From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:30:06 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

JSVE writes:
> 
> [liberally edited to get back to the issues we were discussing]

[...]

> I don't understand what you mean here.  Are you saying that we get
> more mail than the general population, or just more than other groups
> like AR folk?  Remember that there are 17 million of us in America,
> vs. 500,000 or so AR folk (don't quote me on that number, but that's
> how many some of my AR friends have said there are), so we probably
> should get more mail.  Also, don't forget that the 11% excise tax on
> our equipment is the single largest source of funding for the DOI, so
> we're probably buying the stamps and paying the people to lick them. :-)

According to material I receive from the National Wildlife Refuge
System Committee 2000, the great majority of those present on their
distribution list are hunters.  That was the point I was making.

> >>  But I was there to see the
> >>show.  And the PETA reps (claiming that they represent 500,000 members

You may have misheard this.  From what I recall, PETA claims a total
worldwide membership of 500,000, not a New York state membership of
that magnitude.

> >>in New York :-) :-), stood up and told us that they were against
> >>bringing these moose, which are overpopulated in the park in New
> >>England where they are coming from (read starving in Winter), into New

I read "starving" where you've written it, but did anyone at the
meeting mention that starving is occurring now or expected to occur
in the very near future.

[...]

> What I said should of course be taken with a (very, very small :-)
> grain of salt, but it is true.  The moose are starving where they are,

Are they?  (Note: I don't know.  I'm looking for valid information here).

[... Moose talk and AR skepticism deleted ...]

> I'll not deny that hunters view animals as a resource.  But you AR
> folk should think a little more critically about it.  As we've all so
> often said, the world is not black and white, and hunters are very
> pro-environment in general.  That is exemplified by this issue.  We
> want to bring the moose in just to help the moose (at least at this
> point), just as we have supported stocking Bald Eagles, Falcons, and
> other non-game species with our money from the Conservation Fund
> (license fees and excise taxes) of the DEC.  And you AR folk came out
> by the carloads to support the efforts to use our money to do so.

If you could fill me in on some of the history here, I would appreciate
it.  I do know that the NY DEC started its wildlife restoration program
in 1976 with "nice innocuous birds" not likely to trigger any public
controversy, like cougars and timber wolves which are planned for
later.

Since I associate the modern animal rights movement with a time frame
more in the eighties, those bird projects would seem to predate the rise
to prominence of the AR movement.  Those "carloads" of supporters you
describe may have been simply environmentally conscious citizens and
birdlovers, rather than true-blue AR types.

>  Now
> all of a sudden the term "game species" rears its head and you folks
> start saying we're a--holes with all these ulterior motives (the DEC
> is just stocking them so we can shoot them).

As I say, it's not clear to me that the "you folks" here are in reality
the same folks as those numbered among the "carloads" mentioned above. 
However, there is no excuse for the incivil namecalling to which you
were subjected.  But as you can see from the posts of some new
participants in this newsgroup, your side is not the only one to be
targeted in this way.  As I've said before, true AR believers are also
believers in human rights and would treat humans with the same respect
which they themselves would want to receive. 

> representatives of the groups here in Albany at the moose meeting all
> came off as a bit different.  They were acting on behalf of their
> constituents, so I think that can be taken to show the majority AR
> opinion.  They said no moose if there *may* have to be hunting.  Let
> them stay where they are and starve, or stock wolves as well.

Did anyone really say, "Let them starve" where they are now?  

> I'm assuming that animal experiments have a possibility of helping to
> cure AIDS.  On this we will always disagree, but I feel they should be
> used.  And I don't mind that you feel it is a bad thing; I merely want
> you to admit to it, in the sense of simply "putting all the cards on
> the table."  That way the lurkers can better evaluate your position.
> And yes, I'm being a jacka-- about forcing the issue, but I feel
> people should know the truth when evaluating the AR issue.

[... animal experimentation and media discussions deleted ...]

> [reams of moose stuff deleted to cut this down some]
> >As I stated above, if the facts are as you've stated them, then I
> >would certainly not oppose the transfer of moose into the Adirondacks.
> 
> I'm curious about what has been said about it among you AR folk.  What
> have you heard?  I assume it has been mostly negative.

I haven't discussed it with anyone, either for or against it.  All I
know about it is what little I've read in the newspaper.

>  The DEC is
> still accepting letters about it until Sept. 1, if you or any other
> New Yorker wants to express an opinion.  The address is:
> 
>      Moose Project
>      NYS DEC
>      Wildlife Resources Center
>      Delmar, NY  12054

Thanks for the address.  I'll write for information.

[...]

John, you posted two other messages last Saturday, which should still be
here but aren't (I don't know why; usually they're good for a week) - so
I can't answer point-by-point unless you have copies that you can email. 

But one point you mentioned again was the famous petition directed
against your local duck farmer.  It's very nice that you signed that
petition, but I'm curious about your reasoning, given some of the other
positions you've taken:

    1.	The Niemoller factor - Why wouldn't the duck farmer fall into
	this type of exemption for you?

    2.	How do you justify imposing your wishes on another human who
	is not doing anything directly against you?

Have a nice Labor Day weekend!

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals