herd.

   You seem to be making the same assumption that another poster made
   at the beginning of the thread, namely that deer food is either present
   or not-present in the forest... just as human food is either present
   or not-present on grocer's shelves.   It seems more likely that food
   doesn't simply disappear; rather it gets less and less attractive and
   harder and harder to find. 

This is exactly the point I made in the post I suspect that you are
responding to while I am responding to this one.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:03:09 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>From article <lbqy_5m@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> Anyway, the vote stands and so be it.  Amusing to note that only 6
>jve> people cared enough about Ferrell's stuff to voice their opinions in 
>jve> favor...
>
>It's amusing that you haven't figured out yet that usenet readers 
>weren't fond of your notion that "voting" ought to dictate 
>someone else's posting priviledges.

Christ.

Russell please tell me (and the net) why you have such a pressing need
to LIE in an effort to defame your opponents.  What in hell are you
talking about?  Voting on Ferrell Wheeler's posts was *his* idea,
*NOT* mine.  Your efforts at accusing me of being a censor, for
suggesting that he put his info on a mailing list instead, were bad
enough, but this tripe really takes the cake.  You've really outdone
yourself, son.  Kudos.  I'd appreciate a public appology for this lie,
since I *never* suggested voting.  God, children like you irritate me,
Russell.  Please grow up.  If I was your father (and I'm proud to say
that I've never raised a kid like you) I'd probably put you over my
knee and teach you a lesson about life and telling the *truth*.


>  I'm surprised, since Dan 
>Sorenson did an admirable job of explaining it to you in a very 
>polite and well-written article.  

Again, please tell me what on Earth you are talking about.


>jve> One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
>jve> list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
>jve> disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
>jve> of their vote, as well.  
>
>I can't speak for the other people who encouraged Ferrell to 
>continue posting, but I can assure you that I regarded your 
>demand for copies of the "votes" as childish and immature.  Is 
>it reasonable for you to assume that a man or woman lacks "guts" 
>just because he/she considers one of your ideas to be silly?  

The only thing "childish and immature" was all you little kiddies with
your secret ballots and special decoder rings.  Adults aren't afraid
to speak up for what they believe in.  Only the gutless are.


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"--
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: PAWS Wins Court Case
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:18:35 GMT


PAWS WINS COURT CASE AGAINST UNIV OF WASHINGTON

The Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) has just won an important
court case against the University of Washington in Seattle.  The case
involved PAWS' request to the University for access to records on animal
research that PAWS maintained were public documents.  PAWS sought specific
information about an unfunded grant request to NIH.  The University
refused to release the information, claiming it would infringe upon 
scientific progress if the researcher's name and proposed protocol were
made public.

PAWS learned about the grant proposal in question through an anonymous tip
last year.  The proposal would have allowed a researcher to raise more
than two dozen infant macaques in total isolation in order to study
self-mutilation that often is a result of social deprevation.  PAWS
conducted an intense public awareness campaign about the proposed
experiment, including placing a special 4-page insert in the campus
newspaper.  Last summer the NIH refused to fund the grant.

Last week a superior court judge ruled in favor of PAWS and the release
of almost all of the information that was sought.  This is believed to be
the first time that an unfunded NIH grant proposal has been made public
anywhere in the country.  The University submitted documents that totaled
4 inches high in defense of their claim, including more than 20 affidavits
from researchers across the country who claimed that the release of such
information would have "a chilling effect" of scientific progress.  PAWS'
court brief was 16 pages long.

The decision may be appealed by the University.  PAWS has filed 3 law
suits against the University for release of information about animal
research over the past 6 six years and has won all of them.

For more information, phone Mitchell Fox, 206-742-4142 ext 810.
From: smithm@furnace.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:55:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>>Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina
>>Department of Natural Resources.  As a result, 3,000 swans were killed.
>
>>Each permit received by a non-hunter means one less awarded to a hunter
>>and one swan saved.
>
>DS>	Not according to the numbers posted above, it doesn't.  You know,
>DS>those permits are issued for a reason, and by failing to allow those who
>DS>hunt to actually hunt those swans, you may be doing more damage to the
>DS>ecosystem by not hunting them than you would by hunting.  Just something
>DS>to think about next time you decide to do this.
>
>	In addition to what Dan is saying (which is true), consider that the
>	response of the DNR to a lower than expected harvest of the swans
>	would probably be to issue a larger number of permits the following 
>	year.


	Yeah all they will end up doing in the long run is sending more 
money to the DNR. If they lower the harvest this year, they will increase
the # of permits and/or length of the season next year. So let them waste
their money on the license and permit. BTW does N.C. recquire a hunter
safety course in order to get a license? if so then the AR's will have to
take it in order to get a license, to get a swan permit. Hey maybe they will
even see a touch of reality then. They might then see what really goes on
with conservation agencies instead of their fantasy land views.


	- Nature is a butcher, she only descriminates between the fit
	  and the unfit. Mercy is a human idea, one that nature does not know.
						Matt Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:49:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <BtxoLq.A30@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> From article <Btx4xJ.92C@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> And once again, "If Blacks WERE no better than animals...?".  You've 
> cm> hit your stride now.
> 
> In the previous passage above, you seemed to be saying that the 
> "goodness" or "badness" of an ethical action ought to be measured 
> by opinion alone, as though our minds might be incapable of digging 
> deeper than the level of mere "acceptability" and 
> "non-acceptability".  If that's the case, please tell us: 

And once again you veritably glory in the opportunity to equate Blacks and
non-human animals.  I refuse to take part in such an orgy of depravity.  If I
was willing to do that, I'd have been in that cabin with your intellectual
contemporary, Weaver.

> rl>  Do you agree with John that it would be ethically acceptable for
> rl>  aliens to hunt humans for sport simply because they might have
> rl>  the power to get away with such actions?  Or, would you be able to 
> rl>  name one or two reasons why such hunting might not be good?
> 
> cm> And once again, ethically acceptable for WHO?
> 
> I can understand that murder may seem acceptable to murderers, 
> and that rape may seem acceptable to rapists and that slavery may 
> have seemed acceptable to the owner of Dred Scott.  I can also 
> understand why sport hunting might seem acceptable to aliens.  

At least you're starting to catch on... maybe.

> What I'm asking you, however, is this:  Would you be able to name 
> any reasons why such actions might not be good?  

Because they harm other HUMANS, and violate their RIGHTS, which only HUMANS
possess.


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: linda@wpg.com (Linda Guidry)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:04:25 GMT

In article <crbn1-b@dixie.com>, refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom) writes:
> >Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
> >russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) -- Yes
> 
> >Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
> >linda@wpg.com -- Yes
> 
> Apparently our good pal Russell isn't above a little ballot-stuffing.
> 
> Nice job, Russell, though a little thin on originality.
> 
> Let's all just agree that it won by 5-3, not 6-3.
> 
> -- 
> Todd++;
> refrig@dixie.com

I don't understand why an intelligent person would expect usenet 
readers to vote on whether or not they wish to see postings from 
a particular person, but since the opinions have been tabulated 
let's all just agree that the pro-Ferrell side won by 6-3, not 
5-3.  

Let's further agree that Todd Hedenstrom has no right to speak on 
my behalf, and that he doesn't have the authority to determine 
how, why, when, and where I choose to communicate my opinions to 
Ferrell or anybody else.  Todd would be acting responsibly if he 
had decided to withdraw his own opinion from consideration, but 
he wasn't entitled to withdraw mine.  

In article <qdnybxc@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
> I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
> whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.
> [...]
> --
>                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"--

I've been employed at this site since 1985 and I've been involved 
with usenet in various capacities since 1987, primarily as a 
system administrator.  Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an 
individual by making demeaning, sexist comments about his 
coworkers?  

-- 
Linda Guidry, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
linda@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!linda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:00:40 GMT

In article <Bu0zI5.GCv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Please explain why being in control would make an action ethically
>rl> acceptable or unacceptable.   Portuguese slavetraders controlled
>rl> the ivory coast in the 17th century.  Did this make the kidnapping,
>rl> rape, and enslavement of east african blacks ethically acceptable?
>rl>
>rl> If it would help clarify your views, please feel free to point 
>rl> out that the mere belief that an action is good or bad doesn't 
>rl> make it so.  
>
>In article <mdyyf!m@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> Please don't argue my side, Russell.  But if it helps to clear 
>jve> things up for you, then yes, you are right that your belief that 
>jve> something is wrong does not make it so.  
>
>I totally agree with this last statement.  Would you agree with 
>me that your belief that some action is "good" doesn't make it 
>so.  As an example, if a powerful body of men believe that rape is 
>wonderful, should we accept their beliefs at face-value?  Or, 
>should we give dig deeper into the underlying facts and reasons 
>by giving due consideration to the pain and suffering of their 
>victims?  
>

If I may barge in on this exchange: 
  It seems to me that good and bad are strictly human concepts with no meaning
outside of the human mind. It would appear obvious that they are defined by
the particular society in which one lives, and that there are no absolutes.
Situational ethics I guess is the common term used to describe it. In the case
of rapists and murderers, isn't a plea of insanity or mental incompetence used
to describe a person who doesn't personally see his/her actions as being bad?
Good and bad are merely defined by taking a vote (in essence) of what the 
majority finds acceptable. These are, of course, subject to change, which I
presume is what animal rights people are trying to accomplish. I disagree with
their goals and many of their methods. Unfortunately, I must support their 
right to fight for social change. Sorry, I got carried away and kind of off the
track again.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:46:51
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 31 Aug 92 23:25:10 GMT

In article <BtvFpz.DC2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   Tim Rigg writes:
   tr> The author stated that lower levels _can_ prevent fertility.  The
   tr> extremely undernourished and relatively fat-free women of some
   tr> developing countries show that fertility is not prevented.  It is just
   tr> lowered. 

   Russell Lawrence writes:
   rl> Please name one of these countries and explain why you think that 
   rl> the relative absence of fat didn't prevent fertility.

   Tim Rigg writes:
   [nothing]

   Would you mind naming one of the countries, Tim?  

Ask Rose Frisch.  She specifically states that "poor couples in
developing countries" are not infertile.  They only had 6 or 7 living
births which is well below the human capacity.  6 or 7 children is
hardly infertile.

   From article <RIGG.92Aug31164708@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> The author states that decreased fat decreases fertility.  Where in
   tr> the paper does it state that reduced fat prevents fertility?

      "The comparisons also showed that women who were amenorrheic
       because of simple weight loss needed to reach a weight that was
       about ten percent heavier than the menarche threshold in order
       to restore and maintain normal ovulatory cycles.  They had to
       have [...] indicating that fat accounted for about 22 percent
       of the body weight."

I'll concede that fat reduced below the menarche threshold can cause
amenorrhea in humans. 
 
Would you provide the corresponding threshold for deer and the
likelyhood that such a deer would survive the winter?

   rl> Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the caloric intake was 
   rl> 5,000 calories per day/individual, and let's assume that this figure
   rl> included sufficient excess calories for the individuals to build and
   rl> then maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the caloric intake,
   rl> and hence fatness, if the population were to increase to 2N or 4N?

   tr> Please provide your analysis of this situation with documented
   tr> calculations and/or explanations.  I am tired of doing your research
   tr> for you.

   I don't see why you think that research is necessary to answer 
   this question.  If a given habitat produces sufficient calories 
   to meet the caloric requirements for 1N animals plus an offset 
   that's barely sufficient to assure fertility, how/why could the 
   population continue to "explode" as it progresses to 2N or 4N?  

In the base case, the deer consume 5000N calories.  How many calories
will be consumed by xN deer?

Also, is chosing an environment "that's barely sufficient to assure
fertility" a realistic base case?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals